Interesting Links

GOP Fight in Nevada Could
Cause McCain Trouble

PAHRUMP, NEV. — Two Nevada delegations are packing their bags for the Republican National Convention Sept. 1, and if the latest party ruling stands, neither of them will be seated.

A fiasco at the state convention spawned the dueling delegations — one for John McCain and one for Ron Paul — and their continued wrangling has exposed a split in the party that may spell trouble in a key state for the presumptive Republican presidential nominee.

Associated Press

Former presidential candidate Ron Paul speaks to the crowd as he is welcomed at the Nevada Republican Convention on April 26.

Running a strident libertarian campaign in the primaries, Texas Rep. Ron Paul tapped a seam of Republican frustration across the country, railing against the Bush administration’s impact on civil liberties, foreign policy and the growing federal government. Mr. Paul’s message resonated particularly in Nevada, a state where frontier spirit and personal freedom runs deep, and he captured second place in the January state caucuses, ahead of Sen. McCain.

Mr. Paul has suspended his campaign, but his libertarian loyalists have not. Their lingering discontentment and underlying philosophical differences may prove fertile territory for the Libertarian Party’s presidential nominee, Bob Barr, and dangerous ground for Sen. McCain if even a portion of the Republican base is too disgruntled to vote. Nevada is shaping up as a key battleground in the presidential race; President Bush won the state by roughly 20,000 votes in each of the last two elections, and Democrats are contesting it strongly this year. Republican hopes in Nevada have also been hampered by the scandal-plagued GOP governor, Jim Gibbons, whose approval ratings have tanked as he has dealt with a messy divorce and a federal corruption investigation.

In April, riding high on a second-place showing in the Silver State, the grass-roots Paul supporters were well represented and well organized at the Republican state convention. Winning a key rule change, the Paul delegation began electing a majority slate for its candidate, when party officials dropped the gavel, turned out the lights and adjourned the convention indefinitely.

The state party leadership went on to appoint a slate of McCain delegates to the national convention by private conference call. Meanwhile, the spurned Paul faction gathered for its own “reconvention” to produce a competing delegation. In a decision Aug. 5, the national party’s contest committee recommended against seating either slate, citing flaws in the selection process. The fate of Nevada’s 34 seats at the Republican National Convention may not be decided until the final days before it begins.

At least one of the delegations will have alternative plans in St. Paul if they can’t get past the door of the convention. Mr. Paul will be hosting his Rally for the Republic across town just as the Republican Party is assembling for its moment of unity.

The Texas congressman has not taken a position on Nevada’s delegation dispute, but his campaign spokesman said he won’t be pushing his supporters in Minnesota toward Sen. McCain. “There are some really good candidates running third-party campaigns,” said spokesman Jesse Benton. “If the GOP happens to lose because they’ve abandoned their principles and traditions, maybe that will be a signal for the future.”

More than the distraction in Minnesota, Sen. McCain may have to worry what discontented Ron Paul voters are doing back in Nevada, where longtime Republicans with a libertarian streak are already discussing alternatives to the party establishment.

In the city of Pahrump, 60 nearly barren miles west of Las Vegas, in a windowless tavern called Irene’s Casino, a group of friends gathered to pass around a bottle of Ron Paul Revolution Cola and discuss how the Republican Party had wronged them.

This is a place where people move to be left alone, where mobile homes are sold as Freedom Homes and where Mr. Paul won the local Republican caucus, as his campaign signs along the highway still attest. He owed his victory to spontaneous gatherings like this one, where supporters fed up with the size of government, the Iraq war and the incursions on their civil liberties organized their own grassroots campaign.

“Out here folks draw water from their own well,” said compatriot Kenny Bent, a former rancher, miner and lumberjack with long gray hair and mustache past his lower lip. “They have their own sewage system. They don’t need the government and they don’t want its intrusion.”

Across the state, lifelong Republicans like Mr. Bent who now identify more closely with Mr. Paul’s cause than with the party establishment say they won’t vote for Sen. McCain.

The McCain campaign maintains that Nevada is a natural fit for the candidate. “He’s a Western senator. He understands the issues, from water to public lands, that affect Westerners,” said spokesman Rick Gorka. “And he’s independent. He’s a maverick. That has tremendous appeal in Nevada.”

But the hard-line libertarian voters see Sen. McCain as the embodiment of a Republican Party they no longer trust to protect their freedoms. Citing the campaign finance rules and ban on college sports betting that he championed, many conservatives are rejecting the presumptive Republican nominee along with the party establishment.

