Taipei Times Editorial: Eroding Justice (in Taiwan)

The following Open Letter No. 2 to Taiwan's Minister of Justice was published in the Taipei Times Tuesday, December 2, 2008 as an Editorial. I have lightly edited it for spelling and format, have not changed anything else except what is enclosed in brackets,, thus [ ], and have highlighted in bold font the text that was shown in bold and enlarged text on the upper right of the letter as published. I also used the Wiki link tool to generate a linked version of the text before copying it to this blog. I made no attempt to make the wiki links non-trivial or to create my own additional wiki links, though some might be useful.

Eroding justice: Open letter No. 2

Tuesday, Dec 02, 2008, Page 8


The Honorable Wang Ching-feng

Minister of Justice

Taipei, Taiwan

Dear Minister Wang [王清峰],

In an open letter to the Taipei Times published on Nov. 25, you responded to our joint statement regarding the erosion of justice in Taiwan. We appreciate your acknowledgment of the sincerity of our concerns, and are grateful to receive a prompt and serious reply.

Based [on] the information available to us, however, we remain concerned about choices made by prosecutors in applying existing legal authority and strongly believe in the need for reform. Please allow us to highlight a number of specific points:

1. The procedure of “preventive detention”: This procedure is obviously intended for serious criminal cases in which the suspect is likely to flee the country. In his Nov. 13 article in the South China Morning Post, Professor Jerome Cohen states that “it ought to be invoked rarely.”

Yet, during the past weeks, it has been used across the board, and it has been used only against present and former members of Democratic Progressive Party [DPP] governments. This casts severe doubts on the impartiality of the judicial system. We also wish to point out that the people involved were detained under deplorable circumstances, and that they were not even allowed to see relatives.

2. Your open letter contains the argument that when they were detained, the present and former DPP government officials “were all informed of the charges that had been brought against them.” This is simply not correct. When they were detained, they were subjected to lengthy interrogations — in some cases for up to 20 hours — which bore the character of a “fishing expedition,” and do not represent a formal indictment in any legal sense. In most cases the prosecutors had had months to collect information; if they did have sufficient evidence of wrongdoing, they should have formally charged the persons and let them have their day in a scrupulously impartial court of law. That would be the desirable procedure under the rule of law in a democratic society.

3. Your open letter also states that the persons involved had “the right and ability to communicate with their attorneys to seek legal assistance.” It neglects to mention, however, that in all cases where people were detained, the discussions with the lawyers were recorded and videotaped while a guard took notes. This information was then immediately transmitted to the respective prosecutors. We don’t need to point out that this is a grave infringement on international norms regarding lawyer-client privilege and makes mounting an adequate defense problematic at best.

4. On the issue of leaks to the press, your letter states that, under the Code of Criminal Procedure, information from ongoing investigations can only be disclosed by spokespersons of the prosecutor’s offices and that unauthorized disclosure is subject to criminal prosecution. The fact of the matter is that during the past weeks, the media have been filled with information on the ongoing investigations that could only have come from the prosecutors. We may point out one example, but there are numerous others:

Only few hours after former minister of foreign affairs Mark Chen [陳唐山] was questioned on Nov. 3, Taiwan’s Apple Daily newspaper ran an article saying that “the prosecutors are thinking of charging Dr Chen in relation to the case.”

The issue of violation of the principle of secret investigation was also raised by Shilin District Court Judge Hung Ying-hua [洪英花], who strongly criticized the present situation and procedures followed by your ministry in a Liberty Times article on Nov. 17.

We may also mention that we find it highly peculiar that no steps whatsoever have been taken against the various prosecutors who leaked information, while we just learned that the Ministry of Justice is now taking steps against Mr Cheng Wen-long [鄭文龍], the lawyer for former president Chen Shui-bian [陳水扁], who supposedly “leaked” information to the press. The ministry sent a formal request to the Taipei District Prosecutor’s Office asking the office to investigate and prosecute, and sent a formal request to the Taiwan Lawyers Association that asked the association to review the case and see whether Cheng should have his license revoked.

It is our understanding that the statements Mr Cheng made were in relation to former president Chen’s views on Taiwan’s situation and its future, and an expression of love for his wife, but did not have any bearing on the case against him. We hope you realize that if the ministry proceeds along these lines, this will be perceived as a direct confirmation of the strong political bias of the judicial system.

5. Your letter states that it is untrue that Taiwan’s judicial system is susceptible to political manipulation. If this is the case, how can it be explained that in the past weeks, only DPP officials have detained and given inhumane treatment such as handcuffing and lengthy questioning, while obvious cases of corruption by members of the KMT — including in the Legislative Yuan — are left untouched by the prosecutors or at best are stalled in the judicial process?

We may also refer to expressions of concern by Professor Cohen and by lawyer Nigel Li [李念祖], who expressed his deep concerns about preventive detentions in the China Times’ editorial for Nov. 9. In the editorial, Mr Li praised remarks made by prosecutor Eric Chen [陳瑞仁], who was part of the legal team prosecuting the special fund cases, that the prosecutors’ offices should “avoid the appearance of targeting only one particular political group.”

The fact that the Special Investigation Task Force was set up under the DPP administration or that the prosecutor general was nominated by former president Chen is not at issue here. The problem is that the present system is being used in a very partial fashion.

We may add that the fact that you yourself have publicly discussed the content of the cases does create a serious imbalance in the playing field, and undermines the basic dictum that a person should be considered innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. Under the present circumstances it is hard to see how the persons involved — including former president Chen — can have a fair trial in Taiwan.

6. Lastly, a statement by the US State Department is interpreted in your letter as an “endorsement” of Taiwan’s legal system and the procedures followed. It should be noted that in international diplomatic language, the term “we have every expectation” means “we are concerned and we will watch the situation closely.”

For the past two decades, Taiwan has faced a difficult situation internationally. What has given Taiwan important credibility in democratic countries around the world has been its democratization. We fear that the current judicial procedures being used in Taiwan endanger this democratization, and endanger the goodwill that Taiwan has developed internationally.

