House Republicans Using Fake IRS Scandal To Defund Affordable Care Act

...this is the beginning of a generational battle... "Repeal ObamaCare" is going to be the battle cry for Republicans for the next 20 years or longer ~ Thom Hartmann (dob 5/7/1951) an American radio host, author, entrepreneur, and progressive political commentator. His nationally syndicated radio show has 2.75 million listeners a week. From 2008 to 2011, Talkers Magazine rated Hartmann the most popular liberal talk show host in America... an excerpt from hour 2 of the 6/29/2012 broadcast of his radio program... the day after the SCOTUS decision upholding most of the ACA (8:08 to 9:47).

On 6/5/2012 I authored a commentary titled, "Tea Party Groups Allowed To Hide Donors Real IRS Scandal". In this commentary I explained that the IRS "targeting" Conservative groups was not an Obama Administration scandal, but a Republican scandal, as Republican groups were applying for 501c4 tax exempt status, getting it (none were denied), and then politicking when the law forbids it. 501c4 status is for groups engaged exclusively in social welfare. If they wanted to politick they SHOULD have applied for the 527 tax exempt status. Under both 501c4 and 527 designations your group will be exempt from taxes. The difference is that under 501c4 status your donors remain anonymous, while under 527 status donors must be disclosed.

Conclusion? The Tea Party groups that applied for 501c4 status LIED to get it. They politicked in violation of the law and SHOULD have received extra scrutiny (or been "targeted"). The REAL scandal was that they were ALL approved! The reason they wanted 501c4 status and not 527 status was so they could HIDE THEIR DONORS. Karl Rove did just that with his two groups: one a SuperPac and the other a 501c4 that accepted donations anonymously and then re-gifted the money to the SuperPAC. Because the SuperPAC couldn't accept donations without disclosing who they were from, but the LAUNDERED money from the 501c4? Those donors remained secret.

Today I'm going to fill you in on the SECOND way in which the IRS scandal is actually a Republican scandal. House Republicans are going to cut the IRS budget so the Affordable Care Act cannot be implemented... or it's going to make it a hell of a lot more difficult, at least.

Following are some experts from a 6/15/2013 Associated Press story by Stephen Ohlemacher titled, "IRS scandals threaten funding for health care law". My commentary will follow each excerpt...

Stephen Ohlemacher: Mounting scandals at the Internal Revenue Service are jeopardizing critical funding for the agency as it gears up to play a big role in President Barack Obama's health care law. Obama sought a significant budget increase for the IRS for next year, when the agency will start doling out subsidies to help people buy health insurance on state-based exchanges. Congressional Republicans, however, see management problems at the IRS as an opportunity to limit the agency's funding just as it is trying to put in place the massive new law.

My Response: The scandals are Republican in nature, as I just pointed out. But does the "Liberal Media" mention this? No. I had to do a specific Google search to pull up those stories when I was researching the article I mention above. The vast majority of people who read this AP story will automatically assume the "scandals" are the "targeting" of Conservative groups and denying/delaying their 501c4 status, which most readers will believe they should have been granted posthaste (even though they should have all been rejected). Also, the wasting of taxpayer money on lavish conferences and parody "training" videos (more on that later).

SO: Republicans have been fighting the health care law ever since Democrats enacted it in 2010 without a single GOP vote. Unable to repeal the law, some Republicans hope to starve it by refusing to fund its implementation. The IRS scandals are giving them a timely excuse.

Me: The last time the House Republicans voted to repeal the Affordable Care Act was 5/16/2013, and that was the 37th vote! The Washington Post says, "the vote was 229 to 195, with two Democrats joining Republicans in voting for repeal. The Democrats were Mike McIntyre NC and Jim Matheson Utah". Shame on these Democrats. And shame on the Republicans for wasting taxpayer money in a pointless exercise, as the repeal won't be taken up by the Senate, would be voted down there if it were, and would be vetoed by the president if it got to his desk. And there is also the fact that the Supreme Court ruled the ACA constitutional (with GWb-appointed chief justice Roberts among those in the majority).

SO: Last month, the IRS was rocked by revelations that agents had targeted tea party and other conservative groups for extra scrutiny when the groups applied for tax-exempt status during the 2010 and 2012 elections. A few weeks later, an Inspector General's report said that the agency had spent lavishly on employee conferences during the same time period. From 2010 through 2012, the IRS spent nearly $50 million on employee conferences. In 2010, the agency used money that had been budgeted to hire enforcement agents to instead help pay for one conference that cost $4.1 million, according to the watchdog's report.

Me: Note that the IRS was "rocked" by these particular revelations and NOT by revelations that ALL the Conservative groups that applied for the 501c4 status were approved when they shouldn't have been (because they were politicking), and that these groups are using the status to HIDE their donors. The "Liberal Media" is doing a bang-up job of covering that story, aren't they? Not.

As for the report from the Inspector General that said the IRS "spent lavishly on employee conferences", not so says US News & World Report. A 6/12/2012 article titled, "What Was so Lavish About the IRS Employee Conference?" says "tax experts and lawyers who have been professionally involved in reviews and in setting up conferences say evidence of wrongdoing is slim". One quoted expert says, "you want them to be conducting training conferences at a time like this...". Another expert says that a "$4 million outlay for a three-day national convention would not be out of line for a national conference for more than 2,600 senior managers".

The article goes on to give other examples of how the IRS spent less on conference related items than is typical in the private sector. Yes, those "Star Trek" and "Gilligan's Island" training videos were lame and embarrassing, but again, according to a tax lawyer cited in the article, "the IRS has a big training challenge, and you want to see them addressing it in a creative and out-of-the-box way". Although the videos were "dumb", the tax lawyer concludes that "you can't fault them for trying".

In any case, the IRS director during the time they spent "lavishly" on conferences was Doug Shulman, a Republican bush appointee. Shulman was director of the IRS from 3/24/2008 to 11/9/2012. It was also during this time period that Conservative Tea Party goups were "targeted". And, while it was not Shulman who directed the "targeting" of the Tea Party groups, it was another Republican IRS manager (in the Cincinnati office) who did so. The individual, whose name has not been revealed, says "he and an underling set aside Tea Party and Patriot groups because the organizations appeared to pose a precedent that could affect future IRS filings". According to Rep. Elijah Cummings the IRS manager "is a conservative Republican working for the IRS". Cummings correctly concluded, "I think this interview and these statements go a long way toward showing that the White House was not involved in this".

The individual who resigned, "acting" director Steven Miller, wasn't in charge at the time. By the way, Miller was only an acting director because Senate Republicans have refused to confirm anyone to fill the position permanently under Obama. Republican obstruction in not confirming an IRS director chosen by the President is another aspect of the scandal which is being completely ignored by the media.

SO: "For years Republicans in Congress have made repeated attempts to stop and slow down the Affordable Care Act. This is just the latest attempt to put up roadblocks to implementing the law", White House spokeswoman Amy Brundage said.

Me: Exactly. If only Democrats would go on the offensive instead of saying saying things like... "based upon everything I've seen, the case is solved. And if it were me, I would wrap this case up and move on". No Rep. Cummings, the case is NOT solved! We need 501c4 reform so Conservative groups (any group really, but Conservative ones in particular) cannot abuse the designation and use it to hide donors and launder political donations.

SO: Democrats in Congress say they are growing tired of Republican attempts to repeal a law that has survived a review by the Supreme Court and whose main champion — Obama — won re-election last year. "The American people will see over the next six months the lengths the Republicans will go to destroy the implementation of the Affordable Care Act", said Rep. Jim McDermott of Washington state, a senior Democrat on the House Ways and Means Committee. "I'm sad about it, it's awful", McDermott added. "But sometimes in a democracy people have to learn the hard way, and the American public is going to learn".

Me: What the American public should learn is that they need to vote out as many of these obstructing Republicans as possible and return the House to Democratic hands. I am beyond tired with these Republican shenaggians, endless obstructing and fake scandals.

Troubling Attacks on Edward Snowden From The Left

...there's nothing surprising about the reaction to this week's disclosures about the National Security Agency's unprecedented surveillance program. In our cult-of-personality society, that reaction has been predictably - and unfortunately - focused less on the agency's possible crimes against the entire country than on Edward Snowden, the government contractor who disclosed the wrongdoing ~ David Sirota (dob 11/2/1975) an American liberal political commentator, nationally syndicated newspaper columnist, Democratic political spokesperson and radio host based in Denver. Quote from his 6/14/2013 article, "Snowden deserves our Sympathy".

