If you were watching the results of the Iowa caucuses on CNN last Thursday, you saw “the best political team on television” become downright giddy over Obama’s win over the rest of the Democratic field.
Obama won because he is inspiring, gushed the best political team. He is brilliant, he has the right message, he reaches out to young people, he reaches out to independents, he represents change, he walks on water, he is the messiah..
→ No CommentsTags: media · race · vote 2008
Just in time for the Iowa caucuses, a new study shows that God isn’t actually a Republican. The study, released today in front of the headquarters of The American Israel Public Affairs Committee, God’s chosen lobbyists in Washington, DC, is sure to roil the Republican presidential race. [Read more →]
→ No CommentsTags: religion · vote 2008
In 1999, I started the immigration time-out organization, ProjectUSA, which put up billboards advertising facts about US immigration policy and its impact on the United States. Although we put up billboards in almost every region of the country, most of our “billboard democracy” activism took place in New York City—mainly because that is where I lived.
Rudy Giuliani was the mayor of New York then, and I gained a front row perspective on where the man stands on the deeply important issue of immigration. That is, I gained a perspective of where he stands while he is serving in office—not running for it.
→ 3 CommentsTags: immigration · vote 2008
Warning: Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /homepages/7/d144427012/htdocs/opensourceactivist.org/wp-content/themes/cutline-3-column-split-11/header.php:5) in /homepages/7/d144427012/htdocs/opensourceactivist.org/wp-includes/pluggable.php on line 390
Comments OffTags: vote 2008
If you are going to church this morning, and you are a member of any of the major Christian denominations, think about this when they pass the offering plate: some of the money you give to your church is probably helping to pay for a big ad campaign pushing extremist immigration views. [Read more →]
→ No CommentsTags: immigration · religion
Referring to legislation that would permit illegal aliens to avoid the penalty under U.S. law for being in the country illegally (going home for a while), Senator John McCain began angry remarks from the floor of the senate, Wednesday, “Of course, it is not amnesty. Of course, it is not amnesty.”
Sorry, but of course, it is amnesty both by legal definition and by common usage.
What’s more, a good case can be made that John McCain knows it’s an amnesty and is knowingly lying when he says it isn’t.
→ 4 CommentsTags: immigration · vote 2008
Even though ProjectUSA is a pipsqueak organization too poor to buy a representative’s vote, let alone a senator’s, we’ve issued John McCain a public challenge.
We’ve named the stakes, and made the wager. The dispute in question is legitimate, and the public has an interest in the outcome. But every day, ProjectUSA calls Senator McCain’s office looking for an answer, and every day, our calls are unreturned.
Cowardice, like dishonesty, corruption and greed, doesn’t play well anywhere, but I imagine this is especially true in Arizona, home of the famous OK Corral, located in the famous town of Tombstone, which, to this day, is nothing but a nest of varmints and armed vigilantes (armed and dangerous vigilantes! just ask the frightened townspeople listening to those shyster lawyers who’ve hung their shingle off the 18th floor at 125 Broad Street).
When challenged in front of the whole town to stand behind his word, will Sen McCain say yes, I believe strongly that what I am saying is true? Or will the aging and once glorious War Hero, locked in his own personal struggle against dissipation, turn away a defeated man?
What will he do when the town beggar, wiping spittle from his chin with a dirty sleeve, shouts above the din of the crowded saloon, Hey! Sheriff! Yer a liar! [The room falls silent. The piano stops a half-second later. Someone drops a glass.] Yeah, that’s right. I said it. And I’ll say it again. Yer a low-down side-windin’ no-account double-dealing skunk of a liar.
You know, and I know, an’ everyone in this saloon knows, that any legislation that gives an illegal alien the right to remain legally in the United States, absolving him or her of the requirement, currently in law, to return home, is an amnesty. Ain’t no two ways about it.
You know, an’ I know, continued the town beggar unsteadily, an’ everyone in this saloon knows that chargin’ a fee for the amnesty don’t mean it ain’t no amnesty. An’ requirin’ the alien to work a job he came here fer in the first place don’t mean it ain’t no amnesty neither. An’ makin’ ‘em pay a fine, or makin’ ‘em learn to talk American, or makin’ ‘em do 20 push-ups don’t mean it ain’t no amnesty neither.
