Author: parvenu

“Come ye lads scurry thee below, the ship she is a’ shaking and the wild wind is start’n a blow!!”

Last week Bo Morrison a 20 year old Wisconsin man became the latest victim of the Self Defense Immunity law. Morrison had attended a rather wild late night drinking party and ran and hid on a neighbor’s porch when the policed showed up to break up the party. The owner of the house claims he heard a noise on the porch and investigated in the dark with a 45 pistol in his hand. Minutes later Bo was dead with a hole blown through his chest and the bullet lodged in the wall between two appliances on the porch where Bo was hiding. The DA has determined that the home owner is immune from prosecution by Wisconsin’s new “Castle Doctrine” law.
This new ALEC/NRA “Castle Doctrine law” a.k.a. the “Stand your Ground Law” is already allowing cold blooded murderers to start their hunt for people to shoot. Note, in the interest of the many possible names that will eventually be given to this ALEC/NRA legislative model, I will simply call their model the “Self Defense Immunity Shield Law”.  

This is the third murder of an unarmed young man since the murder of Trayvon Martin, wherein no arrests have been made with the police or DA citing their respective legislative version of the Self Defense Immunity Shield Law enacted in their state.

It should be strongly emphasized here that the shooters thus far have been lucky as their victims have been just run of the mill young men with no extensive family connections capable of retaliating with an onslaught of passion driven vengeance. However, with this new ALEC/NRA law on the books in 24 states (and counting) some trigger happy gun toting jock will stumble into the laws of probability and murder someone who has a family, group, or gang that are ready to exact their revenge against anyone who murders their cherished one and then is allowed to walk free. Just take the combined population totals of these 24 states and the numerical probability of revenge initiatives occurring reduces such a scenario to a fact, and it’s just question of when and how often.

We have a potential “Turf War” situation that has the capacity to make the legendary story of the feuding Hatfields and McCoys seem insignificant. It is still early in the blossoming of this ALEC/NRA pernicious legislative tool designed to destroy every shred of civil order in this country. However, I am certain the murder rate is poised to explode as these blood thirsty gun jocks observe just how easy it is to kill and escape without spending a minute in jail. The real question is what happens to law and order when people start shooting back, or revenge seekers decide to personally administer justice.

It took Congress very little time to pass an Amendment repealing prohibition and to get it ratified through all of the states. In my estimation the United States, through the passage of this ALEC/NRA law, is facing the most serious national emergency situation that ever existed in American history. IMO the first step must be to keep a state by state count of the number of people killed and the number of killers granted immunity under the ALEC/NRA Self Defense Immunity Shield legislative model in each state. These statistics will be necessary to convince Congress of the urgent need to address this situation. Some callous individuals have already joked about this law as making it open season on two legged animals, but I doubt these characters will find much humor in their “jokes” if someone that they love is murdered and the killer is walks free under this law.

This post is an attempt to provide some much needed clarification regarding the unjustified murder of Trayvon Martin in Sanford Florida last month. First of all there have been at least three murders of innocent young black men in various small southern towns. The circumstances in each case had one common factor and that consisted of three deliberate actions by the local police chiefs as follows. First, no investigation follows the reported killing from the public. Second, the police chief issues his opinion as to the probable cause of death and if anybody was responsible. Third, the police chief then announces that the case is closed. Sanford’s police Chief Bill Lee was following this southern “justice” scenario for young African American men when he was interrupted by an avalanche of national protest via the Internet. Folks who grew up and live outside of the southern states may have some very limited comprehension of the way African Americans are mistreated by white southerners, but they generally have absolutely no real understanding of the concept of southern justice as it is applied to the American Negro. This discussion continues in the paragraphs below.
It is important to separate out two major factors in the death of Trayvon Martin. The first can be kept fairly simple and straight forward in that we are dealing with the murder of a 17 year old unarmed schoolboy by a 28 year old grown man. It has been well established that the boy was walking home from the store when he entered the grounds of the gated community where he was on a live in visit with his father. Upon entering the community the youth was immediately spotted and pursued by George Zimmerman a “neighborhood watchman” who was armed with a pistol. The only chronicle of the subsequent events leading up to the murder of Trayvon Martin were the Sanford police department 911 tapes which recorded conversations between Zimmerman and the police dispatcher. Zimmerman was told to stay in his car and not confront the “suspicious” person (Trayvon Martin on foot) that Zimmerman was reporting to the police. However, Zimmerman left his vehicle and went after the boy, who upon seeing the man coming after him instinctively started to run, most likely towards his house. Zimmerman caught up with the boy, a scuffle ensued and Trayvon was then shot dead after pleading for his life. The above sequence of events constitutes the major details as currently deduced from the Sanford 911 tapes. All investigations will likely proceed to magnify and intensify the details in an effort to solidify and prove exactly what transpired on that rainy night in Sanford.

In most other non-southern communities, the local police would have conducted a thorough investigation once it was reported that the teenager had been shot to death. Even the most preliminary police investigation would have (a) secured the area and documented the location of the body as a crime scene, (b) held the shooter (Zimmerman) for drug and alcohol testing, (c) held Zimmerman’s weapon for ballistic testing to verify that it was the weapon that killed the deceased, (d) called the phone numbers on Trayvon’s cell phone in an effort to locate the child’s parents or guardians so that they could be notified immediately of their son’s death. Trayvon’s body lay in the medical examiner’s office for three days before his parents were notified. During this period of time the parents were frantically searching for him and had even reported him missing to the Sanford police. These facts not only illustrate the worst type of police behavior in a mortality event such as described above, but they also provide an excellent bridge to the other side of this discussion which is the concept of southern justice for the American Negro.

Some of my friends get upset with me when I use the word Negro instead of African American in some of my posts, so let explain my intent here. If one considers the mindset of most southern small town white policemen the ethnic identification of “African American” would never exist. To these people a Negro is a Negro is a Negro. As I had the police chief of Biloxi Mississippi tell me some three score years ago; “They may call you something else up north, but down here you’re just another Ni###r!” Judging from all the advertisements that BP is running to promote tourism in the gulf states I am sure that the Biloxi Chamber of Commerce would be quick to reassure me that three score years was a long time ago and things have really changed in Biloxi, and today I would be most certainly welcome to come and stay at the Hotel Buena Vista (or whatever is the current name). Biloxi may have changed but I seriously doubt if any of the small towns outside of Biloxi have changed, especially their police departments.

So here with the minimum of hyperbole is the model of southern justice for the Negro (southern includes the state of Florida). As a hangover from the days of slavery; no white man shall ever be arrested for inflicting pain, injury, or death upon a Negro. During the era of slavery Negroes were considered chattel and as such had only one value to be respected by white people and that was monetary. So if a slave owner inflicted injury or death upon his one of his own slaves, the legal system saw it as essentially his own personal monetary loss. If the injury or death was inflicted by a white man on a slave that was owned by someone else, then he was liable only for the monetary loss to the slave’s owner. Therefore since the Constitution freed the Negro slave, southern law courts still de-facto recognize the provisions of the unwritten law from the days of slavery “guaranteeing legal immunity for any white man from inflicting injury or death upon any Negro”. However, since the Negro is now free the provisions of paying the monetary value of the slave’s productivity worth is now null and void as there is no slave owner/payee.

