FollowUp 5: Eugene Delgaudio Lies About Legislation Again

Some,

The Homosexual Lobby is ready to launch their next major push to seize control of the Republican Party:

Oh my. The dreaded "Homosexual Lobby". The catch is, there is no organized homosexual lobby. Yes, there are groups like the Human Rights Campaign and the Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation, but no lobby in the sense that Mr. Delgaudio means.

A "conservative" Super PAC to buy Republican legislators.

The Homosexual Lobby has been infiltrating the once-conservative party for years.

New sham groups like GOProud and Log Cabin Republicans have tried to convince Republican legislators that it is okay to be conservative and pro-radical homosexualism.

Now this is funny. Many in the LGBTQ Community have been at odds with the Log Cabin Republicans and more recently GOProud for a long time. Since the Republican Party has had denial of equality to the LGBTQ Community as a Platform Plank for years, there are many who think that these folks should not endeavor to be in bed with the enemy. Their response is that if we do not engage the GOP, joining and attempting to influence them, then we will never make inroads and eventually achieve equality.

Still, aside from the gay squabbles, GOProud and the Log Cabin Republicans are fairly small organizations. Mr. Delgaudio is correct that they have been members of the Republicans (infiltrating) for years. But they cannot have been both doing so for years and be new groups. He has to choose one or the other. While many liberal gays think they are sham, the members of those two organizations are real and are quite serious about what they are doing.

And they’re doing it with their swollen bank accounts.

It’s no secret that the Homosexual Lobby has access to more funding than the pro-Family Movement.

Vast amounts more.

This exaggeration is because Mr. Delgaudio is referring to himself and his donors as if they are the entire so-called "pro-Family Movement". That the National Organization for Marriage has tens of millions of dollars in annual donations, including from the presumed Republican presidential nominee, does not count in Mr. Delgaudio's tallies. Neither do the resources of the Family Research Council, the American Family Association, and their allies like the Witherspoon Institute.

And last summer, it was this unlimited funding that persuaded four NY state senators to betray the voters who elected them by voting for homosexual “marriage.”

So, according to Mr. Delgaudio none of these four Republican state senators had a thought about being fair to all of their constituents as they claimed. The gay lobby bought and paid for these state senators just like the National Organization for Marriage has pledged hundreds of thousands of dollars to those who would oppose them in the next election. But, money dedicated to bigotry is okay while money dedicated to equality is evil.

And the man who played an instrumental role in New York is leading this newest push.

Paul Singer is a billionaire who claims to be conservative, but he is fighting with his vast fortunes to institute homosexual “marriage” across this nation.

I don't know Mr. Singer so I can't speak to his individual politics other than to note that he does indeed appear to be pushing for equality among Republicans. What I do know is that there is more than one kind of conservatism. I am a fiscal conservative (albeit not one who screams socialism at any hint of new spending, just a citizen who appreciates a frugal government). Mr. Delgaudio is a "social conservative". These are hardly the same.

As part of the fight in New York last summer, Singer was responsible for more than $11 million being spent to push homosexual “marriage” through.

He openly gave each of the four Republican traitors a quarter of a million dollars for their vote!

If that were true then Mr. Singer and all four state senators would be in a state prison. I am certainly willing to believe that Mr. Singer donated generously to each of the four. But buying votes is illegal; I'm told it is still illegal even in New York.

And now he wants to repeat this strategy in the more than 30 states which outlaw homosexual “marriage.”

Singer has created a new radical pro-homosexual Super PAC specifically to infiltrate the Republican Party.

His “American Unity PAC” has only one purpose: Find conservative politicians who are weak on moral issues -- or just desperate for money -- and buy their votes.

Well, if one goes to the American Unity PAC webpage, there is only a Facebook link. Really. There is nothing there.

Slate Magazine ran a short article on this a few days ago. It does appear that Mr. Singer's goal is to sway Republicans to marriage equality.