The following is an excerpt from the 6/13/2012 broadcast of Current TV's The Young Turks, which I edited for brevity and clarity. Host Cenk Uygur and guest Daniel Ellsberg (the Vietnam war-era whistleblower who released the Pentagon_Papers) discuss Edward Snowden...

Cenk Uygur: How similar is your case and the cases of Edward Snowden and Bradley Manning?

Daniel Ellsberg: I feel a great identification with them, despite the fact that we have different backgrounds and were different ages when we made our disclosures. Bradley Manning was 22, and I give him credit at having arrived at that [decision to become a whistleblower at such a] young age. I think we all faced the same problem.

Basically we saw we were working for a government that was lying to the people and was acting illegally and unconstitutionally in various ways. Whether we would live up to our oath to support the Constitution or to our promise to keep secrets to a boss, even when those secrets involved criminality. We chose the Constitution. Unfortunately that is pretty rare, so I feel considerable identification with both of them.

Cenk Uygur: So, Daniel, how do you answer the people who say these guys clearly broke the law, so obviously they should go to jail?

Daniel Ellsberg: That is a complicated legal question. Regarding Edward Snowden, there is a law against divulging communications intelligence information, regardless of what your motive is. There is no element of motive in that law, 18 USC 798, which I was not charged with and Bradley was not charged with. I would say he [Snowden] did break that law, and that raises the question... can it be criminal to release secrets that are protecting criminal or unconstitutional behavior?

That has never been tested in any court case. It has never gone to the Supreme Court. I would like to see that tested in court. Not that I want to see him [Snowden] on trial, particularly. But that is the issue that would be raised there.

Cenk Uygur: Yes, interesting. To me what's even more interesting is the different reactions throughout those different years.

Daniel Ellsberg: None of them were different in the beginning. I was called a traitor as much as either of those people [Bradley Manning & Edward Snowden]. I'm struck by the fact that... I am receiving some favorable comments from some surprising people than I've had for 20 or 30 years... in the context of using me as a foil against Bradley Manning or Snowden. "Ellsberg good, Manning bad". "Ellsberg good, Snowden bad". I don't accept that at all.

I think we have people who, after the exposures of the last 10 and 20 years, are pro-whistleblower in general, just against the current whistleblowers. I think that's true of... people like Tom Friedman and David Brooks. Overall FOR whistleblowing, but not for these guys. If Edward Snowden was not right to put out this unconstitutional behavior, a blatant violation of the fourth amendment, I wonder what these people would say would be reasonable whistleblowing? You can't get more classic whistleblowing than that.

Possibly, the next step will be the revelation that they are not just looking at meta data... I feel sure -- I can't prove this, I haven't seen the documents; no one has outside the NSA -- but I fee sure they are collecting and keeping all of the content of all digital communication (all telephone, everything else)... big brother is collecting everything. We don't have the proof of that yet...

These people are heroes to me... Dianne Feinstein doesn't know treason, the Constitution does not define it as that. It is a slander for her to say so. What it shows is that our system of oversight has failed. That is true under both Republicans and Democrats. For high level Democrats to be denouncing Snowden instead of focusing on what he has revealed shows that the structure of checks and balances has disintegrated, and that means that our democracy is very much in question. This is perhaps a chance to get some of that back. That means putting pressure on people like Diane Feinstein.

My Commentary: I end my transcript when the show goes to commercial (although there was some stuff near the end that I cut out). After returning from commercial Ellsberg seems to suggest the NSA may be listening/reading our electronic communications without a court order. According to him, they can "Google it" or the equivalent at any time, and they have "blackmail capability" for "every journalist, every Congressperson [and] every judge".

I'm not sure about that. Ellsberg says it will take another Snowden to give up the documents that would prove his allegations are accurate, because without documents the people will believe whatever the government tells them. As proof he cites the case of NSA director James Clapper, who lied to Congress when asked by Senator Ron Wyden (in a 3/12/2013 United States Senate Select Committee on Intelligence hearing), "does the NSA collect any type of data at all on millions or hundreds of millions of Americans?" and Clapper responded, "No, sir".

Chenk postulates that there is no chance of rolling back the surveillance state. A member of the panel (which he introduced after the break) agrees, and notes that public opinion is on the side of allowing this to continue. That, or they are indifferent. So, no chance. Not while most of the public is either apathetic or on board for whatever reason. Repubs because they're so afraid of the terrorists or Dems because they trust the current occupant of the White House.

Yes, those on the Left are lining up behind President Obama. In the article I pulled my opening quote from David Sirota notes that "plenty of Obama loyalists — many of whom criticized the Bush administration for much less invasive surveillance — took to Twitter to berate Snowden as an attention-seeking traitor". What I've found is that the Obama apologists have also taken to their blogs to condemn and malign Snowden and defend the administration.

Several Liberal blogs I comment on are bashing Snowden (and Glenn Greenwald) and defending what Daniel Ellsberg calls a blatant violation of the 4th amendment. And they say Ellsberg is a hero but Snowden is a "character-disordered con-man", and that the fact that he ruined his life to disclose this wrong-doing is proof that "he has a demonstrated callous disregard of people without conscience or remorse [and that his] chest-thumping grandiosity is the ego food of a narcissist".

So Ellsberg was definitely right about people saying "Ellsberg good, Snowden bad". The comment I just quoted is from a Lefty. The point made on the blog the previous hyperlink connects to is that Snowden fled to Hong Kong and may have disclosed "secrets" to the Chinese. Perhaps there is something to those criticisms. We don't know what he's telling the Chinese. They also note that he is (supposedly) a Libertarian Ron Paul supporter. I've heard that as well, but I say it's irrelevant.

I agree with the commenter who wrote, "Whatever Snowdon's personality traits, whatever his motivation... we do need to be concerned about government power and it's intrusion into our personal lives". Absolutely. My electronic communications are my "papers" and the government does not have the right to seize them (and store them in gigantic data processing centers), even if they are get a (secret) court order (from a secret court) before reading or listening to the content. They're only able to read or listen to my "papers" using that warrant because they previously seized them (with no warrant).

I've seen the old Ben Franklin quote cited many times in connection with the Edward Snowden case, which is "they who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety", and I agree it is extremely applicable. The Left criticized the Repub's who defended bush when he illegally wiretapped American citizens, but now that it's a Democratic president doing it, they're OK with similar unconstitutional behavior? I must say I'm disappointed in my fellow Liberals.

Image Description: Daniel Ellsberg appears (via Skype) on the Young Turks to discuss whistleblowers Bradley Manning, Edward Snowden and himself, 6/13/2013.

Post 45: A Sleeping With The Devil Meta Commentary

A star-studded turkey, Movie 43 is loaded with gleefully offensive and often scatological gags, but it's largely bereft of laughs ~ Rotten Tomatoes reviews the 2013 American independent anthology black comedy film co-directed and produced by Peter Farrelly.

Welcome to the 166th Sleeping With The Devil post. As of today my blog has been in existence for 7 years, 4 months and 9 days. I call this commentary Post 45 because this is my 45th post of 2013. The significance of 45 is that 45 posts is the most I have ever published in a single year. In 2012 I published 44 posts. The year after (last year) I only published 20 posts.

Other bloggers may publish far more commentaries, but I try to write only posts of significance. Posts where I state my position and make my case backed up by the facts. I do not cut and past large sections of articles by professional authors and journalists, although I may (from time to time) reference these articles and use excerpts, I try to keep the quoting to a minimum. I also try not to revisit the same topic too often, instead including everything I have to say on a topic in one post (which explains why they usually run a little long).

Now, before you say "wait I minute, I've seen posts where you transcribe lengthy sections of dialogue from TV news programs or radio shows"... Yes, I have done that, but those aren't cut and paste jobs. I actually transcribe what I've heard on programs like the Thom Hartmann radio program (5 times) or The Young Turks (as broadcast on Current)(3 times).

Regarding The Young Turks and Al Gore's Current TV, I've heard that the channel's new owners, Al Jazeera, will be jettisoning the current programming and replacing everything with their own content sometime in August. That will be six hours of programming that I watch (almost) every week day gone... which will be disappointing.

But back to discussing my blog... in addition to commentaries from a Progressive prospective, you may have noticed a number of fictional stories. Some have told me that I should move away from the stories as they don't attract readers and generate comments. And while it is true that these kind of posts (fictional stories) frequently receive absolutely no comments, so do my political commentaries. Actually, the political commentaries do sometimes receive a comment or two, and, in addition, Blogger reports that they get more hits. With the exception of a story I titled "The Famous Actress & The Scene Featuring Full Frontal Nudity".

