Denver Imposes Restrictions on Protesters Tactics

Field commanders and generals know that the best way to win a battle is to be prepared ahead of time for any tactics and tricks the opposing side will use in a pending conflict and confrontation. Denver is making plans now for the DNC convention.

There will be no urine tossing in Denver. Nor will there be any buckets filled with feces nor "cut-proof" devices that protesters can use to thwart local police officers as protesters gather outside the Pepsi Center in Denver when the DNC gathers there to meet next month for the party's convention. Denver law enforcement and lawmakers are working together to make sure that they have as many bases covered as possible to keep protesters from blocking traffic and creating undue disturbance in the Mile-High City.

"Protesters are getting pretty sophisticated," said Councilman Doug Linkhart, chairman of the council's safety committee.

"In other cities, they're not just handcuffing themselves to each other," he said. "They put their handcuffs inside PVC tubes, which are inside concrete. They've figured out ways that keep the police from just using bolt cutters to cut them apart. They also use buckets of urine and feces and various noxious substances to pour on themselves or the police."

Denver's proposed ordinance would make it illegal to carry any "tool, object, instrument or other article" that can be used to obstruct streets, sidewalks and entry or exits from buildings or for hindering emergency equipment.

"We're just trying to very narrowly define an area where, if they have these kinds of tools and we can prove intent, then we can arrest them," Linkhart said.

Among banned items will be chains, quick-setting cement, and locking devices resistant to bolt cutters, along with containers used to transport urine and feces, and any other items that might be seen as being used as a tool for disrupting order. Arapahoe County, where some delegates will be staying during the convention, has also placed bans on items that could be used as weapons, including gas masks that protesters might be carrying to use in case of tear gas being employed by law enforcement officials for crowd control.

Personally, I'm kind of amazed at the mindset of some protesters. I can understand picketing, I can understand the chants used by marchers, but there are some things my mind can not fathom. Urine and feces? Are we talking about people protesting, or chimpanzees here? Mind boggling.

In all honesty, while I can see why there would be a lot for Democrats to protest in regards to their party, especially those who belong to such groups as PUMA, I can't really say that I see many of the Hillary Clinton supporters that would be attending being the feces flinging type.

Of course I could be wrong.

What does sinking to this level of primate behavior accomplish, really? It smells, it potentially spreads disease, and we won't get into the whole concept of that one has to actually take the time to collect containers filled with feces or urine in order to take that one pride filled moment in which they can proclaim, "I tossed my shit on a cop!" I'm sure they have a mother somewhere who would be very proud of them for such adult behavior.

Protesting in such manner does little to accomplish actual real political change. It creates a breeding ground for violence, lawlessness, and potential injury to both the protesters and public safety officials who are there to maintain order. The rare exceptions were the non-violent protests led by Dr. Martin Luther King in which he urged passive resistance. But the days of King are over, and I'm certain that he would have highly disapproved of the use of human/animal waste as a means of attempting to make a point.

I wonder if they've also banned jamming devices for the undercover officers who will be communicating by shoe phone? Just a thought.

Once and Always, an American Fighting Man

.

Denver DNC Convention - The Eve of Destruction?

There is an old proverb that says, "Those who do not learn the lessons of history are doomed to repeat it." Is the Democratic National Convention this year heading towards a historical reinterpretation of the 1968 Convention?

In 1965, Barry McGuire released his hit, "Eve of Destruction", an interpretation of the world at that time.

The eastern world it tis explodin',
violence flarin', bullets loadin',
you're old enough to kill but not for votin',
you don't believe in war, but what's that gun you're totin',
and even the Jordan river has bodies floatin',
but you tell me over and over and over again my friend,
ah, you don't believe we're on the eve of destruction.

Today, more than 40 years later, we're seeing history repeating itself in many ways in this country. If a group called "Recreate 68" has any say in the matter, we will see a near replay of the 1968 Chicago Democratic National Convention played out at the 2008 Denver Democratic National Convention.