Hedge fund billionaire Paul Singer is one of the country’s most important Republican donors. The 67-year-old is also a big supporter of gay rights, giving more than $10 million of his own money to equal rights causes across the country. Now Singer tells the New York Times’ Frank Bruni that he, along with some like-minded Republicans, will be putting forward $1 million to launch a new super PAC with the sole mission of encouraging GOP candidates to back marriage equality.

Back to the letter from Eugene Delgaudio.

Singer provided $1 million out of his own pocket to start this up, but he won’t stop there.

He is guaranteeing politicians that if they support homosexual “marriage,” he will keep the money flowing.  It won’t matter if their own constituents reject them, Singer and his Super PAC will make the traitors rich.

The word traitors is entirely wrong and to be expected of Mr. Delgaudio. Supporting equality for all of one's constituents is far from being a traitor. It is being a small-c conservative. Perhaps a dictionary would help Mr. Delgaudio with that word (eleven meanings given at the link).

It is no coincidence that they announced the new radical Super PAC when they did.

Only weeks ago I had the pleasure of announcing that Public Advocate and its supporters were able to drive Sen. James Alesi from office.

Isn't it interesting that the National Organization for Marriage made the same pronouncement ... that they had driven Mr. Alesi from office.

Mr. Alesi was one of the four Republican traitors who received slush funds from Paul Singer.

But you and I still got to him.

And the pro-Homosexual “conservatives” realized that they would have to do even more to weather the pro-Family storm of fury.

So they are going to spend even more money than ever before to buy the Republican Party -- to add the Homosexual Agenda to the conservative platform.

Let's be realistic for a moment. Given that Willard "Mitt" Romney has donated to the National Organization for Marriage and signed a pledge to pass a Constitutional Amendment from the Family Leader or from the National Organization for Marriage to keep the LGBTQ Community as second class citizens. Given that the second and third and fourth place contenders for the Republican nomination, Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich and Ron Raul*, signed the same pledge. There is zero chance that the GOP Party Platform will be modified to include equality for all.

* I should note that Dr. Paul did not really sign the Marriage Pledge.  He signed the Personhood Amendment Pledge.  When it comes to marriage equality, Ron Paul favors letting each state decide, preferably to maintain the caste system.

My friend, this could be their most dangerous strategy.

You and I saw how they made it work in New York.

The only counter-strategy mainstream Americans have is dedicated grassroots lobbying.

Through phone calls, letters and public campaigns to expose them, you and I can fight back.

Public Advocate is the biggest threat to the Homosexual Agenda... you can be sure that this new Super PAC is going to target us in the near future.

Mr. Delgaudio should make sure that he tells this to Bryan Fischer of the American Family Association, Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council, and Bryan Brown of the National Organization for Marriage. They each believe that they are the biggest threat.

For the Family,

Eugene Delgaudio
President, Public Advocate of the United States

And, of course, by "the Family" Mr. Delgaudio does not include my family. It is only families that meet a narrow definition of opposite gender spouses.

The letter was interesting in that it clearly demonstrates that Mr. Delgaudio, and likely many others among his fellow bigots, are scared of the impact that Paul Singer might have.  In the short run, Mr. Delgaudio's letter goes on to a post script in which he begs for money as he always does.  In the long run, equality will likely be the rule as it was for Blacks and for women.  Perhaps Mr. Singer is tightening that timeline.

19 December 2011, Original Pedantic Political Ponderings post.
11 January 2012, FollowUp 1.
14 January 2012, FollowUp 2.
16 February 2012, FollowUp 3.
15 March 2012, FollowUp 4.


12 July 2012, FollowUp 6.

Repudiation: Rand Paul Against Gun Ban That Did Not Happen

I just received an e-mail with the above banner at the top.  Senator Paul makes some serious allegations that appear to be completely false.

Dear fellow Patriot,

Nearly 1 million American firearms.

Banned by a stroke of Barack Obama’s pen .

In a move unprecedented in American history, the Obama Administration quietly banned the re-importation of nearly 600,000 American made M1 Carbine rifles.

