Verbosities

Power Line: Monica Goodling speaks

I spent a substantial portion of the evening listening to Monica Goodling's testimony before the House Judiciary Committee from earlier today. Goodling was a Justice Department employee who served as liaison with the White House. She was involved in the process which led to the dismissal of nine U.S. attorneys. Initially, she invoked the Fifth Amendment and refused to testify. She testified today under a limited grant of immunity.

If the Democrats hoped that Goodling would assist them in their quest to oust or discredit Alberto Gonzales, I believe they will be disappointed. The portion of her testimony I heard did not advance the case against the Attorney General. I should add, though, that press accounts have her testifying about a conversation with Gonzales in which she felt uncomfortable. I'll provide an update if there is anything of significance there.

Well, that's not an unexpected take on the situation. It's been the opinion of the Republicans that "hey, everyone does it" when it comes to the politicization of the DOJ, but I appreciate that a right-wing blogger wants to put his thoughts - partisan perhaps, but not truly biased - into this matter.

I will not opine on the credibility of McNulty and Goodling (a client of my law firm) in this matter.

Oh. Nevermind. The one righty blogger I read who writes about it happens to own the law firm representing Goodling. No Hewitt coverage, no Reynolds, no Malkin, and no attention from Little Green Footballs (which isn't surprising, I suppose, because there were no brown people involved).

Powered by ScribeFire.

The entire government has failed us on Iraq - Countdown with Keith Olbermann - MSNBC.com

The Democratic nomination is likely to be decided... tomorrow.

The talk of practical politics, the buying into of the President’s dishonest construction “fund-the-troops-or-they-will-be-in-jeopardy,” the promise of tougher action in September, is falling not on deaf ears, but rather falling on Americans who already told you what to do, and now perceive your ears as closed to practical politics.

Those who seek the Democratic nomination need to—for their own political futures and, with a thousand times more solemnity and importance, for the individual futures of our troops—denounce this betrayal, vote against it, and, if need be, unseat Majority Leader Reid and Speaker Pelosi if they continue down this path of guilty, fatal acquiescence to the tragically misguided will of a monomaniacal president.

Don't ever say Olbermann never goes after the left after this. The triangulation and dancing on the head of a pin is sickening. That people believe the troops will be left unequipped, stranded, and in unnecessary danger if a blank check doesn't hit the president's desk is an absolute travesty of dishonest marketing-speak which has turned the entire issue into a discussion not about the legitimacy and/or righteousness of a war, but instead about the safety and support of our troops in the middle of it.





Glenn Greenwald - Salon

What does seem clear is that one of the principal factors accounting for the reluctance of Democrats to advocate de-funding is that the standard corruption that infects our political discourse has rendered the de-funding option truly radioactive. Republicans and the media have propagated -- and Democrats have frequently affirmed -- the proposition that to de-fund a war is to endanger the "troops in the field."



This unbelievably irrational, even stupid, concept has arisen and has now taken root -- that to cut off funds for the war means that, one day, our troops are going to be in the middle of a vicious fire-fight and suddenly they will run out of bullets -- or run out of gas or armor -- because Nancy Pelosi refused to pay for the things they need to protect themselves, and so they are going to find themselves in the middle of the Iraq war with no supplies and no money to pay for what they need. That is just one of those grossly distorting, idiotic myths the media allows to become immovably lodged in our political discourse and which infects our political analysis and prevents any sort of rational examination of our options.



That is why virtually all political figures run away as fast and desperately as possible from the idea of de-funding a war -- it's as though they have to strongly repudiate de-funding options because de-funding has become tantamount to "endangering our troops"

This isn't a pass for the Democrats. Olbermann's dead right when he asserts that the people elected the Democratic majority to end this war. You can talk about the weakness of the majority and inability to override vetoes all you want, but we're nearly six months into this legislature's tenure, and there's not a single pelt on the walls of Pelosi or Reid that symbolizes a victory on the issue of Iraq*. There hasn't been political retribution that forces the administration to triangulate their position, there's no bitter pill for them to swallow, nothing.



What's the consequence of sending the same supplemental Bush vetoed back to him two, three, eleven more times until he's forced to sign it? That you'll have to go on the Sunday shows to explain yourselves? That in the next election cycle your move to end the war will be painted as "weak on national security?" That somehow you believe the talking points shift to assign Democrats all the "blame" for the failures in Iraq if you legislate the withdrawal?



