Illegitimate Criminal peetus Selects SCOTUS Justice Who Sez Predisent Is Above The Law

I agree with Rob Reiner regarding the peetus selecting Brett Kavanaugh to replace the retiring Anthony Kennedy.

It's official. Trump, who is now under investigation for obstruction of justice and conspiring with an enemy to destroy Democracy, has selected the judges who could rule on whether he can be forced to testify, be indicted or pardon himself. Autocracy here we come. VOTE!!!

— Rob Reiner (@robreiner) July 10, 2018

As per Kavanaugh, "...I believe that the President should be excused from some of the burdens of ordinary citizenship while serving in office [because] the indictment and trial of a sitting President... would cripple the federal government, rendering it unable to function...".

Gee, I wonder why the Putin puppet chose this guy. "Kavanaugh's arguments reject history, legal precedents, and the logic of a system that is supposed to place the rule of law over the rule of men" John Nichols of The Nation writes.

This opinion came after the hypocrite urged the impeachment of President Bill Clinton for lying about a bj. A change of heart which suggests that when he said (in 2006) "he considered Roe v. Wade binding under the principle of stare decisis and would seek to uphold the ruling of the higher court", he can't be trusted.

Charlie Pierce, appearing by phone on the 7/10/2018 airing of the Stephanie Miller Show, said (regarding Brett) "he's terrible on guns. He's an absolute corporate puppet. He's awful on unions. He thinks the entire Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is unconstitutional".

So Brett is anti-choice, pro-gun murder, anti-consumer, anti-worker and anti-environment. So he checks off all the Republican boxes. Republican are all about less rights for the plebs and more rights for the wealthy. And they get votes they need to institute their plutocratic agenda by pandering to the intolerant religious zealots and racist nationalist bigots (aka Trump's base).

BTW, Brett was accused of misleading the Senate during his confirmation hearing when he was nominated to the DC Appeals Court by Bush in 2003. So you know he's going to lie about totally being about upholding precedent... and totally fool Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski.

Both have said they support the Roe V Wade decision and would oppose a SCOTUS pick who is "hostile" to it. Which Brett is. But I say they'll end up voting for Brett. #trumpdupe The Debonair Dude sez "Judge Kavanaugh is a strong willed constitutionalist". Suggesting he would be apolitical and judge strictly based on the Constitution. To which I say BULLPLOP!

What else do you need to know about Brett Kavanaugh other than he worked with Ken Starr to impeach Clinton, worked to help W win Bush v Gore Supreme Court case, and worked in both Bush White Houses. Recommended to Bush to put Alito and Roberts on the Court. He must be stopped.

— Michael Moore (@MMFlint) July 10, 2018

John Roberts peddled the same BS when he promised that his role, as a SCOTUS judge, would be to "call balls and strikes". A Daily Beast article from 6/18/2012 titled "John Roberts Is Just a Liar" describes Roberts and Alito as "politicians in robes".

Kavanaugh is another politician in a robe, as Michael Moore points out. A far Right politician who will serve the far right trumper agenda. F*ck precedent and the Constitution. Obviously of utmost importance (to the person who selected him) is protecting the colluding Putin-puppet. You KNOW that's why the Orange Turd selected him.

Unless you are a member of the Orange Turd Cult. Then you think Kavanaugh is fantastic and are overjoyed... that democracy is coming to an end and America will soon be fundamentally transformed into a fascistic oligarchic theocracy.

SWTD #406

You Can't Appeal To A Republican Using Either A Religious Or Economic Argument (Re States Accepting The Medicaid Expansion) Because These "Christians" Hate The Poors So Much

There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what...who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims. ...These are people who pay no income tax. ...and so my job is not to worry about those people. I'll never convince them that they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives ~ Willard Mittens Romney (dob 3/12/1947) The failed Repub 2012 potus nominee. Remarks at private fundraiser (re why he would not get the vote of the takers) in Boca Raton FL 5/17/2012.