In conclusion, we do remain deeply disturbed by the erosion of justice in Taiwan, and express the sincere hope and expectation that your government will maintain fair and impartial judicial practices and quickly correct the present injustices. As an editorial in the Nov. 20 issue of the London-based Economist indicated, Taiwan is “hungry for justice,” and we also hope that your government will be willing to initiate judicial reform that would move Taiwan toward a fully fair and impartial judicial system that earns the respect and admiration of democratic countries around the world.

Respectfully yours,

(in alphabetical order)

Nat Bellocchi, Former American Institute in Taiwan chairman

Coen Blaauw, Formosan Association for Public Affairs, Washington

Gordon G. Chang, Author, “The Coming Collapse of China”

Assoc. Prof. Stéphane Corcuff, University of Lyon

Prof. June Teufel Dreyer, University of Miami

Prof. Edward Friedman, University of Wisconsin

Dr. Mark Harrison, University of Tasmania

Prof. Bruce Jacobs, Monash University

Richard C. Kagan, Professor Emeritus, Hamline University

Jerome Keating, Author and former associate professor, National Taipei University

Assoc. Prof. Daniel Lynch, University of Southern California

Prof. Victor H. Mair, University of Pennsylvania

Assoc. Prof. Donald Rodgers, Austin College, Texas

Prof. Terence Russell, University of Manitoba

Prof. Scott Simon, University of Ottawa

Michael Stainton, York Center for Asia Research, Toronto

Prof. Peter Tague, Georgetown University

John J. Tkacik Jr, Senior Research Fellow, The Heritage Foundation

Prof. Arthur Waldron, University of Pennsylvania

Prof. Vincent Wei-cheng Wang, University of Richmond

Gerrit van der Wees, Editor, “Taiwan Communiqué”

Assoc. Prof. David Curtis Wright, University of Calgary

Stephen Yates, President of DC Asia Advisory and former deputy assistant to the vice president for national security affairs

Spinning Taiwan-China for Obama

In his editorial, For America, a welcome thaw between China and Taiwan, Syd Goldsmith, former director of the American Institute in Taiwan's Kaohsiung Office, seems to see the Taiwan-China relationship through "Ma colored" (ostensibly blue) glasses. For him to write, "Taiwan's President Ma Ying-jeou offered to move the process [i.e. agreements providing for direct air, shipping, and postal links, and food safety] forward after taking office in May, and there has been a palpable reduction in paranoia about sovereignty on both sides", is for him to ignore the 34.9% of Taiwanese who indicated in polls last year that immediate or eventual independence, or indefinite extension of the status quo was their preferred resolution of the sovereignty issue.

For this slice of Taiwan's population there is not palpable reduction in paranoia these days. What instead has been palpable (painfully so for those unfortunate people who didn't get the word about the prohibition on free speech--on showing the colors, wearing T-sheets with pro-Taiwan nation messages, and playing Taiwanese music anywhere near the visiting and venerated ARATS official) has been the batons of Ma's police, the forceful removal of the colors (ROC flags), and CDs, from the citizen's possession, and the beatings by Ma's police of some.

Also palpable is the sense that time seems to be going backwards in Taiwan, back to the White Terror period, where the KMT's one party grip on power was maintained by the Chiang family's paranoia and military police iron fists, a paranoia fed by the acquisition of dictatorial power (ostensibly to "take back China") and the requisite intolerance of even a single opposition party. Ma's recent jailing of some members of the opposition DPP party is supportive of this narrative, though certainly the scale is tiny in comparison with the arrests and assassinations in the historical White Terror period. However, modern media offers Ma something that the Chiangs did not have (in it's full form). With the arrest and detention of the big fish, former President Chen Shui-bien, Ma, taking the role of high priest of the Chinese compatriots on Taiwan, has one man on which he can place the sins of the Taiwanese people against the Chinease people. Now that he has Chen Ma can simply let the media do the dirty work of flogging and driving nails. By making an example of Chen, blaming him for all that "evil talk" of independence and for the state of enmity built up between China and Taiwan from 2000 to 2008, Ma can cover over the sins of the "misguided" 35% of the Taiwanese that Mr. Goldsmith doesn't know about or disregards.

"As the ARATS chairman's recent visit shows, we are witnessing a maturing relationship in which the antagonists have agreed to put aside the issue that has divided them for 60 years in favor of getting practical benefits that they want," writes the former AIT director. Hm, "the issue that has divided them for 60 years"?....oh yes, the civil war between those Nationalists, like Ma, comprising maybe 15% of the population of Taiwan and the Chinese Communists. More than eight-five percent of the population were dragged into the war against their will. I thought that that issue, as far as Taiwan is concerned, was put to bed by the 1992 Consensus. Of course since 1992 China has built up a cache of over 1000 missiles targeting Taiwan. So I guess the consensus was a bit one sided. Oh, maybe he means the SOVEREIGNTY issue (that's what the war was really about). Well, if a maturing relationship means China gets its way with Taiwan on the sovereignty question, then my advice to Taiwan is "if it’s inevitable, then relax and enjoy it" cause it's going to last a long long time.

Goldsmith continues, "Beijing's leaders have long acted on the premise that China can bring Taiwan back to the motherland with a gentle but powerful economic embrace that will eventually convince the people of Taiwan where their interests lie. This has been complemented by the never-abandoned threat to take the 'renegade province' back by force if Taipei declares independence."

Kind of gives you goose bumps, doesn't it? "A gentle but powerful embrace" sounds like what I was saying: TAIWAN, YOU ARE BEING FORCED TO HAVE INTERCOURSE WITH CHINA. If it’s inevitable, then relax and enjoy it. As Goldsmith channels past and present day Chinese Communists, it's as if they are saying, "Taiwan, you will either make love to me freely or I will force you to do so. Either way you're mine." A mature relationship? Sure, in a macabre kind of way.

