Michael Steele..Does he even know what he believes? (sm)
Posted By: Just the big bad on 2009-03-12
In Reply to:
By Philip Klein on 3.11.09 @ 10:15PM
In 1983, Woody Allen made the mockumentary film Zelig about a man who longs for approval so badly that he changes to fit the people who are surrounding him. The movie may as well have been written about Michael Steele, who continues to tie himself in knots as part of his effort to reach out to moderates.
Steele already has been ridiculed by all sides of the political spectrum for blasting Rush Limbaugh on CNN only to apologize when he received blowback. But now, via Matt Lewis, I see he told GQ that he believes abortion is an individual choice. Here's the portion of the interview:
How much of your pro-life stance, for you, is informed not just by your Catholic faith but by the fact that you were adopted?
Oh, a lot. Absolutely. I see the power of life in that—I mean, and the power of choice! The thing to keep in mind about it… Uh, you know, I think as a country we get off on these misguided conversations that throw around terms that really misrepresent truth.
Explain that.
The choice issue cuts two ways. You can choose life, or you can choose abortion. You know, my mother chose life. So, you know, I think the power of the argument of choice boils down to stating a case for one or the other.
Are you saying you think women have the right to choose abortion?
Yeah. I mean, again, I think that’s an individual choice.
You do?
Yeah. Absolutely.
So basically, in an effort to seem more inclusive, Steele tried to appropriate the language of the left by saying life is a choice, but then he allowed himself to be backed into a corner in which he said that women have the right to choose abortion -- by definition, a pro-choice postion. Perhaps realizing what he had just said, Steele then tried to add nuance to his point:
Are you saying you don’t want to overturn Roe v. Wade?
I think Roe v. Wade—as a legal matter, Roe v. Wade was a wrongly decided matter.
Okay, but if you overturn Roe v. Wade, how do women have the choice you just said they should have?
The states should make that choice. That’s what the choice is. The individual choice rests in the states. Let them decide.
Do pro-choicers have a place in the Republican Party?
Absolutely!
So, after getting boxed in, he suddenly shifts from "individual choice" meaning "women have the right to choose an abortion" to it meaning that states have an "individual choice" about whether or not to permit women to exercise choice. Liz Mair, charitably, thinks that Steele was trying to express the pro-choice, anti-Roe, position but that he just was clumsy about it. Even if that were the case, however, it wouldn't be consistent with other recent statements he made on the subject.
In December, when he was under fire during the RNC race for being a member of Christine Todd Whitman's moderate Republican Leadership Council, he portrayed himself as emphatically pro-life to CBN's David Brody, barbing, "I was a monk for goodness sakes ok?" Appearing on Fox News Sunday after his election to serve as RNC chair, Steele declared, "I'm a pro-life Roman Catholic conservative, always have been."
In a debate moderated by Tim Russert during the 2006 U.S. Senate race in Maryland, Steele was all over the place on Roe. Check out the following exchange:
MR. RUSSERT: Would, would you encourage — would you hope the U.S. Supreme Court overturns Roe vs. Wade?
LT. GOV. STEELE: I think that that’s a matter that’s going to rightly belong to the courts to decide ultimately whether or not that, that issue should be addressed. The, the Court has taken a position, which I agree, stare decisis, which means that the law is as it is and, and so this is a matter that’s ultimately going to be adjudicated at the states. We’re seeing that. The states are beginning to decide for themselves on, on this and a host of other issues. And the Supreme Court would ultimately decide that.
MR. RUSSERT: But you hope that the Court keeps Roe v. Wade in place?
LT. GOV. STEELE: I think the Court will evaluate the law as society progresses, as the Court is supposed to do.
MR. RUSSERT: But what’s your position? Do you want them to sustain it or overturn it?
LT. GOV. STEELE: Well, I think, I think, I think Roe vs. Wade, Roe vs. Wade is a, is a matter that
should’ve been left to the states to decide, ultimately. But it, it is where it is today, and the courts will ultimately decide whether or not this, this gets addressed by the states, goes back to the states in some form or they overturn it outright.
MR. RUSSERT: Is is your desire to keep it in place?
LT. GOV. STEELE: My desire is that we follow what stare decisis is at this point, yes.
Huh?
The problem with Steele's defenders is that they like the idea of Steele -- i.e., the idea that Steele is going to reach out to moderates. But the reality of Steele is quite different. He is proving himself to be a shape shifter who is trying to please everybody, but in the end delivering a completely muddled message. Ultimately no pro-choice independent or Democrat is going to be more inclined to become a Republican as a result of that GQ interview, because Steele comes off like a bumbling clown who is trying to have it both ways. The mere fact that we have to have a whole debate over what he means demonstrates that he's doing a terrible job at communicating. And lest we forget, communication was supposed to be his strong suit.
http://spectator.org/blog/2009/03/11/michael-zelig-steele
Complete Discussion Below:  marks the location of current message within thread
The messages you are viewing
are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select
the boards given in left menu
Other related messages found in our database
Michael Steele. I really like this guy.
nm
Michael Steele....(sm)
As noted by someone on SNL (I think).....You do know it doesn't work with just any black guy? ROFL.
Michael Steele, chairman of Rep.
Michael Steele, the new chairman of the Republican National Committee, has asked the entire staff to resign, FOX News has confirmed.
The move signals Steele's plan to reshape the party, which was trounced at the polls in 2006 and 2008.