Recent history shows Nevada’s frustrated conservatives can swing an election. The last Texan presidential candidate preaching small government, Ross Perot, took 10% of the vote here in 1992 and 27% in 1996, helping Democrat Bill Clinton to carry the state both times. A Libertarian Senate candidate in 1998 tipped a close race to Majority Leader Harry Reid.

Mr. Barr’s running mate, Wayne Allyn Root, a sports-betting entrepreneur and resident of greater Las Vegas, says their campaign is perfectly suited for his home state, citing Nevada’s low taxes, frontier spirit and premium on personal freedom.

“We’re all about turning America into a great big Nevada,” Mr. Root said. “Nevada proves the model works.”

Write to Brad Haynes at brad.haynes@dowjones.com

Buffalo Police batter their way into wrong house
Family of 8 traumatized by officers’ behavior; officials admit error made but defend actions

By T.J. Pignataro
Updated: 08/16/08 8:50 AM

Terrell and Schavon Pennyamon look out through the missing glass of the door police broke in during a mistaken raid on the family’s lower flat on the city’s West Side Wednesday.

Armed with a battering ram and shotguns, Buffalo police looking for heroin broke down the door and stormed the lower apartment of a West Side family of eight.

The problem is that the Wednesday evening raid should have occurred at an apartment upstairs.

And, that’s only the tip of the iceberg, according to Schavon Pennyamon, who lives at the mistakenly raided apartment on Sherwood Street with her husband, Terrell, and six children.

Pennyamon alleges that after wrongly breaking into her apartment, police proceeded to strike her epileptic husband in the head with the butt end of a shotgun and point shotguns at her young children before admitting their mistake and then raiding the right apartment.

She says she’s left with a broken door, an injured husband, jittery children and — what bothers her most — still no apology from police.

“They know they did something wrong and they were still ignorant,” said the 29-year-old Pennyamon. “At first, I just wanted an apology. Now, because they want[ed] to be ignorant and rude, I have to take it to the next level.”

She filed a report with the department’s Professional Standards Division and also contacted Mayor Byron W.

Brown about the incident. Pennyamon said Friday evening she also has retained a lawyer and intends to pursue legal action.

Police brass acknowledge that officers with the Mobile Response and Narcotics units entered the wrong apartment.

“As the officers were in the lower apartment, one of the detectives reviewed the search warrant application and realized it was for the upper [apartment],” said Dennis J. Richards, chief of detectives.

“It appears to be an honest mistake and we certainly apologize to all involved,” added Michael J. DeGeorge, Buffalo police spokesman.

Police declined to comment, however, on Pennyamon’s allegations of assault and other police impropriety. The internal investigation with the Professional Standards Division is now under way to determine exactly what happened.

“We wouldn’t be comfortable discussing the internal investigation,” Richards said. “We can say comfortably that over 1,100 search warrants were executed last year and 580 to date this year and that, with such a high volume and such a fast-paced environment, it is understandable that mistakes could happen.”

Pennyamon remains unconvinced it was a mistake. She says officers told her they had “raided the house before” and she believes they felt entitled to do it again — warrant or not.

“The way they make it seem is ‘we can do whatever we want,’ ” she said.

Pennyamon’s troubled by what she says is an arrogance by police officers and an unwillingness to “serve and protect” those who need it.

“It’s a sad situation. I’ve always looked up to the police. I’ve always expected them to be on my side.”

Pennyamon was called home from her job as a certified nursing assistant at a local health care facility at about 6:30 p. m. Wednesday to find police at her house, her children partially dressed on the porch and her husband — a U.S. Air Force veteran — injured. She said police were rude and unapologetic.

It was a harsh welcome to the neighborhood for the family. They’ve only lived at the apartment on Sherwood Street, on the far West Side just south of West Ferry Street, for two weeks after she says they moved from the East Side to escape crime. Now, Pennyamon said, the family already is looking to relocate again.

“I don’t know what was going on upstairs, but it gives police no right to bust in my doors,” she said. “That’s just ridiculous.”

Richards said police protocol dictates that search warrants are executed by police first announcing their presence and then quickly and forcefully entering a property with guns drawn for their own protection.

“Police have been faced with fortified doors and windows. In numerous locations, they’ve been met with individuals armed with weapons or attacking animals,” he said.

Pennyamon said the event left her husband with physical injuries and left a lasting impression on the children.

She said her husband, Terrell, suffered a dislocated arm after he was yanked up by police during the raid and is expected to return to his doctor Monday to possibly have glass — left behind by the door window police broke to get into the apartment — surgically removed from his foot.

Pennyamon’s 5-year-old daughter now sleeps with her.