That one gets a lot of hits for an obvious reason (even though it was published way back in October of 2011). I chose the title of the post with that in mind. Although I suspect people searching for "famous actress full frontal video" and arriving at my blog LEAVE a short while later, possibly feeling deceived. That's OK, because when I think about that I laugh a little. By the way, that post was part of a continuing storyline I call "Senior Fellow at the Progressive Ideology Foundation". That storyline is just one of a total of FIVE, which I have summarized below... in order of how many entries each has (in doing so perhaps I will attract some attention to one or more of them and generate some comments?)...

[1] Senior Fellow at the Progressive Ideology Foundation (18 entries) This narrative details my exploits as a Senior Fellow at a progressive think tank. Other characters include my adversaries, most of whom are continually seeking to do me harm. Please look to the sidebar for links to the 18 (as of the publishing of this post) entries. I currently have another entry in the works that will be published soon. The individual posts can also be brought up by clicking the label "Ridiculous".

[2] The Adventures of William the Moderate (6 entries) A story that follows the escapades of the morally bereft eponymous character. Set in a Dungeons & Dragons type universe, the last entry ended with a cliffhanger. Another installment is in the works and will be published later this month (most likely). The individual entries can be found listed in the sidebar under their own heading (The Adventures of William the Moderate) or via the label "William the Moderate".

[3] The Inceptrix (5 entries) The "Inceptrix", as explained in the most recent installment, is like a cross between the movies Inception and The Matrix. According to the Morpheus-type character I am very much like Neo, the savior of humanity. Although it is possible I am completely nuts. Click the link Inceptrix to call up all the stories in this series, or locate the list located in my sidebar.

[4] Messages (2 entries) Only 2 entries so far, but I have been working on a third, which looks like it's going to be a two parter. According to what is said in these stories, there is a possibility that they may be true! Given that there are currently only two entries, I have not yet created a scrollbox for my sidebar... but I plan to, as I have a lot of additional ideas for further entries... or expect that further far-fetched events may occur in the future that I plan to report here if and when they occur.

[5] The Bald Frog (2 entries) I'm not sure about the title of this one. I may change it later on. There is also no scrollbox in my sidebar for this story, as there are only two entries, the last one published on 5/14/2011. The current 2 entries can be found via the "bald frog" label. This was going to be a "Wind in the Willows" type fable featuring frog characters who run for political office (the title character becomes a candidate for pond vice president). I do have a third entry that is partially written. Whether or not I complete it is questionable, as I'm not sure where this story should go.

OK, so that wraps up the summary of all the fictional stories I've written for this blog. A total of 32 posts out of 166, or approximately 20 percent of all the posts published on this blog. So, if you don't like them or think I shouldn't do them if I expect to generate the traffic and comments I claim to want? I've decided I don't care, and that taking that advice would not lead to more traffic or comments. I like writing the stories so I'm going to continue writing them (and, as I already said I have several more in the works).

Finally, in regards to this "meta post", how incredibly boring, right? Yes, that may very well be true, but if you're a person who reads but does not comment... to you I say "stuff it". If you have an opinion please let me know. I want comments, be they positive or be they negative. Of course I'd prefer the positive ones, but I'll take the negative ones as well. In fact, the negative ones can be quite enjoyable, unless the person comments anonymously and just writes "you suck" (or words to that effect). Nice to know I offended someone, but some more details regarding exactly why I suck would be appreciated.

Anyway, I think I'll create a "meta" label the next time I author a meta post (that way I can link the two). That will most likely be when I reach 200 posts. That day is currently 34 posts in the future, or 1.4 posts per week... if I want to make it to 200 by the end of the year. My current rate of post composition is very close to 2 posts per week. Right now I'm not sure if I'm going to be able to keep that up, so whether or not I make it to 200 this year is not currently known. We shall see.

By the way, if you want to leave a comment in regard to this post and how much you think it sucks, be my guest. Although I'd prefer you do so while signed in with your Blogger account. Why not stand behind your insults instead of taking the chicken route? Don't be afraid, like I said earlier I welcome negative comments. But if you're reading this and liking it (not this particular post, perhaps, but maybe other ones), I'd also appreciate a comment. The anonymous option is available (and I have no plans on disallowing this commenting method), so you can use it if you don't have a Blogger account. If you do have a Blogger account it would be nice if you'd sign in first.

If you do comment, that is, which I'm sure you won't. I predict that this post will get one comment at most. In fact, I wouldn't be at all surprised if it gets zero, as it is (as I already pointed out) boring and rambles on and on. So, congratulations if you've made it this far... the end is near. Now all you have to do is compose a comment. A few words are all that is necessary... heck, I'll be satisfied with one word. All you have to do is write "yes" if you like my blog or "no" if you don't like it. That isn't hard at all, now is it? And face it, you've already wasted quite a bit of time reading to this point (if you are in fact still reading). You can't spare a few more seconds to leave a one-word comment? If you've read this far but decide not to comment I say FU.

OK, I take that back. Maybe I appreciate readers even if they don't comment? I can't decide. On one hand I like the idea of people reading and don't need the validation of actual responses, as I'm not someone yearning for adulation, but on the other hand... screw you. That's not quite as bad as FU, but still I think you are deserving of some harsh words... for depriving me of a comment AFTER reading what I took the time to write. But you probably stopped reading a LONG time ago, or never even started reading. That is the most likely scenario. But in the off chance that you are still reading... how about a comment?

Rebuking Chimpanzee Capitalism (Labor Offshoring)

You're helping to destroy your own country. It's one thing to make patriotic noises on the 4th of July; it's quite another to help to gut the manufacturing base of your homeland. Do you really want the rest of the country to become like Detroit? Because that's where things are headed ~ Geoffrey James, writing for the personal finance website CBS News Money Watch on 6/27/2011... this being the number 9 reason of the Top 10 Reasons Offshoring is Bad For Business.

Free trade is an awesome deal for the American people; and even if it isn't we must bend to the will of the globalizers as an act of charity to the inhabitants of third world countries. So what if we destroy good paying American jobs in the process? The low paid wage slaves in whatever country we outsource our labor to will gladly accept whatever pittance those who run the transnational corporations deign to gift them.

But, more importantly... this "charity" of ours will result in lower priced goods for us! No matter that some workers here will be screwed and our economy will suffer, LOWER PRICED GOODS for the people who still have jobs (people like a certain politically "moderate" individual I've mentioned here before) are what is important. OK, so the plutocrats will pocket the difference between the good wages they used to pay here and the low wages they can get away with paying abroad.... and make a significant amount of money in the process. But don't think about that! Think about the great charity we are doing these unfortunate people! Sure, the wages might be low and the working conditions quite often are horrific, but they should thank us, none the less.

Why should they thank us? I'm guessing it must be because these third world workers are only deserving of low wages and poor working conditions that may lead to their deaths (suicide, collapsing buildings, etc). Does this sound the least bit racist to you? How about if I told you this "Moderate" referred to this type of labor as chimpanzee jobs? Maybe not, as he is also insulting American workers in addition to foreign workers. But I think he'd call the American workers lazy for taking pride in jobs he wants to export to other countries for the benefit of the plutocrats (primarily).

Specifically this "Moderate" asked me why did I "want to chase these chimpanzee jobs that clearly can be done so much more efficiently overseas?". By "efficient" he means more cheaply. MUCH more cheaply. Do NOT tell me that isn't what he meant, because suggesting American workers are less efficient is outright bullplop. No, Mr. Hart, we all know what you meant with your code word "efficient". More "efficient" workers benefit the consumer (in his mind), which is why he then asked me, "Why do you hate the consumer so much?". But this "efficiency" also benefits the plutocrats (and MUCH more so than the consumer, which it ultimately HURTS).

This is why he'll talk up anyone who shares his misguided views on trade, as evidenced by a post he authored on 6/11/2013, titled "Kenyan Activist and Economist James Shikwati, Unplugged"...

Will Hart (quoting Shikwati): The anti-globalization crusaders could help Africa more if they would advocate for the promotion of free trade and abolition of subsidies in the West. Lift the protective barrier in the developed countries and allow consumers to sample African products. To empower the poor economically, give them a chance to trade.

James Shikwati is a Libertarian economist. Will Hart forgot to mention that. In addition to his wrong-headed views on globalization, Shikwati also says, "As absurd as it may sound: Development aid is one of the reasons for Africa's problems. If the West were to cancel these payments, normal Africans wouldn't even notice".