As a black man from Maryland, a traditionally Democratic state, Steele has already brought a new face to the party.
The RNC has about 100 staff members, many of whom have been told that their last day on the job will be Feb. 15, a Republican source told Politico, which reported the story Thursday morning.
Some aides may stay on, the source said, but several senior aides who were expecting the changes voluntarily submitted their resignations soon after Steele's election last week.
President Obama's new team made a similar request at the Democratic National Committee.
Steele, a former Maryland lieutenant governor, won the chairmanship last Friday. In his first speech as chairman, he pledged to bring change in an effort to re-establish the GOP presence in the Northeast and win elections in regions across the country.
"It's time for something completely different, and we're gonna bring it to them," he said in his acceptance speech. "Get ready, baby. It's time to turn it on."
Michael Steele is not terrified of Rush.
Get your facts straight.
Did you even see Mr. Steele interviewed?
He came right out and said the liberal media took one sentence out of context. Democrats distorting things???? Imagine that.
Steele wants states to decide and BIG GOVT OUT.
nm
No, it's Newt...No, it's Sarah...No, it's Anne Coulter...No, it's Steele...
X
If he believes what you just said, then no
The Federal Reserve IS the reason for this problem and has been the same problem each and every time this country has seen economic downfall, all because of banks and reserves. Please take the time to watch this and it will help you understand.......this is a wake up call for why government SHOULD NOT EVER be this big
Have you EVER known the government to do anything worthwhile with your money, and now this????
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-466210540567002553
If he believes that, then YUP.... his is
... that the U.S. is turning into an armpit. Makes me wonder which other country in the world will eventually take us over. (If anyone would even WANT TO, that is.)
So anyone that believes in God does not have
xx
Uh huh. Like anyone here believes you -
And yes, you ARE wasting your time here.
LOL! She believes she can do anything ugly she wants because she
wraps herself up in the Bible and Jesus is her *special friend* and just gives her a wink and a nod every time she does something heinous. At least that's what she herself said in a post not long ago. (Aggressive denial by her to follow, I'm sure, like she lies about everything else.)
It's obvious that none of these people have Jesus in their hearts because there's no room for love and peace and truth in those jaded, hateful, dishonest, angry people. I wonder if they even have a hint of how laughable they really are! LOL! 
Okay...if he really believes this "stuff" why does he not...
lead by example and conserve...he lives in a house the size of a small town in some countries. He uses more electricity than 4 or 5 households. I don't know what he drives, but I do know that every time he flies coast to coast he puts more emissions in the atmosphere than someone driving a HUMMER for TWO YEARS. And he does that how many times a month??? Geez. I am sure you mean well, but...if he is really so interested in saving this beautiful planet...he should be the FIRST to conserve. THis is his job now. It is all about the money.
I realize that not everyone believes the same
And sorry to offend you but in fact the poster is a fanatic, in my opinion.
Also, it's not a FACT that Palin is a fanatic; she is a Christian. You call her a fanatic, your opinion.
Well, I happen to be one who believes
God has a sense of humor. After all He created us didn't He? Yeah, I "profess" to be a Christian but I take a pretty dim view of self-righteous "Christians" who question other's opinions and thoughts that don't fit into their definition of "Christian." Christian = "one who follows Christ" or tries to in my case. I am not perfect but I'm not the one to tell you that you "profess" to be a Christian. Maybe you are, maybe you aren't, I don't know.
Don't give a fig who believes it or not.
x
He believes in abortion. NM below
x
but I'm sure the vast majority believes
that life begins at conception, however, I know I'm not going to change your mind, so I'll leave it at that.
Half of U.S. still believes Iraq had WMD
Half of U.S. still believes Iraq had WMD
By CHARLES J. HANLEY, AP Special Correspondent Sun Aug 6, 7:43 PM ET
Do you believe in Iraqi WMD? Did
Saddam Hussein's government have weapons of mass destruction in 2003?
Half of America apparently still thinks so, a new poll finds, and experts see a raft of reasons why: a drumbeat of voices from talk radio to die-hard bloggers to the Oval Office, a surprise headline here or there, a rallying around a partisan flag, and a growing need for people, in their own minds, to justify the war in
Iraq.
People tend to become independent of reality in these circumstances, says opinion analyst Steven Kull.
The reality in this case is that after a 16-month, $900-million-plus investigation, the U.S. weapons hunters known as the Iraq Survey Group declared that Iraq had dismantled its chemical, biological and nuclear arms programs in 1991 under U.N. oversight. That finding in 2004 reaffirmed the work of U.N. inspectors who in 2002-03 found no trace of banned arsenals in Iraq.
Despite this, a Harris Poll released July 21 found that a full 50 percent of U.S. respondents — up from 36 percent last year — said they believe Iraq did have the forbidden arms when U.S. troops invaded in March 2003, an attack whose stated purpose was elimination of supposed WMD. Other polls also have found an enduring American faith in the WMD story.
I'm flabbergasted, said Michael Massing, a media critic whose writings dissected the largely unquestioning U.S. news reporting on the Bush administration's shaky WMD claims in 2002-03.
This finding just has to cause despair among those of us who hope for an informed public able to draw reasonable conclusions based on evidence, Massing said.
I don't see where anyone believes Bush has done no wrong
It's the fact that several of us don't believe he is the cause of all the suffering in the world like many of you here do. Some of us are not blinded by Bush hatred nor are we Bush loyalists to the point where we think he's done everything right. I believe several of the *crashers* on this board have said that, but you refused to either read the body of their posts or believe what they say.
