Violence at a Small Town Parade

When was the last time you thought about how ridiculous the immigration debate could get? Well, in small town America, it got really ridiculous over the weekend in Albert Lea, Minnesota:

An entry in the Third of July Parade stirred controversy, and now the parade’s committee plans to review whether it would allow it next year.

The entry came from Minnesota Coalition for Immigration Reduction. It had a large yellow sign with moveable letters, and it was pulled by a Hummer. The sign’s message on both sides said: “Illegal immigrants cost jobs, hospitals and courts.”

Near the corner of Bridge Avenue and Fountain Street on the parade route, children threw rocks at the sign, and one rock missed, hitting a woman in the face. She was taken by ambulance to Albert Lea Medical Center. The Freeborn County Attorney’s Office will review the police report and decide whether to file charges.

The result of all of this was a debate, touched off in Albert Lea, as to whether they should have allowed the float to participate in the parade (they should NOT have) and whether or not anyone will take responsibility for allowing it (of course not) and whether it constituted a message of intolerance and hate (oh, it certainly did.)

No one should condone rock throwing and whoever did that should be punished. But you can see the emotion that was stirred up. Well, that's what hate groups do, don't they?

Now, I don't know if this is news to anyone, but there are a lot of people of Hispanic heritage who live and work in Minnesota. Many of them are legal residents. Many are not. But, in case anyone hasn't bothered to look lately, this "issue" isn't really a serious one. In fact, I'll draw you a map:



Notice anything? There's a bit of what we call "distance" between Mexico and Minnesota. If there are illegal immigrants who have the skills or the fortitude to get all of the way to Minnesota, chances are, those are the ones who WANT to work and who we should welcome into this country. I mean to tell you, Iowa sure is tempting.

The "hate group" in question is something or other called "Minnesotans Seeking Immigration Reform" and this is their mission statement:

We are Minnesotans Seeking Immigration Reform. Come take a look around and join us in our worthy cause. We believe in strengthening our borders, We believe in SENSIBLE Legal immigration that benefits the USA only and oppose all illegal immigration, We believe in tough oversight concerning issues of temporary and enforced timed visas, government financial assistance only for United States citizens and in supporting our culture and language - English is the language of the land.

It's sad to see home-grown hate groups put their float in hometown parades. I'll bet that if people looked at the association of Minnesota Coalition for Immigration Reduction to, for example, the Chuck Baldwin for President campaign (he's first on their list and first in their hearts!) they'd find a Baptist preacher who rails against the New World Order and thinks 9/11 was an inside job. Or their affiliation to Minnesota Majority, an unhinged hate group that has its fingers in a lot of pies, especially the pies everyone likes to eat, like gay marriage and living a moral, decent life.

Much of the statistical information that feeds these hate groups was supplied by a blatantly dishonest piece of partisan hackery produced for the administration of Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty, who is, you guessed it, a Republican under consideration to be McCain's running mate.

The report these groups are relying on is ginned up with phony statistics from the likes of The Washington Times and anti-immigration zealot Steven Camarota.

Camarota, in turn, made the brilliant observation that since three (3!) of the 19 hijackers on 9/11 (remember, the inside job?) were illegal immigrants that we, all of a sudden, had a massive immigration problem. No, we have a massive problem with people from Saudi Arabia coming here to kill Americans, but that's a whole other can of worms.

The folks at the hysterical hate groups point to a figure that appears on a billboard they put up in Minnesota that featured the sign popular in the San Diego, California area--of the father, mother, and child running across a freeway:



Like I said--if those three individuals have run all the way from Mexico to Albert Lea, don't STOP them from immigrating. Give them a free house to live in and something to drink for having such tremendous stamina.

And the phony outrage they're trying to gin up is based on a ridiculous assertion--that "illegal immigrants" cost money. Their estimate? That's right--$118 million dollars. (According to the bullshit report by the Pawlenty administration.) Well, that's a lot of money. Unless you factor in the size of Minnesota's economy.