I've spent about half an hour trying to track down data on this ban.  Perhaps it is real and Google failed to notice.  I've found lots of fear tactics by various Republican candidates anticipating the November elections and threats by the National Rifle Association that "Obama will take your guns".  Nothing about either legislation or executive orders banning M1 rifles.

And I've just discovered Obama may be blocking as many 300,000 1911 Colts too!

That's nearly one million pieces of American history denied to the American people.

I can't find information on this happening either.  The e-mail continues with the history of various firearms and a call for people to take a "firearms freedom survey" that is being sponsored by the National Association for Gun Rights.

Then it begs for money to protect your firearms.

Decades ago I was trained in the use of several firearms by the United States Navy and a few more in cross training with the Marine Corps.  I am far from being opposed to the Second Amendment.  That being said, I do not believe that we should have allowed the Assault Weapons Ban to expire in 2004.  I am opposed to the Stand Your Ground laws while I support the Castle Doctrine.  In other words, I am like most Americans who support reasonable gun laws ... no need to go to extremes in any direction here.

Mr. Rand's scare tactics are absurd.  President Obama has been a centrist on gun rights.  No crazy bans and not even reasonable restrictions like restoring the Assault Weapons Ban. 

This is just the latest in a series of anti-gun schemes from the Obama Administration:

*** A new so-called “Assaults Weapon Ban " -- targeting ALL semi-automatic rifles and shotguns -- which, unlike the Clinton ban, would NEVER expire;

*** An outright BAN on “high capacity” magazines -- banning the sale and manufacture of magazines holding more than just a handful of rounds;

*** A National Concealed Carry “Standard ” -- designed to make it even more difficult for law-abiding citizens to carry a gun to protect themselves and their families from assault;

*** Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s “Catch-All Gun Control Scheme ” -- to create a national “cannot buy registry,” allowing citizens to be stripped of their Second Amendment rights on a Justice Department whim, effectively banning all private gun sales.

That’s why it is essential that Americans like you and I take a stand against the M1 Carbine and 1911 gun ban!

While I would support a new Assault Weapons Ban that would never expire, I cannot find where that has been introduced or suggested other than by Mr. Paul. 

Immediately following the massacre at Virginia Tech and again after the nearly fatal attack on Congresswoman Giffords there were calls for banning high capacity magazines.  Sadly, those calls have not been realized with any proposed legislation.

A concealed carry standard might be a good idea if it is designed correctly.  There was, in fact, a proposal earlier this year that would have established a national standard that Senator Paul is warning about.  He should know about it because he was one of the sponsors.  Is he really complaining about his own legislation??!?

New York City Mayor Bloomberg has been in the news recently with his opposition to Stand Your Ground laws.  The National Rifle Association is not happy with the Mayor.  But there has been no proposal to ban individuals from buying guns based "on a Justice Department whim".

I'm not going to continue quoting from the e-mail as it is rather boring repetition, very much in the style of Eugene Delaudio's rants and about as delusional.  Gun laws are important.  The Second Amendment is important.  The balance is missing.  Despite Mr. Rand's complaints, President Obama and the Democrats have been too far to the right and need to place reasonable limits including both a renewed Assault Weapons Ban and a ban on high capacity magazines.  There should be a national registry so that criminals who have been banned from purchasing guns can be kept from owning them.  We need reasonable laws like the Castle Doctrine and need to get rid of laws like Stand Your Ground.

One more note.  Thorough training should be required for any who own guns.  The number of accidental gun deaths are far too high.  Owning a gun means taking on a huge responsibility.  I am grateful for the training that I received in the U.S. Navy.

FollowUp 20: Wisconsin Republican Dirty Tricks

While federal law and Wisconsin law both prohibit buying votes, Mr. Mitt Romney and Mr. Paul Ryan probably did not violate the law today.  According to the latest articles, they did not require proof of voting or promises to vote in exchange for the sandwiches that they were giving away in Waukesha today.

Update, 2:30 p.m. Tuesday: The Democratic Party of Wisconsin is alleging that Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan committed election bribary by offering "subs-for-votes." Patch will have more updates about their accusations as soon as more information is available.

