October 26th, 2010

turkey dance

MoveOn.org Member Attacked

While the candidates arrived for the Paul-Conway debate last night, a MoveOn.org member was attacked by people outside the venue.

MoveOn.org member Lauren Valle was carrying a sign reading "Rand Paul RepubliCorp Employee of the Month" and wearing a blond wig. Reports say she was there to present Paul with a fake Employee of the Month award for his work for RepubliCorp, what MoveOn considers the merger of the Republican party with corporate interests.

It's not known yet if Valle posed any threat to either candidate or what authority (if any) the man who tackled her to the ground had in doing so but one thing is certain - it's clear from watching the video that Valle was assaulted by a member of the crowd.

Why was Ms. Valle wearing a disguise if what she was doing was above board? (I'm not allowed to ask why SHE was doing what she was doing. I'm only allowed to assume that what she was doing was completely pure and honest.) Who attacked her and what possible reason could they have for doing it? Will there be any charges filed against the guilty parties? These are several questions that I'm sure will be answered within the next 24 hours.

What was done to Ms. Valle is deplorable. There is NO REASON for people to defer from civil discourse before a political election and instead turn to violence on ANY side of the aisle. There's no excuse.

EDIT: I just found out about this and, as I don't live on my computer (though certain persons here MUST think otherwise), I posted what information I knew for a fact after hearing the story. People have been posting some articles in the comments and if others want me to link them here, I will if that's requested.

CNN - Woman stomped outside Kentucky debate
POLITICO - MoveOn rep stomped at Ky. debate
HuffPo - Apparent Ron Paul Supporter Stomps On MoveOn Member's Head

Answer to the controversial wig question: "Valle said she wasn't wearing the wig to disguise herself, but that she simply enjoys wearing fake hair as artistic expression." [Link]
Um, okay...the same article also mentions that she had no interaction with Paul supporters before the incident and that Valle was hired by MoveOn.org to work on the RepubliCorps campaign in Kentucky for three weeks.
  • merig00

Logic in Immigration Reform Debate

I just read the NYT article which quoted Obama's radio address to Hispanics on Univison. Here is the quote:

“If Latinos sit out the election instead of saying, ‘We’re going to punish our enemies and we’re gonna reward our friends who stand with us on issues that are important to us,’ if they don’t see that kind of upsurge in voting in this election, then I think it’s going to be harder and that’s why I think it’s so important that people focus on voting on November 2.”

Why directly or indirectly implying that most of the illegal aliens are Hispanics is profiling, racist and hateful. But saying that illegal immigration reform is their [Hispanics] issue is fine?

And to reinforce that logic Obama says that people who are against illegal immigration are "enemies" of the latinos who out to be "punished". Isn't that profiling, hateful and racist?
Godzilla, default

A thought on the Universal Health Care "debate":

The Randian Libertarians that proclaim themselves defenders of liberty, truth, justice, apple pie, and the right to own cluster bombs have tended to associate Universal Health Care with the communist dictatorships of the 20th Century. I'm going to ask two questions about this, and I ask these in full sincerity.

First, in this article: www.nytimes.com/2009/01/22/world/asia/22iht-beijing.1.19590543.html the largest extant Communist state has begun work to provide Universal Health Care by 2011. This would be the state where the Chinese Communists defeated the nationalists in three years of civil war and fought the USA to a standstill before the Indians and Vietnamese handed the PRC its ass on a silver platter. This is the world's largest communist self-avowed state atheist system. It has been Communist since 1949 and until they alter the name, they are still very much a bunch of Reds. Universal Health Care does not even exist there. So if I may ask, if the Chinese, with the largest surviving communist state still around did not have it in 2009 and are in the process of creating it, how exactly is this a naturally "Communist" idea? It would seem this should have been part of say, the Cultural Revolution and the Struggle Against the Four Olds or some such stuff like that.

But they don't have it. So please explain where they missed the memo of "UHC is Communist" to me.

Next, the idea that UHC kills free enterprise. As per here: www.publicvalues.ca/ViewArticle.cfm Free enterprise is alive and well in that stronghold of whiners who haven't gotten over the Battle of the Plains of Abraham yet known as Quebec. Given that Quebec has tended to be the albatross around Canada's neck, why is the USA such a bunch of special little snowflakes that QUEBEC can have private enterprise and UHC but we cannot? 
Uncle Sam loves the GOP

Impeaching Justice Roberts

“I mean, the Supreme Court has done a tremendous disservice to the United States of America. They have done more to undermine our democracy with their Citizens United decision  than all of the Republican operatives in the world in this campaign. They’ve opened the floodgates, and personally, I’m investigating articles of impeachment against Justice Roberts for perjuring during his Senate hearings, where he said he wouldn’t be a judicial activist, and he wouldn’t overturn precedents.”