It’s an amnesty ’cause the aliens is pardoned as a class of lawbreakers and relieved of the penalty required for breakin’ the law they broke at the time they broke it.
It only ain’t an amnesty if the aliens gotta go home. I told ya this enough times a’ready, I know ya knows it.
The beggar had worked himself up into quite a sweat, and several of the ladies in the room turned away in disgust. Lurching forward, but continuing to look the rich powerful sheriff dead on, the beggar managed to slur out loudly enough for everyone to hear, Hey, Sheriff! I’ll betcha ten of them crisp new 30-sheet billboards up there in Phoenix that that ain’t nothin’ right there in yer pocket but one of them amnesties ya cooked up with that dad-blamed fancy-pants easterner, Ted Kennedy, that crosswired two-timin’ coyote who is more responsible for this country’s immigration mess than any other human alive, in the first place, him and some of them newspaper boys up in New York City.
The sheriff was slowly sidling over to his staunchest supporter, the town jailer, undertaker, and billboard monopoly Sumter S. Schwinestine: I don’t hafta talk to this non-contributin’ trash, Sumter, the sheriff said, nervously glancing around and sizing up the crowd’s support. I already done told him my answer.
I told him back in February of 2000, in Darlington, SC, just up the road from Sumter, Sumter, when I was runnin’ for President an’ here this beggar was then, too, putting up them billboards, an’ he stood up right there in my rally in Darlington, SC and asked me, since I support an immigration policy that’s doublin’ U.S. population within the lifetimes of today’s children, would I at least say where we should stop: one billion people? two billion people? three? never? Now, ain’t that the blamedest thing, Sumter?
An’ I told him, Sumter, you bethcha I did. From right where I stood. I looked him straight in the eye and right there in front of everyone, in front of that whole Darlington, SC crowd, I said to him slow and steady,
You an’ I obviously disagree, Sir, an’ hold differin’ views on immigration. But in my view, there ain’t any room in the ‘publican Party for racists and white supremacists.
That’s what I answered ‘im Sumter, said the sheriff, glancing sideways at the beggar. You kin look it up.
But whatever you else you do, Sumter, you don’t let that beggar put up any more of them billboards. You have that right. You own that speech, an’ he’s just a-lookin to bash folks in public anyways, and you and me and them lawyers down at 125 Broad St (17th or 18th floor, I forget) all of us agree about them billboards, an’ we need to join forces to protect the First Amendment of the Constitution of these United States of America from them billboards.
But just then the beggar hollered, Whaddya say, Sheriff? I’m callin’ you a liar!
I think yer lyin’, an’ I think ya know yer lyin’, an I think yer too yella to stand behind yer word cause yer word ain’t no good.
So here’s my wager: If it turns out you don’t support an amnesty for illegal aliens, I’ll hire yer fren’, Mr. S. Schwinestine, there, to put up ten of them billboards in Phoenix readin’
"ProjectUSA apologizes to Senator John McCain,
who does not support amnesty for illegal aliens."
If it turns out ya do support amnesties for illegals, however, you’ll hire yer Mr. S. Schwinestine there to put up ten of them billboards in Phoenix, and they’ll read,
"I, Senator John McCain, support amnesty for illegal aliens."
And ’cause I wanna take away somma your wrigglin’ room, or mebbe ’cause I’m drunk, I’ll agree to let the editorial board of The Arizona Republic, another nest of varmints if there ever was one, act as final judges of the resolution process of our little wager.
Whaddya say Senator? Is it a bet? Yer not too yella to stand behind yer own public statements, are ya?
→ No CommentsTags: corpocracy · corruption · immigration · media · vote 2008
Claiming it wouldn’t allow us to post a billboard “bashing” Senator John McCain, Viacom, the multinational media conglomerate that ranks number four on the list of special interests paying “contributions” to Senator John McCain, used its monopoly on 30-sheet billboards in the Phoenix area to prevent us from displaying a slogan about the senator’s immigration voting record.