Original: Mitt Romney was handing out sub sandwiches to voters in Waukesha, courtesy of Cousins Subs, with Congressman Paul Ryan, R-Janesville, who has stuck by Romney’s side while he has been campaigning in Wisconsin. Romney handed voters turkey subs while Ryan handed them the ham sandwiches.

Later, the pair encouraged the crowd to get out and vote. They also took the chance to criticize President Barack Obama as Romney is the likely winner of the GOP nomination.

Several details are important or moderately interesting.  Waukesha is one of the three most Republican counties in Wisconsin (the other two being Brown and Washington Counties).  It is also one of the wealthiest counties in Wisconsin.  Handing out free subs there to encourage people to vote in the Republican primary is not very different from encouraging them to keep breathing.  It's a nice touch, but probably not necessary.

I will skip all of the obvious jokes about one being a ham and the other a turkey.  Too many and too obvious.

Channel 3000 notes that giving anything worth more than one dollar in exchange for voting is a violation of Wisconsin state law.  While the Democrats have, properly, filed a complaint, I doubt it will go far.  The description is that of handing out sandwiches without a commitment in exchange.  Nonetheless, this is the sort of activity that has the appearance of impropriety ... dirty tricks.

16 November 2011, Original Pedantic Political Ponderings post.
30 November 2011, FollowUp 1.
4 December 2011, FollowUp 2.
11 December 2011, FollowUp 3.
14 December 2011, FollowUp 4.
15 December 2011, FollowUp 5.
30 December 2011, FollowUp 6.
13 January 2012, FollowUp 7.
17 January 2012, FollowUp 8.
25 January 2012, FollowUp 9.
2 February 2012, FollowUp 10.
9 February 2012, FollowUp 11.
12 February 2012, FollowUp 12.
18 February 2012, FollowUp 13.
22 February 2012, FollowUp 14.
6 March 2012, FollowUp 15.
12 March 2012, FollowUp 16.
16 March 2012, FollowUp 17.
30 March 2012, FollowUp 18.
31 March 2012, FollowUp 19.

4 April 2012, FollowUp 21.
11 April 2012, FollowUp 22.
14 April 2012, FollowUp 23.
17 April 2012, FollowUp 24.
21 April 2012, FollowUp 25.
29 April 2012, FollowUp 26.
2 May 2012, FollowUp 27.
6 May 2012, FollowUp 28.
10 May 2012, FollowUp 29.
13 May 2012, FollowUp 30.
23 May 2012, FollowUp 31.
24 May 2012, FollowUp 32.
30 May 2012, FollowUp 33.
2 June 2012, FollowUp 34.
4 June 2012, FollowUp 35.
5 June 2012, FollowUp 36.

FollowUp 2: Personhood Amendments

Wednesday evening there was yet another Republican debate in South Carolina, this time sponsored by Personhood USA and called a Pro-Life Forum.  Despite an explicit invitation, Mr. Romney was a no-show.  All four of the remaining Republican contenders are opposed to legal abortion.

But, the facts are that if one wants to see abortion rates reduced, then one should favor legal abortion and legal contraception.  A news release from the Guttmacher Institute, a Collaborating Center for Reproductive Health of the World Health Organization, indicates that abortion rates are starting to rise globally.  The study was released in the Lancet.  The details of what is happening are important.  First from the news release:

“The declining abortion trend we had seen globally has stalled, and we are also seeing a growing proportion of abortions occurring in developing countries, where the procedure is often clandestine and unsafe. This is cause for concern,” says Gilda Sedgh , lead author of the study and a senior researcher at the Guttmacher Institute. “This plateau coincides with a slowdown in contraceptive uptake. Without greater investment in quality family planning services, we can expect this trend to persist.”

Research from WHO shows that complications due to unsafe abortion continued to account for an estimated 13% of all maternal deaths worldwide in 2008; almost all of these deaths occurred in developing countries. Globally, unsafe abortion accounted for 220 deaths per 100,000 procedures in 2008, 350 times the rate associated with legal induced abortions in the United States (0.6 per 100,000). Unsafe abortion is also a significant cause of ill-health: Each year approximately 8.5 million women in developing countries experience abortion complications serious enough to require medical attention, and three million of them do not receive the needed care.