Remember when Rep Alan Grayson said "if you get sick, America, the Republican healthcare plan is this: Die quickly". He was only referring to people who can't afford health insurance, of course. Rich people do not have this problem. Only the Poors should "die quickly" because people complaining about Poors suffering in order for Health Care Insurance companies to continue making tremendous profits are annoying. Better they die quickly so nobody has to be confronted with that unpleasantness and whining about it.

Republicans feigned outrage and demanded an apology. But Alan Grayson was correct. Proof of this is the Republican desire to repeal the ACA. Failing that, they believe Republican governors should reject the Medicaid expansion. Even though they are losing billions in federal funds by doing so. Even though the ACA gives tens of thousands of new customers to the for-profit health insurers. Punishing poor "takers" takes a higher priority.

Although some Republican governors accepted the money. Jan Brewer is one example. John Kasich of Ohio is another. Although in both cases their respective state legislatures are fighting back [1+2].

Because he is running for preznit, Kasich was confronted on this issue during the recent Fox Nooz potus interview. Megyn Kelly (basically) expressed the Republican outrage re Kasich attempting to help the Poors. How DARE he! Surely this is proof he is unfit to be preznit. Which is why Kelly brought it up. Voters needed to know of this and reject him for his un-Republican actions. This specific un-Republican action (he does pass the anti-choice litmus test). But even passing this very important litmus test is not good enough.

Megyn Kelly: Governor Kasich, you chose to expand Medicaid in your state, unlike several other governors on this stage tonight, and it is already over budget by some estimates costing taxpayers an additional $1.4 billion in just the first 18 months. You defended your Medicaid expansion by invoking God, saying to skeptics that when they arrive in heaven, Saint Peter isn't going to ask them how small they've kept government, but what they have done for the poor. Why should Republican voters, who generally want to shrink government, believe that you won't use your Saint Peter rationale to expand every government program? *Audience applauds* Gov. John Kasich: Well, first of all, Megyn, you should know that President Reagan expanded Medicaid three or four times. Secondly, I had an opportunity to bring resources back to Ohio to do what? To treat the mentally ill. Ten thousand of them sit in our prisons. It costs $22,500 a year to keep them in prison. I'd rather get them their medication so they could lead a decent life. Secondly, we are rehabbing the drug-addicted. Eighty percent of the people in our prisons have addictions or problems. We now treat them in the prisons, release them in the community and the recidivism rate is 10 percent and everybody across this country knows that the tsunami of drugs is threatening their very families. So we're treating them and getting them on their feet. And finally, the working poor, instead of them having come into the emergency rooms where it costs more, where they're sicker and we end up paying, we brought a program in here to make sure that people could get on their feet. And do you know what? Everybody has a right to their God-given purpose. ...our Medicaid is growing at one of the lowest rates in the country. ...we went from $8 billion in the hole to $2 billion in the black. We've cut $5 billion in taxes and we've grown 350,000 jobs. *Audience applauds* (Excerpt from the 8/6/2016 Fox Nooz potus interview).

Getting mentally ill people in prison the treatment they need and getting them out of prison sooner saves money. And, a 10% recidivism is a lot lower than the average, which, according to Wikipedia, is 43.3%.

Treating people in emergency rooms, where they can't be turned away (due to the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act, or EMTALA) is significantly more expensive than scheduling appointments and getting treatment before a medical condition becomes an emergency. People with chronic diseases can't show up in emergency rooms and ask for ongoing treatment (which is needed to combat chronic conditions). These people can only show up and ask for help after their disease has progressed to the point where their lives are in immediate danger. Obviously treating these people earlier would be a lot cheaper.

Lastly, poor people who can't afford to see a doctor missing days of work (due to them being sidelined by treatable ailments) costs the economy money. So the Medicaid expansion in Ohio is "over budget", but it does not factor in these savings. At all. It simply ignores them, in addition to ignoring the inhumanity of locking up treatable mentally ill people. As well as the inhumanity of allowing poor people with treatable diseases to progress to a point where their lives are in danger (and at which point it is sometimes too late... meaning they die).