Which, in 2005, was a gross domestic product of $234 Billion dollars. Less than one percent of the population in Minnesota is employed in agriculture, and that would, presumably, include a number of the people these hate groups rail against. In 2006, the agricultural sector produced over $11 billion dollars, more than enough to offset a paltry $118 million, no matter how you slice it.

We're not talking about dollars, we're talking about people. Poor people looking for work. Poor people are never the problem--no matter what the media, the rich, the hate groups or the politicians try to tell you. They're just people. People who, incidentally, help Minnesotans enjoy a pretty high standard of living compared with most states. People who, by the way, pump money INTO the economy by paying rent, buying goods, and living their lives honorably and decently.

Unlike the idiots who form hate groups and march in parades.

Chalabi and McCain

Ahmed Chalabi went to Tehran this past week, and Juan Cole (by way of Amanda Terkel) brings up a brilliant point about the "foreign policy judgement" of John McCain:

Ahmad Chalabi, meeting in Tehran with Speaker of the Iranian Parliament Ali Larijani, commented on the Status of Forces Agreement being negotiated by the Bush administration with the Iraq government:

'The INC's Chalabi retorted that granting immunity to US military personnel from prosecution under Iraqi law is baldly unacceptable. “The vast majority of Iraqi people and authorities oppose the security treaty and regard it as contradictory to Iraq's sovereignty and security.” Chalabi stated the treaty is counterproductive for Iraq in the long term and what the US is seeking is a binding bilateral agreement for the ongoing presence of its forces in Iraq whose UN mandate expires on December 31.'

Then Chalabi sat there while Larijani warned the US against "adventurism."

I don't think Chalabi likes the US very much. What is he doing discussing a bilateral US-Iraqi agreement with Larijani in Tehran? And let's see, I'm trying to remember whose idea it was for the US public to give Chalabi tens of millions of dollars and to try to put him in power in Baghdad . . .

Oh, yeah, thanks to Amanda Terkel for reminding me . . . it was our very own Mr. Foreign Policy Experience (a.k.a 'one is born every minute' . . .):

'McCain welcomed Ahmed Chalabi, leader of the Iraqi National Congress (INC), to Washington and pressured the administration to give him money. When General Anthony Zinni cast doubt upon the effectiveness of the Iraqi opposition, McCain rebuked him at a hearing of the Senate Armed Services Committee.

In 2003, McCain joined four other Republican senators and asked Bush to “personally clear the bureaucratic roadblocks within the State Department” that blocked increased funding for the Chalabi’s group. Also that year, McCain said of Chalabi, “He’s a patriot who has the best interests of his country at heart.”'

McCain's love affair with Chalabi goes back further than that:

In 1998, McCain was one of the sponsors of the Iraq Liberation Act, signed into law by Bill Clinton, which officially changed American policy from containing Hussein to deposing him, and he became a leading figure in the Committee for the Liberation of Iraq, a lobbying group founded by Randy Scheunemann, who is now his chief foreign policy adviser. McCain met with Ahmad Chalabi, the smooth Iraqi dissident who was a favorite of the neocons, and supported him publicly.

The late 1990s were a fairly easy period of black and white in foreign policy--there was no Putin, there was no resurgent Russia, and China was no where near the presence that it is now. The United States was prosperous and secure enough to fall into the ridiculous distraction of blowjobs and blue dresses during that period because all of the tin horn dictators were in their place. And when it came time to exercise judgement on one of the biggest issues of the day, McCain got it wrong.
McCain was responsible for helping pour millions into Chalabi's group--all of it for naught.

In 1998, he was among the cosponsors of the Iraq Liberation Act. The law set "regime change" in Baghdad as U.S. policy and mandated support to opposition groups seeking to overthrow the dictator.

Among the major beneficiaries was the Iraqi National Congress, a London-based exile group headed by Ahmed Chalabi.

The CIA had initially sponsored the group but broke with the controversial leader in 1997, saying he could not be trusted. Under the new law, Chalabi's group received almost $33 million from the State Department, until U.S. officials found financial improprieties and ended the arrangement.

McCain and Chalabi met several times but were not close allies, aides to both men said. "Sen. McCain wasn't pushing one group over another," said Randy Scheunemann, McCain's chief foreign policy advisor.