I will not attempt to chronicle here how southern law was used for decades after Reconstruction to trap unsuspecting young Negro men into forced slave labor. This required close collusion between the local police chief and the local judge to bring some phony misdemeanor charges against some healthy young Negro male and use these charges to force him to “work off” the court rendered fines for any particular white man who stepped forward to pay the court fines and fees in advance.  For example there were many instances in the post Reconstruction era where a Negro man forced to pay off $12 court fees and fines actually wound up working over TWO YEARS in order to satisfy the white man who initially paid his $12 court fees and was holding the indentured Negro’s debt payoff obligation. For anyone interested in reading a superb documentary history of this era and this practice which led to the deaths of over 800,000 innocent Negro men; I suggest reading the book “Slavery By Another Name” by Douglas Blackmon.

You will note that the unwritten southern justice for Negroes laws as described above was actively enforced throughout the south LONG BEFORE the recent Florida “Stand your Ground” or “Castle Protection” law was passed and signed into law. Therefore I submit that the behavior of the Sanford police in the instance of Trayvon’s shooting death would have been NO DIFFERENT if the so-called “Stand your Ground” law was not a legal statute in the state of Florida. In this instance this new law just provided an easy out for the police who were determined to release Zimmerman anyway most likely on some other illogical grounds.

In an interview by the press after he released Zimmerman, Chief Bill Lee was asked why it was that he refused to at least temporarily hold Zimmerman while an investigation was being conducted. The police chief said that he let Zimmerman go after Zimmerman claimed self-defense, and he (the chief) was concerned about being sued by Zimmerman if the police held him. Did you get the echo of southern justice for the Negro from the days of slavery in Chief Lee’s response to the question asked by the press? Chief Lee was not the least bit concerned about the murder of this young 17 year old Negro boy simply because of the unwritten southern justice statue listed above, and in keeping with this centuries old custom, chief Lee was only concerned about the possible MONETARY OBLIGATIONS that this killing incident might create, and out of his own mouth he stated that he was concerned about possibly being sued by Zimmerman if Zimmerman was not immediately released.

Ultimate justice for Trayvon Martin will be decided by the amount of real intensity the FBI chooses to put into its investigation, for everything hinges on the veracity of the Zimmerman 911 tape recordings of that night. The FBI labs have the capability and advanced technology to determine if the original 911 tapes given to the investigators are edited copies with extensive erasures. Their labs also have the capability of analyzing every sound recorded on the tapes that night. This will take time, but I am betting on the FBI to have the more sophisticated digitally enhanced tape processing systems, than the local yahoos in the Sanford police department. I have a feeling a lot more stuff will ultimately become unraveled concerning the behavior of the Sanford police chief and his department.

First of all I should like to preface this post with a disclaimer. I am not a troll nor am I an alarmist. I am however a realist. In any game or contest if you want to win you have to consider every possible option that your opponent has at their command. Considering the current state of affairs in American politics I offer this possible scenario for your review. IMO the Republicans recovered from the shock of witnessing the election of Barack Obama to the Presidency to immediately start planning for his re-election defeat. This was no secret. Mitch McConnell the minority leader in the U.S. Senate made that famous declaration that his number one job will be to make Barack Obama a one term president. McConnell’s declaration was not simply an outburst of frustration; rather it was a clear national signal for all Republicans to get busy planning new strategies designed to defeat Barack Obama in 2012. Granted this is not news, however I will attempt to connect the subsequent dots to provide a new perspective on the resultant Republican plan which is now stretching out towards its conclusion in November. We start to roll on this in the next paragraph below.  
In order to fully understand the actual Republican strategy it is necessary to recognize and filter out the myriad of intentional ridiculous distractions, known as “Red Herrings” ginned up and used by the Republicans to dominate the national conversation. I should like to pause here for a brief digression for those not familiar with the “Red Herring” expression and what it implies.

In the old days distractions created expressly to confuse the public were known as “Red Herrings”. (Webster’s Dictionary defines “Red Herring” as something used to divert attention from the basic issue: derived from the practice of drawing a herring across the trace in hunting to distract the hounds.) The practice originated with 19th century hunters who discovered that dogs could easily follow the scent of smoked herring for long distances, and so the fish was often used as a device for training hounds and to sharpen their tracking ability. Unfortunately, runaway criminals also learned of this training tactic and started using the smelly fish to their advantage when they were on the run. As added to their bag of tricks, the criminals would toss red herrings away in a decidedly different direction from their real escape paths to throw the pursuing police dogs off their scent.) Politically the “Red Herring” expression has come to mean the staging of an event or series of events designed to obscure the real goal of the planned tactic. In recent years this tactic has been used constantly by powerful corporate and political groups to keep the public and the media completely unaware of anything of significance that is planned or in progress.  

Returning to the original discourse we find that immediately after Barack Obama was elected the Republicans continuously saturated the public discourse with some of the most ridiculous political clap-trap imaginable. The Republican members of Congress subsequently joined in with their “Just Say No” legislative opposition antics.  They were helped out in their effort to create media distractions by the Obama administration’s determined push to pass a far reaching new National Health Care bill. The endless controversy in Congress over the Health Care bill followed afterward by the many Democratic Town Hall media circuses, along with the creation of the rabble rousing Tea Party completely blinded the mainstream media from sensing the slightest hint of any evolving Republican master plan to defeat Obama in 2012.  
 

As a matter of fact it wasn’t until this year when the widespread demonstrations at the capitol in Wisconsin over the Republican anti-union legislation caught the media’s attention that some glimmer of the Republican 2012 strategies began to leak out to the public. Since then it has become clear that the Republican 2012 plan was to emphasize gaining control of as many state governments as possible during the 2010 elections. It is important to point out here that the plan to capture the statehouses was not due to a tea Party side effect in the 2010 elections; rather capturing the statehouses was the Republican “defeat Obama in 2012” plan from 2008 and it was guided by the corporation controlled ALEC lobby group. The ALEC plan was to generate model legislation which was copied and made available to the Republican controlled legislatures around the country. These copied legislative models were then subsequently brought to the floor of the various legislatures, passed and signed into law.