It’s frustrating, but it appears Viacom is going to get away with this outrageous corporate assault on our country’s deepest values. Likewise, it appears Sen. McCain is going to be able to continue to get away with introducing massive amnesties for illegal aliens year after year in Congress, and then run around Arizona and, with impunity, flat-out lie to Arizonans about it.
Last week, we issued a challenge to Sen. McCain to let an independent panel determine who is telling the truth about his record: ProjectUSA or Senator McCain. Hearing nothing back, a few days later I called and left a voice mail for a staffer asking for an answer to our challenge. Still, nothing.
Yesterday, we got a call from McCain’s office. I thought it was a little odd that the woman who called (Brook or Lee, I can’t remember which, but it was the frosty one), while claiming to be only returning my call, asked for a copy of the letter I had referred to in the voice message I’d left, since, she said, they hadn’t received it (even though Tom Johnson, who works here, hand delivered it to them).
However, she didn’t ask at all what the letter was about. I thought that strange. Normally, if a person were returning a call to someone who’d left a message referring to a letter left at the office and wondering about the answer to the challenge contained in that letter, the person returning the call, if she really hadn’t seen the letter, wouldn’t just ask the person to fax over a copy of the letter without first asking a little about the nature of the challenge. I mean, I could’ve been challenging her to sign up 20 of her friends and family to sell Amway products.
At first I thought, well, maybe it’s just the general wackiness over there. But now I think they must be stalling. They might want a little time to judge whether there will be any fall out from Sunday’s mention of the challenge in the Arizona Republic.
If that’s the case, then it might mean they are actually considering the possibility they might be forced to accept the challenge. Imagine if Phoenix talk radio gets a hold of this challenge, and discovers
We didn’t receive the challenge, Brook told me. Well, either that or they really didn’t receive the letter Tom Johnson handed them.
Whatever the case, it’s great they have now officially received only the second version of the challenge, since, in that challenge, I added the massive new McCainnedy Amnesty, which, from what I’ve been able to find out, is a real doozy.
So, with the addition of the McCainnedy Amnesty, there is a big dose of current events drama added to the ProjectUSA challenge–with enough human interest stuff to make John McCain the Paula Abdul of politics.
What will the nation’s most loquacious senator, John McCain, do?
→ 2 CommentsTags: immigration · media · vote 2008
For those of you collecting examples of the corporate assault on democratic values, you’ll want to include Viacom Outdoor of Phoenix on your list of rogue corporations.
The huge outdoor advertising company, part of multinational mutlimedia multibillion dollar megacorp, Viacom, has decided the public shouldn’t be allowed to see the message “John McCain supports amnesty for illegal aliens” on its billboards.
Because it holds a virtual monopoly in Phoenix on “30 sheets,” the type of billboard ProjectUSA must use in its Billboard Democracy Campaign, Viacom’s decision severely reduces our ability to communicate freely about the actions of a powerful member of the government.
The company justified its decision to refuse our message by citing its right under company guidelines to reject speech that
Viacom’s general manager, Marty Schwarzkopf, told the Arizona Republic that ProjectUSA’s message failed to meet those standards. [Billboard owner bars ad targeting McCain, Apr. 21, 2005]
Well, let’s see now.
1. Does our ad personally attack an individual?
No, the ad is value neutral. It doesn’t say whether we think John McCain is a good guy or a bad guy. It doesn’t even say whether we think amnesties are good or bad. The ad simply says that John McCain supports them.
2. Is our message obviously false, misleading, or deceptive?
Are we lying when we claim that Senator McCain supports amnesty for illegal aliens? Or is it the Senator and his staff who are doing the lying?
“Obviously, it’s not true,” McCain’s communications director, Eileen McMenamin, said Wednesday [according to the Arizona Republic]. “Senator McCain does not support amnesty.”
“Oh yes he does,” ProjectUSA Director Craig Nelsen insisted, pointing to five bills the senator has sponsored or supported in recent years that provide opportunities, however limited, for undocumented workers to qualify for permanent legal residency and eventual citizenship (Arizona Republic).