Oops! Don't say Amen - not everyone believes the same!
=)
She used the quote because she believes the words....
This Pegler fellow used it when Harry Truman was elected: When Truman came into the Presidency, Pegler welcomed him "We grow good people in our towns, with honesty, sincerity and dignity." But earlier, Pegler had told his readers the man from Missouri was someone to watch out for "This Truman", he wrote, when Harry was nominated for Vice President "is thin-lipped, a hater, and not above offering you his hand to yank you off balance and work you over with a chair leg, a pool cue or something out of his pocket."
Sounds like politics to me. However, the sentiments are true. We DO grow good people in our towns, with honesty, sincerity and dignity.
The poster probably believes what Hollywood says
nm
Well anyone who believes that garbage deserves
And the greatest majority of those come with NO NAME....false names, names they can't even identify the source. Wanna guess where they really are coming from?
Maybe Senator Obama believes in following the
"First Admendment" to the Constitution of the United States.
My sister believes this stuff
My sister's church tells her this stuff to scare her and get her tithe. Let me tell you in the 80s she was no saint. It makes me feel bad for her that her church makes her so afraid and discourages her from thinking for herself.
Obama truly believes he is "the one". McCain would
nm
I am interested why any of us should know his personal reasons for EVERYTHING he believes in? sm
It does seem that President Obama is now under a microscope and every tiny minute aspect of his life, any beliefs he holds, are scrutinize for a NEFARIOUS HIDDEN MEANING? yes, perhaps it is a religious belief, I have a close girlfriend who was born Catholic and has been a Jehovah Witness for several years, but is that wrong? The focus of their lives, their spending, etc., is around Our Savior and they minimize celebrations of self, as I understand. Would that be bad or evil in some way? I have been silently reading this board since the primaries first started, and it seems that ever since Mr. Obama became a frontrunner, candidate, and finally president, people are picking apart EVERY SINGLE area of his life. Why? Would anyone want to live under this scrutiny? Why not just pray for him he has a HUGE job ahead of him that I personally would never want, judge him by his policies, his intentions for this country, the way he represents our country, for his proposals and hard work, but not his personal beliefs which should be private, as my religion is to me. What's next, analyzing his favorite color for hidden meaning? I am really praying hard for a successful and safe presidency.
Palin believes teaching abstinence only is the thing to do - nm
x
What makes you think that everyone who believes in Jesus grew up in the church?
I most definitely did not, and it is an absolute MIRACLE that I even came to the Lord. My parents are as far from Christ as can be. I literally came to Christ "kicking and screaming". I did not want to believe in him. Mostly because I did not want to have to follow HIS rules. But I am here, and I am saved, and I thank God that I am! It is the best thing to ever happen to my SOUL.
And half the country believes this....good grief....nm
Michael J. Fox. sm
I read that he did not take his medication deliberately so that people could see the full effects of his disease. That's just a tad manipulative, if you ask me. At any rate, I don't believe, and will never support, stem cell initiatives. There is much much more to these programs than is being presented to the public.
Michael J. Fox. sm
IT IS MANIPULATIVE. I believe capitals were warranted in this occasion and it IS about MJF and his ad. The MJF we have seen through the years is not the MJF in the video. I have seen it, have you? There is no guarantee that stem cell research will do anything for him. It is manipulative to the extreme. I believe Rush has apologized. But of course, the left never accepts apologies of any kind.
From point #1: "Anyone who believes otherwise is a tin-foil hat fringe conspiracist."
Ah, those pinko lefty Presbyterians!!! They hate America,are unpatriotic, traitorous, out-of-touch, terrorists....did I forget anything?
http://www.courier-journal.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?Date=20060814&Category=NEWS01&ArtNo=608140369&SectionCat=&Template=printart
Monday, August 14, 2006
9/11 book from church publishing house causes uproar
Author claims U.S. orchestrated attacks
By Peter Smith
psmith@courier-journal.com
The Courier-Journal
By Peter Smith
psmith@courier-journal.com
The Courier-Journal
The official publishing house of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) has printed a new book about the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks that has outraged conservatives in the church and elsewhere.
The book, Christian Faith and the Truth Behind 9/11, written by David Ray Griffin, a professor emeritus at Claremont School of Theology in California, accuses the Bush administration of carrying out the attacks as a pretext for expanding America's demonic imperial power.
Griffin argues, among other things, that the World Trade Center towers collapsed because of secretly planted explosives -- he quotes eyewitnesses who claim that's what it looked and sounded like -- and not because airliners crashed into the buildings, causing fires.
Writers on conservative Presbyterian Web sites have been responding by saying officials of the Louisville-based denomination are out of touch with members and by calling for a boycott of Presbyterian Publishing Corp.
The corporation funds itself from book sales and has editorial independence in deciding what to publish, although its board is elected by the denomination's legislative General Assembly.
But as word of the book spreads, some Presbyterians lament that it comes as the 2.3 million-member denomination struggles with financial troubles, declining membership and a controversial General Assembly vote to open the door to ordaining gays.
It is sad that at this time in the life of our denomination, yet another silly and inflammatory step would be taken by the church's bureaucracy, said the Rev. Michael Walker, executive director of Presbyterians for Renewal, a conservative group based in Louisville.