But Republicans revel in inhumanity toward those they deem lesser because their Christianity is fake. I mean, because in addition to ignoring the religious argument (Kelly mocked him?) they only look at the raw numbers. And totally ignore the (somewhat hard to quantify?) savings of accepting the Medicaid expansion and going "over budget". Frankly, it sickens me.

For many Republicans, that their Christianity is not sincere is proven by Kasich's attempt to appeal to it and failing. Proof, in my mind, of how much these fake Christian Republican hypocrites hate poor people. They refuse to do the right thing (those other governors on the stage that rejected the expansion) when you make an argument that appeals to their supposed religious sensibilities. Obviously these sensibilities are non-existent except when it comes to controlling women's bodies.

And they also refuse to do the right thing when an economic argument is presented (money is saved by accepting the Medicaid expansion). Un-believable callousness and indifference that (for some) crosses the line into outright hate, IMO. Think I'm being hyperbolic? Ayn Rand hated the poor, and Mitten's VP choice Paul Ryan talked her up a lot (until it was pointed out to him that she was an atheist) [3].

Which explains why Mittens wanted Ryan (they had a shared hatred). Ryan's budget, the path to (increased) prosperity (for the rich on the backs of the poor), being proof of his hate for the less fortunate [4].

Footnotes
[1] Court Okays Republican Challenge To Arizona Medicaid Expansion (excerpt from a 12/31/2014 Daily Caller article by Sarah Hurtubise) 36 Republican state lawmakers are suing outgoing Republican Gov. Brewer over the legality of a hospital assessment which will fund Brewer's plan to expand Medicaid.
[2] Republican Lawmakers File Lawsuit Against Ohio Medicaid Expansion (excerpt from a HuffPo 10/23/2013 article by Mollie Reilly) The suit, filed with the Ohio Supreme Court... claims the Controlling Board acted in violation of the state legislature by approving the $2.56 billion appropriation of federal funds to expand Medicaid in the state. Governor John Kasich... turned to the board for approval after the GOP-controlled state legislature balked on the issue.
[3] See SWTD #303 (8/10/2015) Ayn Rand Took Great Delight In Killing Large Numbers of Fictional Moochers In Atlas Shrugged.
[4] Regarding my correct usage of the word hate in this commentary... many Republican politicians, if they are not simply indifferent to the plight of the poor, actively despise them and want to punish them for being poor. Republican voters, a not insignificant number of them being poor Southern Whites, are oblivious to this hate, instead voting R because the GOP panders to their hate for minorities and their misguided belief that the Bible says abortion is murder, which it does not. Although Repub politicos and their pluto masters have other reasons for wanting to control women.

Video: Kasich defends his Medicaid expansion and gets some applause, but the very fact that Megyn Kelly demanded an explanation from him in the first place? Helping poor people while citing God? No, many "Christian" Republicans don't find that acceptable.

SWTD #306

Anti-Choice Extremist Scott Walker Would Sentence Women To Death (Sez No To Life Of Mother Abortion Exemption)

You cannot have maternal health without reproductive health. And reproductive health includes contraception and family planning and access to legal, safe abortion ~ Hillary Clinton (dob 10/26/1947) 2016 potus Democratic candidate.

Of the 10 top-tier GOP potus candidates, which is the MOST radically anti-choice? Jeb Bush, Ben Carson, Chris Christie, Ted Cruz, Mike Huckabee, Paul Kasich, Randal Paul, Marco Rubio, Donald Trump, and Scott Walker all describe themselves as "pro life", but is there one who stands out as being the most rabidly anti-choice?

The following transcription from the Fox Nooz 8/6/2016 prez debate at the Quicken Loans Arena in Cleveland OH.