Does that sound absurd? You betcha. But this type of absurdity is par for the course when it comes to Libertarians (regardless of race or nationality). University of Columbia economics professor Jeffrey D. Sachs agrees, calling "Shikwati's criticisms of foreign assistance shockingly misguided and amazingly wrong. Sachs says, "this happens to be a matter of life and death for millions of people, so getting it wrong has huge consequences".

Absolutely. But Shikwati probably doesn't care if the people of Africa suffer because he has a good job (as an economist). As far as his "activism" goes, I say he's an activist all right, an activist for the plutocrats. And I say this with some degree of confidence... because one of the personality traits Libertarians are known for is selfishness. Don't agree with me? Stuff it. That is my observation and I'm sticking to it. This explains why Will Hart strongly identifies with Libertarian economics... it adheres to the Libertarian philosophy of "survival of the fittest and screw the poor because they only have themselves to blame" (but we'll use them as slave labor to enrich ourselves).

Harsh? No, I think not. These neoliberals delude themselves with fictions of it being charitable of us to export good paying American jobs to impoverished nations, but it's total baloney. I'm not opposed to trade. I am actually a strong supporter of trade. What I oppose is that which we call "free trade", but in reality isn't trade at all. Free trade is actually labor offshoring... The large transnational corporations exploiting the workers of poor countries to line their pockets.

I SUPPORT trading with manufacturers located in other nations. Manufacturers that are home grown and pay living wages, and not simply huge transnationals that are USING a foreign country to exploit it's workers who are so desperate they will work for a pittance and under horrific conditions. THAT is the real debate. But corporate stooges like James Shikwati misrepresent that argument by LYING about the developed nations having a "protective barrier" that does not allow them to "sample African products".

That is complete nonsense. I'm ALL FOR allowing the importation of "African products". I'm OPPOSED to products that used to be made in America being imported sans tariff from any country where the workers are paid low wages (and thereby destroying America Jobs). Fools like Will Hart supports this when they present the words of Libertarian economists and say "looky here. Listen to the words of a highly educated person who agrees with me". Especially this Libertarian, who Will clearly believes has authority to speak on the subject, seeing that he is from Africa. But he parrots the same Libertarian garbage as all the other Libertarian economists. Shikwati is no different than them at all.

It is the greedy "Chimpanzee Capitalism" championed by Libertarians we can blame when factories collapse and workers die (for example). A 6/3/2013 Guardian article says "Majority of Bangladesh garment factories vulnerable to collapse". A MAJORITY. Also, remember the Foxconn suicides? Foxconn is a Taiwanese multinational electronics contract manufacturing company that churns out products for companies like Apple, Dell, HP, Motorola, Nintendo, Nokia, and Sony. They exploit Chinese laborers to enrich themselves. Working conditions got so bad that "employees attempted suicide with fourteen deaths; many after working longer than 72 hours with no breaks".

And the Foxconn example is hardly unique. All around the word workers in developing nations are being exploited by transnational corporations for the benefit of the plutocrats... aided by Libertarian economists and the stooges who wittingly or unwittingly propagate their labor offshoring masquerading as "free trade" bunk. I say it is bad for the economies of both developed and developing nations and we need tariffs to deal curb this abuse. Tariffs that will protect American jobs and greatly benefit our economy.

The "free traders" warn the result will be higher prices, but this is also largely bunk. Reduced outsourcing means more jobs and more economic activity when those workers spend their wages on goods and services. More economic activity gives us a healthier economy that leads to higher wages for all. The prices of goods may rise a little, but we'll all have more money thanks to the increased economic activity. This would be a TRUE case of a rising tide lifts all boats. When Conservatives use the phrase it's to justify tax cuts for the wealthy, but tax cuts for the wealthy BENEFIT THE WEALTHY, not the rest of us... just like labor offshoring primarily benefits the wealthy and not the rest of us.

Severe Moderate Delusions: Fracking Stupidity Edition

One of the things I like about this is that during the Bush administration, Vice President Cheney’s energy taskforce made sure that the gas companies did not have to reveal what the chemicals were that were being pumped into the ground. Now, it's been reported that some are things like kerosene, benzene, urea, toluene... how many of those can I feed my toddler? Because it’s perfectly safe, right? ~ Stephen Colbert in a 6/9/2011 interview with former bush Homeland Security advisor and current natural gas lobbyist Tom Ridge.

Hydraulic fracturing is fracking awesome according to the self-proclaimed "Moderate" Mr. William Q. Hart, but I say he is a fracking idiot. On 6/6/2013 Mr. Hart authored a post he called Oily Bed-fellows. In his commentary Hart trashed actor Matt Damon for his role in co-writing and starring in a particular Hollywood film...

Will Hart: There are some things in life that are just so utterly delicious in their irony that you simply cannot pass them up. Take for instance this little factoid. DID YOU KNOW that one of the premium bank-rollers for Matt Damon's propagandist piece of shit hit-piece, "Promised Land" (a dramaturgical counterpart to Matthew Fox's anti-fracking HBO screed, "Gasland"), was none other that the royal family of the United Arab Emirates?

"Utterly delicious", huh? Well, recalling a certain climate change denying "scientist" he often cites, I view little Willie's schadenfreude a wee bit hypocritical. I submitted a reply to Mr. Hart's post, although he has comment moderation enabled and has banned me from his blog, so the following most likely will not be published...

What about the "oily bedfellow" Dr. Richard S. Lindzen? According to this source... [1] Lindzen charged oil and coal interests $2,500 a day for his consulting services. [2] His 1991 trip to testify before a Senate committee was paid for by Western Fuels. [3] A speech he wrote, titled "Global Warming: the Origin and Nature of Alleged Scientific Consensus" was underwritten by OPEC.

Yet Mr. Hart has no issues citing this individual whose motives could be questioned seeing as Big Oil is providing some of his funding. Fact is Will frequently sings his praises, claiming that Lindzen's works are "well thought out". Yeah, I bet he thinks long and hard about how big of a check from Big Oil it will take for him to sell out.

This is the comment I would have submitted if I were not banned, even though it doesn't actually address the issue of Promised Land being financed by a company owned by the royal family of the United Arab Emirates, which it was. Obviously the purpose of the reply would have been to provoke Mr. Hart (and it could have comments like this that contributed to me being banned). But, heck I couldn't have helped myself, due to him describing this film as a "propagandist piece of shit hit-piece". It isn't that at all. It is a film based on the legitimate concerns and dangers that come with fracking.

Unfortunately the film did tank, as the Hart-ster points out. It made a little over 8 million on a 15 million budget. Why that happened isn't hard to deduce. The topic is not one the apathetic public really cares about, plus the movie isn't that good. I wanted to like it, but I watched it (I doubt Mr. Hart did) and give it a "C". Mostly because the film plays fast and lose with the facts. Not the facts regarding fracking, about which it does not go into a lot of detail, but the facts regarding how it is decided if fracking will be allowed to take place in any particular area.

An NPR review of the film points out that "in Pennsylvania, where this film was made, municipalities have very little authority over what happens [and that] they certainly don't get an up-and-down vote [as depicted in the movie]". And a town vote is at the heart of the movie. An environmentalist comes to town (played by John Krasinski) and the energy company representative (played by Matt Damon) gets worried that he may sway the vote against allowing the fracking to go forward. But that's all BS and not at all how it actually works in the real world.

And then there's the "switcheroo" near the end... I can understand why people didn't like it. Several reviews I read mentioned it (but didn't give it away, so I won't either). One reviewer said it "insults both the characters and the audience" and is "unforgivable". Yikes. I wouldn't go quite that far. IMO this "town vote" contrivance is more "unforgivable" than the switcheroo which didn't bother me nearly as much.

Regarding the film's financing... yes, that is troubling. They really shouldn't have jumped into bed with a company that could be seen as having ulterior motives for putting up the cash. Do a internet search on this movie and you'll find that the Right is slamming this movie because the Saudis would like it very much if we didn't frak so much (which is why they financed the movie). That way they could sell us more oil than if we took our foot off the breaks and started fraking like crazy.

So their financers may have had, or probably had an ulterior motive, but what about the film makers? I say no. They probably knew this type of movie was a little more risky than another mindless action film, but they felt passionately that people needed to be informed. In any case, who financed the film is a legitimate criticism, just like it is valid to criticize the climate change deniers that are financed by Big Oil.

But I wouldn't say the criticisms are equal. I say it is MORE suspect that the Big Oil funded "climate scientist" Dick Lindzen says climate change is "no big deal" (he acknowledges it is happening to some extent), and that it is LESS suspect that the filmmakers had ulterior motives.