“My 12-year-old and 6-year-old don’t want to be home at all,” she said, adding that her younger children cower or run to the back of the house when they hear anyone approaching.

“ ‘That’s the police,’ they say,” Pennyamon said.

Police said no arrests were made in the subsequent raid at the upstairs apartment.

HARROLD, Texas — A tiny Texas school district may be the first in the nation to allow teachers and staff to pack guns for protection when classes begin later this month, a newspaper reported.

Trustees at the Harrold Independent School District approved a district policy change last October so employees can carry concealed firearms to deter and protect against school shootings, provided the gun-toting teachers follow certain requirements.

In order for teachers and staff to carry a pistol, they must have a Texas license to carry a concealed handgun; must be authorized to carry by the district; must receive training in crisis management and hostile situations and have to use ammunition that is designed to minimize the risk of ricochet in school halls.

Superintendent David Thweatt said the small community is a 30-minute drive from the sheriff’s office, leaving students and teachers without protection. He said the district’s lone campus sits 500 feet from heavily trafficked U.S. 287, which could make it a target.

“When the federal government started making schools gun-free zones, that’s when all of these shootings started. Why would you put it out there that a group of people can’t defend themselves? That’s like saying ’sic ‘em’ to a dog,” Thweatt said in Friday’s online edition of the Fort Worth Star-Telegram.

Thweatt said officials researched the policy and considered other options for about a year before approving the policy change. He said the district also has various other security measures in place to prevent a school shooting.

“The naysayers think (a shooting) won’t happen here. If something were to happen here, I’d much rather be calling a parent to tell them that their child is OK because we were able to protect them,” Thweatt said.

Texas law outlaws firearms on school campuses “unless pursuant to the written regulations or written authorization of the institution.”

It was unclear how many of the 50 or so teachers and staff members will be armed this fall because Thweatt did not disclose that information, to keep it from students or potential attackers. Wilbarger County Sheriff Larry Lee was out of the office Thursday and did not immediately return a phone call seeking comment, the newspaper said.

Barbara Williams, a spokeswoman for the Texas Association of School Boards, said her organization did not know of another district with such a policy. Ken Trump, a Cleveland-based school security expert who advises districts nationwide, including in Texas, said Harrold is the first district with such a policy.

The 110-student district is 150 miles northwest of Fort Worth on the eastern end of Wilbarger County, near the Oklahoma border.

August 15, 2008

Blowback from Bear Baiting

By Patrick Buchanan

Mikheil Saakashvili’s decision to use the opening of the Olympic Games to cover Georgia’s invasion of its breakaway province of South Ossetia must rank in stupidity with Gamal Abdel-Nasser’s decision to close the Straits of Tiran to Israeli ships.

Nasser’s blunder cost him the Sinai in the Six-Day War. Saakashvili’s blunder probably means permanent loss of South Ossetia and Abkhazia.

After shelling and attacking what he claims is his own country, killing scores of his own Ossetian citizens and sending tens of thousands fleeing into Russia, Saakashvili’s army was whipped back into Georgia in 48 hours.

Vladimir Putin took the opportunity to kick the Georgian army out of Abkhazia, as well, to bomb Tbilisi and to seize Gori, birthplace of Stalin.

Reveling in his status as an intimate of George Bush, Dick Cheney and John McCain, and America’s lone democratic ally in the Caucasus, Saakashvili thought he could get away with a lightning coup and present the world with a fait accompli.

Mikheil did not reckon on the rage or resolve of the Bear.

American charges of Russian aggression ring hollow. Georgia started this fight — Russia finished it. People who start wars don’t get to decide how and when they end.

Russia’s response was “disproportionate” and “brutal,” wailed Bush.

True. But did we not authorize Israel to bomb Lebanon for 35 days in response to a border skirmish where several Israel soldiers were killed and two captured? Was that not many times more “disproportionate”?

Russia has invaded a sovereign country, railed Bush. But did not the United States bomb Serbia for 78 days and invade to force it to surrender a province, Kosovo, to which Serbia had a far greater historic claim than Georgia had to Abkhazia or South Ossetia, both of which prefer Moscow to Tbilisi?

Is not Western hypocrisy astonishing?

When the Soviet Union broke into 15 nations, we celebrated. When Slovenia, Croatia, Macedonia, Bosnia, Montenegro and Kosovo broke from Serbia, we rejoiced. Why, then, the indignation when two provinces, whose peoples are ethnically separate from Georgians and who fought for their independence, should succeed in breaking away?

Are secessions and the dissolution of nations laudable only when they advance the agenda of the neocons, many of who viscerally detest Russia?