Megyn Kelly: Would you really let a mother die rather than have an abortion? And, with 83 percent of Americans in favor of a life exception, are you too out of the mainstream on this issue to win the general election? Scott Walker: I'm pro-life. I've always been pro-life. I've got a position I think is consistent with many Americans out there [audience cheers] ...in that I believe that an unborn child is in need of protection. I've said, many a time that the unborn child can be protected and there are many other alternatives that will also protect the life of the mother.

Thom Hartmann remarked (on the 8/7/2015 edition of his radio program) that Scott "apparently has some magical medical knowledge that the rest of us don't know about". Which is correct. The question, re the life of the mother, has to do with situations where there are "no other alternatives". I mean, Scott could have said he's wary about doctors claiming a "life of the mother" excuse and maybe doing something about people lying so they can get an abortion... but if the mother's life REALLY is in jeopardy, then, YES, they can get an abortion.

But he didn't say that. His answer indicated that he's a solid NO in any conceivable scenario.

Conditions that might lead to ending a pregnancy to save a woman's life include severe infections, heart failure and severe cases of preeclampsia, a condition in which a woman develops very high blood pressure and is at risk for stroke... "There are certain cases where ending the pregnancy is the only option..." Cecily Kellogg, 44... says that was the situation she faced when she was nearly six months pregnant with twin boys in 2004 and developed severe preeclampsia. One fetus had already died and "my liver had shut down, my kidneys had shut down and they were expecting me to start seizing at any minute"... The doctors said they had... perform an abortion to save her. "...they told me I would die — that it was either me and my son or just my son". (Doctors say abortions do sometimes save women's lives by Kim Painter. USA Today 10/22/2012).

Scott Walker has got to know this. I mean, surely he did some research when deciding what his position on this important issue (to him as a governor and presidential candidate) would be? He probably spoke with some doctors to make sure what he was saying about these "many other alternatives" was correct, no?

Apparently not. Obviously this is just a political position. He wouldn't really condemn women to death, would he? I think he would. And, if elected, Scott could appoint SCOTUS justices that would overturn Roe V. Wade. It's scary that someone with such a radical notion re condemning a woman to death could possibly be elected president.

As for the other 9 candidates, none of them are that much better when it comes to respecting a woman's privacy. Below I have ranked below in order of most to least extreme (in my opinion). Walker being the most extreme, while Rubio (despite having previously sponsored legislation that included exceptions) now seems to be as extreme as Walker. (in which case they tie).

[2] Marco Rubio does not support an exception for rape, incest or the life of the mother. During the debate Rubio said "I believe that every single human being is entitled to the protection of our laws... whether they have a birth certificate or not". (source).

[3] Mike Huckabee, who says "that if he were elected president he would consider using the FBI or National Guard to end abortion by force", is (almost?) as nuts on this issue. In disregarding Roe, he'd trigger a constitutional crisis.

Huckabee said "I think the next president ought to invoke the Fifth and 14th Amendments to the Constitution now that we clearly know that that baby inside the mother's womb is a person at the moment of conception". Although he has said (in the past) that he would allow an exemption for the life of the mother. (source).

[4] Randal Paul also holds the un-Libertarian view, that "human life begins at conception and should be granted legal protection from that moment on". Although he does support the idea of exemptions for medical reasons. (source). He wants to defund Planned Parenthood, and says he will "use all legislative vehicles at his disposal"... meaning government shutdown. (source).

[5] John Kasich is "pro-life" and opposed to abortion with exceptions for rape and incest (as well as the life of the mother... I presume). He also believes there should be a litmus test. (meaning Republican candidates for office should be rejected unless they are "pro-life"). As governor of Ohio Kasich signed legislation to defund Planned Parenthood (John Kasich Defunds Planned Parenthood in Ohio The Blaze, 2/22/2016).

[6] Jeb Bush would "ban abortion after 20 weeks, while making exceptions for the life of the mother, rape or incest". Jeb believes "the next president should defund Planned Parenthood". (source).

[7] Chris Christie, who used to be pro-choice, now thinks there should be a ban abortions after 20 weeks with exceptions. He wants to eliminate family planning funding from the state budget.