The 68 Convention was one marked by infighting of the Democratic Party's members and violent confrontations between the Chicago police, reportedly under "shoot to kill" orders by then-mayor Richard Daly, and anti-war protesters. Bobby Kennedy had been assassinated two months earlier, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. had been assassinated three months prior to that, Lyndon Johnson had declined to run for re-election as President and the nation was, indeed, on the "Eve of Destruction."

There were even suggestions, prior to the meeting of the Convention, that it not be held in Chicago, but rather in Miami, where the Republican party was slated to hold it's Convention. This suggestion was met with violent disagreement by Mayor Daly, who promised to enforce the peace and threatened to withdraw his support for the apparent nominee, Hubert Humphrey, if the convention were to be moved. President Johnson also preferred Chicago, having been rumored to have said "Miami is not an American city."

The Convention itself was filled with tension and apprehension, after a downbeat keynote address by Hawaiian Senator Dan Inouye, and as pro-war and anti-war delegations debated the issue of Vietnam. Peace protesters caused delays in the debates and their confrontations with the police lasted through the length of the Convention.

Humphrey eventually took the nomination for the party, and lost the general election to Richard Nixon, the Republican candidate, in November.

So how does this tie in to today, and the upcoming Denver Convention for the Democrats? The anti-war group known as "Recreate 68" has lost their bid for a permit for the Civic Center to the host committee for the convention.

"When things blow up because the police have to enforce a permit that the Democrats got, don’t blame us for that," said Glenn Spagnuolo, an organizer for the Re-create 68 Alliance.

"Blame the Democrats for trying to silence dissent in the city of Denver."

The lottery for permits to protest, pray or hold other events in city parks during the DNC Aug. 24 through 28 resumed Thursday after the city bungled the drawing Tuesday by accidentally leaving out some of the applicants' names.

This is just one group that is calling for a replay of the 68 convention. Former Virginia Governor L. Douglas Wilder has predicted riots if the popular vote isn't adhered to in selecting the Democratic nominee. Obama is currently leading Clinton in the popular vote.

Personally, I understand the desire for peace, and appreciate the work that is done to achieve peace between conflicting factions. Few know greater how precious peace is than those who have seen conflict. What I don't understand, honestly, is the threat of violence to promote the cause of peace. In my mind, in my way of thinking, that's a contradiction. As I've said before, contradictions can not exist. To protest, peacefully, in the name of peace, for the sake of peace, for the purpose of peace, makes a statement. To protest violently and proclaim that you are promoting peace, contrarily, seems more like an excuse to act in a violent manner for a cause that you don't truly believe in. Violent protestations for peace come across as hypocritical, and the message for the promotion of peace becomes tainted by the advocacy of those who proclaim it, but don't practice what they are preaching.

There is a time for war, and a time for peace, if one is to believe the teachings of the Bible and other ancient texts that have been handed down from generation to generation through the centuries and millennial. A time to kill, a time to let live. A time to sow, a time to reap. If this sounds like a song, too, that's because it is a song, "Turn Turn Turn", by Pete Seeger, and it was based straight out of the Bible (Ecclesiastes 3:1-8).

Regardless of the situation as it was in 68, the 08 DNC promises to be interesting in it's own right, as well. With the Clinton machine gearing up for full confrontation and a determination to remain in the race right up until the very end of the nomination process, and the continued revelations of Obama's associations and their anti-Semitic, Afro-centrist agenda's, the continued bad light he has fallen under because of his pastor (who is currently working ON Obama's campaign staff), it's sure to be a slug fest right up until a candidate is finally nominated and approved.

And in case no one has mentioned this, the possibility has been suggested that neither Obama nor Clinton could wind up as the party nominee.

Has anyone noticed how quiet Al Gore has been lately?

It definitely is winding up toward a very interesting Democratic National Convention for Denver.

Gore Emerges as Democratic Nominee?

With the Texas Primaries second phase behind them and still no clear cut lead for either candidate, the Democratic Party is starting to prepare for a brokered convention, and the possibility of a compromise candidate.