Back in 1998, only a handful of people could claim to have been prescient in seeing where all of this was headed, and John McCain certainly wasn't one of them. In fact, props to Ron Paul, of all people, for seeing into the future. It's too bad Ron Paul is barking mad on most other issues--this little chestnut is brilliant, though:

So back to the practicality of the bill. Even though one might argue there is a lot of good intentions here, even a Member that is supporting the bill is very uncertain whether it is workable.

In some ways, even if it is workable, it is going to be working against us and working against the United States and working against the taxpayers of this country.

But I would also like to challenge the statement that this does not change policy, because on section 3, it says it should be the policy of the United States to seek to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime.

That sounds pretty clear to me. As a matter of fact, I think it sounds so clear that it contradicts U.S. law. How do you remove somebody without killing them? Is it just because we do not use our own CIA to bump them off that we are not morally and legally responsible? We will be.

So we are talking about killing Saddam Hussein, a ruthless dictator. But how many ruthless dictators do we have? We have plenty. So how many more should we go after?

So the real question is, why at this particular time, why would we give our President more authority to wage war? He has way too much authority already if the President can drop bombs when he pleases. This of course has occurred not only in this administration but in the administrations of the 1980s as well where bombs were dropped to make some points. But generally speaking, the points are not well made. They usually come back to haunt us.

McCain was against breaking down the effectiveness of the US military before he was for it--see if you can read this speech and not have your jaw hit the floor. I wish the Obama people would reprint this in full on their website and start hammering McCain for it.

Sen. John McCain told veterans Wednesday [August, 1999] that U.S. military forces are "perilously close to the breaking point" because of declining defense budgets.

"Almost 100,000 Americans are serving overseas in an unprecedented number of contingency, peacekeeping and humanitarian operations," the Arizona Republican said at the annual convention of the Veterans of Foreign Wars.

McCain criticized both the Clinton administration and Congress on defense issues and also picked up a presidential endorsement from Sen. Fred Thompson, R-Tenn.

In a 25-minute speech focusing on security, veterans issues, military readiness and China policy, McCain criticized Congress for failing to close defense bases and said Kosovo shouldn't be a model for future military challenges.

Afterward, he was endorsed for the Republican presidential nomination by Thompson, who was introduced as McCain's national cochairman. Thompson originally backed former Tennessee Gov. Lamar Alexander, who dropped out of the GOP presidential race Monday.

"When it comes to reforming the way Washington does business, John McCain is a leader," Thompson said. "In his personal courage and integrity, John McCain has shown characteristics of leadership like nobody I've ever seen."

In his speech, McCain, a Navy fighter pilot during the Vietnam War who spent nearly six years as a prisoner of war, said some military units were unfit for deployment because of recruiting and retention problems.

"After six years of severely underfunding the military, the president reversed himself and proposed increasing the defense budget," McCain said. "Once again, however, his rhetoric far exceeded his actions."

Clinton addressed the convention Monday and called for VFW support to push Congress for full support of his foreign policy.

McCain said the United States should encourage political change in China and Clinton should "change its failed policy of pressuring only Taiwan to avoid open hostilities."

McCain, who received a standing ovation from VFW delegates at the end of his speech, called for a veterans' bill of rights.

"Many of the promises of benefits that were made or implied to active duty personnel and to us veterans have been ignored, changed or abandoned over the years," he said. "This primarily is true in the area of veterans' health-care benefits."

I love the irony of that article--especially the warm endorsement of Fred Thompson, which has always been worth about a wooden nickel. What happened to that John McCain?
How bad is it when the likes of Ron Paul have demonstrated a better grasp of foreign policy and national defense than you have?

How is it that John McCain has this reputation for foreign policy acumen when, going back ten years or more, he's gotten everything wrong? He's the ultimate wingnut, completely escaping accountability for all of his mistakes and blunders.

Opposing the War from Within the Military

Just to expand on this little nugget from Steve Benen:

Way back in September, USA Today reported that Barack Obama and Ron Paul, who don’t have too much in common, were the top two presidential candidates when it came to financial support from U.S. troops.