The Rev. Parker Williamson of the North Carolina-based Presbyterian Lay Committee asked how these wild accusations make it through the editorial process.
Davis Perkins, president of the publishing company, said the book's stances are not those of the corporation or of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.).
But in recent written statements, he defended the decision to publish the book, saying it is not an off-the-wall polemic but rather a considered work with 49 pages of extensive scholarly notes.
Perkins said Griffin's claims will not be universally accepted by his readers, but the arguments supporting those claims merit careful consideration by serious-minded Christians and Americans concerned with truth and the meaning of their faith.
The publisher would not say how many of the 7,500 copies of the book have been sold since its publication last month.
The book was published under the corporation's prestigious Westminster John Knox imprint, which produces works on theology and popular spirituality from a range of scholars, including liberal and evangelical Christians and also Jews. It also produces popular works such as The Gospel According to The Simpsons.
But Perkins said such works haven't stirred controversy over whether they reflect the church's official position.
Publishing a range of views is what academic/trade publishers do, he said. The corporation publishes specifically Presbyterian works under a separate imprint, Geneva Press.
Griffin is part of a wider movement whose books and Web sites challenge the official version of what happened on Sept. 11, 2001. Similar claims by University of Wisconsin-Madison instructor Kevin Barrett have brought calls for him to be fired.
In his book, Griffin claims that the U.S. military could have intercepted the four hijacked jets if it had wanted to and that the hijacker accused of slamming an airliner into the Pentagon lacked the flying skills to do so.
Griffin calls on Christians to oppose the Bush administration's foreign policy, just as ancient Christians opposed the Roman Empire. He said that although he doesn't believe in literal evil spirits, such empires have demonic power to do great harm.
Our first allegiance must be to God, he writes. … If we believe that our political and military leaders are acting on the basis of policies that are diametrically opposed to divine purposes, it is incumbent upon us to say so.
Griffin is a member of another Protestant denomination, the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ). The Presbyterian Publishing Corp. has published several of his books on theology.
Griffin said in an interview last week that for the first year and a half after Sept. 11, he believed the attacks simply were carried out by Arab terrorists angry about American foreign policy. I didn't think … even the Bush administration would do such a thing, he said.
But skeptics of the widely accepted accounts convinced him that the attacks were an inside job used to justify the administration's expansion of military powers and the adoption of the doctrine of pre-emptive war, the basis of the 2003 invasion of Iraq.
Griffin has written two previous books on this theme under different publishers. The third book seeks to rally church groups into challenging the official accounts.
Griffin said he's heard the recent criticisms from Presbyterians but not from anybody who's actually read the book.
It's remarkable how certain people can be that this idea is wrong, he said.
Reporter Peter Smith can be reached at (502) 582-4469.
McCain BELIEVES IN GLOBAL WARMING - GASP, BOY IS HE STUPID
He also terms global warming "a serious and urgent economic, environmental and national security challenge" and adds that "the problem isn't a Hollywood invention," according to excerpts of planned remarks his campaign made available Sunday.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18269994/
Russian Professor of Economics Believes U.S. Will Split into Six States
Aw, too bad. But, now Michael Jackson...
...is in the Middle East doing consulting about theme parks??? Did I hear that right, what's up with that?
Michael Rupert.
THE INCOMING REPRESENTATIVE FROM GEORGIA'S 4th congressional district is the outspoken Cynthia McKinney. She is a Democrat, she is 49 years old, and she has held the job before. She held it for a decade, in fact, from 1992, when she became the first black woman elected to Congress from Georgia, to 2002--when, she says, the hostile corporate media, allied with Republicans, repeated falsehoods about her, distorted her positions, and drove her from my seat.
That is McKinney's explanation for her 2002 primary defeat, and she is sticking to it. But there are other explanations. Her father, Georgia state legislator Billy McKinney, shared his version with an Atlanta television reporter on August 19, 2002, the night before she lost. The reporter had asked Billy McKinney about his daughter's use of a years-old, moth-balled endorsement from former Atlanta mayor Andrew Young. Such endorsements were worthless, the elder McKinney replied, because Jews have bought everybody. Jews. In case the reporter didn't understand, he spelled the word: J-E-W-S. (A few weeks later, in a runoff against a political neophyte, Billy McKinney became a former Georgia state legislator.)
The actual reason why Cynthia McKinney left Congress in 2002 was that, for once, she couldn't outrun her mouth. She had walked along the cutting edge of progressive politics for years--appearing with Louis Farrakhan, calling globalization a cruel hoax, advocating for Zimbabwean dictator Robert Mugabe--but then, in a March 25, 2002, interview on KPFA Pacifica radio, she suddenly fell off.
We know there were numerous warnings of the events to come on September 11, McKinney said that day. What did this administration know and when did it know it, about the events of September 11? Who else knew, and why did they not warn the innocent people of New York who were needlessly murdered? What do they have to hide? McKinney thought she knew the answer. What is undeniable, she explained, is that corporations close to the administration have directly benefited from the increased defense spending arising from the aftermath of September 11th.
It was all downhill from there. On April 12, 2002, a synopsis of the interview appeared in the Washington Post. Democrats began distancing themselves from McKinney. She released a statement admitting she was not aware of any evidence proving President Bush or members of his administration have personally profited from the attacks of 9/11, but a complete investigation might reveal that to be the case. Then again, it might not. For that matter, McKinney might have had no idea what she was talking about.