“Deaths and disability related to unsafe abortion are entirely preventable, and some progress has been made in developing regions. Africa is the exception, accounting for 17% of the developing world's population of women of childbearing age but half of all unsafe abortion–related deaths," notes Iqbal H. Shah, of the WHO and a coauthor of the study. “Within developing countries, risks are greatest for the poorest women. They have the least access to family planning services and are the most likely to suffer the negative consequences of an unsafe procedure. Poor women also have the least access to postabortion care, when they need treatment for complications.”

The findings provide further evidence that restrictive abortion laws are not associated with lower rates of abortion. For example, the 2008 abortion rate was 29 per 1,000 women of childbearing age in Africa and 32 per 1,000 in Latin America, regions where abortion is highly restricted in almost all countries. In contrast, in Western Europe, where abortion is generally permitted on broad grounds, the rate is 12.

So nations that are so radical that they allow legal abortions have an abortion rate of less than half that of those without legal abortion.  Worse, when abortions are not legal women are three hundred and fifty times more likely to die than during a legal abortion.

This is not surprising data.  In 2007, the Guttmacher Institute produced a similar study that found that use of contraception is correlated with reduction in abortions.

The number of induced abortions worldwide declined from nearly 46 million to under 42 million between 1995 and 2003. Abortion rates fell most significantly in Eastern Europe, a trend that corresponds with substantially increased contraceptive use in the region, according to “Induced Abortion: Rates and Trends Worldwide,” a new report by the Guttmacher Institute and the World Health Organization (WHO) published in the 13 October 2007 issue of The Lancet.

If one really wants fewer abortions, Personhood Amendments are not the answer.  Restrictive abortion laws are not the answer.  It may seem counter-intuitive, but for fewer abortions, encourage contraception and give women and their doctors abortion as a legal choice.

11 November 2011, Original Pedantic Political Ponderings post.

4 December 2011, FollowUp 1.

Repudiation: Rand Paul and Big Government

Senator Paul, like his father, is supposedly for smaller, libertarian government.  Also like his father, Dr. Paul really wants bigger and more intrusive government when it comes to particular religious issues, most notably abortion.  Today I received an e-mail from the Senator that directed me to a petition to overturn Roe v. Wade.  As a gay man, I do not have a direct interest in the questions of when life begins and the rights of a woman.  Abortion is distasteful at best.  But I do not believe that either I or the government have the right to come between a woman and her doctor in making such decisions.  Small government.

Nonetheless, having been presented with arguments that I believe to be flawed, let's look at the logic and reasoning on the page of the petition.

Because of Roe v. Wade, more than 56 million unborn children have died through abortion; and

No.  The premise is immediately flawed.  "unborn children" is an oxymoron.  A fetus is not yet a child.  A child has been born already.  The wording makes no sense.

In Roe v. Wade, the U.S. Supreme Court declared it could not resolve "the difficult question of when life begins" – and on the basis of this unresolved question, declared a new "right to abortion" based on a "right of privacy"; and

The only quibble I have here is the phrasing "a new right".  A person's rights are either recognized or legislated against.  The concept of new does not make sense.

The 14th Amendment to the Constitution states: "nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty or property, without due process of law, nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the law"; and

Yes, but a fetus is not a person.  This is what the whole Personhood Amendment is about ... trying to declare a zygote and a fetus to be a person with the same rights as you and I have.  A "person", legally, is one who has standing in a court of law ... meaning that a young child is not a person so that she or he can have the protection of a parent to stand legally on the child's behalf.  Expanding full personhood not just to children but to include both fetus and zygote is completely absurd.

In Roe, the Supreme Court admitted: "If . . . personhood [for the unborn] is established, the appellant’s case, of course, collapses, for the fetus’ right to life is then guaranteed specifically by the [Fourteenth] Amendment..." (Roe v. Wade [410 US 113 at 156-7]); and

That is a big if which has been assumed as having been established.  It is not.