I think the leadership believes Bush is not only continuing to singe his political legacy, but is torching the whole of the Republican party by association. I think the leadership is confident the handling of this war won't improve the situation, and I think they think 2008's election cycle could result in a Democratic administration and even a Democratic super-majority in both houses.



I still think it's bullshit. Democratic legislators were elected to end this war. So end it already - it's what we're paying you to do.



*Nor is there a pelt on Waxman's wall yet, but I think he's a hell of a lot closer with his oversight than Pelosi and Reid are on the war.

Powered by ScribeFire.

An Exclusive Interview with Senator Mike Gravel

Gatto: Great answer Senator. I have seen what Cocaine, Heroin and Meth do to good people. What would you do to stop the abuse of these drugs if they are legalized?

Senator Gravel: First of all, I do have a program to legalize the regulation of hard drugs. I think we ought to stop the prohibition of Marijuana and let marijuana be sold in liquor stores. You get a much bigger high off of drinking a fifth of scotch, than you would off a couple of packs of marijuana. That’s why it should be legalized. Now the regulation, the legalization of hard drugs is a whole other matter. What we have to do is stop criminalizing this whole drug problem, the addiction problem. This is a public health problem. It’s not a criminal problem.

Get him out of the debates and put him on the ticket. Post haste*. Good lord is it refreshing to hear a candidate say this out loud and not dance around it with platitudes.

*I'm about 14% serious, but it's still good to hear.

Powered by ScribeFire.

He thought the fun would be watching Obama and Hillary take shots at each other. Guess someone else is getting in on the intra-party fun.

Dodd Hits Airwaves, Blasts Hillary And Obama | TPMCafe

Fun fact: If you glue a cottonball to your finger and draw a little face, you too can have your own Chris Dodd finger puppet!

Just make sure to use black felt-tip for the eyebrows.

Powered by ScribeFire.

Campaign for America's Future

If the media does not start connecting some dots, they will have abdicated their citizenzship duties. How many times has the nation potentially come within a hair's breadth of suffering a... terrorist attack this spring? As of today, three, or possibly six times - at least that we know about.

Double-standard at play, clear as a day if you're wondering. The whole story gives some perspective.

Powered by ScribeFire.

FRAMESHOP by Jeffrey Feldman

But let's not lose sight of what is happening here. Harry Reid is not making a mistake. The Congressional Dems have not suddenly become "caved" in the face of Bush's supposed political strength. The opposite is true. Not only are the Dems generating more power each time they return a bill to Bush's desk, but they make it easier to see that the Iraq policy itself has become a symptom of the weaknesses that Bush has forced on America's federal system.

The mistake Congressional Dems have made is that they get the argument about building and re-balancing power implicitly, but if they need to do a much better job of saying it out loud--at saying that the Iraq policy is not the result of the success and power of the Bush administration, but an expression--a symptom--of the weakness in our constitutional system caused by Bush.

...and we are all dumber for having heard it.

Powered by ScribeFire.

Hullabaloo - Liberation

This is why I have contempt for tribalism, fundamentalism and authoritarianism. When it gets right down to it, it's always, in the end, about mob rule. A gang of violent bullies, often at the behest of some authority figure, "sends a message" by publicly humiliating, maiming or killing one of their own who had the temerity to fail to properly conform. Whether for God or country or tribe, it's always some poor victim, lying on the ground, covering his or her head, surrounded by people who have turned into animals.

There are a lot of manifestations of this particular human organizational style, some much more sophisticated and stylized. The violence becomes more ritualized and the humiliation takes other forms but underneath it all, the same impulse to dominate drives a fair number of people of all cultures. It's just a matter of degree.

This is the reason why it's so important to preserve our secular, reason-based constitution and fight against this horror of government endorsed torture and indefinite imprisonment. It is a very, very thin line between civilization and barbarism and every step we take away from the rule of law is a step toward becoming that primitive mob of killers. After all, I'm sure they felt justified too.

For example, this is what drives a talk show host to assert that an ex-president is a terrorist sympathizer, or is at the very least speaking for "another team." Let's stop short of hyperbole and call that "tribalism" instead of "authoritarianism," although certainly the means of one serve the ends of the other.

Powered by ScribeFire.