That Putin took the occasion of Saakashvili’s provocative and stupid stunt to administer an extra dose of punishment is undeniable. But is not Russian anger understandable? For years the West has rubbed Russia’s nose in her Cold War defeat and treated her like Weimar Germany.

When Moscow pulled the Red Army out of Europe, closed its bases in Cuba, dissolved the evil empire, let the Soviet Union break up into 15 states, and sought friendship and alliance with the United States, what did we do?

American carpetbaggers colluded with Muscovite Scalawags to loot the Russian nation. Breaking a pledge to Mikhail Gorbachev, we moved our military alliance into Eastern Europe, then onto Russia’s doorstep. Six Warsaw Pact nations and three former republics of the Soviet Union are now NATO members.

Bush, Cheney and McCain have pushed to bring Ukraine and Georgia into NATO. This would require the United States to go to war with Russia over Stalin’s birthplace and who has sovereignty over the Crimean Peninsula and Sebastopol, traditional home of Russia’s Black Sea fleet.

When did these become U.S. vital interests, justifying war with Russia?

The United States unilaterally abrogated the Anti-Ballistic Missile treaty because our technology was superior, then planned to site anti-missile defenses in Poland and the Czech Republic to defend against Iranian missiles, though Iran has no ICBMs and no atomic bombs. A Russian counter-offer to have us together put an anti-missile system in Azerbaijan was rejected out of hand.

We built a Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan pipeline from Azerbaijan through Georgia to Turkey to cut Russia out. Then we helped dump over regimes friendly to Moscow with democratic “revolutions” in Ukraine and Georgia, and tried to repeat it in Belarus.

Americans have many fine qualities. A capacity to see ourselves as others see us is not high among them.

Imagine a world that never knew Ronald Reagan, where Europe had opted out of the Cold War after Moscow installed those SS-20 missiles east of the Elbe. And Europe had abandoned NATO, told us to go home and become subservient to Moscow.

How would we have reacted if Moscow had brought Western Europe into the Warsaw Pact, established bases in Mexico and Panama, put missile defense radars and rockets in Cuba, and joined with China to build pipelines to transfer Mexican and Venezuelan oil to Pacific ports for shipment to Asia? And cut us out? If there were Russian and Chinese advisers training Latin American armies, the way we are in the former Soviet republics, how would we react? Would we look with bemusement on such Russian behavior?

For a decade, some of us have warned about the folly of getting into Russia’s space and getting into Russia’s face. The chickens of democratic imperialism have now come home to roost — in Tbilisi.

Video: http://www.eyeblast.tv/public/video.aspx?RsrcID=34016

FCC Commissioner: Return of Fairness Doctrine Could Control Web Content
McDowell warns reinstated powers could play in net neutrality debate, lead to government requiring balance on Web sites.

By Jeff Poor
Business & Media Institute
8/12/2008 5:37:12 PM

There’s a huge concern among conservative talk radio hosts that reinstatement of the Fairness Doctrine would all-but destroy the industry due to equal time constraints. But speech limits might not stop at radio. They could even be extended to include the Internet and “government dictating content policy.”

FCC Commissioner Robert McDowell raised that as a possibility after talking with bloggers at the Heritage Foundation in Washington, D.C. McDowell spoke about a recent FCC vote to bar Comcast from engaging in certain Internet practices – expanding the federal agency’s oversight of Internet networks.

The commissioner, a 2006 President Bush appointee, told the Business & Media Institute the Fairness Doctrine could be intertwined with the net neutrality battle. The result might end with the government regulating content on the Web, he warned. McDowell, who was against reprimanding Comcast, said the net neutrality effort could win the support of “a few isolated conservatives” who may not fully realize the long-term effects of government regulation.

“I think the fear is that somehow large corporations will censor their content, their points of view, right,” McDowell said. “I think the bigger concern for them should be if you have government dictating content policy, which by the way would have a big First Amendment problem.”

“Then, whoever is in charge of government is going to determine what is fair, under a so-called ‘Fairness Doctrine,’ which won’t be called that – it’ll be called something else,” McDowell said. “So, will Web sites, will bloggers have to give equal time or equal space on their Web site to opposing views rather than letting the marketplace of ideas determine that?”

McDowell told BMI the Fairness Doctrine isn’t currently on the FCC’s radar. But a new administration and Congress elected in 2008 might renew Fairness Doctrine efforts, but under another name.

“The Fairness Doctrine has not been raised at the FCC, but the importance of this election is in part – has something to do with that,” McDowell said. “So you know, this election, if it goes one way, we could see a re-imposition of the Fairness Doctrine. There is a discussion of it in Congress. I think it won’t be called the Fairness Doctrine by folks who are promoting it. I think it will be called something else and I think it’ll be intertwined into the net neutrality debate.”