[snip]

From ThinkProgress.org:

Conservatives opposed to redeployment in Iraq have consistently claimed that U.S. troops are on their side…. Yet U.S. troops disagree. Yesterday, the Center for Responsive Politics reported that members of the military donated the most not to McCain, but to two anti-war candidates:

“Individuals in the Army, Navy and Air Force made those branches of the armed services among the top contributors in the 4th Quarter, ranking No. 13, No. 18 and No. 21, respectively. In 2007, Republican Ron Paul, who opposes U.S. involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan, was the top recipient of money from donors in the military, collecting at least $212,000 from them. Barack Obama, another war opponent, was second with about $94,000.”

These donations reflect the military’s disapproval with the Iraq war and President Bush’s handling of it. A recent Military Times poll found that just 46 percent of U.S. troops now believe that the country should have invaded Iraq, and only 30 percent approve of Bush’s handling of the war.

John McCain likes to say that, as far as he’s concerned, the message from the troops to the country is, “Let us win.”

First of all, I don't think I ever met anyone while in the military who boasted about giving money to a politician. I think that's the thing officers, maybe senior enlisted would engage in, but privately. And I do mean, privately, when they do it the right way, and publicly and in front of everyone when they do it the wrong way. There are a lot of people who buy what Ron Paul is selling, and the fact that they're found in the military is unsurprising. You have to be geeked out on obscure financial theories or confused about what is and what is not American history to "get" Ron Paul, apparently.

Second of all, since the majority of military members probably wouldn't give money to a politician under any circumstances, McCain can still claim they support him.

Third of all, McCain should probably stop thinking he has anything to brag about when it comes to the "support" of the military. Time and time again, politicians confuse their VIP visits with troops as being "real" They're not. They are carefully scripted sit-downs and encounters with hand-picked troops, in most cases. They're staged and they're quick. No one is going to start bitching to a VIP about something in front of a bunch of Public Affairs officers and handlers. To extend that logic--no one is going to pick the company whiner to sit down with some VIPs. It's "rah rah" and "yes, sir, no, sir" and "we're winning!" type stuff. As soon as the VIPs are gone, everything goes back to normal. And that means that the piles of broken and useless shit that were hidden away have to be restacked and put back where they were.

Donations from the troops mean nothing. And they're never going to tell someone like McCain what they really think.

UPDATE I - PALE RIDER

Read this over at Altercation:

The question I have been asking for years has been what if American society broke down due to a natural, economic, or political upheaval and the army was called out or decided on its own to put down the populace? Would the officers of today's army side with the population and uphold the Constitution, or would a cabal of officers similar to the ones Mr. Osborne describes move to stage a coup? Would the rank-and-file soldiers who have gone through a continuous barrage of right-wing philosophy be more likely to shoot their fellow Americans during such a crisis and support a military coup? I think officers like LTC Bateman would stand up for the America he swore to protect. But are there enough Batemans in the army to stand up to a rogue officer class? I don't know. But don't tell me that it can't happen here.

Let me answer that as easily as possible. Do you know what happens when a government in Africa collapses, and everyone starts killing each other without any rhyme or reason? That's what would happen here.

FEAR would take over. The military has great people in it, but every societal situation comes down to what happens when fear takes over. Perfectly reasonable and well educated people will eat their neighbor's dog, put on shoulderpads and helmets, mark their face with colored paint and shoot at helicopters for no reason if enough fear takes over.

Wasn't there something I was supposed to blog about today?

Oh yeah - I remember now.

There's a Republican primary election in South Carolina and both parties held their caucus in Nevada today.


Nevada first...With 88% of precincts reporting, Hillary Clinton was declared the winner with 51% to Obama's 45%. Edwards garnered 4%, and should probably think about withdrawing with his chances for a cabinet position - and his dignity - intact.

On the Republican side, Romney took it standing up, with 53%. Ron Paul and John McCain were tied for second with 13% each.