Italics his, emphasis mine:



Glenn Greenwald - The Islamic enemy within - Salon

The frothing, drooling anti-Islamic hysteria that one finds from Rush Limbaugh, Michael Savage, Glenn Beck and right-wing blogs -- not to mention pandering, craven GOP presidential candidates -- is so unhinged and cartoon-like that there is a temptation not to take it seriously, to do nothing but mock it.

But there is something rather extraordinary taking place. Presidential candidates of the political party that has dominated our country for the last two decades are competing with each other to prove who will most aggressively embrace policies such as torture and indefinite detention well beyond even what the Bush administration has ushered in. And this is occurring in the midst of still new extraordinary emergency presidential powers, along with allowing the Bush administration's radical framework of presidential omnipotence, constructed over the last six years, to remain largely undisturbed. The tenor of our political discourse becomes increasingly unrecognizable -- mainstream presidential candidates openly and happily advocate torture and life imprisonment with no charges while the audience wildly cheers.

The U.S. already has at least 14,000 people held in detention around the world without charges of any kind -- the vast, vast majority of them Muslim, many of whom have been tortured. And yet, there is a sizable portion of the country -- and clearly large portions of the GOP base -- which believe we have been too restrained against our Islamic Enemy, that we need more torture and more detentions and still fewer restraints, that the principal failing of the Bush administration is that they have been too meek and too compromising when dealing with the Great Islamic Threat.

Right, and just so we're clear, they don't hate us because we take Muslim men off the street, throw them in secret prisons, beat the shit out of them, and never charge them with a crime. They hate us because of Queer Eye For The Straight Guy.

As always, a great read.

Powered by ScribeFire.

Hugh Hewitt

This may seem odd, but I believe the employer penalties for record-keeping violations should be struck from the bill. The burden-shifting to business of enforcing the immigration laws is going to be large in any event, but to impose on businesses the absurd paperwork completion and storage requirements --backed by a $1,000 per incident fine-- empowers bureaucrats to punish any employer they take a disliking to. Keep Mike Nifong in mind when you consider how abusive such a requirement could be made to be even for employers who cannot be shown to have employed a single illegal alien.

Wait, so it is possible for an attorney tasked to prosecute the laws of the land to have a political agenda that could result in abusive and retaliatory prosecutions against those who may not have broken the law? Quelle fromage!

I kid, I kid. Actually, I tend to agree that shifting the burden to the employer can result in some unintended consequences, including what Hugh's getting at above.

He's got some interesting thoughts on the immigration bill in this post, although this attraction to building walls and fences from the right has become almost white noise at this point for as often as I'm reading about it. Fences don't solve problems. Lawless posses of vigilante Texans solve problems Economic reform solves problems, but since we're unwilling and likely not dumb enough to go there, this current shrieking that "something has to be done about this!" has wrought what it is that we're seeing under debate now.

Here's a couple of his proposals for amendments (as if Hugh Hewitt can propose amendments):

An amendment to establish a special category of illegal aliens which includes all males between the ages of 18 and 30 from countries with significant jihadist networks, with that list of countries to be determined by the DoD, the CIA and State. No probationary Z visas under Section 601(h) would issue to such illegals.

I've been on the fence for awhile regarding profiling, mainly because I don't like the fact that it'll be politicians responsible for its legislation. While the whole lefty ideal of "multiculturalism" seems to be a noble cause on its face, it's also responsible for our society's tepid response to the encroachment of intolerant religiosity in our culture.

I tend to almost agree with an article (which I've linked previously) from Positive Liberty called "While Europe Slept," which argued that the founding fathers didn't have a vested interest in one religion over another, but instead managed to weave Enlightenment principles of equality into their invocations of religion in order to promote and support the reasonable, tolerant and respectful free exercise of religion for all.

In other words, they knew that freedom meant the government must not endorse such views as the pious and hardline writings of John Calvin who preached heresy for those who might deny the Trinity. Their interest was in the freedom for all to worship in their preferred style, free from governmental coercion.

The last three paragraphs are essentially my way of pussyfooting around what to some is an obvious truth - that Muslim hardliners who immigrate, yet refuse to adapt to and adopt Western culture as their own will likely push a wedge between their descendents and ours as the years progress. We're seeing this in Europe now, and it has been brewing in the States for awhile too.