Appearing in print just months after the September 11 attacks, McKinney's charges couldn't be excused. Nor could her list of campaign donors, which included both terrorist sympathizers like Abdurahman Alamoudi, the former executive director of the American Muslim Council, and apparent actual terrorists like former college professor Sami Al-Arian. Nor could her October 12, 2001, letter to Saudi prince Alwaleed bin Talal, in which she rebuked New York mayor Rudy Giuliani for returning the prince's post-9/11 gift of $10 million and urged bin Talal to donate the funds to charities outside the mayor's control, especially those that dealt with poor blacks who sleep on the street in the shadows of our nation's Capitol. Giuliani had returned the Saudi's money because it came with the implicit condition that America address some of the issues that led to such a criminal [9/11] attack, among them its policies in the Middle East, where our Palestinian brethren continue to be slaughtered at the hands of Israelis while the world turns the other cheek. To Giuliani, such a statement made excuses for terrorism. This wasn't a problem for McKinney.
And why should it have been? Her bent for conspiracy theories and racebaiting had never cost her politically. When she said in 1996 that we need to get the government out of the drug business, she was not talking about a possible prescription drug benefit. Whether it was the time she told USA Today that My impression of modern-day black Republicans is they have to pass a litmus test in which all black blood is extracted, or the time she accused Al Gore of having a low Negro tolerance level, she emerged unscathed from the ensuing kerfuffles. Facing a tough race in 1996, McKinney said Georgia Republicans like her opponent John Mitnick were neo-Confederates remaindered from Civil War days. Amazingly, McKinney ignored the fact that Mitnick was Jewish.
Her father did not. Over and over again, Billy McKinney called Mitnick a racist Jew. As Slate's Chris Suellentrop noticed, when the New York Times asked Billy McKinney to elaborate on his comments, he simply repeated that Mitnick is a racist Jew, that's what he is, isn't he? The controversy over Billy McKinney's comments lasted weeks. Disgraced, he resigned from his daughter's campaign. That year, Cynthia McKinney won 58 percent of the vote.
In 2002, though, thanks to McKinney's interview with Pacifica radio, the tiny streams of anti-McKinney criticism that had been collecting in pools for years turned into a flood. The September 11 attacks were vibrant and terrifying memories when McKinney accused the president of profiting from them. Remember, too, that when McKinney accused the president of being a calculating war profiteer, his approval rating was over 75 percent.
But times change. Two years later, McKinney is still her old self, while the world has become a lot more accommodating to loony theories about President Bush. Apparently her own district is no exception. The 4th District this year was an open seat; Denise Majette, who defeated McKinney in 2002, decided to run for the Senate instead, but McKinney still faced five opponents in last summer's Democratic primary and dispatched them all without a runoff. And while she avoided making any controversial statements, and politely deflected criticism of things she had said in the past, her conspiracism and racialism were still there beneath the surface.
Occasionally they would bubble up. McKinney is defensive about the Pacifica interview, and there are links on her campaign website to two articles by the left-wing BBC journalist Greg Palast that attempt to absolve her of conspiracy-mongering. One of these articles is entitled The Screwing of Cynthia McKinney. The other is entitled Re-lynching Cynthia McKinney. Palast writes that McKinney has never actually said President Bush had foreknowledge of the September 11 attacks. Which is true. She hasn't. She's just implied it repeatedly.
What's striking about McKinney's website is that, even as it attempts to debunk a variety of misinformation about her, it also takes great pains to claim vindication for that same misinformation. There is a link, for example, to Exposed: The Carlyle Group, a 48-minute documentary that purports to reveal the depth of corruption and deceit within the highest ranks of our government. There is a link to an article in the South DeKalb County CrossRoads News entitled Where is Cynthia McKinney During 9/11 Hearings? in which the author describes being enraged that McKinney was not included in the public hearings of the 9/11 Commission, since she was the only elected official who had the guts to bring President Bush's war profiting scheme to the light.
A few links more, and you wind up at McKinney's speech Democracy Is Under Attack--Let's take it Back. The speech is a sort of lodestone for McKinniacs. It is a rambling series of remarks delivered at the Abyssinian Baptist Church in Harlem in July 2003. It is an angry speech. I can't be calm when I drive through sections of Atlanta that look more like Kinshasa, Democratic Republic of Congo, than America, McKinney explains. Yet the speech is notable mainly for the way in which it references McKinney's conspiracy theorist guru, a man named Michael Ruppert.
Michael Ruppert is a former LAPD detective who is best known for his theories on CIA drug trafficking. Those theories--namely, that the CIA was behind the crack cocaine epidemic in America's inner cities--briefly made headlines in mainstream newspapers in 1996, and Ruppert is hoping for a sequel. Since 9/11, he has toured the country discussing how the Bush administration, Enron, Israeli intelligence, the Pakistani ISI, the Saudis, and Osama bin Laden were behind the terrorist attacks. Ruppert's theories are lucrative. Chip Berlet, who studies conspiracism as a senior analyst at Public Research Associates, a progressive group, told me that Ruppert speaks regularly to sold-out crowds.