[8] Ted Cruz says that companies can deny insuring birth control and is in favor of a "partial-birth abortion" ban. Is threatening to shut down the government unless Planned Parenthood is defunded. (source).

[9] Ben Carson says "the thought of abortion for the sake of convenience does not appeal to me". What that means, policy wise, is not clear. Depending on whether or not he thinks abortions should be banned (when, with exemptions or not) would affect his ranking. (souce).

[10] Donald Trump (probably realizing there is a litmus test) changed his mind and is now "pro-life" (after years of supporting the pro-choice position).

[End Anti-Choice Extremist Rankings]

Being willing to let pregnant women DIE so their babies will be born is about as extreme as you can get, which is why I rank Walker as the MOST extreme. Rubio has previously sponsored legislation that allowed for exceptions. But now he appears to have changed his mind?

Even Huckabee, with his totally wacko idea of calling out the National Guard to stop abortions, has said there should be an exception to save the life of the mother.

As for this 20 week abortion ban, which that wanker Scott asked the Wisconsin state legislature to author and send to him for his signature (which they did), the reasoning behind it is because "anti-abortion-rights groups claim... that's the point at which fetuses experience pain". But the scientists reject this claim.

And there are other reasons to oppose the 20 week cut off.

...women terminate their pregnancies due to fatal fetal anomalies. Often, those conditions aren't recognizable until the fetus is at least 18 to 20 weeks old. "Say it's a serious heart defect", says Daniel Grossman, a member of the American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. "There isn't a blood test for that. The fetus needs to be a certain size before you can see that. And then it may take a while for a woman to make up her mind about what to do". (20-week abortion bans explained by Molly Redden. 1/23/2015 Mother Jones).

I say abortion should be between a woman and her doctor and find Repubs pandering to anti-choicers for their votes to be sickening. Congress needs to repeal the Hyde amendment because it punishes poor women who need abortions. If you're against abortions don't get one yourself. Stay the hell out of other people's personal lives and personal decisions. It's a matter of a woman's privacy, as the SCOTUS decided in Roe.

This "litmus" test is yet another reason I don't like Republicans. In addition to these recent lies about Planned Parenthood, which Hucky participated in during the debate, saying PP is "in the business of selling baby's body parts like the parts of a Buick" (they're recouping their costs and doing society a solid via the fact that fetal tissue is necessary for medical research, you moron). Heck, even the "moderate" gay-marriage-attending Kasich is quite radical in his opposition to women having control over their own bodies!

Image: 10 Repub hopefuls (hopeful that they'll make a lot of money running for preznit) on stage inside the Quicken Loans Arena (AKA "The Q"), 8/6/2015. (Left to Right) Chris "Big Boy" Christie, Marco "Big Gulp" Rubio, Ben "Obamacare is slavery" Carson, Scott "union buster" Wanker, Donald J. Trump (AKA "The Trumpster"), John Ellis "I'm my own man" Bush (AKA Jeb!), Mike Hucksterbee, Rafael Edward "Ted" Cruz, Randal "Liberty Freedom" Paul, John "no chance" Kasich. (click to enbiggen).

SWTD #302

The Truth About Dennis Marks

"Pathological liar" is absolutely the toughest individual to deal with as a psychiatrist. Because you can't take anything they say at face value. And you can't, you know, fill in their personality. You don't know what's real and what's not ~ Dale Archer, a medical doctor, psychiatrist and Distinguished Fellow of the American Psychiatric Association.

The truth about the blogger Dennis Marks (AKA dmarks) is that he is a cowardly delusional virulent liar. As well as pathological. Concerning pathological liars, Wikipedia says "the individual may be aware they are lying, or may believe they are telling the truth, being unaware that they are relating fantasies". This, I believe, very much describes the Dennis Marks. Much of the time I think he actually believes his lies. Other times I think he's got to know he's lying. But it can be hard to tell.