I say they didn't have any at all. Their financers, yes, they probably did. But the filmmakers? No. And for that reason I most certainly would not call Promised Land a "propagandist piece of shit hit-piece". I'd call it an average (or slightly less than average) movie, but one where those involved (aside from the financers) had the RIGHT motives.

OK, so Promised Land isn't that good, and is also light on facts regarding the dangers of fracking. If you want those facts I say you need to watch the superior documentary Gasland by Josh Fox (which I have also viewed). Here we get the in-depth low-down regarding the very serious problems that come with fracking. Problems that Mr. Hart totally denies with the following comment...

Will Hart: ...when you find something that is a) plentiful, b) relatively safe (Obama's own EPA chief has said that there's never been a documented case of fracking causing well-water contamination), and c) relatively clean (gas has a hydrogen to carbon ratio of 2:1, coal a 1:2 ratio), you really gotta go for it (not without adequate regulations, I grant you), I think.

Adequate regulations? Are you kidding? I'm not aware of there being any at all! OK, I'm sure there must be SOME, but as Gasland points out... the 2005 energy bill pushed through Congress by Dick Cheney exempts the oil and natural gas industries from the Safe Drinking Water Act, the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, the CERCLA Superfund law, and about a dozen other regulations. Does that sound to YOU like there are "adequate regulations"? REALLY? And if fracking is "relatively safe" as Will claims, why would the companies that do it need all these exemptions?

In Gasland director Josh Fox interviews EPA whistleblower Weston Wilson who discusses what happened after the bush administration pushed through the Halliburton Loophole...

Weston Wilson: All science, all data. Everything stopped. We were appalled that we were burying this secret, that [the fracking fluid] was known to be toxic. When the president says don't investigate, expedite things for industry. We do those things well too. We're still asleep at the wheel. Don't assume that since Obama was elected something has changed (yet) at the EPA in that regard.

Huh. That might explain why Obama's EPA chief Lisa Jackson said the EPA hasn't confirmed any contamination. You can't find what you aren't looking for. Mr. Hart frequently authors commentaries where he complains about how the government has gotten into bed with industry, but here he turns a blind eye to it. Wanna bet that if a commenter mentioned this on his blog he'd call it a "conspiracy theory"?

Things are slowly changing, however. It was on 5/24/2011 that Lisa Jackson said that, while no cases of contamination were proven yet, there are ongoing investigations. Where any particular pollutant came from and how it got there (in the water) is something that is hard to prove. Since EPA Chief (now ex-chief) Jackson made her comments there has been a report issued by the EPA regarding the possibility of groundwater contamination caused by fracking in Pavilion Wyoming. On 12/9/2011 the EPA released their draft finding for public comment and independent scientific review. In part the EPA report said...

...three years ago... two deep monitoring wells [were drilled] to sample water in the aquifer... [Tests indicate] groundwater in the aquifer contains compounds likely associated with gas production practices, including ... synthetic chemicals, like glycols and alcohols consistent with gas production and hydraulic fracturing fluids, benzene concentrations well above Safe Drinking Water Act standards and high methane levels. [Sampled water] in the private and public drinking water wells [revealed] chemicals [that]... include methane [and] other petroleum hydrocarbons... [The EPA's conclusion is that] the presence of these compounds is consistent with migration from areas of gas production.

In his film Josh Fox says fracking fluid is a mix of over 596 chemicals, some the frackers refuse to disclose... to others that are known carcinogens (ethylbenzene). Doing some rough math Josh estimates that [1] 1-7 million gallons of water is used per fracked well, [2] each well can be fracked up to 18 times, and [3] around 450,000 wells have been drilled in the US... which means that approximately 40 trillion gallons of fracking fluid contaminated water has been pumped into the ground.

We're supposed to believe that absolutely none of this contaminated water has made it into any groundwater, aquifer, lake or stream? I think you've got to be fracking stupid if you believe that.

Video Description: Tom Ridge repeats the now proven false Lisa Jackson EPA claim that there are no confirmed cases of fracking contaminating groundwater.

My Message From The Afterlife

Frisbeetarianism is the belief that when you die, your soul goes up on the roof and gets stuck ~ George Carlin (5/12/1937 to 6/22/2008) stand-up comedian, social critic, satirist, actor, and writer/author who won five Grammy Awards for his comedy albums.

I would have paid for my gas using the credit card scanner located on the pump, but a sign said "out of order, please pay inside". While inside I decided to grab a 32oz soda from the fizzy drink dispenser (despite Mr. Bloomberg's warnings). After adding a minimal amount of ice to my cup, I filled it to the tippy-top with the possibly diabetes-causing caramel-colored liquid. I approached the cash register to pay when I noticed a man brandishing a firearm. He was pointing it at the frightened clerk manning the counter.

The robber hadn't seem me yet, so I wondered if I should try to be a hero. "Empty out the register", the ski-mask-wearing thief demanded. I was considering whether or not I should tackle him when the man suddenly pivoted to the side, keeping one eye on the clerk he waved his gun around, alternately pointing it at me and the frightened attendant. "Get over here", he yelled, indicating I should move toward the counter. "Don't try to be a hero", he warned.

Realizing I was in a situation in which I could very well lose my life, my hands started shaking. As I moved in the direction the thief commanded I suddenly fumbled my soda, spilling it all over him. Thinking I was making my move, the robber panicked and fired his weapon. Then everything went dark. I knew I was lying on the floor, but could not feel my body. Opening my eyes, I was surprised to see myself prostrate in a pool of blood.

I saw the robber grab the cash and run out of the store. The attendant behind the counter picked up a phone and dialed. "Hello, 911?" she said. "I was just held up by a man with a gun! Send an ambulance quick, a customer was shot!". "I feel just fine" I tried to tell her, but she did not seem to hear me. It was then that I felt myself drifting toward the ceiling. It occurred to me that I must be dead, but instead of panicking a odd sense of calm came over me.

"Now I know for certain there is life after death" I thought. And it appeared as though no shadow demons like in that Ghost movie starring Patrick Swayze were going to show up either, which was a good thing. I continued to float toward the ceiling, and then through it. Before I knew it I was hovering over the roof of the gas station. A bright light appeared in the sky and I involuntarily moved toward it. Clearly it must be the portal to Heaven. I found that if I resisted I could move in any direction I chose, but decided to allow whatever force was guiding me to move me in the direction of the light.

Soon I was there, and found I was correct about it being a portal, but the white light was so intense that I could not see what lay beyond. Whatever force was guiding me nudged me toward the lip of the portal. "Now I guess I enter the light and see what happens next". And so I did. Instantly I was propelled forward at what must have been a great velocity, although I only deduced that from the visual cues. If not for those it seemed as though I was not moving at all.

I moved rapidly though the tunnel of light... it was very much like how travel though a wormhole is depicted on the television series Stargate SG1 starring that MacGyver dude, Richard Dean Anderson. After what could have been either a few minutes or a few hours, I reached my destination and was ejected from the tube of light. Looking back I saw the tube fold in on itself, forever sealing off the route by which I had arrived here. "Where was here, exactly?" I thought, taking in my new surroundings.

Apparently I was up among the clouds, although this couldn't possibly be the sky above earth, as everything was much too white. White clouds moved against a white background. There appeared to be a solid surface beneath my feet, but I could not see it. I was reminded of that Warren Beatty film, Heaven Can Wait. I hoped an angel didn't appear and tell me I wasn't supposed to be dead... that I had been removed from my body by mistake and was going to be sent back in someone else's body. I wasn't sure I would like that.

Off in the distance I saw a figure moving in my direction. As the figure got closer I saw it was a angelic looking woman who was floating toward me on a beam of light. "I am a representative of the Creator", the angelic green-eyed brunette intoned, her voice sounding almost musical. "Hello", I replied nervously. I considered asking her what the 411 was, but decided against it. Then the angelic woman spoke again, saying "You may call me Monica". No, her voice wasn't musical I decided, instead it sounded like she had a faint Irish accent.

"Someone called Jerry told you that the Ancient Aliens TV program is no less believable that the Bible. The Heavenly Father wants you to know that simply isn't the case. Most of what is said on that program is far from the truth, while the opposite is true when it comes to the Bible" Monica said. "How odd" I thought. Odd that God would want to impart to me some information regarding a TV show. Also odd that most of it is far from the truth. Which must mean that some of it is close to the truth? "That is correct" the woman said, obviously reading my mind.

Something else suddenly occurred to me, so I decided to ask her about it instead of pursuing the Ancient Aliens mystery any further (at least not now). "Aren't my dead relatives supposed to be the ones who greet me?", I inquired. "Usually that is the case", Monica confirmed, "but you are not here to stay. You were not supposed to die in the gas station convenience store". "So you're sending me back", I said, barely believing my Heaven Can Wait guess was accurate.