Goldsmith covers more ground than I wish to comment on here but getting to his main objective in writing the op ed. As the title of the blog alludes to, Goldsmith is putting a spin on the Taiwan-China issue for the comming Obama Administaion. He is trying to make the case that Obama may in fact get a free ride across the Taiwan Strait--that the recent Ma-induced thaw between China and Taiwan might mean that diplomatic capital can be redirected to other hot spots on the globe.

I don't think so. In case they've read Goldsmith's op ed and are reading my blog (yeah, right), let me give Obama and Hilary a little bit of advice. Firstly to Secretary of State apparent, Ms. Clinton, please understand that the eye must always be kept on the ball, no matter what the conditions on the field. And in case you don't already know, the "ball", in terms of our interests, is the democracy, Taiwan, not the communist dictatorship, China. And for you, President-Elect Obama, please note that the bureaucrats in the State Department hold the line between China and Taiwan, not the President of the United States. The ship of State is not easily turned/directed.

Awakening China: Chinese people do not need a pro-Taiwan “white” man opinion on the development of mainland relationship and possibly, future integration with Taiwan

The China Watcher blogger who posted Awakening China: Chinese people do not need a pro-Taiwan “white” man opinion on the development of mainland relationship and possibly, future integration with Taiwan claims not to be a racist and yet uses the term "white" man to describe her/his antagonist. BTW, is the name "China Watcher" a "he" or a "she" name (of course, my blog ID, "Freedom Ain't Free", is similarly gender neutral, so for the record, I'm a white man, like China Watcher's antagonist, not only in terms of race and sex but also similar in political viewpoints regarding Taiwan and China)?

In the mind of those Taiwanese who would agree with "white man", such as my Taiwanese wife, the ethnocentricity of the non-racist "China Watcher" glosses over the viewpoints of a lot more than 30% of the population of Taiwan. That 30% number was in response to a question about whether talking to China would benefit Taiwan. In polls taken before last Spring's Taiwan Presidential election (and tracked over a period of 13 years prior) a strong majority of Taiwanese leaned toward some form of independence, with maintaining the status quo (de facto independence) and deciding the matter in the future being the preference of 37% of the population and unification now or eventually garnering only 11.6% support, which was somewhat higher than the 7.7% that wanted independence now. If you add up all those favoring de facto or de jure independence, you get a whopping 76.9% of the Taiwanese, a super-majority.

Also, China Watcher, holding in low regard Western style democracy would not see any problem disregarding the rights of the minority of the 30% (6.9 million people), much less perhaps, the rights of the super-majority of 76.7% (up to 17.7 million people). After all, it is the "Mandate of Heaven" that keeps the minority lording rule over on the majority and that constitutes Chinese dynastic governance of Chinese and non-Chinese peoples to antiquity.

The reason that I must say "up to 17.7 million people" is because the survey data was of Taiwanese respondents, being based on ethnicity only 85% of the population. It would be interesting to know the make-up of the population included in the survey that China Watcher cites.

Never before, have so many common folks like China Watcher participated so willingly in spreading the emperor's propaganda so far around the world.

Awakening China: Chinese people do not need a pro-Taiwan “white” man opinion on the development of mainland relationship and possibly, future integration with Taiwan

Source of Taiwanese polling data cited by "Freedom Ain't Free"
Trends in Core Political Attitudes among Taiwanese from Election Study Center, N.C.C.U., Center, important political attitude trend distribution

Ma's Taiwan = Police State

PHOTO: LIAO CHEN-HUEI, TAIPEI TIMES

Two police officers remove an injured protester from a street demonstration after protesters broke through a police blockade in Taipei yesterday (11/06/2008).

SOURCE: http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/front/photo/2008/11/07/2008032082

China & Taiwan crime fighting partnership?: Give me a break!

In reaction to this story, Taiwan, China to engage in joint crime-fighting: MAC chief, I sent comments to the editor of the government controlled Internet "news" organ eTaiwannews.com. I've edited those comments and posted them below for all to read--since I do not expect eTaiwannews.com to publish them.

Dear eTaiwanNews Editor,

Give me a break!

Just exactly what activities will come under the umbrella of "crime" that the PRC and Taiwan will "cooperate" to fight? Will the recent protests related to the visit of the ARATS official be classified as crimes? Will free speech and displaying the national colors in public, within the site of a CCP member, be classified as crime? Will the playing of Taiwanese nationalistic music and the wearing of pro-Taiwan independence T-shirts be considered a crime? Will those who promote Taiwan independence be considered criminals?

The recent events in Taiwan in which police did treat all of the activities mentioned above as crimes brings to my mind China's so-called "Anti-Secession law" which was "promulgated" on March 14th, 2005.

Let's review that "law" in light of the Ma Administration and recent events in Taiwan. Note that the titles for the various articles of the "law" reproduced below have been added by me, as a literary device.

Article 1 - THE JUSTIFICATION

"This Law is formulated, in accordance with the Constitution, for the purpose of opposing and checking Taiwan's secession from China by secessionists in the name of "Taiwan independence", promoting peaceful national reunification, maintaining peace and stability in the Taiwan Straits, preserving China's sovereignty and territorial integrity, and safeguarding the fundamental interests of the Chinese nation."

It is obvious from Article 1 that 85% of the population of Taiwan, that is the Taiwanese, do not have their fundamental interests safeguarded by this "law".

Article 2 - THE MANDATE OF HEAVEN

"There is only one China in the world. Both the mainland and Taiwan belong to one China. China's sovereignty and territorial integrity brook no division. Safeguarding China's sovereignty and territorial integrity is the common obligation of all Chinese people, the Taiwan compatriots included.

Taiwan is part of China. The state shall never allow the "Taiwan independence" secessionist forces to make Taiwan secede from China under any name or by any means."

No wiggle room here. Screw the historical facts and recent democratic developments on Taiwan. The Chinese have the Mandate of Heaven, created by telling the lie, not thousands, but millions of times--and by suborning perjury of countless presidents and state department spokespersons around the globe to say likewise--that Taiwan belongs to China.