Let's be clear that so long as moderate Muslims refuse to marginalize their fringes, these fringes will continue to benefit from what is ostensibly begrudging approval from the centrists in their culture. I could say the same thing about Christians as well, who are by no means off the hook for Falwell and Robertson, Rushdoony and Dobson. So long as an appreciation of multiculturalism appears to be a value in this culture, and so long as centrist Muslims do not realize the consequences of refusing to take the political and economic control away from those that appeal to their fringes, there's no chance radical Islam is relegated to the dustbin of history.

My answer is clearly anti-multicultural, and nearly impossible. We must, as a people, decide to shed the yoke of irrational belief, and marginalize, disenfranchise, and otherwise dismiss all who would purport to be a vessel of an imaginary creator*. Since this ain't happening in anyone's lifetime, we're basically left with one chance to get it right on immigrants up front, and that's probably going to be done via profiling.

Makes a hell of a lot more sense to carefully vet the Kurds, Pakistanis and Bosnians than it does to pretend Jose from Juarez wants to do more than take a bus to Washington to pick some apples.

*You heard me. We'd be a better people if we were all rational atheists. Give me two or three Manhattans and an hour or two of your time over some hot wings (your treat) if you want to know more, because this isn't one of those things you're going to catch me writing about at any length.

Construction of at least half of the double-fencing prior to the issuance of a single probationary visa, and completion of all 800+ miles of the double fencing prior to the issuance of any 4 year Z visa or any Y visa.

What is it with you people and your fencing?

A detailed statement of how and by whom the millions of background checks and interviews called for by the act are to be done, with funding authorized and allocated to support such obligations. This should also be a trigger.

Let's do the math... There's 12 million illegals, allegedly. Assume 33% apply for their Z visa. That's four million background checks and interviews. Which government agency is going to process four million checks and interviews? Even if that's only 15 minutes spent per application (and you know sure as hell it's going to take more than that to handle this), that's ONE MILLION BUREAUCRATIC MAN HOURS dedicated to just this task. Assume that we hire a dedicated staff at a $30,000 salary to handle these ONE MILLION BUREAUCRATIC MAN HOURS, and assume they work forty hour weeks for the whole of the 52 week year without vacation. That's 481 people working non-stop, doing nothing but this for one full year at a cost of $14.43 million dollars.

Now consider the efficiency of the governmental bureaucracy, and multiply the cost, personnel and man hours necessary by a factor of whatever-the-hell-you-think-is-egregious. I'm totally down with Hugh on this one. I'd like to know how they're going to do this with the intention of having a rigorous check on backgrounds and criminal records.

The elimination of social security credits for years worked as an illegal, and the payment --perhaps over a term of years-- of at least 50% of unpaid back taxes

I'm on board with the first part. I don't care if their paychecks already had that Social Security money factored out. If they can't prove they paid taxes, they don't get the future benefits that period of work would ostensibly provide. Now, if they can prove that their migrant labor job paid so little that they weren't going to be on the hook for taxes anyway, then they can positively apply to have those benefits carry forward.

The back taxes thing seems like an unfair burden, although one on which I can see both sides. On one hand, after jumping through bureaucratic hoops and paying your $5,000 fine for visa/citizenship application (I think that's what it is), you're now stuck with fifty percent of eight years of back taxes to pay? Isn't the $5k enough of a penalty? On the other hand, paying taxes fucking sucks, but is a necessary evil. They are our membership fees for taking part in the services provided by this country. I have to pay them, so why don't you?

Back to the topic of background checks and interviews, one more place Hewitt nails it:

If we put the right people in charge of the regularization process and empower them to make decisions on the spot, during the top level analysis of the vast majority of Z visa applications, a sizeable portion of the initial workload would vanish. It simply does not take much deliberation, for example, to decide to give a Z visa to a long term employee of a reputable company who is a 49 year old Mexican who is married and has three children born in this country. If the first round of determinations simply sorted the Z visa applicants into "approved" and "further study " piles, we might get to a manageable number.

Who could be trusted to make such decisions? Let me introduce you to the thousands of retired field officers in this country. A two to three year program employing them for their leadership and judgment skills to conduct the regularization program wopuld make enormous sense and give the program at least a decent shot of succeeding, and do so without overwhelming our law enforcement agencies with the nuts and bolts of regularization.