The reason for this commentary on the lying of Dennis is to push back against a number of particularly virulent and vile lies that Mr. Marks has told about the proprietor of this blog. Said lies as laid out below. Take a look at these comments from Dennis (with links to prove he actually said these things) and then tell me if an individual who slings such sick and virulent lies is someone who should be trusted to tell the "truth" about anyone or anything.

Five of Dennis Marks' Vile Lies

1. dmarks: ...you defend antisemitism. (6/10/2012 at 6:11pm).

2. dmarks: [MSNBC host Ed Schultz was charged with] domestic violence? In light of how WD defends and supports Scott Ritter's sex crimes against children, no wonder he defends Schultz so much. (6/22/2012 at 1:23am).

3. dmarks: By lying about it, denying, and downplaying, WD is nothing more than an apologist and supporter of domestic violence. (6/22/2012 at 5:42pm).

4. dmarks: you [Dervish] strongly favor abortionists being given the power of judge, jury, and executioner... by killing children after they are born out of nothing more than a sick thrill of bloodlust. (6/23/2012 at 6:58am).

And when another blogger who calls himself Rusty Shackelford said "based on WD's adamant acceptence of deviant behavior one would only deduce he himself may actively engage in somewhat like behavior", Dennis replied with the following comment...

5. dmarks: Thanks for proving, Rusty, that to WD, it doesn't matter if someone rapes children, beats his wife, or wants to see the Israelis (specifically Jewish ones) wiped out... it's all fine if the person has a "D" after his name. (6/23/2012 at 4:23pm).

My Response To These Five Vile Lies From Dennis Marks

So, I'm a supporter of anti-Semitism, domestic abuse, child rape, and "killing children after they are born out of nothing more than a sick thrill of bloodlust" according to Dennis. If true I'd have to be one sick, perverted and hateful person, but these are all clearly lies. Even if all these vile accusations were true, do you really think such a person would come right out and say they held all these positions?

Of course not! So we know right off the bat that Dennis is lying. But if you want explanations regarding how the sick mind of Dennis reached these conclusions about me, read on...

1. Anti-Semitism: Dennis said "you defend antisemitism" because I cited Francis Boyle as an individual that believes George W bush is guilty of war crimes. As it also turns out, the Jewish Boyle is also "a harsh critic of Israel, Zionism, and American foreign policy towards Israel".

What Dennis is arguing is that anti-Semitism and Anti-Zionism are the same thing, which I do not necessarily believe to be true. Certainly not in the case of Dr. Boyle, who is Jewish himself.

The fact is I disagree with the Jewish Dr. Boyle in regards to views on Israel; I just don't believe that makes him anti-Semitic. Disagree with his anti-Zionism if you will Dennis (and we'd be in agreement on that), but Dennis crosses a line when he accuses Boyle of wanting to "wipe out" his fellow Jews - as well as claiming that Boyle and Norman Finkelstein (another Jewish man who is critical of Israel) "...are antisemitic because they criticize Israelis for not hurrying up and being ashes scaped out of industrial ovens".

That Dennis would say something so loathsome about two Jewish men (one with parents who were holocaust survivors) is itself anti-Semiti, in my strong opinion.

(Note: see SWTD #234 for my expanded commentary on the subject of Dennis' problem with anti-Semitism).

2-3. Domestic Violence: Rusty Shackelford claimed that "he [Dervish] knows that Ed Schultz was indeed charged with domestic battery by his former wife, but tries to sweep the facts under the rug", but I don't "know" this at all. I asked that Rusty or Dennis provide a link to a reputable mainstream news organization that has reported that Ed Schult's ex-wife filed a restraining order against her former husband and gave the reason for it as domestic violence. When neither Rusty or Dennis were able to, they simply declared my refusal to condemn Mr. Schultz without any proof of me being "an apologist and supporter of domestic violence".

But check this thread and you will see that I said "I've neither defended nor condemned him", I only asked for proof which neither of these slimes were able to provide. I asked for proof multiple times but never got any. I tried to Google for the answer myself, but only found accusations (as described by Dennis and Rusty) on Rightwing blogs and messageboards, which does not amount to "proof".

