According to this VNN Forum thread, on April 5th, 2010, Missouri U.S. Senate candidate Glenn Miller was interviewed on the Armstrong & Getty radio show aired on KNEW 910 AM in San Francisco. After discussing his candidacy and his website, they finally call Glenn Miller, and shortly after the 15:00 point, begin the interview, which lasts for about seven minutes. Audio embed below:
If the above embed does not work, try this one (verified to work under both IE 8.0 and Firefox 3.5+):
Obviously, the primary objective of Armstrong & Getty was to poke fun at Glenn Miller and his philosophy in order to goose their ratings - that's the way media shows work. But during the interview, Armstrong & Getty unintentionally set Glenn Miller up to make an important point - that we Whites are partially complicit in our own persecution. When the hosts suggested that because the Missouri Attorney General is also White, he would be more likely to rule in Miller's favor in the Missouri Broadcasters Association (MBA) complaint against Miller's ads, it opened up an opportunity for Miller to illustrate just why this was not so. Miller explained that so many Whites are so terrified of being labeled racist that they will make anti-White decisions in order to preserve racial harmony.
In this other VNN Forum thread, Glenn Miller provides an update on his dispute with the Missouri Broadcasters Association. In this post, Miller states that he had a lengthy chat with MO Assistant Attorney General Joe Dandurand at 11:00 A.M. on April 5th. He allowed Miller to state his side of the story, which he recorded, and with other state attorneys listening in on their phone conversation. Attorney General Chris Koster is expected to reach a decision within seven days. St. Louis attorney Mark Sableman wrote the letter of complaint on behalf of the MBA; you can read the full letter HERE.
The MBA's complaint centers around whether or not Glenn Miller is considered a "bonafide" candidate. Because Federal law bans radio stations from rejecting his campaign ads unless they reject those of other candidates, they began a Talmudic-type search of the law to find another pretext. And when they researched Title 47 of the Code of Federal Regulations, they found this:
(d) A person seeking nomination to any public office, except that of President or Vice President of the United States, by means of a convention, caucus or similar procedure, shall be considered a legally qualified candidate if, in addition to meeting the requirements set forth in paragraph (a) of this section, that person makes a substantial showing that he or she is a bona fide candidate for such nomination: Except, that no person shall be considered a legally qualified candidate for nomination by the means set forth in this paragraph prior to 90 days before the beginning of the convention, caucus or similar procedure in which he or she seeks nomination.
(e) A person seeking nomination for the office of President or Vice President of the United States shall, for the purposes of the Communications Act and the rules thereunder, be considered a legally qualified candidate only in those States or territories (or the District of Columbia) in which, in addition to meeting the requirements set forth in paragraph (a) of this section: (1) He or she, or proposed delegates on his or her behalf, have qualified for the primary or Presidential preference ballot in that State, territory or the District of Columbia; or (2) He or she has made a substantial showing of a bona fide candidacy for such nomination in that State, territory or the District of Columbia; except, that any such person meeting the requirements set forth in paragraphs (a)(1) and (2) of this section in at least 10 States (or 9 and the District of Columbia) shall be considered a legally qualified candidate for nomination in all States, territories and the District of Columbia for purposes of this Act.
(f) The term substantial showing of a bona fide candidacy as used in paragraphs (b), (d) and (e) of this section means evidence that the person claiming to be a candidate has engaged to a substantial degree in activities commonly associated with political campaigning. Such activities normally would include making campaign speeches, distributing campaign literature, issuing press releases, maintaining a campaign committee, and establishing campaign headquarters (even though the headquarters in some instances might be the residence of the candidate or his or her campaign manager). Not all of the listed activities are necessarily required in each case to demonstrate a substantial showing, and there may be activities not listed herein which would contribute to such a showing.
The bottom line: The MBA is questioning whether Glenn Miller has done all the things specified above to be considered a "bona fide candidate". The other question is whether or not they would impose this exacting standard upon a less controversial write-in candidate. I view this as just a ploy to derail Miller's candidacy.
All previous posts on Glenn Miller's 2010 U.S. Senate are available HERE, with the most recent post displaying first. Those who are interested in supporting Glenn Miller's campaign can send check, cash, or money order to:
Glenn Miller for US Senate
PO Box 3861
Springfield, MO 65808
Campaign website: http://www.whty.org