Article 3 - THE FIRST NON SEQUITUR

"The Taiwan question is one that is left over from China's civil war of the late 1940s.

Solving the Taiwan question and achieving national reunification is China's internal affair, which subjects to no interference by any outside forces."

Damn Lie. The Nationalist squatted, in part, on Taiwan in 1945 at the bequest of the Allied Forces and then, in full, in 1949 to save their ass from Mao's Communist forces. But the island was by peace treaty Japanese territory from 1895 to 1952 because the final peace treaty with Japan was not signed until September 8, 1951 and did not come into effect until April 28, 1952. By that time the Chinese Civil War was essentially over and effectively a lost cause for Chiang Kai-shek's Chinese Nationalists. How could the Taiwan question have anything to do with the Chinese Civil War of the 1940s. That is simply a fabrication by both the Communist and the Nationalist Chinese promulgated on the unsuspecting public all over the world in almost every story derived from Chinese written press release after press release ad nauseam.

Article 4 - THE SACRED DUTY "Accomplishing the great task of reunifying the motherland is the sacred duty of all Chinese people, the Taiwan compatriots included."

Here we see the explicit statement of the Mandate of Heaven (i.e. "sacred duty"). "Taiwan compatriots" is a overused paternalistic Chinese Communist reference to those whom they identify with on Taiwan. I wonder if they mean everyone in Taiwan who has a little Mainland derived blood (98%) or just the less than 15% of the population that extracted itself directly from twentieth century China vis-à-vis the late 1949 Chinese emigrants to Taiwan, and their direct decedents. According to recent polls, if they took a vote on unification in the near term in Taiwan they would find that the number of compatriots might be less than 10%. How can that be a Mandate from anywhere or anyone, much less from a Heaven that the aethist Chinese don't even believe in?

Article 5 - THE SECOND NON SEQUITUR

"Upholding the principle of one China is the basis of peaceful reunification of the country.

To reunify the country through peaceful means best serves the fundamental interests of the compatriots on both sides of the Taiwan Straits. The state shall do its utmost with maximum sincerity to achieve a peaceful reunification.

After the country is reunified peacefully, Taiwan may practice systems different from those on the mainland and enjoy a high degree of autonomy."

There they go again, throwing logic into the wind. In order to "reunify the country", it has to have been unified at sometime in the past. Tell me a time in the past 113 years when China and Taiwan/Formosa were unified......just one time will do......I thought not.

The next article sounds rather familiar when comparison with the policies and procedures of the Ma Ying-jeou Administration.

Article 6 - CROSS-STRAIT INTERCOURSE

"The state shall take the following measures to maintain peace and stability in the Taiwan Straits and promote cross-Straits relations:

(1) to encourage and facilitate personnel exchanges across the Straits for greater mutual understanding and mutual trust;

(2) to encourage and facilitate economic exchanges and cooperation, realize direct links of trade, mail and air and shipping services, and bring about closer economic ties between the two sides of the Straits to their mutual benefit;

(3) to encourage and facilitate cross-Straits exchanges in education, science, technology, culture, health and sports, and work together to carry forward the proud Chinese cultural traditions;

(4) to encourage and facilitate cross-Straits cooperation in combating crimes; and

(5) to encourage and facilitate other activities that are conducive to peace and stability in the Taiwan Straits and stronger cross-Straits relations.

The state protects the rights and interests of the Taiwan compatriots in accordance with law."

Yeah, right...protect the RIGHTS and INTEREST of Taiwan COMPATRIOTS (remember they're less than 10% of the population if we mean though longing fornear term unification with a society not even close to having freedom and human rights)!!!

Article 7 - CROSS-EYED NEGOTIATIONS

"The state stands for the achievement of peaceful reunification through consultations and negotiations on an equal footing between the two sides of the Taiwan Straits. These consultations and negotiations may be conducted in steps and phases and with flexible and varied modalities.

The two sides of the Taiwan Straits may consult and negotiate on the following matters:

(1) officially ending the state of hostility between the two sides;

(2) mapping out the development of cross-Straits relations;

(3) steps and arrangements for peaceful national reunification;

(4) the political status of the Taiwan authorities;

(5) the Taiwan region's room of international operation that is compatible with its status; and

(6) other matters concerning the achievement of peaceful national reunification."

The negotiation points listed in this Article are also strangely familiar for they sound exactly like the things Ma is currently "negotiating" with his Chinese Communist friends. How sweet, Mister Ma. Only problem is that the "equal footing" must have been tilted in China's favor and "Taiwan region" does not sound like a free and democratic place.

Article 8 - THE NUCLEAR OPTION

"In the event that the 'Taiwan independence' secessionist forces should act under any name or by any means to cause the fact of Taiwan's secession from China, or that major incidents entailing Taiwan's secession from China should occur, or that possibilities for a peaceful reunification should be completely exhausted, the state shall employ non-peaceful means and other necessary measures to protect China's sovereignty and territorial integrity. The State Council and the Central Military Commission shall decide on and execute the non-peaceful means and other necessary measures as provided for in the preceding paragraph and shall promptly report to the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress."

TRANSLATION: If, according to our timetable, we do not coerce the people of Taiwan to surrender their sovereignty over their territory to us, we will blow them all to Hell (though we're atheists who don't believe in such a place), seize their territory and we couldn't care less about the United States and their so-called "Taiwan Relations Act" because we have calculated that they won't have the will to do a darn thing in the face of our military action.

Article 9 - THE INDEMNIFICATION

In the event of employing and executing non-peaceful means and other necessary measures as provided for in this Law, the state shall exert its utmost to protect the lives, property and other legitimate rights and interests of Taiwan civilians and foreign nationals in Taiwan, and to minimize losses. At the same time, the state shall protect the rights and interests of the Taiwan compatriots in other parts of China in accordance with law.