"No, this isn't like Heaven Can Wait", Monica said, correcting me. Nor is it like Touched by an Angel, despite my name being Monica. "Huh?" I replied. "I've haven't seen that particular program. I've heard of it, but never watched even one episode". "Sorry" I added, thinking she might be offended that I wasn't a viewer of a program about angels. Monica explained... "by coincidence the main character of that program and I have the same name". But she reconsidered going into further detail. "Never mind. It isn't important".

"You're to be sent back in the body of a canine, like in the Chevy Chase film Oh! Heavenly Dog. "Really?" I incredulously replied. "No, that was a joke", Monica said, laughing. "You are being sent back in your own body. As for why... it just isn't your time. You were supposed to heed the advice of the mayor of New York and pass on that Big Gulp". "I was thirsty" I protested. Monica silenced me with a wave of her hand. "There is more you must know before returning", Monica said before pausing briefly.

"What the extraterrestrials told you is accurate. Your destiny is to play a small but not insignificant role in the salvation of humanity. Now, before that bit of information causes your ego to swell, let me emphasize the word SMALL. Your blog will convince a few MORE important individuals that they should get politically active and support Progressive causes. They will go on to play a greater role in the eternal struggle of good versus evil".

"Also, a warning" Monica said with a very serious look on her face. "There are those who want to stop you. That is why you decided to buy that large soda. A suggestion was planted in your head by those who wish you ill. These dark forces cannot manifest themselves in the physical world, but there are other methods by which they can influence events in the mortal realm. You must learn to identify when they are attempting to intervene and cause you harm, and ignore their suggestions in the future. Just listen to your gut and you should be OK".

"I will be not be permitted to help you again", Monica said. "At least not this ham handedly. I know you have many more questions, but that is all I can tell you. Now it is time for you to return". As Monica finished speaking a bright light appeared behind her. "This is the portal back to the world of the living" she explained, turning to face the brightly glowing disc. "But, I have so many more questions", I almost protested, but could not as Monica rudely shoved me into the portal before I could speak again.

A blindingly bright light engulfed me, and I expected I would soon be whizzing along a Stargate-like wormhole once again. Instead an overhead light appeared, and I realized I was flat on my back. A man wearing a surgical mask touched a electrical paddle to my chest, shocking me. "His heart has resumed beating" a nurse said. "He's back", the doctor confirmed, sounding relieved.

Tea Party Groups Allowed To Hide Donors Real IRS Scandal

...what 501(c)(4) law actually says, which is none of those people should have had their applications approved, and in fact none had them denied ~ Lawrence O'Donnell of MSNBC's The Last Word, referring to the IRS "scandal" of Tea Party groups receiving "extra scrutiny" when applying for 501(c)(4) status on the 6/4/2013 edition of his program.

The real scandal concerning the IRS "targeting" of Conservative Tea Party groups that applied for 501(c)(4) status? It isn't that they were "targeted", it is that they were all given exactly what they asked for. I'm not talking about exemption from taxation, but another benefit that comes with the 501c4 status (I'm going to drop the parenthesis for the rest of this commentary). That benefit being complete anonymity for contributors.

Turns out there is another tax exempt status they could have sought, known as 527. Wikipedia notes that "a 527 group is created primarily to influence the selection, nomination, election, appointment or defeat of candidates to federal, state or local public office". However, while 527 organizations must disclose who it's contributors are, 501c4s can keep that information secret.

501c4 status is only supposed to be granted to groups who are exclusively engaged in social welfare. That's what the law says, but the IRS (along with all government agencies) has leeway "to interpret the law and to take words that are vague and to give them meaning". And that is what the IRS did... in 1959 the IRS "interpreted" the law by adding the following sentence to it's code: "To be operated exclusively to promote social welfare, an organization must operate primarily to further the common good and general welfare of the people of the community".

Obviously exclusively and primarily don't mean the same thing at all. On the 5/13/2013 edition of MSNBC's The Last Word with Lawrence O'Donnell, Lawrence refered to this as a "magic trick". His guest Rep. Eleanor Holmes Norton pointed out that what the IRS did not do was interpret the meaning of a vague word; instead they "changed the plain meaning of the law", which is a power no agency has.

Holmes Norton also referred to the IRS "interpretation" as a "disaster waiting to happen". "What was it waiting for?" Citizens United. This is the Supreme Court ruling that declared "the First Amendment prohibits the government from restricting political independent expenditures by corporations, associations, or labor unions".

That is a bunch of bullpucky, of course, as the Bill of Rights protects the rights of individuals and not the rights of groups. The First Amendment DOES NOT APPLY to "corporations, associations, or labor unions". The Citizens United case was wrongly decided by the Conservative partisans on the court who wished to give plutocrats free reign to spend unlimited sums of money to influence our elections (i.e. buy them).

But the plutocrats were worried that spending vast sums of money on ads designed to tilt elections in favor of the politicians in their pockets might reflect poorly on them. Why would they be concerned regarding what the "little people" (those who didn't fall for the propaganda in their ads) thought? Two reasons... first, consumers might take exception and boycott the corporations owned by the plutocrats running the ads, and secondly... some of the plutocrats didn't want to spend their own money, but money belonging to the corporations they ran. That could create a problem if shareholders objected.

The solution to both of these problems? Funnel the money though a 501c4, thus removing their fingerprints from the purchasing of our elections. Also, after being laundered through a 501c4, it could then be re-donated to a SuperPac. This is why Karl Rove had two groups... The SuperPac American Crossroads (a 527 group that was legally required to disclose it's donors), and their money launderer Crossroads GPS (the 501c4 that did not have to disclose).

So the IRS changed the meaning of the law all the way back in 1959, but it wasn't until Citizens United that the plutocrats could REALLY take advantage of this "loophole". Previously there were limits on how much they could donate, but with Citizens United that limitation was removed.

According to a 5/23/2013 article from Politicus USA titled "Republicans Claiming Tax Exempt Status May Have Conspired to Hide Illegal Donations"...

The application for recognition as a social welfare nonprofit, 1024 Form, explicitly asks a group whether it has spent, or plans to spend, "any money attempting to influence the selection, nomination, election, or appointment of any person to any Federal, state, or local public office or to an office in a political organization".

A 5/29/2013 article from AllGov titled "Hiding Political Donors Is Key Reason IRS Applicants Sought Tax-Exempt Status" gives a few examples of Tea Party groups who committed perjury when they applied for 501c4 status and answered "no" when asked if they planned on politicking...

...CVFC, a conservative veterans' group in California [spent] nearly $8,000 on radio ads backing a Republican candidate for Congress. Another group, the Wetumpka Tea Party from Alabama, sponsored training for a get-out-the-vote initiative dedicated to the "defeat of President Barack Obama". Yet another tea party outfit, the Ohio Liberty Coalition, complained about the scrutiny it was getting from the IRS, in spite of the fact that it engaged in a pro-Romney email campaign and organized statewide anti-Obama protests that "demand[ed] the truth about Benghazi". The group's president claimed that his lawyers told him "it’s not political activity".

Still think the IRS was wrong in "targeting" these groups? I say NO and agree with Lawrence O'Donnell who says all the applications should have been denied. But the IRS never should have changed exclusively to primarily to begin with... although that was an action taken by the IRS way back in 1959. Given the fact that this erroneous "interpretation" of law has been in effect for so long the IRS couldn't simply reverse themselves now. No, once something like this becomes accepted practice it takes extraordinary action to reverse course. I think an act of Congress is in order. Congress could simply instruct the IRS to follow the law AS WRITTEN.

Currently there are some Democrats who are advocating for just that course of action. Question is, will they prevail? Given the fact that Republicans desperately want to hide just who is funding these organizations... I very seriously doubt it. And that will be an even bigger scandal, in my book. Because it will show just how corrupt and how much in the pockets of the plutocrats the Republican Party is.

My Message From The Extraterrestrials

When it talks about the sky people, how everyone comes from the sky and how the Pyramids were used for star observations, it's too much for me. It all seems to connect the dots. It's blowing my mind ~ Katy Perry (dob 10/25/1984) an American singer, songwriter, actress, and entrepreneur who was born Katheryn Elizabeth "Katy" Hudson. Perry adoped her stage name in 2007 when she signed with Capitol Records... as quoted in a 6/22/2011 Rolling Stone article during which Perry discusses her obsession with the History Channel show Ancient Aliens.