Far from being a deception, in other words, our message is meant to expose one.
3. Does our billboard offend local standards of decency and good taste?
Local standards of decency and good taste are notoriously difficult to pin down, of course. But judging by the results of an online poll we ran on the websites of several Arizona newspapers in August, 2003, our message does not offend local sensibilities.
Our poll asked readers to comment on amnesty legislation introduced by Representatives Jim Kolbe and Jeff Flake in the House (and Senator McCain in the Senate).
Of 1222 votes cast from the newspapers’ websites, 1102 of the votes registered opposition to the McCain-Flake-Kolbe amnesty. There was overwhelming support, in other words, for ProjectUSA’s position.
I’d argue, therefore, that it’s not our billboard’s message that threatens community standards, it’s Senator John McCain’s legislation to reward illegal aliens with amnesty.
4. Does our message relate to an illegal activity?
Well, yes, I suppose you could argue that it does. Viacom may have us there.
When Arizona Republic reporter Jon Kammen asked Mr. Schwarzkopf which of these four guidelines ProjectUSA had violated, “Schwarzkopf referred questions to an executive in New York (CEO Farid Suleman 212 599 1100) who did not return a phone call.” While Schwarzkopf wouldn’t say exactly what was wrong with the original message, he did say, however, that Viacom “would be glad to work with the advertiser to find acceptable wording.”
No way, Viacom. Our language is already acceptable.
What’s unacceptable is Viacom using its power to determine what we may not say, and the manner in which we may not say it.
What’s unacceptable is the dominance of our free press by a few multinational corporations with fealty to nothing but profit.
What’s unacceptable is the hijacking of our democracy and the corruption of our times by a brazen band of self-interested corporate executives and their mercenary army of paid lobbyists.
What’s unacceptable is corporations using their unmatched economic power to buy influence in Washington, passing on the costs to citizens (who end up paying for their own disempowerment), while unilaterally deciding which notes of dissent may be heard.
Our only option, if we can afford it, may be the courts.
→ 1 CommentTags: corpocracy · immigration · media
Recently, a reporter asked me what I think is the solution to the immigration problem. Only half joking, I told him we need to make bribery illegal.
Spend a few eye-opening hours sometime searching the lobbying disclosure records on the U.S. Senate’s web site, and you’ll see what I mean.
If you search the records for lobbying on the immigration issue, for example, in front of the Department of Labor in 2004, you’ll come up with a list of 53 special interests. They are mostly commercial interests that prefer cheap foreign labor (and, of course, the fine folks at the American Immigration Lawyers Association show up).
The total reported for the list is over $74 million with the U.S. Chamber of Commerce reporting the most: $28.8 million. Second on the list is the American Farm Bureau Federation, which reports spending over $7.5 million (guess which Chris Cannon amnesty for illegal aliens they both endorse).
How could it cost $74 million dollars to weigh in with an opinion on some policy matter? And where does that money go? Who gets it? Do the lobbyists leave it in a brown paper bag in the washroom for the employees to divvy up after closing?
Curious, I called the U.S. Chamber of Commerce yesterday to see whether they had any idea where their $28.8 million ended up. I asked for Randel Johnson (left), but he was out, so I left a voice mail and a nice woman named Linda Rozett returned my call.
At first, she told me the money went for salaries for the lobbyists and other outreach efforts like direct mail. What? I exclaimed. You count direct mail expenses as lobbying?
Well, no, she relented. Maybe not direct mail, but whatever it is that the law requires, that’s what the Chamber of Commerce includes in its lobbying figure.
After some back and forth, we finally got it narrowed down so that it appears the entire $28.8 million dollars was spent completely on the salaries of the lobbyists the Chamber of Commerce employs.
This seemed just as incredible to me, since The Chamber (as they call themselves) employs only 16 lobbyists.
Do you mean to tell me, I asked Ms. Rozett, The Chamber pays its lobbyists annual salaries of almost $2 million each?