TRANSLATION: If you're one of us, we'll do our darnedest to steer our armaments away from you, but if you're one of those obstinate freedom loving Taiwan patriots, you're toast and we will hunt you and your relations down and either make you confess your sins against the Chinese People and submit to reeducation or we make damn sure that your DNA is wiped from the human stream.

CLOSING STATEMENT

How can a free and democratic country and a communist authoritarian dictatorship cooperate on fighting crime when the latter defines free expression of democratic ideas criminal and runs tanks over those who practice such crimes? What a joke! Or, as one TV reporter was known to exclaim in the face of nonsense, "Give me a break!".

Timothy E. Bradberry
Pflugerville,TX

Republican Activist Booted from Valero Gas Station

Saturday afternoon, donning a McCain-Palin T-shirt bearing a McCain-Palin button, a Michael Williams button, and my CTRA President name tag, and wearing a hat bearing a Ronald Reagan for Governor button, a McCain-Palin button, and a Constable Bob Vann pin, I was walking around a Valero gas station politely asking customers if they had voted yet (i.e. early voted).

If they said yes, I would genuinely thank them for exercising their right to vote (even if they voted for Obama). They seemed to warm to that expression of gratitude. If they said they were not registered to vote or were not a citizen, and thus could not vote, I thanked not voting explaining that some people vote illegally. If they were registered to vote and indicated that they had not yet voted, I would urge them to vote on Tuesday, November 4th, offer them some literature about, and my personal knowledge of, the Republicans that were on the Travis County ballot and try to persuade them to vote Republican in at least some of those races.

Even if they said they were voting for Obama I would suggest that if they were not planning to vote a straight Democrat ballot they might consider some of the down ballot candidates on the R team. Then, depending on my perception of their receptivity, I would mentioned the Supreme Court candidates and why we needed to keep those Rs in office (i.e. to keep the court functioning in a non-activist manner, to interpret and apply law so that lawmaking would be left to the legislature, where as a representative body of the people it rightly belongs), and then move on to Jerry Mikus (if they lived in HD 50).

It was quite enjoyable and they seemed very appreciative of the conversation and information, especially the Republicans. :-)

I started out in the morning at a Velero station in Pflugerville at which I bought a tank of gas and later a Diet Coke. During my very enjoyable interaction with customers at that station one customer I spoke with asked me to visit a car wash where his son Danny worked, and to give information to his son Danny. After a little while I did just that. I went to the car wash, found Danny, gave him the literature, and got my car washed and waxed while there. Of course, I took the opportunity to talk to more people and hand out more campaign literature. It was a different situation than at Velero. There were fewer and a much more sedentary clientele (i.e. they hung around for a long time). I decided that the gas station was a better place to do what I was trying to do (exercise my free speech rights).

In the afternoon, as I mentioned at the beginning of this report, I went to the other Velero station, near US183 and Spicewood Springs Road, in Austin. After spending about 90 minutes there, during which time my only purchase was a Diet Coke, a clerk came out to me as I was asking yet another customer if he had voted yet. She informed me that "they" could not have me doing what I was doing at their store, claiming that I was harassing their customers. She said I had to leave. I told her that everyone I had talked to (and I filtered out no one based on outward appearance or even presence of a non-R bumper sticker) did not seem to be bothered by my conversation with them and that I was in no way trying to harass anyone. I asked her if any customers had complained about my activities, to which she would not answer yes or no.

Earlier I had been in the story and talked to another clerk, a young man, who said he does not vote, did not want to vote, and was just "along for the ride" in this society. I don't remember seeing the young female clerk at that time. I talked with the male clerk out in back of the store later on and right before I left. He did not seem to be bothered by our conversation. Before I left, I went back into the store and asked if the manager was in. The clerk said no and then I asked for her name and the manager's name. She said her name is Angela and the manager's name is Dora. She did not tell me her or her manager's last names. I was not angry, but I told her that it seemed like she was harassing me rather than me harassing anyone. She simply said "may I help you" a couple of times and then asked me to leave because she had a customer to attend to whom I did not see walk up behind me. So, I left.

My guess is that she was on the other team (a Democrat) and that she wanted me to leave because I was a Republican who was hurting her team. I could be wrong. I do not think I was harassing anyone, unless perhaps I asked an illegal alien (whom of course would not have "illegal alien" written across his or her forehead) if he or she had voted yet. Like I said, I did not discriminate in my selection of customers to approach....maybe I should have.

Michelle Ma Belle - Obama's Greatest Liability

With Philip J. Berg, Esquire having taken his case against Obama to the US Supreme Court and with other similar law suits challenging Senator Obama's "qualifications" to serve as President of the United States having been filed, it appears that Obama's greatest liability, a liability that may very well undo his bid for the White House, is his wife Michelle's hot temper and loose tongue.


Shocking development: Mrs Obama decides enough is enough: "My husband was born in Hawaii and adopted by his step father, does that make him unpatriotic; she asks", on a direct telephone to API.


The Michelle Obama tapes to be aired any day/time from now: API and Fox News Network (USA) in a final agreement on the airing days/time.


Michelle Obama tapes Reveals: Raila Odinga, Kenya’s Prime Minister is in the Priority list of the First guests to the White House if Obama wins the US Presidency.


The intended release of Michelle Obama tapes stirs trouble in many circles.


API/Fox News deal: Sean Hannity show and Greta Van Susteren’s show “On the Record” to air the Michelle Obama tape in less than 24 hours.


Related Stories

Obama’s campaign manager offers 3 million dollars to API in connection with Michelle Obama tape to be aired by Fox News Network

Obama’s grandmother banned by The Kenya Police from giving interviews that may jeopardise Obama’s Presidential victory on November 4th.

A Black woman crying to the American people: Please give me Barack Hussein Obama as the next President - it is our time to rule you, she seems to be saying.

A Clarion Call for Honest Reporters

Like a breath of fresh air is a man who is committed to proclaiming truth. The article below was written by one such man; by a Democrat, and God bless him for so proclaiming, even at the risk of being ostracized those of his own party.