I guess the Nervous Nellies among Hillary supporters were a bit over-the-top. For the record, they totally took the wrong tack. They should have approached it from the position of "then you have to hold caucuses in hospitals, too." What judge would want to be seen as the guy who upheld a showgirls right to caucus, but nurses can go hang? It was a no-brainer. Apparently. Some no-brain out there fucked that up from Jump Street.

Okay - South Carolina - that's a Republicans-only primary election, and polls won't close for a couple of hours, but Politico.com has a pretty good summation:

Saturday's most crucial showdown was on the other side of the country, in South Carolina, where the Republican contenders try to wrest advantage from each other — after three different candidates won the first three major contests.

Most polls have shown McCain leading Huckabee, trailed by Romney and former Tennessee Sen. Fred Thompson.

The stakes for the entire GOP field are high if history is a guide — every Republican nominee since Ronald Reagan has won South Carolina.

And the weather is absolutely miserable. Can you believe it's snowing in parts of South Carolina?

Well it is.

In the part of the state where Mike Huckabee's support is strongest.

Wonder what God's own Candidate is thinking right now?

UPDATE - PALE RIDER

God's own candidate, Mitt Romney, did well out in Las Vegas. I've seen some coverage writing it off, basically saying that an overwhelming Mormon vote is the reason for his win in Nevada.

Ron Paul polling at 13% and possibly beating McCain is huge--as is the fact that Ron Paul has a larger constituency within the Republican Party than that of Rudy Guiliani. I'm reminded of Ron Paul explaining why we were attacked on 9/11 and Rudy "not getting it" and trying to belittle Ron Paul for his ideas. As nuts as he is, Ron Paul gets it right on the war and that's gotta be troubling for the overtly pro-war candidates on either side of the aisle.

UPDATE II - PALE RIDER 7:45 PM- Eastern

Tucker Carlson is trying to fan the flames of a Hispanic vs Black split in the Democratic Party. As if. We don't even have a nominee yet. We don't have anywhere near enough information to make that assessment. We have yet to see a large, populous and diverse state vote yet. And the Republican shill machine is desperate.

Tucker--talk about Ron Paul beating main stream Republicans with 50 times the name recognition and then ask us about a split among Democrats. The split is on the Republican side, clearly, because they are seeing candidates who have spent millions go down in flames.

The MSNBC coverage is dominated by Olbermann and Russert. Matthews is the third wheel along for the Prom date, and no one wants to give him liquor because he'll get caught and everyone will get busted by the Gym teacher. This makes for stilted coverage. CNN is unwatchable. They have Bill Bennett in there and all I want to do is ask "did that lardass play the one-armed bandit all day?"

UPDATE III - Blue Girl

Lets look at the Nevada numbers:

Women were a strong majority for the Democrats in Nevada. 59% of Democrats attending the caucus were female, to 41% male.

On the Republican side, the numbers are closer, but males are a solid majority - 52% to 48%.

But more telling than the gender demographics are the age demographics.

Republicans

60-up_________45%
45-59_________27%
30-44_________17%
18-29_________11%

Democrats

60-up_________36%
45-59_________32%
30-44_________19%
18-29_________13%

The numbers tell this well-versed-in-stats political consumer that the Republican party is entering the twilight years, along with it's stalwarts. It is sooooo yesterday. People who want to move forward are throwing their lot in with the Democrats, and the demographics on the Democratic side are much more stable and desirable. If you read these numbers as if they were in the respective prospectus of companies competing for your investment dollars, where would you invest your money?

UPDATE IV - PALE RIDER

Yes--the voters are turned off by the Republicans, they are identifying themselves as Democrats, and the Republicans can't raise money. It's shocking to see how broke some of them are--Guiliani and McCain are literally broke and running on fumes on a day to day basis. Romney is using his own money and Huckabee isn't spending any money. The only who has a legitimate fundraising machine is Ron Paul and he's not going to piss that money away. In 1999, George W Bush was raising millions and was building a massive war chest with which to run. There is no comparison this year. They are all running on fumes.

How about a shout out to Howard Dean? The Fifty State strategy means we are going to compete with Republicans everywhere, and we will make them play a full-court game. As their "brand" continues to sink, we will make gains in places the Washington DC establishment would have written off four years ago.