Have you ever seen a tug of war competition between the two strongest, most able bodied people that you know? They're fairly close in size, weight, strength, and endurance. Put them one each end of a rope to face off with one another, and they're likely not going to make much headway unless one or the other of them blunders and falls. NOW, at our hypothetical community picnic, let's turn around behind us at the OTHER tug of war contest; this one between two of the smaller, more sickly, more conniving and less than honorable people you know, still about the same build and whatnot, but the personalities are different. It's a bit different to watch, these two are scrapping it out for every inch they can take from the other, but there's a difference; neither side is playing clean. They're kicking sand at each others faces, name calling, and sending people to their opponents saying "Why don't you just quit now?"

Definitely a more interesting battle, right?

So what happens if someone else comes along, steps in the middle between these two smaller dirty players, takes a pair of shears, cuts the rope in two, watching the other two fall backwards and blink in shock and outrage as he declares to the crowd, "I win?" Everyone looks up at him, trying to figure out what he's doing there, in his plaid shirt and beard looking like he's just hugged a Ponderosa pine (wait, scratch that, let's rewind just a bit here and put him in a suit and tie, clean shaven, and sporting a Nobel prize).

Confusing to consider, isn't it? Mind boggling to say the very least, according to some. I've been predicting this for weeks, along with others of significantly more influence than I have (i.e Rush Limbaugh and Steve Gill among others). For some of us, it was obvious. It was the only solution. It was the only thing that we could see that would unify the Democratic party before November. And now they're admitting that they're considering it.

Al Gore may very well walk away from the Democratic National Convention as the nominee for President of the United States.

If neither Mr Obama nor Mrs Clinton has the 2,025 delegates needed to win the nomination, and if both appear unable to beat Mr McCain, under one scenario a group of about 100 party elders - the "super-delegates" - could sit out the first ballot in Denver, preventing either candidate winning outright, and then offer Mr Gore the nomination for the good of the party.

Tim Mahoney, a Democrat congressman from Florida, said last week: "If it goes into the convention, don't be surprised if someone different is at the top of the ticket." This suggests the party would accept a Gore-Clinton or a Gore-Obama pairing.

Following a brief flurry of speculation that he might jump into the race last year, Mr Gore claimed he had "fallen out of love" with politics, but he has pointedly refused to rule out another tilt at the White House and said that the only job in public life that interests him is the presidency.

The fallout from a move like this on the part of the democrats? Not good. The Democrats have created this situation for themselves in large part by the creation of "super-delegates" and coming up with such complicated methods for choosing their candidates to begin with, not to mention the fact that they have put forward two candidates for the final bid for nomination, each candidate clearly despised by nearly half the party, causing the two halves to be split on making a nominee choice.

In walks Al Gore, after having been properly courted by the DNC upper echelon. He's clean shaven, he's in a new suit, he's holding his Nobel Prize, and there are no splinters visible as the wooden boy steps out of the back rooms to take the stage and say "I accept the nomination of the party" in August.

That may actually send Obama over the top with screams of "Allah Akbar" and make him charge the stage with a scimitar, while Hillary finally has that final overload of circuitry and mutters "target acquisition mode: engaged" as she points her finger at Gore like a gun, surprising everyone as the tip falls aside on a hinge to expose a barrel.

I wonder if they'll be wearing parkas? Al Gore, speaking engagement, hmmmm. It might do well to check the weather one last time before flying into Denver this August come convention time.

There is a problem with bring Gore in as the nominee, though, and I'm not quite sure that the Democrat leadership has really taken this into consideration. Now be easy reading these next few words, I know this is going to come as a shock to many reading this, especially those with leanings toward the idea of a Gore campaign for 2008. It's big. You might pass out from shock at what I'm about to say. Ready? Deep breath, hang on, it'll be over before you know it...Gore didn't even win his home state of Tennessee last time he ran for President when he actually RAN for President in the fully campaign race. So how is it that the Democratic leadership thinks that Gore can be the savior of the party when he didn't even win his OWN bid for the Presidency and by bringing him out as a compromise candidate it's going to cost them votes?

The closer it gets to the Convention, the more panicked Democrats are becoming in trying ANYTHING to win the White House. By bringing Gore out, cleaning him up, dusting him off, checking him for termites, it becomes more obvious just exactly how desperate they are becoming.

I'm just glad Gore gave us the internet so we could follow it all.

Once and Always, an American Fighting Man


.