As you may know, I'm involved with Mike Ruppert of From the Wilderness, McKinney says in her Democracy Is Under Attack speech. From the Wilderness is the title of Ruppert's newsletter and website. McKinney probably got the idea that the USS Abraham Lincoln was really in San Diego harbor when Bush landed on it in May 2003 from Ruppert. So, too, her idea that Bush and his friends stood to profit from the 9/11 attacks, which she expands upon in another manifesto, the March 2002 Thoughts on Our War Against Terrorism:
Former President Bush sits on the board of the Carlyle Group. The Los Angeles Times reports that on a single day last month, Carlyle earned $237 million selling shares in United Defense Industries, the Army's fifth-largest contractor. The stock offering was well timed: Carlyle officials say they decided to take the company public only after the Sept. 11 attacks.
Such ideas figure prominently in The Truth and Lies of 9/11, a videotaped lecture that Ruppert delivered at Portland State University on November 28, 2001. The lecture is 135 minutes long. It feels much longer. In it, Ruppert talks about the CIA, the Bush administration, the Carlyle Group, UNOCAL oil pipelines in Afghanistan, the Mossad, and--go figure--orange juice. The bottom line is that the Bush administration knew about the 9/11 attacks in advance and allowed them to happen for profit. Also, the world financial system is on the brink of collapse.
In its apocalyptic overtones, in its internationalist plot, in its view that apparent enemies are secretly collaborating, Ruppert's The Truth and Lies of 9/11 is a textbook conspiracy theory. It is also a vehicle for Cynthia McKinney. She utters the penultimate line, and it's a doozy. The American people, she says, might have a criminal syndicate running their government.
It's a sinkhole, said Chip Berlet, when I first asked him about these conspiracy theories. He sounded a note of regret about McKinney. A lot of McKinney's complaints about the government are standard progressive fare.
But which ones? Her conspiracy theories, or her hard-left politics? In truth, the line between the two is increasingly difficult to discern. I bought my copy of The Truth and Lies of 9/11 last June, at the Take Back America conference for progressive and Democratic activists in Washington, D.C. In a ballroom nearby, in earshot of the bookstand where Ruppert's video was being sold, Hillary Clinton and George Soros delivered keynote speeches. A few weeks after the conference, Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11, which glibly hints at possible government foreknowledge of the terrorist attacks, was screened for the Senate Democratic caucus at the Uptown Theater in Washington. The film received a standing ovation.
Maybe all of this helps explain why Cynthia McKinney got her seat back. Maybe when McKinney shared her disturbing theories about President Bush in 2002, she was not so much falling off the edge of progressive politics as anticipating it. And she shows no signs of slowing down. I will probably get in trouble for what I've said to you tonight, McKinney told her audience at the Abyssinian Baptist Church in 2003. But it won't be the first time I get in trouble for telling the truth. And I'll continue to tell the truth. As I have said before, I won't sit down and I won't shut up. Too bad.
She gets by with it the same way Michael Moore gets by with it...
he has said some pretty hateful things himself. And here is a pretty hateful personal attack from AL Franken: *I said that Sean Hannity took residence up
Newt Gingrich's butt from 94 to 98. I got
that from British intelligence. It turns out
he only took up residence in 95* but you did not see that reported in the media with conservatives running backward and screeching. That is a hateful tasteless personal attack. Here is another: Republicans are shameless d**ks. No, that's not fair. Republican politicians are shameless d**ks. Lovely, eh? And another one: Minnesota Republican Norman Coleman is one of the administration's leading butt boys. Classless, tasteless.
So you see what I am saying...the left accepts crap from Al Franken but will not accept crap from Ann Coulter. Crap is crap in my opinion.
I think Michael Moore
is a brave patriot, but that would feed into the conspiracy theory. I would be happy with any of recognized Sunday interview programs to start with.
Michael Moore
I've seen some of his movies, not all. I happen to also agree with his documentary on 9/11. There is evil afoot in our government and it's been going on for a very long time. Neither party is exempt from blame which is why I am independent. I would vote for (and have done so)a republican in a New York minute if I felt they had the best agenda for REAL change. I will admit that I probably lean more toward Democrats than Republicans as I feel they get their riches more from the middle class (i.e. labor) and the Republicans get their's from big business but please do not get busy calling me a DEMOCRAT!!!!! I have a brain that I use for reasoning and I don't support EITHER party as a whole.
Actually....Michael Moore did just that...
in his move. He went around the world and asked about healthcare. He also took Americans who could not afford medications here in the US to other countries with universal health care and guess what? They were actually treated! You might want to go to Blockbuster and check that one out....LOL.
Michael Jackson did it
practically overnight!
I am not a fan of Michael Savage...
but certainly don't think he should be banned from the U.S. As far as Britain, I really don't care who they ban. There is a reason we declared our independence--this is pretty much it. We certainly should not emulate them. As far as Michael Savage goes, I am very conservative and I listen to conservative talk radio. I turn it off when Savage comes on. It's a great place we live in where Michael Savage can be on the radio saying whatever he wants to say and I am free to turn it off.
and don't forget Michael Moore!
Michael Moore Message
My response:
I know you are dismayed and disheartened at the results of last week's election. You're worried that the country is heading toward a very bad place you don't want it to go. Your 12-year Republican Revolution has ended with so much yet to do, so many promises left unfulfilled. You are in a funk, and I understand. Gee thanks, Mike, but I am not in a funk. I know in whom I believe and it is not a political party and not you. As to things left undone...yer pal Bill left many things undone also...terrorists running amuck free to plot and plan 9-11 because he was too busy in the cigar bidness with Monica Lewinsky to react decisively to them, too busy lying to a grand jury, too busy obstructing justice, too busy taking care of Vince Foster (though I believe Hillary had more to do with that than Bill did)....as AG said: pot, kettle, pot kettle.