-          Peter DeFazio (D) U.S. House of Representatives  from Oregon's 4th district

First let me answer the question I asked myself when I heard this; can a Supreme Court Justice be impeached? The answer is, yes. 

Question number two; on what grounds?  I believe there are two places in the Constitution that speak to this.  Article III Section I  &  ArticleII Section IV:


Article III Section I:

The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behaviour, and shall, at stated times, receive for their services, a compensation, which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office.

Article II Section IV:

The President, Vice President and all Civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

A Supreme Court Justice is a ‘Civil Officer’ position. The House of Representatives does have the power to impeach a Supreme Court Justice.

Note of interest:

Justice Samuel Chase was impeached for allegedly letting his partisan leanings affect his court decisions. Chase was acquitted. He is the only one. 1804.

Should Justice Roberts be impeached? Why do you think so? The only qualifier I see as impeachable in the Constitution for a Supreme Court Justice is “good behavior”.  

Would this be an abuse of power on Congresses part if they were able to achieve this? Would this set a precedent of impeachment anytime a Supreme Court case does not go the way the party in power likes?

fight club
  • kinvore

More on the stomper

Okay so after giving someone else shit for posting another thread on this topic so soon I am about to become a hypocrite, so I apologize in advance and make no excuses. I just think this development is too interesting not to give it its own thread.

Apparently the man who assaulted Valle isn't just some random Rand Paul supporter, he's a volunteer for his campaign. Well not any more, Mr. Paul dropped him like a hot potato as soon as this came out.

Mr. Profitt's explanation so far for his actions? He blames the police:

Profitt said the fight never would have occurred if police officers had intervened earlier.

"A friend of mine went up to three policeman before Rand got there, and told them about the girl who was standing there with that wig on and that she was getting ready to do something," Profitt said. "The policemen looked at him and said that's not our job."

So because he thought she was up to mischief (and yes, she was) he felt this justified him assaulting her? Because she may make Paul look bad? I wonder what he wanted the police to charge her with.

So my question for conservatives is what would your reaction be if this had been a member of a Democratic candidate's campaign staff? While I've heard accusations from all sides about violent incidents, nothing this blatant (as far as I know) has been captured on tape until now.
hat lasso

Randy Quaid seeks asylum in Canada

*not cross posted to ONTD

Canada has been a large sanctuary in North America ever since the Loyalists fled in 1776. Canada is where the Underground Railroad ended up. Canada is where draft dodgers escaped duty in VietNam and where troops escape duty in Iraq. But the strangest American defection has to be movie star Randy Quaid seeking refugee status after his arrest in Vancouver BC, Canada. Both Randy and his wife, typical paranoid Americans, fear for their lives from hollywood star wackers citing the deaths of David Caradine and Heath Ledger.

"Refugees and people needing protection are people in or outside Canada who fear returning to their home country. In keeping with its humanitarian tradition and international obligations, Canada provides protection to thousands of people every year.

Canada offers refugee protection to people in Canada who fear persecution or whose removal from Canada would subject them to a danger of torture, a risk to their life or a risk of cruel and unusual treatment or punishment."

I'm not sure how this refugee thing works. I'm pretty sure that if you claim refugee status in Canada you can escape pretty serious charges waiting for you back in Iran or China. I know Canada will not ever extradite anyone facing the death penalty anywhere, not even the USA. It would seem to me Mr Quaid qualifies, but it's the board's decision to make, not mine. If Quaid feels that Canada can somehow grant protection against hollywood star wackers then so be it. The Quaids clearly fear returning to their home country, and they say the consequence of returning them to the USA places their life in risk. a-hem

Bill C-11, the Balanced Refugee Reform Act passed last year has received Royal Assent and will be implemented immediately. However full compliance requires adjustment period, which could be as early as August 2011, or as late as Jan 2012. Which is unfortunate because the Quaids may qualify for a manifestly unfounded claim, where the decision maker is of the opinion that the claim is clearly fraudulent.

But believe it or not, Randy Quaid has a 50/50 chance of getting his refugee status and with it a work permit, a Social Insurance Number, a Health Care Insurance card, etc. While this is pretty sad that a delusional idjit can do this... it's the example Randy will set that bothers me. Because we know the Americans that coming to Canada seeking asylum will be creationists and other loonies. And no doubt they'll be breeding little baby creationists