PALIN Says City Folk Are Anti-American

iVillage Member
Registered: 09-08-2008
PALIN Says City Folk Are Anti-American
91
Fri, 10-17-2008 - 6:52pm

Pages

iVillage Member
Registered: 10-14-2008
Sat, 10-18-2008 - 2:36pm

I honestly thought I was going to be sick watching that. It's one thing if some random wingnut, interviewed at random from a crowd outside a rally gives voice to these kind of thoughts, but when the person doing it is a) an elected representative, and b) doing it on national TV, it's something else altogether. I'm not even going to TRY to get into what Ms. Bachman may or may not have meant; her words stand on their own. And if they remind you of the words of another politician from America's not-too-distant past, they should. To paraphrase our lovely GoOPer VP candidate: know what the difference between Michelle Bachman and Joe McCarthy is?

Lipstick.

iVillage Member
Registered: 10-14-2008
Sat, 10-18-2008 - 2:36pm
Ah, I see you beat me to it. Great minds, LOL.

iVillage Member
Registered: 10-14-2008
Sat, 10-18-2008 - 2:37pm
We tried that once. Remember?

iVillage Member
Registered: 10-08-2008
Sat, 10-18-2008 - 2:38pm

Don't forget about the students who take classes conducted by Ayers or their parents who sent them.


 

iVillage Member
Registered: 10-14-2008
Sat, 10-18-2008 - 2:51pm
He was NOT "let go on a technicality," he was - as were many other people at the time - a victim of an organized, sustained, illegal program of government spying on domestic dissidents known a COINTELPRO. Among other illegalities perpetrated upon the American public by J. Edgar Hoover under this program were the following:

  1. Infiltration: Agents and informers did not merely spy on political activists. Their main purpose was to discredit and disrupt. Their very presence served to undermine trust and scare off potential supporters. The FBI and police exploited this fear to smear genuine activists as agents.

  2. Psychological Warfare From the Outside: The FBI and police used myriad other "dirty tricks" to undermine progressive movements. They planted false media stories and published bogus leaflets and other publications in the name of targeted groups. They forged correspondence, sent anonymous letters, and made anonymous telephone calls. They spread misinformation about meetings and events, set up pseudo movement groups run by government agents, and manipulated or strong-armed parents, employers, landlords, school officials and others to cause trouble for activists.

  3. Harassment Through the Legal System: The FBI and police abused the legal system to harass dissidents and make them appear to be criminals. Officers of the law gave perjured testimony and presented fabricated evidence as a pretext for false arrests and wrongful imprisonment. They discriminatorily enforced tax laws and other government regulations and used conspicuous surveillance, "investigative" interviews, and grand jury subpoenas in an effort to intimidate activists and silence their supporters.

  4. Extralegal Force and Violence: The FBI and police threatened, instigated, and themselves conducted break-ins, vandalism, assaults, and beatings. The object was to frighten dissidents and disrupt their movements. In the case of radical Black and Puerto Rican activists (and later Native Americans), these attacks—including political assassinations—were so extensive, vicious, and calculated that they can accurately be termed a form of official "terrorism."


In fact, so widespread and noxious were the abuses uncovered in the initial COINTELPRO investigations, that a Senate Select Committee (like the 9/11 Commission) was set up specifically to get to the bottom of it. They had full independent subpoena power, and came to be known by the last name of the man heading the effort, Frank Church - the Church Committee. Among their findings:

Many of the techniques used would be intolerable in a democratic society even if all of the targets had been involved in violent activity, but COINTELPRO went far beyond that...the Bureau conducted a sophisticated vigilante operation aimed squarely at preventing the exercise of First Amendment rights of speech and association, on the theory that preventing the growth of dangerous groups and the propagation of dangerous ideas would protect the national security and deter violence....
And also....
Too many people have been spied upon by too many Government agencies and too much information has been collected. The Government has often undertaken the secret surveillance of citizens on the basis of their political beliefs, even when those beliefs posed no threat of violence or illegal acts on behalf of a hostile foreign power. The Government, operating primarily through secret informants, but also using other intrusive techniques such as wiretaps, microphone "bugs", surreptitious mail opening, and break-ins, has swept in vast amounts of information about the personal lives, views, and associations of American citizens. Investigations of groups deemed potentially dangerous -- and even of groups suspected of associating with potentially dangerous organizations -- have continued for decades, despite the fact that those groups did not engage in unlawful activity. Groups and individuals have been harassed and disrupted because of their political views and their lifestyles. Investigations have been based upon vague standards whose breadth made excessive collection inevitable. Unsavory and vicious tactics have been employed -- including anonymous attempts to break up marriages, disrupt meetings, ostracize persons from their professions, and provoke target groups into rivalries that might result in deaths. Intelligence agencies have served the political and personal objectives of presidents and other high officials. While the agencies often committed excesses in response to pressure from high officials in the Executive branch and Congress, they also occasionally initiated improper activities and then concealed them from officials whom they had a duty to inform.

Governmental officials -- including those whose principal duty is to enforce the law --have violated or ignored the law over long periods of time and have advocated and defended their right to break the law.

The Constitutional system of checks and balances has not adequately controlled intelligence activities. Until recently the Executive branch has neither delineated the scope of permissible activities nor established procedures for supervising intelligence agencies. Congress has failed to exercise sufficient oversight, seldom questioning the use to which its appropriations were being put. Most domestic intelligence issues have not reached the courts, and in those cases when they have reached the courts, the judiciary has been reluctant to grapple with them.


Any of this sound familiar these days? It should. No one would suggest that Bill Ayers did not break the law. He did. But he - among other completely innocent citizens - was spied upon using illegal and frankly immoral methods, and so whatever case could have been made against him had to be dismissed. It wasn't "a technicality," like forgetting to read him his rights or bringing suit in the wrong court would be, it was a systematic, illegal program of activities that scooped up the innocent right along with the guilty, and subjected both to methods that should never be unleashed on the domestic citizens of "the land of the free." Result? Ayers - whatever he was guilty of - walked. And hundreds of thousands of innocent Americans had their rights violated. Sounds a lot like the Bush years and the "terrorism" prosecutions. How many successful convictions have we had, again?

iVillage Member
Registered: 09-08-2008
Sat, 10-18-2008 - 2:52pm

Yes, Rep. Bachmann is some piece of work. She simply regurgitated the GOP talking points about Ayers, Wright, and Acorn, and so she either believes this stuff and is truly evil, mentally ill and delusional, or misinformed and sequestered like Palin. lol. Either way, she may have doomed her re-election to the 6th district since I heard that she only won because the vote split 3 ways with a margin of less than 600 votes, her opponent received 30,000 dollars in contributions after her appearance on 'Hardball' (lol),

iVillage Member
Registered: 09-08-2008
Sat, 10-18-2008 - 5:17pm

(((

iVillage Member
Registered: 09-08-2008
Sat, 10-18-2008 - 6:05pm

(((((Sorry, but having a dinner in this man's home to launch your political career is a lot more than a casual association.)))))


Then, look-up what the word casual means, and fact-check the GOP talking points, while you are at it. lol:


http://www.latimes.com/news/la-na-factcheck16-2008oct16,0,1243866.story


iVillage Member
Registered: 02-10-2008
Sat, 10-18-2008 - 6:38pm

A

iVillage Member
Registered: 09-26-2008
Sat, 10-18-2008 - 6:46pm
I sent 30.00 to the

Pages