Someone recorded an episode of Ancient Aliens on my DVR. Another individual in the household who has an interest in this type of nonsense. I know I surely did not record it, as the message of the program is that aliens have been guiding humanity throughout our history... keeping us on the right path and nudging humans in the right direction from time to time, mostly thorough "unearthly inspirations compelling ordinary people to perform extraordinary acts". According to the show the aliens "thought it best to use members of the human population to communicate their message".

I decided to watch the program, despite my extreme skepticism. In the last 20 minutes of the hour-long program the narrator said, "in the Bible's book of Genesis, God instructs Abraham to kill his only son". Then the narrator asked, "but was this command really given by God?". An onscreen "expert" theorized that "Abraham received multiple messages from more than one being", and that this explained why Abraham received contradictory messages... one message instructing him to kill his son and another telling him to spare his son's life. It was because two different groups of aliens were feeding him messages. These two contradictory messages were given by representatives of two warring civilizations, or tribes of aliens who each wanted something completely different for humanity.

The people who come up with these theories must be completely nuts, right? The Wikipedia page for the show says detractors have criticized the theories presented on the program as pseudoscience and pseudohistory. Another critic says "Ancient Aliens defies all ability to suspend disbelief for the sake of entertainment". Finally, a science writer for the Smithsonian website "characterized the show as some of the most noxious sludge in television's bottomless chum bucket".

Wow. That is pretty damning, right? You'd have to be pretty stupid to even entertain for one second that any of the theories presented in this program are remotely plausible. So imagine my surprise when I realized that I was one of the ordinary humans compelled to perform extraordinary acts! Yes, watching this program triggered a repressed memory of the time I was abducted by aliens from another planet and instructed to spread their message... a message designed to guide humanity along the right path, so that we might reach our true potential.

But the show said many people chosen to carry this message might decide to keep quite in fear of being branded as crazy. And that is exactly what happened in my case. I told the aliens to find someone else to relate their message to the world. But then they explained that all I needed to do was start a blog wherein I would educate the public regarding the virtue of Progressive politics. We must all come together and help one another my alien friend explained. That is the only way humanity can move forward. If we chose the wrong path it would lead to our extinction at our own hands.

What is the wrong path?, I asked. The wrong path is the one presented by Conservatives, a tall lanky gray-skinned extraterrestrial informed me via mental telepathy. I starred into a pair of large black eyes in an even larger egg-shaped bald head. The alien next informed me that some humans are finding their inspiration from another group of ETs who they are engaged in a centuries old conflict with. After eons of war resulted in an unending stalemate the two warring groups got together and worked out a method by which they would resolve their differences without any further bloodshed.

Humanity, they decided, would serve as their proxies. Both groups would try to guide humanity down the path they thought would bring them (humanity) prosperity. The two alien tribes were of the same species, but each held very different beliefs. The first group are a brutal and nasty lot who strongly believe in the theory of "survival of the fittest". This alien tribe became known as "Conservatives". The second group of ETs are peaceful and caring. They believe they are their brother's keepers. These aliens are known as "Progressives".

My Progressive alien friend told me that the Conservative ETs gave their "unearthly inspirations" to humanity in an attempt to persuade them to follow the Conservative path. In America those who have subscribed to these inspirations are known as Republicans. If the Republicans won the Progressive aliens would also lose and the government on the alien home world would be turned over to the Conservatives... as they had agreed when they consented to this proxy war. However, as my alien friend explained, going down the Republican path would also lead to the destruction of America. This is where I came in... my place in this conflict would be to spread the word of progressivism. My medium would be the internet, where I was instructed to start a Left-leaning blog.

Then the alien erased the memory of our encounter from my brain, leaving nothing but the seed of an idea behind. It was that seed which became this blog. I had forgotten it until now. That night I felt compelled to go on a moonlit stroll. Suddenly I saw a bright light in the sky. Looking up I saw a saucer-shaped craft hovering above. The craft slowly descended and landed a few yards away. I did not run in fear. Instead a feeling of extreme calm and peace overcame me. A familiar lanky gray skinned being descended a ramp from the ship. "I sent you a subliminal message via that television program", the Progressive ET informed me via telepathy. "I saw the posting on your blog in which you contemplated quitting".

"You must not quit", he said. Or I perceived him to say that, as he did not speak. I only heard his words in my head. "All this time you have spent writing has been in preparation for what is to come. Your writing is not yet strong enough to attract a large following, but soon it will be", the alien assured me. "How much longer will I have to go on writing posts that no one reads?" I asked. The alien told me I must not lose hope, because soon I would attract a enormous readership... although he could not provide a specific time-frame in which that would happen.

I was further informed that the Progressive postings on my blog were only a small part of the plan, but a vital one... which is why I had to continue. The Progressive ET said this time he would not wipe my memory. Dark days are ahead and the knowledge of what I was fighting for (and my importance in the alien plan to save humanity) was needed to keep me going. The alien told me the "dark days" that were coming were endless hearings concerning bogus scandals of the Obama administration.

That I must refute these phony scandals were among the final words the friendly ET imparted. Should I keep my alien encounter a secret? "That would probably be best", the gray-skinned being said, but I could write it up as a work of "fiction" if I so desired. And so I decided to do just that... present the completely true events exactly as they transpired as a story pulled from my imagination.

History professor Ronald H. Fritze says stories about aliens have a "periodic popularity in America", which explains why Ancient Aliens has been on for five seasons and 54 episodes. The viewing public likes it even if it is "noxious sludge", so me writing a post summing up my experiences might attract some people who are into that kind of thing. If some of them read my other writings (on Progressive politics), all the better. Whether or not they believe that I actually encountered extraterrestrials from another planet or not isn't important.

Video Description: Ancient Aliens viewer Katy Perry's sexy, silly Rolling Stone cover shoot.

Brookings' Intellectually Honest Analysis Of Romney's Tax Proposals Got Me Banned

Romney says he is going to balance the budget, cut taxes, raise defense, protect Medicare, and preserve all the institutions of the federal government that we need from the FBI to the FAA. You can't possibly do all of those things. That was my problem. How does the math add up? To me, he's still at war with math ~ Tom Friedman (b. 7/20/1953) NYT columnist and self-identified Republican, on the 9/2/2012 broadcast of BC's Meet the Press.

Preface 1: This is a old post. I originally intended to publish it in September of 2012, but never got around to finishing it. I wrote most of it, but never actually completed it for some reason. I was recently looking for things to delete from my computer and found this... and decided to dust it off, finish it, and publish it. Why? Because it explains MY SIDE of a debate that lead to me being banned from the blog Contra O'Reilly.

I've authored a number of highly critical posts over the last few months that take aim at the proprietor of that blog, a Mr. William J. Hart (who I refer to as "PA" below). This post explains why. He banned me over a stoopid disagreement regarding former presidential contender Mitt Romney's tax plan (a plan that was never explained in detail, therefore making assumptions necessary if anyone wished to critique it).

Preface 2: What follows is my original post which my records say I intended to publish on 9/1/2012...

According to Wikipedia Harvard ethicist Louis M. Guenin describes the "kernel" of intellectual honesty to be "a virtuous disposition to eschew deception when given an incentive for deception".

Definition-wise, Wikipedia states that Intellectual Honesty is: [1] One's personal beliefs do not interfere with the pursuit of truth. [2] Relevant facts and information are not purposefully omitted even when such things may contradict one's hypothesis. [3] Facts are presented in an unbiased manner, and not twisted to give misleading impressions or to support one view over another. [4] References are acknowledged where possible, and plagiarism is avoided.

Regarding "Intellectual Honesty", I certainly do not try, nor have I ever tried to deceive with any of my posts, although I'm not going to claim that my personal beliefs never interfere with the pursuit of truth. They do. Facts here will sometimes be presented in a "biased" manner... from my Democrat-Liberal-Progressive point of view, that is. That is my bias. I don't deny it, but I do deny that I am the most intellectually dishonest person Will Hart a particular as*hole has ever had to deal with.

The particular as*hole (PA) who levied this insult (and then banned me from his blog) did so because I defended a report from the Brookings Institute and the Tax Policy Center that said the Romney tax plan would raise taxes on the poor and middle class (see my previous post on the subject). Regarding Brookings' determination "...that a revenue-neutral individual income tax change that incorporates the features Governor Romney has proposed... maintaining all tax breaks for saving and investment... would... increase the tax burdens on middle and/or lower-income taxpayers", PA asserted that, "this study was done for one purpose, and one purpose only, to make frigging Romney look ridiculous".