The ALEC models also contained many “Red Herring” pieces of legislation which can simply be classified as “social engineering” models which contain legislative language reflective of the traditional political right wing complaints such as abortion, reverse discrimination, and fraud in government support programs for education and welfare. On the other hand the ALEC catalog also contained legislative models, the intent and language of which is specifically targeted towards stopping Obama’s bid for a second term to be implemented exclusively on the state level. The first category of these anti-Obama legislative models may generally be classified as the “first firewall”, and these are the many variations of the model voter suppression laws now in effect in over 30 statehouses across America. The common primary feature of these laws, as initially modeled, requires voters to present a specific type of state issued photo ID document as identification before being allowed to vote at the polls.  Many Republican state legislatures in their zeal to “pile on” their new proposed Voter ID law added many other forms of ID that must be accepted at the polls. Texas for instance will allow gun owners to display their gun licenses as acceptable voter identification. Other states have added various “homespun” wrinkles to the requirement of the Voter ID portion of the new voter laws, so unfortunately there is not a pristine copy of the ALEC model in every one of the 30 plus statehouses. However in my opinion the “Stop Obama in 2012” Republican plan did not rely solely on the ALEC Voter Suppression model legislation. The Republican planners have another “Ace” up their sleeve which they intend to use in the event it appears that President Obama might win in spite of the voter suppression legislation currently on 30 statehouse books. This one is the real “kitchen sink” part of their “Stop Obama in 2012” plan, so grab your socks and read on for this one!                      

The nation has long endured the endless spectacle of “Birtherism”, which is an unofficial right wing movement where different people of note loudly challenge the fact that Barack Obama is an American citizen. I submit that the “Birther” issue is much, much more than a lot of noise on the part of frustrated right wing racists. It is my proposal that from the start of the entire Obama birth certificate controversy, it has been the Republican’s long term plan to keep this issue alive over the entire period of President Obama’s first term. In this regard the birthers have been successful and this contrived controversy is now posed to possibly become the Republican’s “kitchen sink” issue for President Obama in the 2012 elections. The latest birther flap is being publicized in the national media by Sheriff Joe Arpaio who claims that his “investigation” indicates that the President’s published long form birth certificate is a digitally created forgery.

I submit that Arpaio’s completely unsubstantiated birther argument will be cited as the inspiration for the creation of legislation in the Republican controlled legislatures in 29 states. (I use the count of 29 states here as these are the states the governments of which are completely controlled by the Republicans, e.g., Republican legislature and a sitting Republican Governor). The objective of this birther inspired legislation will be to prohibit the printing of any candidate’s name on official state election ballots or forms wherein proof of American citizenship and certification of place of birth for that individual has not been satisfactorily validated by the presentation of the required certified documentation to the Secretary of State’s office in a timely manner prior to printing of the ballots.

With the foregoing in mind, there is a real scenario that the Republicans in these 29 states can use to keep President Obama’s name off of their state ballots, and it goes like this…
The Republican legislature waits until late September or early October 2012 (depending on their legislative calendar) to pass a law (similar in language to the text above) requiring all candidates for public office to provide proof of American citizenship and place of birth in order to be “named” as candidates on all official state voting ballots. As soon as the legislature passes the bill, the Republican Governor signs it into law. Now once the law is in place some state official will be able to step forward and file a complaint with the Secretary of State’s office that Barack Obama has not provided satisfactory documentation to meet the certified birthplace documentation provisions of the new law, and as such his name must not appear on the ballot for the November election.

Quite frankly if this scenario is enacted in most of the 29 states across the nation; I have absolutely no idea what the White House could possibly do to set aside such laws in time for the election in November in 2012. Obviously such a “kitchen sink” scenario would throw the entire 2012 presidential election into never-before-experienced historic state of legal chaos and confusion. If someone has any realistic suggestions as to how the Republican “kitchen sink” scenario depicted above can be prevented or averted please pass it along, it will be greatly appreciated.

First of all, here my disclaimer; I am a senior who has witnessed more American presidential elections than I care to remember. Therefore after all these years I think I have some understanding as just how American political games work. So here is my question. WHY IN THE HELL DID OBAMA BRING UP BIRTH CONTROL when he is going into a tough general election? I mean WTF??  Yes there is a sizeable liberal minority who has rallied to the cause and are showing their support for the President on this issue. However most of these folks don’t live and vote in many of the blue collar regions where large populations attend Mass every week.
Don’t get me wrong, Obama is correct in making this part of the new National Health Care regulations, but NOW is not the time to bring this highly controversial topic up for national discussion. It is sort of like the need to pass some strong built-up flatulence. There is a time and place for it, such as in the privacy of the bathroom or out in a large open windy area like a public park.  Likewise there are many places where one should not relieve the pressure of one’s gas pains, such as around the dinner table with guests present, or in a pew in a packed church.
Please continue with me in the discussion below.
IMO Barack Obama needs a little schooling concerning the real political power structures in this country. You may recall at the start of Obama’s term he stepped into a local tiff between a City of Cambridge police sergeant and Harvard professor Skip Gates. Obama attempted to intercede publically on behalf of his friend Skip Gates. In the ensuing dust-up that followed, he was challenged by the president of the National Chiefs of Police organization, along with a host of  Police Benevolent Associations from various parts of the country, all who publically spoke out in support of the Cambridge police sergeant. You may also recall that Obama quickly caved in to this widely publicized police push-back and tamped the issue down by calling for the now famous “beer summit” in the White House garden between the Cambridge cop and Professor Gates with President Obama as host. One would have thought that Obama would had learned a lesson in dealing with political power centers in America, even though all of the national police organizations in total do not represent an organized national political power.

On the other hand the Catholic Church is an organized GLOBAL political power, and the Catholic Church has exercised significant political power in America ever since the potato famine in Ireland resulted in a huge wave of Irish immigrants coming to this country. The ability of the Catholic Church to withstand the devastating media coverage of the endless reports of the sexual exploits of predator priests while paying out billions of dollars in civil suits is in itself an irrefutable testament to the strength of the Catholic Church in America.
Obama faces a tough election not from the Republican candidates but from those pernicious voter suppression laws currently in place in over 30 plus states. Further, in 2008 Obama received strong support from Catholic voters, and in my view the issue of birth control in respect to the Health Care bill’s regulation and provisions was certainly a subject that should have been “kicked down the road” until after the presidential election. Now the White House has deal with the Catholic “Bishop’s hornet nest” created by the untimely introduction of the highly controversial birth control issue into the national conversation just 9 months before the presidential election.

Finally, Obama has inadvertently given the Republicans a CLUB that they can used to beat him over the head politically. It is an long established Republican tactic to introduce some controversial social issue as a wedge against those well publicized facts that silently argue against the Republican ideology of the moment. Back in 1988 when Michael Dukakis was running for president, the Republicans steamrolled Dukakis using the famous “Willie Horton Revolving Door” ad which accused then Governor Dukakis of being “soft on crime” because of his program which provided for early release of trustee convicts back into society.  In particular the Republicans accused Dukakis of putting violent criminals back on the street. Likewise when John Kerry ran for President on the Democratic ticket, the Republicans sunk the Kerry campaign with lies about his military service as a swift boat commander during the Vietnam War. Their video ad attack was so extensive on this score that they created a new political word for this particular tactic, which is now widely known as “Swift boating”.

This time the Republicans did not have to dream up an election social wedge distraction. The Obama administration has given them one with a pretty brightly colored bow and wrapped up in the highly controversial discussion of “Religious Freedom” (at least that is the way that the Republicans have already framed it). The Obama Administration can count on every Republican talking point on this inflammatory issue to be echoed from the pulpits in Catholic Churches across this nation. Furthermore, the Obama surrogates that are out attempting to defend the White House over this current birth control/health insurance flap are inadvertently adding fuel to the Bishop’s Ire by constantly repeating the statistic that 98% of practicing Catholic women are actively using birth control already.