Would the Last Honest Reporter Please Turn On the Lights?
By Orson Scott Card

Editor's note: Orson Scott Card is a Democrat and a newspaper columnist, and in this opinion piece he takes on both while lamenting the current state of journalism.

An open letter to the local daily paper — almost every local daily paper in America:

I remember reading All the President's Men and thinking: That's journalism. You do what it takes to get the truth and you lay it before the public, because the public has a right to know.

This housing crisis didn't come out of nowhere. It was not a vague emanation of the evil Bush administration.

It was a direct result of the political decision, back in the late 1990s, to loosen the rules of lending so that home loans would be more accessible to poor people. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were authorized to approve risky loans.

What is a risky loan? It's a loan that the recipient is likely not to be able to repay.

Click here to read the full article.

A Letter Report on Barack "Barry" Hussein Obama, Jr.

Editorial Note: Peggy Bower's original letter report did not include the hyperlinks provided below, had different paragraph break locations, and no section titles. Additionally, minor editorial revisions and one substantive correction to the text has been applied. I have linked names, places, organizations, book titles, etc. to their Wikipedia entries, which may or may not be accurate and/or up to date.

- Timothy E. Bradberry

October, 2008

My 2008 Election Letter

by Peggy M. Bower

I am not in the habit of buying or reading liberal books, but every once in a while I just have to “see for myself.” So I bought one of the most liberal books on the planet—Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals. I had heard about the “dedication” page—couldn’t quite believe it, but here it is:

Lest we forget at least an over-the-shoulder acknowledgment to the very first radical; from all our legends, mythology, and history (and who is to know where mythology leaves off and history begins—or which is which), the first radical known to man who rebelled against the establishment and did it so effectively that he at least won his own kingdom—Lucifer.

—Saul Alinsky

Saul Alinsky's Book

Hillary Rodham wrote her senior thesis about Alinsky when she was a student at Wellesley College. As soon as her husband became President, the White House requested that the thesis be locked away from public availability. Wellesley complied. After Clinton left office the ban was lifted. Today, a person may enter the archives room to “view” the thesis, but no one can make photocopies.

Barack Obama, as a student at Columbia University, became an admirer of Alinsky, and his first job was to follow in his steps as a “community organizer” in Chicago (ACORN—Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now—hired Obama to train its staff). Saul Alinsky (1909-1972), was a Jew who had enough religious training to quote Scripture when it suited him, while at the same time he claimed to be agnostic. From his book dedication it is obvious that he forsook the faith of his forefathers, and came down on the “dark side” of his religious questions. According to Alinsky, the history of the world is a series of cycles in which groups of people called the Have-Nots find ways of overcoming groups of people called the Haves—so that the Have-Nots can become the Haves. Then the cycle starts over again. The Haves always become evil and they try to keep the Have-Nots down. Overcoming the Haves is therefore a noble cause.

Alinsky was often accused of being a Communist. In an interview with Playboy in 1972, he said, “I’ve never joined any organization—not even the ones I have organized myself....Anybody who tells you he was active in progressive causes in those days and never worked with the Reds is a *&^#%* liar. Their platform stood for all the right things, and unlike many liberals, they were willing to put their bodies on the line.” He wasn’t referring to "Red State" Republicans. In order to support “change” and the overthrow of the Haves, Alinsky wrote a couple of books, and started training community organizers who would serve as the change agents.

The job of an organizer is to go into a town, or section of town, where the Have-Nots dwell. The job is easier if the Have-Nots are already dissatisfied, and they invite the organizer in to help them overthrow their “suppressors” and obtain power. If the people have not yet realized what their complaints should be, the organizer talks with the people, identifies the problems, and verbalizes the problems in their own vernacular. He wins the confidence of the suppressed, suggests inventive ways of using whatever resources they have at hand, leads them to victory, and becomes their hero. Alinsky doesn’t state that last part, but it is certainly implied and is the obvious net result of the sequence of events.

Barack the Community Organizer

Barack Hussein Obama has made himself the ultimate community organizer hero by expanding his community to the entire United States of America. His vague message of change involves throwing off some of the foundational supports of our blessed nation. In September, as reported by Investor’s Business Daily, Obama said, "We cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives we've set. We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded."

In 1992, Obama helped form an organization, Public Allies, that he plans to use as a model for this national service corps, which he calls “Universal Voluntary Public Service.” Public Allies (PA) strives to place young adults into paid one-year “community leadership positions” with non-profit or government agencies. They are required to attend weekly training workshops and three retreats. The training methods mimic Saul Alinsky’s training for community organizers, and its real mission is to radicalize American youth, and use them to bring about “social change.” PA boasts in one of their own documents, “Our alumni are more than twice as likely as other 18-34 year olds to engage in protest activities.” One recruit enthusiastically reported, “I get to practice being an activist and get paid for it.” Our government now funds about one half of PA expenses through Clinton’s AmeriCorps. Obama wants to expand it to a fully tax-payer funded “boot-camp” for radicals that would preempt military service.

Obama's Social Associations

Obama never seems to have spent much time with “normal folks.” His mother, Anne Dunham was a rebellious child who gave her parents a difficult time, and never repented. She had two failed marriages—one to Barack’s father, Barack Hussein Obama, Sr., who had a Muslim background but did not practice any religion and claimed to be an agnostic (Sound familiar?); and, the other to Lolo Soetoro, an Indonesian who was a practicing Muslim and who took Barack (Barry) to mosque with him. After several years in Indonesia, Barack was sent back to Hawaii to live with his grandparents. He says in Dreams from My Father that he felt abandoned. He felt less abandoned when he drew close to his first real mentor—poet, former publisher, and writer for newspapers, Frank Marshall Davis—an admitted Communist and member of the Communist Party USA.