UPDATE V - PALE RIDER - 09:07PM East

Chris Matthews "John McCain-his enemy is al Qaeda.""Mitt Romney-his enemy is Washington."

[so we're going to send a snarling old man after al Qaeda? Will he have bandoliers of ammo and a grenade pinned to his lapel? I hardly doubt al Qaeda is concerned about John McCain. In fact, they must be salivating at the idea that a deranged old coot keeps trying to threaten them. It's gotta help with recruiting.]

something, something, Huckabee, something Sodom and Gomorrah.
"The Road to St. Paul" and all of it's [catholic] Biblical overtones.
John McCain is a "live and let live guy"

Why doesn't Matthews just admit that he would carry McCain to the gates of Hell just to be seen holding a man he loves, in that platonic sort of way.

Schuster is at Huckabee headquarters and he looks like he just drank a quart of vinegar.

Brian Williams is commenting on the Big Dog's temper. Hello, dumbass--how about McCain's temper and McCain's snarling personality? Compared to Bill, McCain is easily the bigger hothead.

Russert--this is between Bill Clinton and Barack Obama. Whatever, dude. You don't have a clue, either.

A Ron Paul Flare-up on Red State Equals Hilarity

Over on Dead State--they only have $15K to go and it doesn't look like the cash is rolling in--they're trying to use whatever means possible to kill Ron Paul. It ain't working.

----------------

Republicans to Ron Paul: Seriously, Get Lost.
Because the subtler versions of this message aren't getting through
By Leon H Wolf

Congratulations, Ron Paul. You've once again managed to come in dead last among candidates who actually campaigned in a primary - except this time, you can't blame it all on those Jesus freaks in Iowa. This was New Hampshire, which should have been your most fertile territory in all the early primary states. And unfortunately, it looks like "your most fertile territory" still pretty much equates to "Republicans don't like you or your message."

At this point, I'd favor action by the Congressional Republican Caucus to extricate you from their ranks. There are lots of reasons for this: the fact that you were, ahem, apparently totally unaware of the racist contents of numerous eponymous newsletters (I swear, that's believable, really), the fact that you thought that the way that Pol Pot cleaned up the mess after we left Vietnam was great, the fact that you've publicly stated that we should not defend South Korea if the North Koreans attacked, the fact that you see Jack Kemp and Bob Dole as terrorists, but not the PLO, and well, we could go on and on. I think there are plenty of reasons listed above that the Republicans in Congress wouldn't want to be associated with you - and it appears that Republican primary voters are also not comfortable with you being associated with our party. And while nobody wants to kick members out of the Caucus when we're in the minority, in extreme cases, it's necessary for people to know that there's a certain level of scum we won't be associated with.

----------------

Riiiiight. Because conservatives in this country want their racism to not look like actual racism so that no one will hold them accountable. See: Rush Limbaugh, Neil Boortz, Michael Savage, Trent Lott, Fox News, etc.

---------------
Commenters reply:

Republican to Leon. Get Lost. by wiseburn
Leon, I always thought the Republican Party had a big tent.
Cato reports 13% of voting age Americans are Libertarian.
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=6715
We NEED them in the party to get Republicans ELECTED.

You can dislike Paul or his supporters or the way his campaign is run. But don't discount his message of Freedom, Peace and Prosperity. It was fun to see Thompson and Huckabee starting to say some of the same things as Paul in the last debate.

As much as you dislike Paul, his Revolution is bringing people back to the Republican Party. The humungous overspending by Bush and the Republican Congress has alienated many fiscal conservatives. Paul is the only reason many are staying in the Republican Party.

The Bush police state is moving many many independents towards the Democrats. The turnout for Democrats in New Hampshire is the big story from yesterday. Not Paul.

Steve
----------------

Proving that facts simply don't matter in the conservative world, a Ron Paul supporter that didn't immediately get banned on Dead State simply asks--where are you getting your information?

----------------

I'll fess up Leon by satchman2
I was making a point by that - I think you're paraphrasing RP's words to make your point - he didn't say Pol Pot. You said it.