A word for the President, you can be 100% RIGHT and still lose the election if you are not reflective and analytically wise in your decisions.

Here is some free advice, don’t waste your time on concentrating on the various surrogates currently being feted by the Main Stream Media (MSM) in the Republican Party’s civil war. It is much clearer to shine the light of astute political analysis on the actual political power factions within the Party that are represented by the surrogates so closely monitored by the MSM. As a disclaimer, I will note here that Ron Paul as a candidate has little or no common with the respective parties engaged in the struggle for control of the Republican Party. However candidate Paul does have a radically different ideologically driven agenda. Therefore in this respect he is not seriously chasing the Republican nomination and thus will not be included in the discussion that follows below.
There are TWO and ONLY TWO groups fighting for control of the Republican Party. The first group is the Southern Block of the Republicanized descendants of the old DIXIECRATS (AKA Southern Democrats before the Democratic Party fully integrated African American Democrats). This Southern Block originally consisted of the Dixiecrats in all of the southern states who had previously left the Democratic Party in anger and subsequently joined the Republican Party during Ronald Reagan’s presidential campaign’s “Southern Strategy”. This group has been purposely mislabeled many times by the mass media mainly to confuse the public. Of late the MSM has referred to this group as Evangelical Christians, but the Evangelical Christians are essentially members of the 21st century version of the old Southern Bible belt, which in truth is just a subdivision of the original main Dixiecrat majority. This Southern Block was responsible for making their indigenous virulent uncompromising hatred of Negroes an official part of the Republican Party’s ideology just slightly least in importance to the anti-tax pledge. The incorporation of this uncompromising racialist ideology was accepted by the official Republican Party in conjunction with the mass migration of the Dixiecrat apostate population into the Republican Party as a critical part of Ronald Reagan’s “Southern Strategy”.

The second group fighting for control of the Republican Party is a powerful cabal composed of Wall Street, Domestic Corporate America, and International Foreign Interests. The action arm of this group is the majority of the large scale lobbies located in the nation’s capital. In total this group has over a trillion dollars available for any all-out “tooth and nail” national political fight. The selected presidential Republican candidate for this domestic/international cabal is Mitt Romney.

The Southern Block initially fielded three candidates seeking the Republican nomination for president. Newt Gringrich entered the lineup initially as a self-funded privateer seeking the Republican nomination. (Since there were many prime time televised debates scheduled, and Newt considering himself to be an excellent debater decided to give it a shot.) Subsequently poor debating skills and scandals eventually willowed down the initial large field of candidates seeking to secure the support of the Southern Block to the point where currently only Gingrich remains a viable candidate representing the Southern Block.

So it is the two forces symbolized and represented by Romney on one side and Gingrich on the other prepare for the final upcoming battle on Super Tuesday or perhaps the struggle will continue to the actual Republican convention.

What will victory secure for either group? Well, I’m glad you asked. The Southern Block is fighting to preserve their home base, i.e., a respected place in the future of American politics. Therefore in this sense they are fighting for the survival of their political lives, i.e., to keep alive the old adage “that one day the South will rise again”. The Southern Block was energized by the election of the nation’s first African American President. The Dixiecrat mentality views this as an immediate attack on the sovereignty of their respective state governments including their values, and “southern traditions and way of life”. Many members of the Tea Party are also rabid constituents within the Southern Block. The MSM has recently taken to calling the Southern Block the “Social Issue” oriented part of the Republican Party as the internal fighting between the presidential candidates turned toxic and “name-calling” nasty.

On the other hand the Republican establishment (including the International/Domestic Corporate Cabal) see this as an opportunity to rid the Party of the residue of Reagan’s “southern Strategy” experiment which has remained a drag on the Republican Party ever since Reagan left office. The fanatical dedication of the constituents of the Southern Block to prioritize a host of trivial “social Issues” under the Party banner has made the Republican Party a national laughing stock over the decades. Hence the Corporate Cabal group see this as a prime opportunity to jettison the Southern Block along with all of its home grown con-men from playing any significant role in a future Republican Party.

IMO under normal conditions the Corporate Cabal has more than enough power to accomplish a win in this instance, but with the added advantage of The Citizens United ruling of the Supreme Court of the United States, they should have no difficulty in securing control over the Republican Party thus changing the political landscape in America for decades to come.

The success of the Corporate Cabal’s lobby driven ALEC program in (a) electing Republican controlled legislatures in more than 30 states in 2010, and (b) getting these states to pass ALEC created voter suppression legislation demonstrates the planned reach of the Corporate Cabal into the political heart of America. In this regard they have chosen to move their headquarters from the confines of “K’ Street in Washington to the National Republican Party. This is why Gingrich and the Southern Block don’t stand a chance in the remaining rounds of this historic fight for the “soul” of the Republican Party.

I am posting this because I sense that the overwhelming majority of American voters have virtually little or no knowledge concerning the subject of Libertarianism. The Libertarian Party is the third largest and fastest growing political party in the United States. In point of fact a study of Libertarianism is sufficiently complex that it would require a full semester college level course to introduce it to the uninformed.

For the typical American voter whose primary concern should be what will happen to government after this person assumes office; only a reasonable consideration of the ideology of the two main divided components of American Libertarianism, .i.e., Libertarian Anarchism versus Libertarian monarchism is actually needed.

Most of the material provided below the fold can be found in Wikipedia, the free online encyclopedia under the reference for “Libertarian Party (United States)”.
Minarchism was a word coined by Samuel Konkin III in 1971 to describe Libertarians WHO DEFEND the existence of some form of compulsory government (otherwise known as Limited -government Libertarianism). Minarchist Libertarians would NOT advocate destruction of all form of governments, local and federal.

Anarchistic Libertarianism on the other hand is dedicated to the political theory that all forms of governmental authority are unnecessary and undesirable and therefore proposes abolition of ALL forms of GOVERNMENT. Traditionally anarchists dedicate themselves to a type of behavior intended to OVERTHROW or WEAKEN a society’s formal system of government.

The Libertarian Party was formed in the Colorado home of David Nolan on December 11, 1971. Nolan and other Libertarians were enraged at President Richard Nixon for taking the United States off of the Gold Standard and considered this to be the “final straw” in governmental over-reaches. In 1972 John Hospers ran for president on the Libertarian Party Ticket, thereby establishing the Libertarians as a valid third political Party. There are many aspects to Libertarian Party positions on the issues, but it is safe to say in a general sense that Libertarians are fiscally stark Conservative and Liberal on most social issues.

The longest unresolved debate among Libertarians is known as the Anarchist-Minarchist debate. (These terms have been defined above.) This debate actually split the Libertarian Party in two during their presidential convention back in 1976. The atmosphere was so acrimonious that many Minarchist Libertarians left the party in disgust.