Davis was black, and his second wife was a white socialite. They moved from Chicago to Hawaii. Barack’s grandfather sought out Davis to befriend and mentor the boy because he thought that Davis’ mixed race family would be a comfort to him. Davis had many discussions with the boy —not only about race, but about politics. Davis and Barack’s unemployed grandfather enjoyed smoking marijuana together. That may have been why Barack felt free to be open about his own use of drugs in high school and college. And Davis’ talk of his work in Chicago may have played a part in Obama being drawn to Chicago to become a “community organizer” right after college. A former school mate at Punahou High School said that Barack hung out with a group of “druggies.” Obama says in Dreams from My Father, “I had learned not to care, I blew a few smoke rings. . . . Pot had helped, and booze; maybe a little blow when you could afford it. Not smack though.”

Dr. Khalid Abdullah Tariq Al-Mansour (born Donald Warden), who was a mentor to Black Panther founder Huey Newton, asked former Manhattan Borough President, Percy Sutton, who is also a former lawyer for Malcom X, to write for Obama a letter of recommendation to Harvard Law School. Dr. Al-Mansour told Sutton that he was raising money for Obama’s graduate school education. In the same conversation he told Sutton that he (Al-Mansour) represented top members of the Saudi Royal family seeking to do business and exert influence in the U.S. The 88-year old Sutton babbled on about these connections in an interview on a New York all-news cable station early in 2008 (as reported by Investor’s Business Daily, September 5, 2008).

Obama and Tony Rezko

Tony Rezko was born in Syria, but has operated restaurants and developed real estate in Chicago. He was actually a slum lord in Chicago. Obama was finishing law school at Harvard when Rezko sought him out to offer him a job. Though Obama did not accept the offered position, he went to work for the rather sleazy law firm where Rezko was a client, and whose senior partner soon left to become Rezko’s business partner. Why would Obama go to work for such a firm when he had been President of the Harvard Law Review, and could have had a plum job with a prestigious law firm, or probably could have clerked for the U.S. Supreme Court? Rezko helped the Obamas with the financial aspects of buying a large and expensive house right across the street from him. Rezko is now in prison for using his connections to state boards to demand kickbacks from companies that wanted to do business with the state.

Obama and Bill Ayres

Obama has long been friends with unrepentant terrorists Bill Ayres and Bernadine Dohrn (they are a “couple”), who bombed several government buildings, including the Pentagon, back in the sixties. They escaped going to prison on technicalities. In 2001, Ayers said that he had no regrets for his actions and wished he could have done more.

Ayers and Dohrn hosted a fundraiser in their home when Obama first ran for Illinois State Senator. Obama has served on several boards with Ayres, including the Woods Fund, which made $40,000 and $35,000 grants to the Arab American Action Network, headed by Rashid Khalidi. (Khalidi has made statements supportive of Palestinian terror, and is a harsh critic of Israel. Khalidi also held a political fund-raising event in his home for Obama in 2000.) Obama and Ayers also funneled money to ACORN through the Woods Fund. (ACORN is now under investigation for voter registration fraud in a dozen key states for this election.) Obama dismisses Ayer’s behavior because the actions took place “a long time ago,” and Ayers is now a “respected professor of education at the University of Chicago."

Actually Ayers is simply following one of Saul Alinsky’s teachings—that to be more effective in bringing about “change,” you might have to cut your hair and put on a suit. Ayers is still the same radical that he was back in the sixties, but instead of evoking ire from the public by bombing buildings, he is just teaching his radical ideas to college students and public school teachers! He and Obama have worked together on “projects” for Chicago’s schools, and are of the same ilk.

Obama and the Church

Obama had never attended a church until he became a community organizer in Chicago. He was advised by a liberal Catholic priest that most blacks were associated in some way with a church, and that joining a church would be of benefit to being accepted in the community. He said in a TV interview that I watched that he decided to join the United Church of Christ (perhaps a misnomer) because he didn’t have to change any of his beliefs to join. Jeremiah Wright, his “pastor” of 20 years, used his pulpit to preach Black Liberation Theology, and frequently made complimentary mentions of Louis Farrakhan. He claimed that whites in America created the virus that causes AIDS in order to kill off blacks. After 9/11 Wright said that America deserved such a strike. You probably saw on TV a clip of the sermon in which he raved, “. . . No, no, no, not God Bless America—God *&^#%* America!”

Obama and the Current US Financial Crisis

At least three financial advisors to Obama’s Presidential campaign (snopes.com says it ain't true, but some say snopes is covering for Obama) are tied directly to our financial crisis. Franklin Raines, Chairman and CEO at Fannie Mae, was forced to retire when auditing discovered severe irregularities in accounting. He left with a “golden parachute" valued at $240 million. The Court ordered that he return $50 million. Tim Howard, Chief Financial Officer of Fannie Mae, “cooked the books,” and “resigned under pressure” taking only $20 million with him. Jim Johnson was a former executive at Lehman Bros., and later forced from his position as Fannie Mae CEO when it was discovered that his compensation was not accurately reported—it was $21 million, not $6 million. He left with a bonus of $28 million. In addition to being a financial adviser to Obama, he ran his Vice-Presidential Search Committee.

His Liberalness Barack Hussein Obama

Obama has the distinction of being THE MOST LIBERAL MEMBER OF THE UNITED STATES SENATE. His percentage of liberal votes beats those of Ted Kennedy and Barney Frank. When he was in the Illinois State Senate he actually voted twice against a bill to give medical care to babies who were born alive after a botched abortion. (Such babies were being left alone in a room to die.) He testified that giving assistance to such babies would weaken Roe v. Wade.

Conclusion

It sickens me to think that Barack Hussein Obama might be elected President of our country. If we elect him, then we deserve the consequences that will follow. May Americans be alert, attentive, dedicated, and patriotic. May we not be mesmerized by a mellow voice enticing the masses and calling for change—just for the sake of change.

Media Ignore Obama’s Radical Abortion Record

The Democratic presidential candidate has voted to protect partial birth abortion, and to deny care to infants who survive botched abortion attempts.