(Note: see SWTD #307 for my expanded commentary on the subject of Dennis Marks' and Rusty Shackelford's evidence-free charge of Ed Schultz being guilty of domestic violence).

4. Abortion bloodlust: This stems from a conversation in which I defended ex Senator Russ Feingold against accusations from Dennis concerning Feingold "wanting born American citizens to be killed without any due process and fair trial". Dennis says I support this "bloodlust" because I agreed with Feingold, when Senator Santorum brought up absurd scenarios involving a fetus in the process of being aborted "slipping out" and being "completely delivered", Mr. Feingold said "I am not the person to be answering that question. That is a question that should be answered by a doctor".

But, because I agreed with Senator Feingold that this question should be left to those who are qualified to answer it (doctors), Dennis says I'm for "killing children after they are born out of nothing more than a sick thrill of bloodlust". Bloodlust has nothing to do with it, you sicko. I'm for preventing suffering and if you stop an abortion in process that is what you may very well end up with (a baby that suffers for awhile before dying). What the idiot Santorum describes is a birth, and NO, I do not believe a doctor should be allowed to kill a child that is born. Kermit Gosnell did that, and the murdering bastard was rightfully convicted and sent to prison.

In any case, in regards to actual births, Feingold said (in the same discussion with Santorum cited above) "Once a child has been born, there is no conceivable argument that would suggest a woman's life or health would any longer be at risk or an issue" (TADM #48).

5-A. Child Rape: The "someone rapes children" line is due to me bringing up the name Scott Ritter during a discussion of Iraq's WMD program. Scott Ritter is a former IAEA inspector who, prior to bush's invasion of Iraq, said Saddam had no WMD.

The reason for dmarks' accusations? Scott Ritter was caught in "police stings in which officers posed as under-aged girls to arrange meetings of a sexual nature" (two separate incidents). These incidents, however, occurred many years after Scott Ritter left the IAEA. The charges Mr. Ritter was convicted of have absolutely nothing to do with the WMD Scott Ritter did not find in Iraq.

The truth is that other members of the IAEA, including David Kay, Hans Blix and Mohamed ElBaradei, all said Iraq was disarmed. Former IAEA director Mohamed ElBaradei called the bush administration's claim that Iraq had WMD a "deliberate deception".

In any case, even after I told Dennis (numerous times) that I condemn Ritter for what he did after leaving the IAEA (a job in which he told the truth, as evidenced by the fact that the entire agency agreed with him), Dennis still insists I "defend" child rape... and he calls it "rape" even though Ritter was arrested before anything actually happened (he didn't rape any kids). But my pointing that out is, according to Dennis, part of my "defending" it. Clearly this is a vile "attack the messenger" ad hominem from Mr. Marks.

(Note: see SWTD #312 for more information regarding individuals at the IAEA who determined that Iraq did not need to be "disarmed" because they had no WMD).

5-B. Person has a "D" after their name means it is fine with me: This Dennis deduces because I wouldn't condemn Ed Schultz of domestic violence with no proof. And the same applies to Scott Ritter, despite the fact that I did condemn him for what he did after leaving the IAEA, and even though Ritter is "a self-professed conservative Republican who admitted... he voted for Bush three years ago [in 2000]". Dennis imagined a "D" behind his name because anyone who went to Iraq and found no WMD must be a liar (and a Democrat).

In conclusion, and in regards to the my accusations of Dennis being a "virulent liar" - this has, I believe, been proven. So, should you believe Dennis when he purports to be revealing the truth? I recommend no. Actually, I think Dennis' past statements (lies) speak for themselves, and THEY say "don't believe Dennis, he lies".

(See "The Truth About Dennis Marks", a blog I started on 2/21/2014 to tell the actual truth about the dishonest Mr. Marks... as opposed to his made up "truth" about me.)

SWTD #232, dDel #15.