Ronald Reagan during his first presidential campaign in 1980 successfully recruited large numbers of these disgruntled Minarchist Libertarians into the Republican Party and his presidential campaign. Regan was highly successful at convincing the Minarchist Libertarians of a common interest in the Republican idea of small government and the Minarchist goal to achieve the least amount of government possible. During Reagan’s two terms as president he integrated many Libertarians into his administration and throughout other government agencies. It was during this period that the political label of Republican/Libertarian gained full acceptance and legitimacy. However, it is important to keep in mind that these were virtually all Minarchist Libertarians who became Republican/Libertarians.

Fast forward to 2010 and the advent of the Tea Party rise in opposition to America’s first African American President, Barack Obama. The Tea Party agenda established by privately funded groups like Freedom Works embarked on a frantic campaign to elect  a swath of new members to the House Of Representative in the 2010 Congressional elections. In the process of searching for “Republican Tea Party” candidates, the Freedom Works dragnet managed to pull in many anarchist Libertarians. There was a great deal of mutual symbiosis in the anti-Washington rhetoric dominating the stump during this period, so little attention was paid by the Freedom Works organizers to the degree of radicalism espoused by these new potential Republican/Libertarian Tea Party candidates.

The success of the Tea Party House Candidates produced a block of 83 freshmen Tea Party members in the House. Keep in mind that these new House members are all anarchist Libertarians who both as a group and individually are DEDICATED to the OVERTHROW or UNCONDITIONAL WEAKENING of the federal government.

The cover of the obstinate behavior of the 83 new Tea Party House members has been incorrectly reported in the media as just the manifestation of solid uncompromising opposition to President Obama simply based on Obama’s race. This canard has gone unchallenged throughout Obama’s first term as president. However, it is natural that these members are against anything the President is for because as the Chief Executive of the federal government, the president’s responsibility is to administer the spending of funds required to manage and operate the federal government and all of its myriad agencies. On the other hand, the anarchists Libertarian/Republicans in the House see their duty is to maintain steadfast uncompromising opposition to ANYTHING that will benefit, sustain or expand the federal government. These 83 Tea Party House members have absolutely no concern or fear of not being re-elected. They simply do not care, and their concern is ONLY for the AMOUNT of DAMAGE that they can do to the government AT THE PRESENT TIME.

They have already threatened the Speaker of the House, their leader John Boehner, several times with the possibility of tough primary challenges against him in the near future. As the situation currently exists for this Congress, the anarchist Libertarians are effectively in control of the House of Representatives. This is why the only bills that have a chance of moving forward in the House are those that inflict huge cuts in funding against any government entity. Since the anarchist Libertarians are socially liberal, any legislation that is put forth to name a Post Office after some local dignitary will also most likely receive attention and pass into law.

In summary, which type of Libertarian would be a better Congressman or President for the preservation of the American government that has made this country great over the past decades?  There is only one answer to that question and that is NEITHER! To use an analogy, consider the question of the status of the American military. Simply put the Anarchist Libertarians unconditionally would NOT ALLOW any standing military, PERIOD!  The Anarchist Libertarians would depend exclusively on the ability of the citizens to voluntarily raise a defensive militia in the event the country was attacked by foreign forces. On the other hand the Minarchist Libertarians WOULD SUPPORT an American military, but one that was no larger than half of the size of the forces available to the United States in the period one week after the bombing of Pearl Harbor in 1941. From the perspective of this analogy, neither would be a viable choice for America’s security as the nation goes forward in the world of the 21st century.

Likewise, funds to increase the education level of American youth, along with cherished programs such as Medicare and Social Security would no longer be available in a Libertarian society. Furthermore grants and funding to facilitate development of new technology to make America a leader in the 21st century would only be available at the whim of an occasional motivated super wealthy Libertarian philanthropist in a Libertarian society. All in all it is a pretty grim picture for any aspiring American citizen, and I for one will cast my vote in 2012 for a large vibrant visionary government to provide the best future for the American people.

Might I suggest the addition of three “revolutionary changes to the current OWS demand list. Please keep in mind that I am not a lawyer and my only purpose here is to convey the SPIRIT of the changes needed. I will include a brief discussion pertaining to and immediately following the text for each suggested addition to the list primarily as a background/ historical footnote.  Each of the three priority additions to the demand list is demarked in bold text. Following each addition text is an associated footnote in normal text. The discussion provided in each footnote is intended to present additional information in the form of background information or explanatory opinion. The three additions to the demand list follow below.
(1) Change the Congressional legislation which not only permits American corporations from creating offshore divisions and other corporate associations for their businesses; but encourages this practice by providing tax incentives to American corporations that engage in such relocations.

Footnote # 1:  [Here is some background for general information purposes. The original law was passed by Congress in the 1970’s to provide relief for the high unemployment in America’s urban areas, which were defined in the legislation as “enterprise zones”. The law provided significant tax incentives designed to attract business to relocate or build new manufacturing facilities in these inner city “enterprise zones”. Sometime later, during the late 1970’s, Puerto Rico suffered a severe economic downturn. Congress reacted to the dire emergency situation in Puerto Rico by simply editing the “enterprise zones” law to add the words “including OFFSHORE areas” (or similar language). With the modification of the law many high tech corporations (Hewlett Packard, Digital Equipment, etc.) responded to the situation by building new production manufacturing facilities on the island mainly to secure the attractive tax breaks and the lower cost labor pool. In the 1980’s up to the present other corporations have used this law to relocate factories to Mexico and eventually to China, and the rest is history.]

(2) The air space covering the United States of America belong to all of the people of the United States. The American Federal Government has been appointed administrator of this natural resource by the Articles of the U.S. Constitution.  The American Congress as the legislative arm of the federal government provides controls over the distribution of this space for electromagnetic propagation transmission and reception into specific operational bands. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) performs an executive responsibility by providing management and individual control over the use of each of the respective operational bands. The framers of the Constitution never intended that any portion of any respective operational frequency band should be used for the uncontrolled broadcast of any form of pernicious anti-Federal Government, propagandistic demagoguism.  Congressional legislation is necessary to prohibit the broadcast of propagandistic demagoguism the programming content of which is an advocacy of perdition, treason, anarchy and or violence against the U.S. Government and any elected member thereof.