Science is clear that human life begins at conception when a new human being is formed; and

No.  That is a point of debate, not an established scientific fact.  Yes, the cells of a zygote are living tissue, but that does not designate a new human being yet.

The American people oppose abortion-on-demand and want innocent human life to be protected especially when it is most defenseless; and

Some Americans do oppose any and all abortion.  But neither Dr. Paul nor the National Pro-Life Alliance speak for all American people.  They do not speak for me.

It belongs to Congress to resolve the question the Supreme Court said IT cannot resolve; and

No.  Government should not be intruding in medical decisions like this.

A Life at Conception Act, by declaring that unborn children are persons legally entitled to constitutional protection, will rescue millions of unborn children from dying by abortion-on-demand;

This is a big government intrusion into very personal matters.  I do not believe that a zygote is entitled to any protection other than that which the woman elects to provide.  Most zygotes are spontaneously aborted ... is that to be illegal?  How about a woman demanding abortion to terminate an ectopic pregnancy?  What of those forms of contraceptive that prevent implantation of the zygote?  This would remove many of the protections that couples and women in particular can now enjoy.

Needless to say, I am not signing the petition that Dr. Paul linked.  You will probably see more of this soon.  According to the e-mail from Dr. Paul signing the petition is key, then:

They are the key ingredient in the National Pro-Life Alliance's plan to pass a Life at Conception Act. They'll also organize:

... Hard-hitting TV, radio and newspaper ads to be run just before each vote, detailing the horrors of abortion and mobilizing the American people.

... Extensive personal lobbying of key members of Congress by rank and file National Pro-Life Alliance members and staff.

... A series of newspaper columns to be distributed free to all 1,437 daily newspapers now published in the United States.

... An extensive email, direct mail and telephone campaign to generate at least one million petitions to Congress like the one linked to in this letter.

Of course, to do all this will take a lot of money.

Just to email and mail the letters necessary to produce one million petitions will cost at least $460,000 .

Sorry Senator, but I want the government out of my bedroom, out of my doctor's office, and not interfering with personal decisions made by couples.  Please butt out!

Pattern: October Surprise?

This morning Joe My God ran a clip from Reuters on Russia warning the United States against attacking Iran.  At the same time, all of the Republican contenders, with the notable exception of Ron Paul, are saber-rattling against Iran.  This set me thinking about October 1980, but the story starts much earlier.

In 1921, Reza Shah Pahlavi overthrew the Persian government, a Turkish family having held the seat for a couple of centuries.  He sought to modernize Iran without Westernizing the country.  As part of the battles of World War II, Britain and the Soviet Union invaded Iran and sent him into exile.

In 1941, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, the last Shah, the son of the exiled ruler, was placed on the throne.  A decade later there was a coup and the last Shah fled the country.  Two years later the United States and Britain overthrew a constitutional government to force the last Shah back onto the throne.  The last Shah fled Iran again in 1979 as the modern theocracy took over.

It is important to go back to the Pahlavi dynasty to understand why Iranians today hold animosity toward the United States.  While these are not recent events to many of us, they are not forgotten in the ancient land of Persia.

In November 1979, fifty-two Americans were taken hostage at the United States embassy in Tehran.  They would be held for 444 days.  This would be part of why President Jimmy Carter failed to win a second term.  Mr. Carter did endeavor to free the hostages, both by negotiations and by military extraction.  All efforts failed.  To make matters worse for the President, media coverage was greater and more persistent than it had ever been previously, including the introduction of Nightline to cover the hostage drama.

On 20 January 1981, minutes after Ronald Wilson Reagan was sworn into office as the fortieth President of the United States, the hostages were freed.  The timing inspired conspiracy theories.  I was serving in the U.S. Navy at the time and there were many rumors, scuttlebutt it was called, floating around about both Mr. Carter and Mr. Reagan.  The truth would not come out until several years later.

In 1988 fourteen of the released hostages filed suit against the U.S. government for collusion with the Iranian Ayatollah Khomeini to delay the release until after Mr. Reagan was sworn into office.