He said using government force to suppress free speech is a type of terrorism - you then took those words and connected them to Dole and Kemp based on their Anti-terrorism act.

You weaken your argument by not sticking to what the man actually said. That sort of slander that doesn't help anyone make good decisions.

---------------

When pressed, "Leon" didn't have much of an answer, except to say that he "inferred" what Paul meant.

In other words, "Leon" can't actually support his attacks with quotes, and anyone who questions him is an idiot.

Thank God for Dead State--you can't make this shit up. They're trying to kill off part of their own base by making up stuff. When the actual mouth-breathing racists start to raise money and show up in the national polls at levels higher than people like Thompson and Guiliani, they panic--what threatens their mainstream access to the average American voter is being given the kiss of death by the likes of Stormfront and David Duke by way of a Ron Paul standing at a podium between Romney and McCain. Isn't it fun to watch them implode? Isn't it fun to watch them fall on their own sword by hitting themselves on the head with a hammer?

Here's a little history for you Dead Staters on why Ron Paul is so popular and why the Republican Party's legacy is so shameful.

William Raspberry, June 14, 2004:

And to tell the truth, I might have let this period of national mourning pass without a sour note. But I was in Mississippi when I heard the news of his death, and it came just one day after a white Mississippi newspaper editor proudly handed me a copy of the Philadelphia, Miss., paper, the Neshoba Democrat.

Philadelphia, county seat of Mississippi's Neshoba County, is famous for a couple of things. That is where three civil rights workers -- Michael Schwerner, James Chaney and Andrew Goodman -- were murdered in 1964. And that is where, in 1980, Republican presidential candidate Ronald Reagan chose to launch his election campaign, with a ringing endorsement of "states' rights."

It was bitter symbolism for black Americans (though surely not just for black Americans). Countless observers have noted that Reagan took the Republican Party from virtual irrelevance to the ascendancy it now enjoys. The essence of that transformation, we shouldn't forget, is the party's successful wooing of the race-exploiting Southern Democrats formerly known as Dixiecrats. And Reagan's Philadelphia appearance was an important bouquet in that courtship.

----------------

See, that's where Ron Paul got the idea that he could be nuts in public and have strange ideas. That's where he gets that whole "Dixie" mentality about how Abraham Lincoln was wrong and power hungry and that slavery was actually great for African-Americans. He didn't pull it out of his ass. He just looked to the most popular Republican in the last hundred years and fell into lock-step with all the rest of you.

He is you, and you certainly don't like having that pointed out to you, do you?

Fox News excludes Ron Paul from the final debate

Pravda Fox News, the official propaganda machine of the GOP, is running scared from Ron Paul. They must find his adherence to Constitutional principles wholly intolerable, since they refused to let him participate in the final debate before the voting starts. (Remember, Fox also refused to run a pro-Constitution ad.)

Now, don't confuse me with a Paul supporter - I'm not - and no, I won't be converted in comments - but I am a Democracy supporter.

Now I feel bad for somewhat supporting the exclusion of Gravel from subsequent debates after his "love" rant last August, because that exclusion led to the exclusion of Kucinich, who is the one true progressive who articulates liberal positions and ideals, but isn't electable. We went down the path of letting the M$M decide who will be heard, and this is the payoff. The GOPers are excluding the only anti-war candidate in the Republican field. (I WAS WRONG. I SHOULD HAVE RAISED HELL WHEN GRAVEL WAS EXCLUDED. And so should have you, and you, and you, and you, and you. Let's learn a lesson from our mistake.)

In the case of Paul, the only reason to exclude him is to silence him on opposition to the war. And he called 'em on it:

Ron Paul said the decision to exclude him from a debate on Fox News Sunday the weekend before the New Hampshire Primary is proof that the network “is scared” of him.

“They are scared of me and don’t want my message to get out, but it will,” Paul said in an interview at a diner here. “They are propagandists for this war and I challenge them on the notion that they are conservative.”

When 70% of America agrees about something, that's strong consensus. Unfortunately, it runs counter to the agenda of the war-whores at Faux News, and rather than deal with it, they chose to silence the lone voice of opposition.

Chickenshit bastards.