Footnote # 2: [Over 40 years ago, AM broadcast networks and stations became an obsolete industry across the United States. Economically TV had finally sucked the lifeblood out of this dominate medium of the 1930’s thru the 1950’s. AM stations were abandoned just like the textile mills of old, and remained on the market for decades just for the bottom level price of the scrap value of the broadcast hardware alone. Nobody wanted AM radio period.
However, a few very rich political right wing individuals decided to buy up some of these old AM stations as their own personal hobbies, and use them as broadcast outlets for their so- called “conservative ideology”. They initially used an interview format in their programming format as this required the minimum amount of advance scheduling and virtually no programming resources to broadcast. Obviously, the guests selected for the interviews were well known strong supporters of “conservative issues”. Since these stations were completely subsidized by the wealthy owners, there was never any need to worry about making a profit from local advertisement revenues to keep the station operating and on the air.
The success of recycling these old AM stations as right wing propaganda outlets soon attracted other wealthy right wing individuals, and over a period of time various groups of AM (Talk) stations morphed into several network configurations, many of which exist today. The problem with the network configurations is that pre-recorded talk shows are broadcast from one central big city location to a myriad of “remote” AM stations located in small towns across various regions of the country. The local people were fed a carefully constructed diet of right wing hate propaganda and misinformation over the airwaves with no program input from people within the locality.
Democrats eventually became sensitized to this new political tactic and introduced legislation to provide” equal access” to these local stations by the people who actually lived in the area of each AM station. This became known as the “Fairness Doctrine” and was actively opposed by Republican members of Congress over the years. Like many other attempts by Congress to write legislation to solve a politically intensive problem by creating a governmental entity designed to serve the best interests of the public; this attempt also resulted in a weak watered down political “compromise”. The FCC was given jurisdiction of overseeing that AM stations abided by the “local access provisions” of the legislation.  However since the members of the FCC serve at the pleasure of the President; the amount of vigor given to supervising just how well the local access provisions of the legislation are followed is obviously dependent on which political party currently controls the White House.
However, the failure of the enforcement of the Fairness doctrine cannot be attributed to the Republicans alone. The Democrats have also been complicit in allowing these pernicious right wing Talk Networks to continue broadcasting bold statements, which are clearly the very essence of slander, perdition, treason, and anarchy. Many of these statements are outright urgent calls to members of their listening audience to commit acts of violence against selected members of Congress, and have extensively included President Obama.
In 2007 a group of Democrats tried to pass legislation that would have prevented the Fairness Doctrine legislation from expiring. It was heart breaking to see that there was but one lone person, Senator Byron Dorgan (D- North Dakota) fighting against overwhelming odds just to get the legislation to the floor for a vote. He was ignored by virtually the entire Democratic caucus, including the Majority Leader, Senator Harry Reid. Needless to say after a week of fighting to raise interest among his fellow Senators, Dorgan was forced to retire. Even President Obama refused to sign an extension for the Fairness Doctrine in a fruitless effort to appease Republicans as he deemed their support necessary at the time for his ambitious legislative agenda. Over the entire the life of this legislation, the Democrats have constantly traded support of the Fairness Doctrine for Republican support for some other bill that they considered more important. ]

(3) This is the sworn oath for all members of the Federal Government including all members of Congress.
“I ______. Do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation feely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.”
We the citizens of the United States hereby demand that ALL violators of this oath regardless of Federal office or position must be subject to immediate impeachment and removal from said office. Further, any elected member to any position in the Federal government who belongs to any organization foreign or domestic that espouses an ideology advocating destruction, elimination, or incapacitation of the Federal Government either on the legislative or revenue level, acting individually or in conjunction with any other individual or organization domestic or foreign shall be deemed guilty of treasonous conduct and shall be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.

Footnote #3. [The question of holding officials elected to federal office accountable for their sworn oath of office is currently being widely discussed in Blogs and postings published on the web. The overwhelming majority of these publications appear to be raising the issue of enforcement of faithful commitment to all the provisions of the official Oath of Office. This issue has become part of the national conversation primarily due to the hundreds of Congressmen who are currently serving whom also are signatories on a pledge to Grover Norquist  (head of the Americans for Tax Reform organization) not to support any legislation to raise taxes at any time under any circumstances.  The Norquist pledge stands in sharp contradiction to the intent and scope of the formal Oath of Office required to be taken by all federal office holders prior to assuming their respective positions in the government; in particular the words in the oath that read, “I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion”. I fully agree that this division of loyalty constitutes a prosecutorial offense and must be speedily addressed.
However, my reason for addressing this problem is not confined to Grover Norquist and his “No Tax” pledge. My concern is the number of officials currently holding government positions that are members and supporters of the ideology of Libertarianism. The ideology of the Libertarians has the well-defined goal which demands the destruction of all government including first and foremost the American federal government. Since many members of the Libertarian Party were brought into Ronald Reagan’s first presidential campaign as Republicans, Libertarianism was given the cover of legitimacy by the Republican Party and has been subsequently ignored as a threat ever since. The Main Stream Media (MSM) likes to use the expression “”Libertarian leaning Republican” whenever it is forced to consider Libertarian/Republicans in terms of their personal motivational ideology. My contention is that “Libertarian leaning Republicans” would still do everything within their power to eliminate the federal government even if no such Grover Norquist pledge existed.  Therefore it is my contention that any legislation that addresses this loyalty problem must not be specific to any one individual, or organization that is attempting to share any level of loyalty with government officials; its scope must be written so as to generally cover all potentially divisive situations that could affect a person’s loyalty to the American Government. The long and short of it is simply this, if one has any other loyalty that would interfere with his/her unquestionable loyalty to the American Government, they should not take the Oath while  refusing to take the respective office.

I sincerely admire all of these folks coming out to mourn and protest the DYING AMERICAN DREAM. If I was 20 years younger I would be right there with them. My hope is that perhaps some OWS organizer might see my suggestions and take them to the OWS body.
It is my understanding that the lack of action required to alleviate the emergency JOBS situation is one of the issues that the OWS protestors are seeking to publicize. They are also expressing anger over the fact many people have been unemployed so long that their benefits have run out and people are left struggling to survive; meanwhile Wall Street traders are being paid millions of  dollars in bonuses for just simply doing their jobs. The conventional propaganda line repeated over and over by the Main Stream Media (MSM) is that all of America’s jobs have been shipped overseas to China and India.  This is only partially true, and more details follow below.

However, as a disclaimer I will acknowledge that since the 1970’s American high tech corporations (particularly the computer chip suppliers) have been maintaining manufacturing operations in various overseas locations such as the Philippines, Indonesia, and Malaysia. This was a time long before China and India emerged as the leading manufacturing sites for the entire western world.
My object in writing this post is a first pass attempt to make it easier to “connect the dots” when considering those contributory factors that have created the grim employment picture in 2011 America. One such factor that the OWS organizers and planners to must carefully scrutinize is the AMERICAN PRISON INDUSTRY and all of its agents and partnerships.  It is also very important to consider the additional negative impact the prison industry has had on the current dire employment environment.
 