Well, cheer up, my friends! Do not despair. I have good news for you. I, and the millions of others who are now in charge with our Democratic Congress, have a pledge we would like to make to you, a list of promises that we offer you because we value you as our fellow Americans. You deserve to know what we plan to do with our newfound power -- and, to be specific, what we will do to you and for you. Oh, yeah, you cannot imagine how jazzed we are that YOU and the Democrats are in charge now. Whoopeee. ROFL. You value us as fellow Americans? What a load of hooey. Oh I know what you plan to do TO us...I believe it is calling hosing. For us? Nada.
Thus, here is our Liberal's Pledge to Disheartened Conservatives:
Dear Conservatives and Republicans,
I, and my fellow signatories, hereby make these promises to you:
1. We will always respect you for your conservative beliefs. We will never, ever, call you unpatriotic simply because you disagree with us. In fact, we encourage you to dissent and disagree with us. You should look up respect in your Funk and Wagnall's, Mikey. You have never shown it...how could you? You have no clue what respect means. You were called unpatriotic because it is unpatriotic to criticize publicly your country and its leadership in a time of war. Look up patriotic in your Funk and Wagnall's.
2. We will let you marry whomever you want, even when some of us consider your behavior to be different or immoral. Who you marry is none of our business. Love and be in love -- it's a wonderful gift. Umm, down there where you say you will respect (again, you need to look that one up!) our beliefs...well this one flies in the face of that. But...oh....your moral compass went wonky years ago. Might want to look up morality while you are in the dictionary. Look, Mike....what people do in the privacy of their bedrooms is up to them, but do not expect us to agree that it is right and it is not wrong, because we are not going to do it. If they are sure they are right, they should not need our blessing. I am not telling them that they cannot do it...I am telling them I will not, cannot condone it. Period, end of sentence. What next? Stealing will be okay because you have not and and you want to have? And then what?
3. We will not spend your grandchildren's money on our personal whims or to enrich our friends. It's your checkbook, too, and we will balance it for you. Oh, that's rich, coming from you. The tax and spend group. You want to spend our grandchildren's money on programs that keep people enslaved to your philosophy so they will keep voting for you. You actually think we don't know that?
4. When we soon bring our sons and daughters home from Iraq, we will bring your sons and daughters home, too. They deserve to live. We promise never to send your kids off to war based on either a mistake or a lie. You are so full of it, Mikey. When are you going to stop beating that dead horse?
5. When we make America the last Western democracy to have universal health coverage, and all Americans are able to get help when they fall ill, we promise that you, too, will be able to see a doctor, regardless of your ability to pay. And when stem cell research delivers treatments and cures for diseases that affect you and your loved ones, we'll make sure those advances are available to you and your family, too. And when the quality of that care tanks and it takes months and years to get treatment, if America is so deluded as to go down that road...you with all the bucks will be fine. These poor and downtrodden you want to champion will get the short end of the stick...you know it and I know it, trouble is, THEY don't know it. You have got the wool pulled snugly down around their toes. Shame on you.
6. Even though you have opposed environmental regulation, when we clean up our air and water, we, the Democratic majority, will let you, too, breathe the cleaner air and drink the purer water. Yeah, yeah, yeah. What do you drive? How many times a month do you fly? How much have you PERSONALLY done about any of those things? Gimme a break.
7. Should a mass murderer ever kill 3,000 people on our soil, we will devote every single resource to tracking him down and bringing him to justice. Immediately. We will protect you. HA! That is the biggest lie of all. It was when your boys were in charge that terrorism escalated to unimaginable heights. Your boy Bill could have put bin Laden in the slammer BEFORE 3000 people were killed. You protect us??? The fox is in the hen house, Mikey. You couldn't protect a flea in Fort Knox.
8. We will never stick our nose in your bedroom or your womb. What you do there as consenting adults is your business. We will continue to count your age from the moment you were born, not the moment you were conceived. Thanks for nothing! Flying a plane into a building and killing 3000 was terrible, but you are condoning mass murder on a grand scale of the most innocent among us. Millions. What an absolutely ridiculous thing to say. Morally bankrupt. That aptly describes the liberal view espoused here.
9. We will not take away your hunting guns. If you need an automatic weapon or a handgun to kill a bird or a deer, then you really aren't much of a hunter and you should, perhaps, pick up another sport. We will make our streets and schools as free as we can from these weapons and we will protect your children just as we would protect ours. Thank you but no thank you. I will protect my own children. I wouldn't trust you to protect a gerbil.
10. When we raise the minimum wage, we will pay you -- and your employees -- that new wage, too. When women are finally paid what men make, we will pay conservative women that wage, too. Then why do you and your ilk keep going to Canada to do your movies, etc., where you don't have to pay American Union wages and can do it cheaper? You are so full of crap. Don't know how you are still able to talk.
