Posts
since Wed, 26 Dec 2007 20:04:17.
- Profiteering from humanitarianism
- Civil Rights for Some Americans
- Nakba education vs Holocaust disinformation for Americans.
NAACP Director Nelson Linder Defends Ron Paul
Video Description
A 20 year friend of Ron Paul ,Austin Texas' NAACP Director Nelson Linder is interviewed by Scott Horton of Anti War radio concerning the accusations of racism against the congressman.The interview also explores the issue of civil rights and inequality in the American justice system .For more information on this story go to http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/january2008/011308_not_racist.htm .
Video Description
My state of the summer address, and also some more info on Presidential Candidate Mr. Ron Paul.
Ron Paul Doesn't Want White Supremacist Support
Video Description
DIGG THIS: http://digg.com/2008_us_elections/Ron_Paul_I_don_t_want_white_supremacists_support
racist scum cockroaches ron paul doesn't want or need your support racism don black stormfront david duke
http://www.pbs.org/now/shows/350/index.html
Ron Paul on Gay Marriage at 2'20" mark
Video Description
John Stossel Interviews Republican on Personal Freedom, Drugs, Prostitution and Gay Marriage. 2007.12.07
original location: http://www.abcnews.go.com/2020/Stossel/story?id=3970423&page=1
Hit Piece Bruises Ron Paul
Martin Peretz, publisher and co-owner (along with CanWest) of The New Republic and contributor to the Hillary campaign, really hurt Paul yesterday. It was a typical Peretz thing to do - smear someone as a "homophobe" and "racist" the day of the election. The New Republic's Jamie Kirchick ludicrously claimed that Ron Paul personally called Martin Luther King a "gay pedophile" and made other outlandish claims he later retracted as mere gossip.
A very similar thing happened in Somerville on the eve of the vote about whether or not city funds should be invested in Israel or locally - in order to make it sound more "controversial" than the issue really was, all the Neocon pundits went crazy in making up stories that I am a supporter of the local investment movement and that I'm a homophobic terrorist supporter that hangs out with David Duke. This sort of smear is a common tactic. It makes you seem really "scary" to liberals, on whose vote we were counting.
If the American people can't get beyond the "homophobic" smear in order to save their country, America probably deserves to be crushed like a bug quite frankly. People act exactly like insects. Running around doing what "they" expect, never thinking.
We have to be prepared in advance. I mentioned a couple weeks ago the Zionist press is going to do this. Dr. Paul needed a pre-emptive attack - a statement on how his program is best for Blacks and Gays. As we all know, there is no difference between Huckabee and Hillary when it comes to AIPAC issues. This game is a distraction. But there is a comeback.
Is Dr. Paul a racist? No, Dr. Paul WILL SET YOU FREE. We need to emphasize his prison release program and of make sure people realize that Hillary and Obama are NOT going to end war, they want new wars. Ron Paul is the Black Man's Best Friend. He is going to bring your sons home from the war and release all non-violent drug offenders from prison his first day in office, he said. Ron Paul has more Black supporters than any other Republican candidate and more active US military personnel supporters than any other candidate.
The issue is not which candidate will win or lose. The real issue is are we going to lose our country? Americans are such sheep. If we don't somehow teach our friends to mistrust the media and double check everything, that's it for USA. The sad part is that Dr. Paul was polling at 17% but then a lot of those people went to vote Democratic because they were embarrassed by the homophobic racist smear that was circulated on the Internet. It is true that there was reportedly voter fraud. The hand count of the votes puts Dr. Paul at 15% not 8% as the news media erroneously reported. But that still means he lost 2% of the expected vote and all of the fence-sitters who could have put him above 20% just because of this typical Jewish smear tactic that was coordinated and planned to not give Ron Paul time to answer the accusations before the election.
Dr. Paul will not be counted as a winner unless he wins by an overwhelming landslide. Even then, the Neocons might send in the National Guard to prevent him from taking office, except the Guard is in Iraq. (How convenient.) What happens next? No country in the world knows what the next step is, how to get free. The question is, how much longer will Americans fall for these tricks?
RON PAUL'S RESPONSE
Ron Paul has already responded to these ridiculous accusations and slammed them as political haymaking to coincide with the New Hampshire primary.
"The quotations in The New Republic article are not mine and do not represent what I believe or have ever believed. I have never uttered such words and denounce such small-minded thoughts.
In fact, I have always agreed with Martin Luther King, Jr. that we should only be concerned with the content of a person's character, not the color of their skin. As I stated on the floor of the U.S. House on April 20, 1999: `I rise in great respect for the courage and high ideals of Rosa Parks who stood steadfastly for the rights of individuals against unjust laws and oppressive governmental policies.'
This story is old news and has been rehashed for over a decade. It's once again being resurrected for obvious political reasons on the day of the New Hampshire primary.