By Matthew Balan
Media Research Center
October 14, 2008

The liberal news media has subjected Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin to intense scrutiny concerning her overall pro-life view on abortion, among other issues. On the other hand, they have been all but silent on Barack Obama’s intensely liberal record on the abortion issue, particularly his support of partial-birth abortion and his opposition to legislation that would have protected infant abortion survivors from dying of neglect.

In MRC’s October 9 Media Reality Check, "Media Silence on Abortion Aids Radical Obama," Rich Noyes and I outlined how the news media have been out to lunch on examining Barack Obama’s radical pro-abortion stance during the Democratic campaign for the presidential nomination. The report found that the network evening newscasts "barely mentioned Obama’s pro-abortion stance during the primaries — from the launch of his candidacy in January 2007 through the end of the primaries in June 2008, just six out of 1,289 network evening news stories about Obama (0.46%) mentioned his position on abortion; none discussed it in any detail." The media as a whole also punted on Obama’s August 16, 2008 attack on pro-lifers, who in his view, were "lying" about his record as an Illinois state senator of opposing legislation, identical to a federal law, which would have protected infant survivors of abortion. Only a day later, Obama’s own campaign backtracked and admitted that he had indeed voted against this legislation...Click here to read complete story.

Indoctrinate U - The Deleted Segment on Bill Ayers and the Weather Underground

From the Indoctrinate U Team

TERRORIST PROFESSORS

A man named Bill Ayers has been in the news lately as Senator Barack Obama's connections to the 1960s-era domestic terrorist have become an issue in the presidential campaign. It reminded us of a segment cut from an earlier edit of "Indoctrinate U," one that we've just released.

In this deleted scene, we told the story of how 1960s campus radicals morphed into today's academics. Three of those radicals were Ayers, his now-wife Bernardine Dohrn, and Mark Rudd. Together, they led the Weather Underground, a group committed to the violent overthrow the U.S. Government.

To bring about their hoped-for communist utopia, the Weathermen bombed dozens of targets around the country including the U.S. Capitol, the Pentagon and military recruiting stations. The Weathermen murdered two police officers and a security guard while robbing an armored car. They targeted the families of judges, celebrated the Manson murders, and through legal technicalities, most of them avoided jail.

Decades later, they're still unapologetic. In an interview published on September 11th, 2001, Ayers told The New York Times, "I don't regret setting bombs. I feel we didn't do enough."

What does all of this have to do with higher education? Watch the video to find out.

The Travis Monitor: Three men who brought down wall street

Old news to some, perhaps, but this story about Obama's corrupt advisers who "brought down Wall Street" needs to be shouted from the rooftops of Main Street.

The Travis Monitor: Three men who brought down wall street

Honk to Save Our Homes

From Newsmax.com

Demand Congress Protect Taxpayers Not Speculators
FAX All Congressmen - Tell Them No Bailout – Prosecute Offenders!

How did we get here?

FOLLOW THE MONEY AND CORRUPTION! A Lending Policy created by democrats for democrats run by democrats monitored by democrats enforced by community organizer democrats and profited from by democrats.

The following information is condensed from an article by Stanley Kurtz. O's Dangerous Pals.

Fannie and Freddie acted in response to Clinton administration pressure to boost homeownership rates among minorities and the poor. However compassionate the motive, the result of this systematic disregard for normal credit standards has been financial disaster. ONE key pioneer of ACORN's subprime-loan shakedown racket was Madeline Talbott - an activist with extensive ties to Barack Obama. She was also in on the ground floor of the disastrous turn in Fannie Mae's mortgage policies.

Obama Trains ACORN Staff in Shakedown Tactics

It would be tough to find an "on the ground" community organizer more closely tied to the subprime-mortgage fiasco than Madeline Talbott. And no one has been more supportive of Madeline Talbott than Barack Obama.

When Obama was just a budding community organizer in Chicago , Talbott was so impressed that she asked him to train her personal staff.

He returned to Chicago in the early '90s, just as Talbott was starting her pressure campaign on local banks. In those years, he also conducted leadership-training seminars for ACORN's up-and-coming organizers. That is, Obama was training the army of ACORN organizers who participated in Madeline Talbott's drive against Chicago 's banks.

Obama Funds ACORN

More than that, Obama was funding them. As he rose to a leadership role at Chicago 's Woods Fund, he became the most powerful voice on the foundation's board for supporting ACORN and other community organizers. In 1995, the Woods Fund substantially expanded its funding of community organizers - and Obama chaired the committee that urged and managed the shift.

That committee's report on strategies for funding groups like ACORN features all the key names in Obama's organizer network. The report quotes Talbott more than any other figure; Sandra Maxwell, Talbott's ACORN ally in the bank battle, was also among the organizers consulted.

More, the Obama-supervised Woods Fund report acknowledges the problem of getting donors and foundations to contribute to radical groups like ACORN - whose confrontational tactics often scare off even liberal donors and foundations.

Indeed, the report brags about pulling the wool over the public's eye. The Woods Fund's claim to be "nonideological," it says, has "enabled the Trustees to make grants to organizations that use confrontational tactics against the business and government 'establishments' without undue risk of being criticized for partisanship."

Obama Aware of Intimidation Tactics

The Woods Fund report makes it clear Obama was fully aware of the intimidation tactics used by ACORN's Madeline Talbott in her pioneering efforts to force banks to suspend their usual credit standards. Yet he supported Talbott in every conceivable way. He trained her personal staff and other aspiring ACORN leaders, he consulted with her extensively, and he arranged a major boost in foundation funding for her efforts.

And, as the leader of another charity, the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, Obama channeled more funding Talbott's way - ostensibly for education projects but surely supportive of ACORN's overall efforts.

In return, Talbott proudly announced her support of Obama's first campaign for state Senate, saying, "We accept and respect him as a kindred spirit, a fellow organizer."

In short, to understand the roots of the subprime mortgage crisis, look to ACORN's Madeline Talbott. And to see how Talbott was able to work her mischief, look to Barack Obama.