In conjunction with this it is also useful to consider the explosive growth in prison populations across the nation, now being fueled by the growth of more effective policing of illegal immigration. In 1980 there was less than 500,000 adults incarcerated in state or federal prisons. At year end of 2009 there were 2,292,133 adults incarcerated in state and federal prisons. Furthermore there were 4,933,667 adults either on probation or on parole. Thus at this time in 2009 there were a total of 7,225,800 adults under correctional supervision or a total of 3.1% of the entire American adult population.
Bob Sloan of the Daily KOS has written extensively about the rapidly expanding prison industry and he provides an excellent overview which I have quoted below.
“Today state by state…job by job, American’s are seeing their jobs disappear behind prison walls and fences. Oh they’re not leaving the job markets in bulk, just a few jobs here, another industry there, public jobs and private sector jobs in about equal numbers. Those responsible for this erosion of U.S. jobs deflect criticism by claiming the products made are merely a small portion of our GDP. 2% of the call center market, another 3% of manufacturing, 5% of other markets. They advise that involving inmates in such industry labor helps train them and instills a work ethic that can be used upon release to ensure employment and thus reduce recidivism.
Proponents also downplay the number of inmates involved in this work, officially claiming that fewer than 100,000 inmates are being worked in any form of actual industry. However that number is seriously under-reported. “According to Noah Zatz at UCLA Law, “well over 600,000, and probably close to a million, inmates are working full time in jails and prisons throughout the United States. Perhaps some of them built your desk chair: office furniture, especially in state universities and the federal government, is a major prison labor product. Inmates also take hotel reservations at corporate call centers, make body armor for the U.S. military, and manufacture prison chic fashion accessories, in addition to the iconic
task of stamping license plates.” We have a word for work without pay–slavery–and we know of a work of fiction that depicts a large powerful nation that used large pools of unpaid labor to produce things: The Gulag Archipelago. Think that’s hyperbole? Perhaps you should consider visiting your local state prison.”
Bob Sloan’s Blog contains excellent material which also covers the up-to-date demographics of the prison industry’s expansion to meet the current budgetary problems of many states.  

It is strongly emphasized that there is an ever present governmental control establishing the framework which makes this form of prison labor exploitation possible and HIGHLY profitable to the public/private partners involved. The public/private partners can be identified as follows; the Prison Industry Enhancement Certification Program (PIECP) created by Congress in 1979 is the public component; and the National Correctional Industries Association (NCIA) is the private industrial component.  
The PIECP legislation encourages state and local correctional agencies to form partnerships with private companies to give inmates real work opportunities. PIECP allows inmates to work for a private employer outside the institution and earn the prevailing wage, which is at least at the federal wage, for a particular type or work or occupation. Prisoners working in “traditional industry” earn a wage prescribed by state legislation, ranging from no pay to $1.25 per hour.
I have provided a partial list of the range of jobs that inmates working under the provisions of PIECP can satisfactorily perform. The following list of PIECP jobs is for the state of IOWA.
1.    Vehicle Service Bodies, Mfg’ing of trailers, Commercial steel trailers.
2.    Mfg’ing window treatments (commercial).
3.    Wreck rebuilding, Truck and trailer painting, frame and front end work (Commercial vehicles)
4.    Blow molded plastic products (commercial).
5.    Boat mfg’ing (commercial).
6.    Newspaper inserts (commercial).
7.    Trailer washing (commercial).
8.    Custom screen printing and embroidery (commercial).
An in-depth description of PIECP written by Marilyn C Moses and Cindy J. Smith is provided here.
PIECP was a well-intentioned piece of federal legislation but unfortunately its authors could not even begin to visualize the amount of misapplication that has turned the law into what actually constitutes 21st century racketeering. A series of new state laws recently enacted and placed into widespread use actually serves to defeat the original intended goals of PIECP. These are the new state laws that require all potential employers to effectively screen all job applicants for any criminal record. Therefore if an inmate learns a trade or profession under PIECP, he/she likely will not get an opportunity to use these skills in some company on the outside as the existence of their criminal record will prevent them from obtaining employment where they can use these skills.
The denial of employment (due to a criminal record) will discourage newly paroled inmates attempting to make a positive transition back into the community ultimately leading to higher rates of recidivism. In addition to increasing rates of recidivism, prison industry corporations have embarked on an almost explosive growth plan working closely with law enforcement and elected officials within each state. Simply put in order for the prison industry to grow, the supply of free prison labor must also grow in order to support the expansion.
Members of the NCIA have been running advertisements and public announcements, setting forth the specious argument that prison industry has been very efficient and profitable for the tax payer, with estimates that on average tax savings of greater than $5000 a year per inmate have been realized. NCIA members have been working especially close with those states whose governments are totally under the control of the Republican Party (Republican Governor and Republican legislature). It certainly is no coincident that the anti-union legislation adopted by a number of states all have identical language and was initially authored by ALEC (American Legislative Exchange Council).  Wisconsin, one of the first states to pass a series of anti-union laws has already started replacing state workers with prison labor.
Another fact recently published reports that last year prison labor generated over 2.6 billion dollars in profit nationwide for private prison industry. The actual wages paid to prisoners vary all over the lot and in accordance to each respective state. If prisoners actually cross state lines traveling to and from their place of work then they are entitled to earn the equivalent of the federal minimum wage ($7.25 per hour for non-exempt covered employees). Otherwise their pay is determined by the respective state. A general comparison shows that some prisoners working in a PIECP type jobs can earn 60 cents a day, with the possibility of a $5 a week bonus. In many of the southern states all of the inmate’s pay is withheld by the state as either “restitution” or as “contributory” towards reducing the cost of incarcerating of the inmate.
 
The discussion thus far has provided a brief overview of the billion dollar business of the prison industry built exclusively on prison labor. Keeping all of the foregoing in mind consider this. The 2.6 billion dollars of profit paid to the prison industry is exactly the same as paying that large sum of money to a foreign country for the use of its low cost slave labor. THE MONEY DOES NOT CIRCULATE WITHIN ANY AMERICAN COMMUNITY! Prisoners are taking jobs that other Americans worked in the past to earn money to pay bills, purchase food and other items in their community’s local stores. This was money that they also used to pay THEIR property taxes or rent in their local communities. In other words there is no difference in the monetary damage to American communities caused by sending local JOBS overseas or having them done locally in America by prison labor. Under control of the prison industry, THE MONEY BYPASSES THE LOCAL COMMUNITY AND THEREBY FINANCIALLY STARVES THE ENTIRE COMMUNITY.  Homeowners can’t get work (because prisoners have taken their jobs) so their homes go into foreclosure, so there is less property taxes coming into the local government, who in turn have to lay off police, fire, teachers and other government employees in order to match the diminished revenues coming into their coffers.
Looking to the future, President Obama has proposed funding infrastructure projects around the nation to “put people back to work”. However, legislative controls will be needed to prevent money from Treasury intended to help relieve the national unemployment problem from actually winding up as funding for the prison industry or their NCIA agents.  ALL of the money targeted for infrastructure jobs or so-call “Green” jobs such as manufacturing solar panels or installing solar panels or wind turbines will immediately be targeted by ACA and other NCIA member companies to be performed by prison labor.
Finally, if you are one of the many brave souls spending your time in the midst of the OWS movement and you are really steadfastly dedicated to fixing the corruption in America please start with the momentous task of dismantling the national prison industry. It is fair to say that at this time, facilitated by cash strapped state governments, prison slave labor has invaded small businesses all around the country. These are the same small businesses that Washington politicians have been looking to since 2008 to lead the eventual turn around in American employment. However, as long as prison labor continues to be employed in the existing jobs, while competing for any new jobs that may open up in the future, America will be destined to continue her decline into economic chaos.  