When I was out of Congress and practicing medicine full-time, a newsletter was published under my name that I did not edit. Several writers contributed to the product. For over a decade, I have publicly taken moral responsibility for not paying closer attention to what went out under my name."
[We invite readers to share their views on Mr. Kirchick's article by e mailing him at james.kirchick@gmail.com.]
Dr. Paul has an honest opinion. The Neo-liberals have think tanks working night and day doing marketing analysis and using psychology to turn the public away from Dr. Paul. There are Israeli/Neocon spies that keep tabs on every political activist in Boston and do write-ups about them in Jerusalem, and meet with the local & Israeli government about how to neutralize them. In Palestine they just use gun with laser-targeting if someone starts telling the truth. In America they character assassinate more often. Like we have any importance whatsoever. They flew the mayor of Somerville to talk with President Moshe Katzav about how to silence eleven Boston responsible investment activists.
Basically how the Lobby won it (and it was a close race, 45 to 55%) was they made a bunch of slick posters with Deval Patrick's face on it, AND they released a number of news reports and commentaries that totally twisted the positions and arguments of both sides, so that the average voter would be confused about what they were voting for or against. They also used a lot of psychological pressure labeling people as "racists" "anti-Semites" etc. so that the people who would normally support the ballot initiative got scared away.
These people are very serious about not wanting Dr. Paul's voice to be heard and they don't want him to win. But they always use the same tactics.
If they don't succeed in turning Dr. Paul's name into mud, they will turn on the organizers of the movement. It's going to go on and on and we have to strategize. Is there a strategic planning wing of the People for Paul movement?
Girlish Figure
by James Kirchick
Only at TNR Online | Post date 11.22.06
Of all the subjects for a 90-minute, one-woman show, Rachel Corrie ought to have been at the bottom of the list. Corrie was the 23-year-old Evergreen State College student crushed in March 2003 by an Israeli bulldozer that was either set to raze a Palestinian home or clear brush that could conceal explosives, depending on whom you believe. She trekked all the way from Olympia, Washington, to the Gaza Strip with the International Solidarity Movement (ISM)--which, despite claiming the mantle of a "peace" movement, has nonetheless abetted Palestinian suicide bombers. And now, New York's Minetta Lane Theater is telling her story in "My Name is Rachel Corrie," which brought the largest advance for any show ever performed there. It is based on Corrie's e-mails and diary entries, and it paints her as a saint who died for a worthy cause by eliding all of the intricacies of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
In locales from Corrie's dorm room to the streets of the Rafah refugee camp, "My Name is Rachel Corrie" takes us into the mind of its namesake. But there is hardly any mention of the Palestinian people she was so committed to. Corrie looks either like one of the upper-middle- class kids who take Latin American latrine-digging vacations to buff up their college resumes, or one of the "political pilgrims"--to use Paul Hollander's phrase--of the cold war (Paul Robeson, Ramsey Clark, Susan Sontag) who ventured to totalitarian lands and returned to boast of slumming it with the liberated natives. The selection of Corrie's writings on display never adequately explains why she would so determinedly seek out a dangerous place she knew little about, other than that she had a deep antipathy toward "injustice." A telling indicator not in the play was a photo circulated after her death; in it (and in her diary), Corrie flaunts her hatred of the United States by burning a mock American flag while Palestinian children crowd around her.
If the Palestinians in this play are props, the Israelis are sound effects. As this is a one-woman show, we obviously do not see either the Palestinians or the Israelis, but we sense the latter more than the former. We hear machine guns, helicopter blades, and tanks (though never the sounds of suicide bombs). If you watched "My Name is Rachel Corrie" knowing little about this decades-long crisis, you would leave thinking that Israelis are sadistic monsters who kill Palestinians at random, destroy olive groves, and harass women and children for the sheer thrill of it. The few mentions of terrorism or suicide bombing are vague, and only in reference to "the right of people to legitimate armed struggle." Never is it suggested that these acts take place against civilian targets, not soldiers (though, in her diary, Corrie excuses that, too).
In prostrating herself before an Israeli bulldozer, Corrie actually became that which she was (unwittingly, perhaps) protecting: the Palestinian suicide martyr. She received the martyr treatment--in both Palestinian propaganda and far-left protest circles--becoming a pieta of the anti-Israel movement. Or, as her ex-boyfriend put it, "she has become her death."
The actress Megan Dodds, who plays Corrie, does so accurately. She alternates between two personas in the play: on the one hand, an exuberant girl we see at the beginning (jumping about her messy room, perkily talking about boys) and, on the other, a self-righteous college activist espousing platitudes about the state of the world and the evils of U.S. foreign policy. Dodds, to her credit, is an honest performer: She does not bend to the (no doubt difficult) temptation to make Corrie less grating or sanctimonious than her diaries make her seem.