11. We will respect your religious beliefs, even when you don't put those beliefs into practice. We do put them into practice. You hate it when we do, when we call wrong, wrong. Like abortion...like same sex marriage....like.....you are the most intolerant of the intolerant. Why people cannot see through your facade is beyond me. In fact, we will actively seek to promote your most radical religious beliefs (Blessed are the poor, seeking to keep them poor and under your thumb is not helping the poor) Blessed are the peacemakers (we do believe in peace, but we do not believe in letting those who DO NOT come here and kill us), Love your enemies (when you get that one down pat, call me), It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God (yep, if you worship money above God, it is, hellooo Mike) brothers of mine, you did for me.(sorry, but hearing you quote scripture is really hard for me when I know you don't believe a word of it...and these are not RADICAL beliefs. Chopping off your head if you don't agree is radical, you goof. Saying convert or we will kill you is radical. We just call what is wrong wrong. We agree to disagree). We will let people in other countries know that God doesn't just bless America, he blesses everyone. We will discourage religious intolerance and fanaticism -- starting with the fanaticism here at home, thus setting a good example for the rest of the world. You would not know a good example if it bit you on your rather large rear end. I believe you are wrong about God blessing everyone. Yes, he does not want even one to perish, that is why Christians try to get the word out. We would like everyone to have eternal life. EVERYONE. But we don't chop off dissenters' heads. It is a free choice, Mikey. You come to Him or you don't. YOUR choice. Not MINE. Which is probably what chaps you so much. Because you are so fond of telling people what they should do, and to do it YOUR way. Look up intolerance while you are in your F&W. Fits the liberal view much more than the conservative view.
12. We will not tolerate politicians who are corrupt and who are bought and paid for by the rich. We will go after any elected leader who puts him or herself ahead of the people. And we promise you we will go after the corrupt politicians on our side FIRST. If we fail to do this, we need you to call us on it. Simply because we are in power does not give us the right to turn our heads the other way when our party goes astray. Please perform this important duty as the loyal opposition. We will not tolerate corrupt politicians. Oh, boy, that is rich!! I can hardly type through tears of hysterical laughter. Bill - felony perjury and obstruction of justice; Bill and Hill...convicted of several things back in home state...and still have yet to explain dead Vince Foster--- Murtha, unindicted co-conspirator--Harry Reid, all kinds of shady deals....pullleezzzzeeee. Pot kettle pot kettle.
I promise all of the above to you because this is your country, too. You are every bit as American as we are. We are all in this together. We sink or swim as one. Thank you for your years of service to this country and for giving us the opportunity to see if we can make things a bit better for our 300 million fellow Americans -- and for the rest of the world.
Wow, I bet you had to grit your teeth while you wrote that one. But I see through ya, Mikey. You are going to try the get more bees with honey because your true colors during the last Presidential election didn't work, did they big guy? You are so transparent. Just wish those who hang on your every word realized it. You wouldn't know the truth if it slapped you upside your rather large head.
Ya know, Mikey, conservatives don't hate liberals. We don't hate you. We are afraid for them and you and afraid for ourselves with you in control..but we don't hate you. I pray for them. I pray for you. I hope one day the light will really come on and you will know the truth. I pray it happens before you take us all down with you. I pray it happens before the radical Muslims start blowing up children in our malls, when cars are no longer safe and we do not feel safe even in our homes. I sincerely pray that it happens before that. Yes, we should all sink or swim as one, but if we hold onto the guidebook, the Bible, as one, our chances are much greater to swim.
God bless!
Observer
Signed,
Michael Moore
Michael Moore a patriot? sm
in WHAT alternate universe? Investigate? He wouldn't know a true investigation if it bit him on his very large butt. During the last election when he called Americans in general and Democrats in particular stupid...well I guess he loves the country but holds the people in contempt...particularly liberals as that is what he said...a patriot? Well the founding fathers would spin in their graves on that one. LOL...omg. Michael Moore a patriot. LOL.
MIchael Moore should be grateful
to live in America - a place where he can get rich off of blasting everything that is American. I believe everyone has a right to thier opinion, but to honestly say that one party is responsible for the way the economy is going right now is reprehensible.
You really think that it's the government's fault about the housing crisis? Sure, they set the plans in motion (plans that were started by the Clinton administration so that lower income people could get a home loan - Bush's mistake was to keep those plans going - this crisis has been coming on for a long time and everyone ignored it), but what about the people that actually went ahead and got those loans, knowing full well that they wouldn't be able to carry that mortgage out?
We all need to stop pointing the fingers at Washington and take a little of the responsibility ourselves. We're a nation that became very comfortable in our easy lifestyle and the more we could get, the more we would take. Now we want our government to give us more?
Left to his own devices, Michael Moore would probably declare himself dictator and rename our country Mooreland or something crazy like that. Gotta disagree with you on this one, gourdpainter; check out some of his movies and articles and I think you may find that you agree with him maybe 32%.
Michael Savage interview
When you have time and want to listen it's an excellent interview. His interview is with Berg - a lifetime democrat/lifetime liberal
http://www.obamacrimes.com/index.php/component/content/article/2-news/43-phil-j-berg-on-michael-savage-audio
Once on that page there is a link to click to hear the show (the direct link was too long to post here)
P.S. - I just heard this on the show and it does bring up a question. Why isn't Obama bringing his wife and kids to visit his ailing grandmother. The one who raised him. Wouldn't he want his ailing grandmother to see his wife and kids? It does not make sense that these could be her last days why didn't he bring his wife and daughters.
it is a term that Michael Savage came up with. But then he may not be the only one. sm
Michael Savage uses the term in talking about people who follow in a group blindly, just like sheep in a flock. He uses it a lot when referring to people who don't think for themselves and just follow the crowd along repeating what the crowd wants them to. And he uses it as a bipartisan term.
Michael Moore is disgusting any way you look
nm
|