Because Romney has put forward very few specifics, Brookings was required to make a number of assumptions in order to do the analysis at all. One of the things they assumed was that because Romney has said he favors "maintaining all tax breaks for saving and investment" that items that fall into this category are "off the table".

So just what deductions is Mitt Romney talking about? In their analysis Brookings/TPC says, "offsetting the $360 billion in revenue losses necessitates a reduction of roughly 65 percent of available tax expenditures. Such a reduction... would require deep reductions in many popular tax benefits ranging from the mortgage interest deduction, the exclusion for employer-provided health insurance, the deduction for charitable contributions, and benefits for low and middle-income families and children like the EITC and child tax credit".

No way says PA. PA thinks it is much more likely that Romney would lower taxes as he has described, while keeping these deductions and allow the deficit to rise. Do I think Romney would actually put forward a budget that did this? I doubt it, but, AGAIN, he has proposed a huge tax cut that also "maintains all tax breaks for saving and investment", and that simply is not possible unless many or most tax expenditures are reduced or eliminated. This is another reasonable assumption... in my opinion.

But because of these assumptions PA determined that the Brookings analysis was BS. Why? Apparently because the American Enterprise Institute, the Wall Street Journal, and the Manhattan Institute (all Conservative) made that exact criticism. Even though Brookings concluded that "maintaining all tax breaks for saving and investment" meant taxing these items would be "off the table".

But PA says the report's assumptions are not reasonable, and when I continued to insist they are, PA flew off the handle declaring, "what an absolute piece of shit you are". Why? Because I was claiming (according to PA) that "[Brookings] included it by not including it". No. They looked at these items and determined that they were "off the table" because they fell into the category of "tax breaks for saving and investment".

So, why MUST these items be "on the table" according to PA? Because Mitt Romney has never said they were off. In other words, because Romney has not put forward a detailed tax plan, ANY analysis of a possible Romney tax plan (taking what Romney has said and making some assumptions) is completely invalid. Or any analysis that doesn't include reducing or eliminiating tax deductions for "municipal bonds and life insurance savings" is invalid. Why? Damned if I know.

I do know, however, that I'm "intellectually dishonest" for agreeing with the Brookings determination that these things would be "off the table", and was banned for that reason. PA authored a post that said, "You're done. I don't want you to comment here anymore". OK by me. This guy is clearly a lunatic. Why we can't simply disagree on what is a "reasonable assumption" is beyond me.

Finally, regarding the comment from PA that the Brookings/TPC report was done, "to make frigging Romney look ridiculous"... PA says Brookings (one of the preeminent Think Tanks in the country) is LYING because they are a "Liberal" organization. He bases this on an article from US News & World Report that points out that from 2003 to 2010 most of Brookings political contributions went to Democrats (97.6% to Democrats and 1.2% to Republicans).

The US News & World Report article identifies Brookings as a "Liberal" Think Tank. However, in an article titled "Brookings: The Establishment's Think Tank", Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR) points out that "much of Brookings' top brass has come from Republican administrations". FAIR says labeling Brookings Liberal is "a victory of right-wing think tanks" and that "to this day, Brookings is commonly, and inaccurately, dubbed liberal... It's called centrist almost as often, but never conservative, though that label would be more accurate than liberal".

SourceWatch says Brookings was "initially centrist... [but] since the 1990s it has taken steps further towards the right in parallel with the increasing influence of right-wing think tanks such as the Heritage Foundation.

Wikipedia states that the Tax Policy Center was formed "in 2002, [by] tax experts who had served in the Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, and Bill Clinton administrations [with the objective of] providing unbiased analysis of tax issues".

Now, FAIR and SourceWatch are both progressive/Liberal organizations, but who better to determine what organizations are "Liberal" than other Liberal organizations? So why all the donations to Democrats? I say it is because that is where all the Moderates are. PA describes himself as a "Moderate", and has (previously) identified as a "Blue Dog" Democrat. So who are these Moderate Republicans he thinks Brookings should be donating to if they were really (in PA's estimation) a centrist organization?

With the ascendance of the Tea Party and Mitt having to adopt positions contrary to those he used to hold in order to secure the nomination, how can any sane person deny the Republican Party has moved to the Far Right? Beats me, yet Mr. Hart does just that, in agreement with his Conservative buddy dmarks who contends that Brookings is a "well known leftist group". Articles can easily be found via Googling that correctly state that Republicans of yesteryear would not be welcome in the Republican Party of today, including Richard Nixon and the Repub saint Ronald Reagan.

In a recent Fox News interview conducted by Chris Wallace former Senate majority leader Bob Dole said he "doesn’t think he could make it in today's Republican Party". Wallace referred to Dole's "generation as Eisenhower Republicans, moderate Republicans". These are the Republicans that by and large no longer exist, so how the hell can Brookings donate to the re-election campaigns of moderate Republicans when there aren't any (or hardly any)? The answer to that question should be self-evident, I say.

But I disagreed, and that was another of several reasons the "Moderate" proprietor of Contra O'Reilly asked me to leave his blog and never return (and that he'd delete my comments if I did). This is a frigging stoopid reason for a banning, IMO. What it really shows is this Will Hart fellow is really not all that Moderate.

Afterword: On 2/10/2013 PA (AKA Will Hart) authored a post titled "The Silence of the Lefts in which he criticized the political Left for it's "silence" regarding specific actions taken by the Obama Administration that are very similar to actions taken by the prior administration. Specifically drone strikes, reauthorization of the PATRIOT act, indefinite detention and rendition of terror suspects, and the president's kill list.

For the record I actually AGREE with Mr. Hart. Both with his objection to these policies, and with his criticism of the Left in it's acceptance of Obama continuing these policies (when they were severely critical of bush when he did the exact same things). Hart does, however, slip in one lie. According to him Democrats in Congress were "seemingly" briefed on waterboarding. He is one of those who thinks Nancy Pelosi lied when she said the CIA never briefed her on the fact that they were waterboarding. Pelosi told the truth about not being briefed about EITs (enhanced Interrogation Techniques) AKA waterboarding, as her House colleague Bob Graham confirmed.

Also, while the Left (voters and politicians) are much too accepting of these policies just because a Democratic president is in office, there are voice of progressive disagreement. I would have told Will that if I had been allowed to comment (and I did tell him I disagreed with these policies prior to my banning). I am actually in agreement with the 26 members of the Progressive caucus (the real Left) who sent a letter to President Obama "demanding greater openness on all aspects of its counterterrorism-related targeted killing program".

I am also in agreement with progressive host of The Young Turks, Cenk Uygur, who says the problem isn't with drones, because drones are just a tool. The actual problem is how we are using this tool. The three problems identified by Mr. Uygur are that... [1] We have used drones to execute U.S. civilians without a trial, [2] Most of the drone strikes are signature strikes where we have no idea who we're killing, and [3] We often do double taps where we kill first-responders and the people trying to help the wounded.

I am absolutely in agreement with Mr. Uygur on all three points. With these three concerns addressed I'd have much less a problem with the Obama administration's use of drones. But because they are not addressing them, and are in fact killing innocent civilians -- I say they are creating more "terrorists" than they are killing (by angering the relatives of the innocents we are killing, who then join up to fight against the United States).

As it currently is utilized I strongly oppose the administration's use of drones. I am not silent in this regard. Also, in regards to the uninformed (Lefty) voters, Mr. Uygur says, "the great majority of Americans have no idea what we're doing with these drones. They think we're only targeting high level terrorists". He is correct. There are uninformed voters on both the Left and the Right. Here the Left is "silent" (in support of the drone program) because they don't understand how the drone program works.

In concluding his post Mr. Hart says, "I'm beginning to think here that the Left wasn't so much anti-war as anti-Bush", but I say he is a fibbing (as well as displaying his fervent anti-Left bias). He has a point (so I don't say "lie"), but to not mention (at all) that there are those on the Left who are against these policies -- the same as when bush was president -- is a little dishonest. Only "a little" because I'm sure there are some on the Left who only complained about drones when bush was president because bush was president. Now they support the use of drones because it is a Democratic president doing it.

But for the Hart-ster to suggest the Left is entirely silent? The progressives (that Mr. Hart dislikes with much intensity) ARE speaking out. That he ignores this fact is as dishonest as Mr. Hart's characterization of me as "the most intellectually dishonest person [he] has ever had to deal with". That is way over the top and a huge distortion of reality -- a reality in which I AGREE with him on some topics but disagree with him on others. The problem Mr. Hart actually had with me was that, when I disagreed I wouldn't end up caving when he kept insisting he was right.

Video Description: Cenk Uygur of the Young Turks speaks out against Obama's use of drones.