For a one-person show to sustain itself, its subject must either be humorous (think Elaine Stritch), possess some sort of intellectual severity (Spalding Gray), or both (Hal Holbrooke as Mark Twain). Rachel Corrie did not have any of these. Corrie's bouts of moral indignation overshadow a few moments of humor, which are nothing more than girlish flightiness anyway. She was a simpleton when it came to world politics,
and yet the play sanctifies her as some sort of sage witness to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
In part, due to the epistolary basis of "My Name is Rachel Corrie," comparisons have been made to "The Diary of Anne Frank." This is partly true. The villains in both plays are heard from but, for the most part, not seen; they are nevertheless omnipresent and threatening. But the comparison ends there: With Corrie, the bad guys are Israelis; with Frank, they are Nazis--hardly equal purveyors of horror. And Anne Frank was a probing character whose blameless observations of fascist Europe demonstrated the cruelty of a period in which children were perfunctorily murdered. Rachel Corrie was a know-it-all who deliberately placed herself in the wrong place at the wrong time. What's more, there is an issue of moral culpability among antagonists. Obviously, Frank's murderers had it. But Corrie died, accidentally, after giving intellectual (and actual) cover to those who are, essentially, the heirs of Frank's killers.
Bereft of gravity, a sympathetic character, or a compelling story, "My Name is Rachel Corrie" ignominiously turns to emotional blackmail. The image on the playbill is of a pre-pubescent Corrie smiling with wispy blond hair blowing across her face. Much of what the editors selected from Corrie's diaries reflect upon her childhood innocence. (Those editors are the venerable British actor Alan Rickman and, less shockingly, Katharine Viner, a writer and editor for The Guardian.) The last segment in the play is a video, taken when Corrie was in the fifth grade, decrying the state of world poverty and declaring her intent to personally "save" the poor. "I'm here because I care," she says in the video, and no doubt she was in Gaza because she cared. (What exactly she cared about is something the play, and Corrie herself, obfuscates.) But this adorable video is meant to convert your sympathy for Corrie into sympathy for her cause. How dare we ridicule such an precocious and idealistic young girl who now lies dead because of her devotion to world peace? What right do any of us have to question the cause for which Corrie gave her life? This is Cindy Sheehan politics.
But what the video unwittingly reveals is that Corrie never outgrew the naive little schoolgirl. Corrie at 23 was just like Corrie at ten. And that is what's so tragic and so telling about those who wish to change the world without really trying to understand it.
James Kirchick is a writer living in Cambridge, Massachusetts.
Start the year off right. Easy ways to stay in shape in the new year.
1 comments:
Quite a different take on New Hampshire
Not saying that the recent primary election in our beloved New Hampshire was not on the up and up, but some interesting facts have come to light. First, the day before the election I received an email from Black Box Voting, the citizens watchdog group that has been working diligently since 2000 to help ensure fair elections, noting that all the Diebold digital vote reading machines (optical scanners) used in New Hampshire (and Connecticut, Vermont and Massachusetts as well) are serviced by a private company that provides the memory cards for these machines. The company, DHL Voting, is privately owned and under the control of one man. Black Box Voting took one of these optical scanners to a computer store and asked the first technician they encountered to look at the memory card to see if he could reprogram it. The technician commented that the card relied on very old technology and that he could easily reprogram it, which he did in about five minutes. When sample ballots were run through the scanner with the reprogramed card the results differed markedly from the results before the reprogramming (of course) and from the manner in which Black Box had actually marked the sample ballots.
Well, you say, so what? The fact that one man controls all the memory cards and that these cards can be easily hacked doesn't mean that the cards were in fact tampered with. Of course not. But here is the second bit of interesting information. Optical scanners were not used in all New Hampshire precincts. About 80% of the New Hampshire precincts, notably in the most densely populated areas, used scanners. In the other roughly twenty per cent of the New Hampshire precincts, largely rural, ballots were counted by hand. Curious individuals, puzzled by the large discrepancy between pre-election polls and actual results so far as Hillary Clinton was concerned, did an analysis of election results, comparing results in the hand-counting precincts with pre-election predictions and results in the machine-scanning precincts with the same predictions. They found that in the precincts in which the ballots were counted by hand the actual vote, so far as Hillary and Obama were concerned, was very close to what the polls had predicted, but that in the precincts in which optical scanners were used, Hillary's vote count was significantly higher and Obama's count significantly lower than what the pre-election polls had predicted. Moreover, results for all other candidates, Republican and Democratic, were found to be consistent with pre-election polls in both the precincts using scanners and the precincts in which the ballots were counted by hand.
Now, I think that this analysis, while surely not conclusive, does raise some questions. Fortunately, it has raised questions in the minds of others others as well. For one, Dennis Kucinich, who has demanded a recount, not because he thinks that it will suddenly catapult him into the lead, but because he feels that it is essential to dispel all doubts concerning the integrity of the New Hampshire electoral process and to assure the American people that the results of the New Hampshire primary can be relied upon. I agree with Dennis and say more power to him. It will be interesting to see, if this recount is carried out, what the results show.
Post a Comment
Comments are moderated.