But she couldn’t talk any more, so I was left wondering how in the world it could cost $1.8 million for someone to run around Washington for a year claiming we’re all out of Americans, that the nation is in the grip of a desperate labor shortage, that we absolutely must import an unlimited number of humans to do the jobs Americans won’t do, and so on, and so forth.
What kind of special skill does that take? Even the nation’s editorial writers could do that job.
Later in the day, the mystery of where the lobby money goes was somewhat cleared up. A lobbyist friend told me that, out of their salaries, lobbyists are expected to make campaign contributions.
Ohhhhhhhh….
Current U.S. immigration policy is radically transforming the United States in utterly unpredictable ways, against the wishes of the majority, and with no thought given to the long-term consequences. It’s a policy driven primarily by the greedy and the grasping, it’s the (sorry) walmartification of our country, it’s the rule of the liars and the profiteers.
Our ugly new ruling class is doing nothing more than cashing in on the desirability of the United States as a place to live—a desirability the profiteers had no hand in creating, a desirability that, by their very profiteering, they are destroying.
It needs to stop, and it will. The only real question is whether the guilty will be brought to justice. Bribery is, it turns out, already illegal. But the key in making a bribery charge stick is showing how the bribed party personally benefitted from the bribe.
A good place to start will be with Congressman Chris Cannon.
Congressman Cannon used campaign contributions for his own personal benefit through a company he controlled in Provo, Utah called CFour Communications. The business was over $1.6 million in debt to Cannon and his brother, the head of Utah’s state Republican party. It was bleeding red ink. It was never a viable company. But not only did the company pay some of Cannon’s personal expenses here in DC, Cannon for Congress “hired” the company to perform services it couldn’t, and didn’t perform.
It can be shown how Cannon and CFour Communications personnel schemed to salvage the company and recover the debt, and the despicable way in which Cannon treated business associates and loyal employees.
It can be shown how Cannon set up Section 527 political groups for no purpose but to enrich himself, first by fleecing the rubes through conservative-cause-of-the-month fundraising come-ons, later as a way for corporate donors, Indian tribes, and Internet gambling concerns to send chunks of unregulated cash his way. It can be shown how his first 527 group was set up with two questionable characters: 1) a woman named Bethany Noble who, at least on one occasion, raised money for Cannon, and 2) his chief of staff at the time, David Safavian.
It can be shown how David Safavian ousted the CFour personnel from the 527 scheme while David Safavian was still employed in the House of Representatives.
Noble and Safavian had a long and deep connection to Grover Norquist and Norquist’s lobbying firm, Janus Merritt and to indicted lobbyist Jack Abramoff and the lobbying firm he worked for, Greenberg Traurig. It can be shown how Noble and Safavian both lobbied for the Marianas Islands, a U.S. territory exempt from U.S. wage and immigration laws, and the center of one of the controversies swirling around both Tom DeLay and Abramoff.
It can be shown how Cannon, some of the Indian tribes Abramoff ripped off, and the American Immigration Lawyers Association, among others, are all clients or former clients of Williams Mullen, the big immigration law and lobbying firm that recently purchased Grover Norquist’s Janus Merritt, which he co-founded with David Safavian. Williams Mullen shares an address with the Western Leadership Fund a 527 group set up in June, 2001 by David Safavian, Bethany Noble, Rep. Cannon. It’s also an address Bethany Noble sometimes used.
It can be shown how Noble and Safavian and Norquist and a guy named Thaddeus Bingel lobbied with and for the American Immigration Lawyers Association. Bingel went on to become another Cannon staffer, and it is very likely Bingel is the staffer Cannon publicly identifies at an AILA function as the staff member who worked with AILA lawyers (the very lawyers who “contribute” to his campaigns) drafting AgJOBS, which Cannon introduced in Congress. AgJOBS legislates clients and fees for immigration lawyers.
It can be shown how money reported by the Western Leadership Fund as being paid to other Chris Cannon 527s never shows up on the books of those other 527s.
Chris Cannon, in my view, certainly belongs in jail, but the main target begins to come into focus when you discover where David Safavian and Bethany Noble are today.
→ No CommentsTags: AILA · corpocracy · corruption · immigration