To support the lawsuit's charges, Davis cited recently declassified top- secret documents and court transcripts. He is relying mostly on statements by two self-described former CIA agents: Richard Brenneke and Heinrich Rupp.

The two claim to have played roles in three meetings between Reagan campaign officials and Iranian officials in Paris on Oct. 19-20, 1980.

Brenneke, an Oregon businessman and former arms dealer, told a federal judge in Denver last month that he attended one of the meetings along with William Casey, then-chairman of the Reagan campaign and later the director of the CIA, and Donald Gregg, now George Bush's national security adviser. He said he was not at an Oct. 19 meeting that he was told included Bush.

The group discussed trading weapons for a delay in releasing the American hostages until after the election, Brenneke said.

''The logistics of transferring $40 million for the purchase of weapons was worked out,'' Brenneke said in his testimony. ''That was the figure that William Casey and Mr. Gregg discussed at the meeting as being available for the purchase of weapons.''

More information came out in the book October Surprise in 1991.

Now let's look at 2012.  There have been tensions between Iraq and Iran for a long time.  Our withdrawal from Iraq has left an opening for Republicans to question whether this helps Iran (a fair question).  The second nuclear scientist assassinated in Iran in a short period leaves Iran blaming Israel and the United States (perhaps correctly, I don't know).  Russia is on Iran's side so that it can ensure its own delivery of oil from the Persian fields.  And the Republican contenders for President are rattling their sabers.

I don't like conspiracy theories.  I would hope that no American who seeks the presidency would be dealing with a hostile foreign government to achieve a domestic administration's defeat.  But that apparently did happen just thirty-two years ago.  Could history repeat itself?  What sort of surprise might October 2012 hold?  I offer no predictions, just concern.

FollowUp 1: Ken Cuccinelli to Change Primary Rules

It seems that Mr. Cuccinelli has failed to convince the courts to change the rules and allow his preferred candidates to be on the Republican Primary ballot in Virginia.  CNN reports

A federal judge on Friday ruled against four Republican presidential candidates seeking a spot on Virginia's March 6 primary ballot, saying they waited too long to file their claims.

Left off the ballot are Texas Gov. Rick Perry, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, former U.S Sen. Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania and former Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman.

The four candidates challenged the state's residency requirements for those seeking to circulate ballot petitions, but Judge John Gibney ruled against the challenge.

The four candidates "knew the rules in Virginia many months ago," the judge wrote in his ruling. "In essence, they played the game, lost, and then complained that the rules were unfair."

This leaves only Mr. Romney and Dr. Paul on Virginia's ballot.  But, it may not be the end of the story in Virginia.  The CNN article notes that Mr. Cuccinelli has not given up.

Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli said he didn't expect the ruling to be the last word in the ongoing case, which is expected to be appealed to a federal appeals court in Richmond.

"I am pleased that the district court is allowing Virginia's orderly election process to move forward," Cuccinelli said in a statement. "The ruling today dealt only with the request for a preliminary injunction. The litigation is ongoing."

So, kudos to Judge Gibney for following the rules.  Mr. Cuccinelli sounds like a sourpuss.

Thanks to Joe My God for the heads up.

1 January 2012, Original Pedantic Political Ponderings post.

Humor: Secret Asian Man on Political Sins

Political Punditry from Secret Asian Man

Secret Asian Man is no longer a daily comic, but items in the attached blog are frequently brilliant. This is the commentary that goes with the above picture:

I thought I should throw in Obama to be fair and balanced. Actually, I just really wanted to type the word "vainglory". It was a toss up between Gingrich and Santorum for gluttony and lust (with Gingrich's past infidelities and Santorum's apparent love of fatty foods) but anyone who can inspire the definition of the byproduct of an anal sex act wins the lust title. Thanks Dan Savage.

The insights here are appropriate.  Don't click on the byproduct link unless you are away from work.  I'm not sure that vainglory should be counted as a sin, particularly as most of Mr. Obama's accomplishments are discounted by the media, but that is for you to decide.