Here here. Hugh's suggesting profiling, and framing it as positive profiling (you look okay, go on by), but as I said above, I tend to agree with him on the point. Plus, I have a couple of retired field officers in the extended family, and these guys are some of the best men I know. Every state has a brigade of such guys who'd likely be thrilled to come off the bench to push paper around for a couple years to make sure things get done right. If we can deputize the forces and allow them to positively profile the easy cases, kicking the more difficult and questionable ones up the line for review, this likely won't be a big strain on the bureaucracy at all.

(Sheesh, look at me agreeing with a conservative talk show host...)

Powered by ScribeFire.

Michelle Malkin: The AP gets the headline wrong

"Most U.S. Muslims reject suicide bombings," AP reports.

Here's what should be headlined from the article about a new Pew poll (which you can find here):

Headline:

"One in four younger U.S. Muslims say suicide bombings to defend their religion are acceptable at least in some circumstances..."

Headline:

While nearly 80 percent of U.S. Muslims say suicide bombings of civilians to defend Islam can not be justified, 13 percent say they can be, at least rarely.

That sentiment is strongest among those younger than 30. Two percent of them say it can often be justified, 13 percent say sometimes and 11 percent say rarely.

"It is a hair-raising number," said Radwan Masmoudi, president of the Washington-based Center for the Study of Islam and Democracy, which promotes the compatibility of Islam with democracy.

Headline:

Only 5 percent of U.S. Muslims expressed favorable views of the terrorist group al-Qaida, though about a fourth did not express an opinion.

That's about 29 percent of U.S. Muslims surveyed who have favorable or unknown views about al Qaeda.

Headline: Nearly Three in Ten U.S. Muslims have favorable views/no opinion of al Qaeda.

Yes, that's hair-raising.

Sure, but it's still less than a majority.


Update:


lgf: AP Spins in Both Directions

The Associated Press seems to be having a little trouble deciding how to spin the new Pew Research survey.

One hour and 52 minutes ago, the headline was:

Most U.S. Muslims reject suicide bombings.

Thirty-five minutes ago, the same story was re-released:

Some US Muslims justify suicide attacks.

Oy.

Powered by ScribeFire.

Daily Kos: A Collapse for Democrats

This situation is a collapse for Democrats. We had a strong start, pushed back against the President’s failed policy and held our ground that the supplemental should include binding language to end the war. But now, as Congress gets ready to send the President a bill that does nothing to get our troops out of Iraq, we are just folding our cards.

Duh.

Powered by ScribeFire.

Excusing, for a moment, the invocation of Orwell in the title of the post I'm linking below, when are we as a people going to decide that we're going to draw a line on how far the government can go in their domestic eavesdropping?



Gonzales proposing new Orwellian thought crimes law - AMERICAblog: A great nation deserves the truth

At what point do these so-called conservatives out there plan to speak up against this crap?

From CNet, then my analysis:

Attorney General Alberto Gonzales is pressing the U.S. Congress to enact a sweeping intellectual-property bill that would increase criminal penalties for copyright infringement, including "attempts" to commit piracy.... The Bush administration is throwing its support behind a proposal called the Intellectual Property Protection Act of 2007, which is likely to receive the enthusiastic support of the movie and music industries, and would represent the most dramatic rewrite of copyright law since a 2005 measure dealing with prerelease piracy....

The IPPA would, for instance:

* Criminalize "attempting" to infringe copyright. Federal law currently punishes not-for-profit copyright infringement with between 1 and 10 years in prison, but there has to be actual infringement that takes place....

* Permit more wiretaps for piracy investigations. Wiretaps would be authorized for investigations of Americans who are "attempting" to infringe copyrights....

* Allow computers to be seized more readily. Specifically, property such as a PC "intended to be used in any manner" to commit a copyright crime would be subject to forfeiture, including civil asset forfeiture....

* Require Homeland Security to alert the Recording Industry Association of America. That would happen when CDs with "unauthorized fixations of the sounds, or sounds and images, of a live musical performance" are attempted to be imported.

Oh where to begin?

First off, what this legislation is really about: The Homeland Security department getting carte blanche authorization to fish through your computer and tap your phones with impunity, whenever they want, so long as they argue that they think you might have ever tried to download even a single song via Limewire or some of other music-sharing software, or have ever copied a photo off the Internet, or even watched a single clip from any TV show on YouTube. They're going to use this legislation to hunt for terrorists, and won't need search warrants, etc. That's what this is about.