A recent study by the Media Research Center’s Culture & Media Institute argues that the three main points in support of the Fairness Doctrine – scarcity of the media, corporate censorship of liberal viewpoints, and public interest – are myths.

State Republicans are trying to thwart a move by Ron Paul supporters to take over the party in St. Johns County and the state.

This week, the Republicans sent warning letters to 10 state chapters of the Republican Liberty Caucus — an organization within the party that promotes an agenda much the same as Ron Paul libertarians. The letter warned the caucus the law doesn’t allow them to use the word “Republican” in its name without permission.

Some local Republicans see the caucus as seeking control of their party and then opposing Sen. John McCain, who they see as too liberal. This is similar to what is playing out on the national stage, as mainstream Republicans are losing western support for McCain to libertarians.

This week, the caucus here vowed a strong court fight to keep its name.

“We’re Republicans, too,” state caucus chairwoman Lisa Bullion said. “We’re Republican activists within the party. We feel we’re operating under the law.”

William Westmiller of Thousand Oaks, Calif., chairman of the national Republican Liberty Caucus, said no other caucus has this problem.

“To my knowledge, this type of law only exists in Florida. Our strategy has always been to work in a civil and cooperative fashion within the Republican Party,” he said.

St. Johns County libertarians joined the Republican Party after Paul, a Texas congressman and former Libertarian Party candidate, polled only single digit percentages in nearly all states. They say the mainstream party has lost its conservative base.

Northeast Florida’s Republican Liberty Caucus president, Will Pitts, a St. Johns County resident and Jacksonville businessman, said taking away their name is “un-American. We have every right to use that name.”

Bob Veit, president of St. Johns County Republican Club, said, “They’re generally nice people, but also are zealots. They would marginalize other Republicans, moderate and conservative. This augurs no good for the party in the long term.”

Two caucus members — John Charles Stevens and Wynona Mayer — are running Aug. 26 for state committeeman and state committeewoman, seeking to oust mainstream incumbents Jon Woodard and Becky Reichenberg.

Veit said Woodard and Reichenberg had “dedicated themselves to victory in November for the Republican slate.”

State committee seats make and change Republican strategy. The caucus leadership wants to inch ahead and get more members elected to such posts.

The libertarian agenda now assumed by the caucus seems plucked directly from an earlier Republican playbook.

It seeks more individual liberty, minimal government intrusion, fiscal responsibility, opposition to welfare and entitlements, no foreign aid, lower taxes, state sovereignty, elimination of federal agencies duplicated at the state level, less regulation and a strong national defense with fewer military bases abroad.

Many Republicans believe those aims are the heart of their party.

But Veit said he doesn’t like their tactics, and mainstream Republicans have filed grievances to Florida Republican Party Chairman Jim Greer, reporting anti-Republican comments by caucus members.

Stevens reportedly said “bashing the (Republican) party did nothing to advance (our) agenda,” and added that “a chunk of ‘the base’ (of Republican voters) can be turned our way.”

He also discussed obstacles the caucus faced if it tried to take over the Democratic Party or third parties.

Veit said said Stevens and Mayer had sworn to support McCain.

“They obviously do not take their oath seriously because they both are actively trying to torpedo McCain’s candidacy as evidenced by their stated intentions to demonstrate against McCain at the National Convention in Minneapolis. I want Republicans to know what’s happening.”

Bullion said vocal dissenters like Stevens don’t speak for the caucus. Stevens later said many of the comments attributed to him were taken out of context.

“We’re a little more expressive and passionate (than other party members), kind of in your face,” Stevens said. “I don’t believe (the state party) has legal grounds (to prevail in a lawsuit).”

Still, some local Republicans don’t want a divided party. For example, Joe Moody of Ponte Vedra Beach, a lifelong Republican voter, doesn’t belong to the caucus and hadn’t met Veit.

“(But) if he’s a true conservative Republican, I will support him with vigor. If he is not, I won’t. If the Republican Party would move back to its base, it would be more cohesive and more effective getting Republicans out to vote.”

Another Republican voter, Robert Champion, president of the Ponte Vedra Beach Republican Club and a member of the St. Johns County Republican Executive Committee, said the caucus has good ideas, one being low taxes.

“(But) I think their approach is wrong,” Champion said. “They might get a victory for (themselves) at the cost of the election. John McCain is much more of a Republican than Barack Obama. They’d be better off getting behind McCain. They could be an election spoiler.”