A recent news item disclosed that Melody Barnes, the Domestic Policy Adviser to President Obama will be leaving her White House post at the end of the year. Many others have been expressing surprise at this announcement, but for me this is welcome news. The major reason President Obama is struggling politically at this time is HIS BAD CHOICE IN ADVISORS from day one in the White House. I am certain that Barnes, Jarrett, Axelrod, and Plouffe are all wonderful pleasant people. However, I am just sure, as has been well demonstrated; they are all woefully politically naive in terms of Washington Politics. These folks including the President are all “Soft Democrats”, when what was needed to properly manage the unique situation of a Black President interacting with a white Congress was a core of “Hard Democrats”. Actually Vice President Joe Biden is the closest person to a true “Hard Democrat” currently in the White House. More Hard and Soft stuff below the fold.
Let me digress for a moment to explain the difference between a “Soft Democrat” and a “Hard Democrat”. A “Soft Democrat” is a Democrat whose basic character is by nature mainly passive tending towards favoring strength in intellectualism and while maintaining a rather resigned tolerance towards the practical side of issues. Aggressive tactics and strategic planning are considered to be non-essential in the mind of the “Soft Democrat”, who believes that all disagreements will be eventually resolved by sober compromise between all parties concerned. Simply put a “Hard Democrat” is by nature the exact mirror image opposite of the “Soft Democrat”. A “Hard Democrat” is by nature politically aggressive whose character tends to value the realistic practical advantages over his Party’s enemies. These advantages can be anything that secures the unconditional cooperation of the political foe. Needless to say the “Hard Democrat” is constantly planning strategies for the present and the future, and deems it unacceptable weakness not to be prepared for virtually any circumstance. Over the decades the Republicans have been able to influence the creation of a majority of “Soft Democrats” in the Congress. This they did by encouraging the establishment of political cultism among “Soft Democrat” leaders in congress. These were people like Byrd, Kennedy, Stevenson, Harkin, and many more. During this period of time the “Hard Democrats” were kept out of the leadership positions of the Democratic Party, thus allowing the Democratic Party to replace the Republican Party as the Party of Reaction, and the Republicans became the Party of proactivity.
 

Why were “Hard Democrats” needed? Simply because from the time that Obama won the election the Republicans made it clear that they were going to play “hard ball” with this president until the day he leaves office. And they demonstrated it over and over and over again at every opportunity. A good experienced crew of “Hard Democrats” would have taken no more than 6 months to have squeezed the political life out of these bombastic Republicans. During the interregnum, President-elect Obama should have started an exhaustive search to locate the “Hard Democrats” needed as his principle advisors in the White House. Instead Obama spent this precious time basking in his historic win and simply settled for a Chicago connection to guide his choice of critical advisors. The goal of an effective senior advisor is to work tirelessly to create strategies that always keep their Boss, the President, ahead of his enemies and detractors in the vast political arena of Washington D.C. As a senior advisor, you must feel deeply and irreconcilable that each political failure inflicted on your Boss is a personal repudiation of your own personal capabilities. Methinks that the Obama White House is now finally aware that “The West Wing” TV drama is definitely not the REAL WORLD!.

I am a Massachusetts resident who this morning passed a newspaper stand displaying the Boston Herald (a right wing Republican rag in this neck of the woods on literary par with the now defunct “Midnight Journal”) sporting blazing headlines of a Scott Brown quote, “SHE IS NOT ME”. The headline was pasted above a smiling photo of a relaxed fully clothed buttoned down Scott Brown. I sincerely hope that Professor Elizabeth Warren, the leading Democratic candidate for Senator from Massachusetts,  has extracted a quick political lesson from the current local Republican manufactured media dustup over Scott Brown’s long past employment as a nude male model for Cosmopolitan magazine . However, just in case she fails intuitively and politically to digest recent events, or if she happens to stumble across this post; my sincerely constructive advice as a Massachusetts voter and an Elizabeth Warren supporter continues below the fold.
Elizabeth Warren during the Televised Democratic debate for Senator was asked a question by a reporter which was obviously meant to be humorous. The reporter asked her how she compared her personal struggle to secure a career in society with Scott Brown posing nude for Cosmopolitan magazine to make “money for college” in his early pre-political life. Warren quipped that “she kept her cloths on”. Her answer turned out to be the most talked about quote to come out of the entire debate that night and it was repeated on all of the local TV newscasts. The next day Brown fired back some rather sexist comments that I won’t waste my time quoting here, and as noted above the spreading of this petty political guano was continued by the Boston Herald with its morning edition today.

Now why am I writing all this? It is my hope that Elizabeth Warren will QUICKLY get the message that anything said in public must be pristine and stick exclusively to her primary campaign message. Anything else can only be said in private with NO MEDIA PRESENT.

Scott Brown cannot talk about the issues facing America to Massachusetts Democratic voters simply because HE IS A REPUBLICAN. He is not Republican “lite”, neither is he a DEMO-REPUB, he is a Republican period, and he will fight like hell to hold on to his seat BEQUEATHED TO HIM by Edward Kennedy. So Professor Warren stick to the issues and you will win this thing!

Here is one additional important flag for Elizabeth Warren. Please DO NOT MAKE THE MISTAKE of Martha (dumb as a rock) Coakley. Open up those offices in the black neighborhoods in Roxbury, Dorchester, Springfield, and New Bedford, and starting recruiting staff to get out the vote in these critical areas. Coakley DID NOT HAVE ONE office in any of these areas which is the reason she gave the election to Scott Brown. Note this: The approximate population count in Dorchester is 134,000 residents. The approximate population count for Roxbury is 58,725 residents. These two Boston Neighborhoods have a combined population of approximately 192,725 residents.  The most amazing statistic to come out of the Brown-Coakley
U.S. Senate election was that the total vote count cast in this important race from Roxbury and Dorchester was 132 VOTES! Scott Brown did his job and Martha Coakley failed to do hers. This makes it obvious why Scott Brown won the election. Elizabeth Warren needs to start her recruiting for campaign managers in the African American neighborhoods in the black churches within these areas. The coffee klatches of Newton, Needham and Chestnut hill will exert a lot of pressure on Ms. Warren for her time, but she must remain steadfast and fixed on the Massachusetts minority vote. It will be critical for her win in the general election.

Finally, Scott Brown has millions of dollars flowing into his campaign chest and he is already demonstrating that he knows how to spend that money very efficiently. Today, Friday, Scott Brown will be sponsoring a JOBS FAIR in conjunction with Roxbury Community College, and it has been announced in the media that he will be bringing in over 60 companies looking to hire successful candidates. For persons not familiar with the Boston Area, Roxbury Community College is right in the middle of the highest minority populated areas in Boston. Scott Brown is no dummy and he knows that just because Coakley ignored the black community when she ran for the U.S. Senate, he knows that Warren is unlikely to make the same mistake; so he is making a definitive early move to gin up some “Scott Brown” enthusiasm in the black community. Scott Brown is not wasting any time in taking advantage of the considerably long delay handicap imposed on the general election campaign strategies of Elizabeth Warren (or any other Democratic candidate) by the State Democratic Party’s primary procedure required to produce a Party endorsed candidate for U.S. Senator.