Take off your partisan cheerleader sweater and drop the pom-pons for a second. Someday there will be an administration in office with whom you do not blindly agree, and someday that administration is going to take a law like this and use it as a blanket excuse to do something with which you do not agree. Something like blackmailing a political opponent, digging up dirt on a journalist, or ginning up charges against an opposition group perhaps. It doesn't even have to be an administration either, in these days of NSL abuse it could be a bureaucrat in a non-elected/non-appointed position in an intelligence agency digging up dirt on his ex-girlfriend for all we know.

Terrorism is a problem, but it's sold to us as a much larger problem than it really is. Septicemia and nephritis have killed more people per year than terrorism ever has, and I don't even know what those things are! You're not going to find anyone besides the staunchest and most pure libertarians out there who believes we shouldn't improve our ability and agility to protect ourselves through intelligence, I concede this point gladly. But what is it about us as a people at this point of world history that is causing us to give in to our most basic authoritarian impulses?

Why in god's name in this post-Watergate era should we ever trust the government to always protect our privacy and never abuse the myriad of powers we seem to be willing to grant them to do whatever the hell they have to do without warrants or oversight?

I've got one piece of advice for the DOJ and Homeland Security: Spin your wheels fighting nephritis instead. It sounds really awful and scary, and maybe we can fix that without giving a bureaucrat the ability to see what his downstairs neighbor is downloading off the Internet.

Powered by ScribeFire.

Verbosities - Carter plays for himself, not the U.S.

Carter is still stuck on his own thought of what peace is. Just as he did then, he does now. He cannot distinguish ally from enemy.

Just so we're clear, the "enemy" is a dissenting opinion, and the "ally" is blind fealty. That's what modern media punditry would have you believe, I suppose.

Or, to summarize StB, Carter was a terrible President who has opinions I disagree with and wrote a book he had to apologize for. He should shut up and suck it, because dissent isn't what we do on Team USA these days...

Powered by ScribeFire.

Via Instapundit:


Jackson Sun - www.jacksonsun.com - Jackson, TN

CHICAGO - The immigration reform bill worked out late last week by Senate Republicans and Democrats likely will fail, former senator and possible presidential candidate Fred Thompson said here Sunday.

Thompson, speaking at the National Restaurant Association annual show, said the bill will not win the support of the American people because they don't trust senators' promises to block illegal immigrants from crossing the Mexican border into the U.S.

"Nobody believes them. It goes to the bigger issue of the lack of credibility our government has these days," said Thompson, who was greeted with hoots and applause from the 2,300 convention attendees who filled a ballroom at the McCormick Place convention center.

If you've ever worked a day in the restaurant industry, you're probably aware that a significant portion of the grunt work from grilling to cleaning is done by immigrants - some legal, some illegal. Now, the immigration bill that will soon be under debate is bad for the National Restaurant Association, as it puts the burden of proof back on the employer to make sure that all immigrants hired have their paperwork in order. Since there's probably not a single Denny's or Carl's Junior up the west coast who hasn't turned a blind eye to paperwork compliance in the past, the penalties for being caught employing an illegal would be a major sticking point for the NRA (no, the other one). Illegal immigrants make up some significant percentage of the restaurant workforce nationwide, and it's likely that this industry organization would rather see open borders than not.

And, just like Fred, they'd like to see this particular bill killed off in Congress.

This reporter, however, would have you believe that this quote: "Nobody believes them. It goes to the bigger issue of the lack of credibility our government has these days," is based on a premise delivered in the speech that we can't trust Senators to block illegal immigrants from coming across the border.

Let me go out on a limb, just for the record, and guess that Fred never said that in his speech, as he's been fairly substanceless in his two major speeches so far in his non-campaign campaign. While it's a near certainty that Thompson and the NRA (no, the other one) would both find reason to oppose this bill, it's likely not at all for the same reasons. Freddie was probably purposefully obtuse in his speech, the reporter went to an aide for clarity on the statement after the speech, and the reporter then harnessed the policy back to the phrasing in an ex post facto sort of revisionism.

In other words, I'd bet you a dollar right now there's no way a non-campaigning campaign stop is going to feature a speech that goes out of its way to oppose the policy ideals of the organization to which the non-campaigning campaigner is speaking. Highly, highly unlikely.

Powered by ScribeFire.