Religious Nutjob Ted Cruz "Called & Anointed" By God To Be The Next President

The corporate right fires up the religious right against gay marriage and abortion and uses their votes to push their deregulation and tax cuts for the rich. It's an old trick. The House of Saud has the same arrangement with the Mullahs in Saudi Arabia ~ Adam McKay (dob 4/17/1968) a film director and screenwriter who has a creative partnership with actor Will Ferrell.

One of the most frightening things about the candidacy of the Canadian-born Ted Cruz is a what a Rightwing religious nut he is. Ted's father Rafael Bienvenido Cruz believes that his son was chosen by the Almighty to be our next president. Rightwing Watch notes that "earlier this year, Ted Cruz's father and primary presidential campaign surrogate... spoke at televangelist Kenneth Copeland's church in Texas".

Kenneth Copeland is a televangelist who preaches the prosperity gospel, which is a twisting a scripture under which good (Republican) Christians are rewarded by God with riches. Ignore that BS about what Jesus said about how hard it is for a rich man to get into Heaven. These prosperity gospel hucksters insist that God wants you to be rich. Fact is, you can tell that a person is right with God if he is wealthy (wealth being a blessing from above).

And according to Copeland and Rafael Bienvenido Cruz, Rafael Edward Cruz (AKA "Ted" Cruz) has been selected to be our next ruler (text below is a transcription from the video record of what took place at Copeland's TX church).

Rafael Bienvenido Cruz: The word from the Lord was "seek my face, not my hand". It was if the cloud of the Holy spirit descended upon the room. And all of a sudden, we were all worshipping. And the words that came out of Ted's mouth were "here am I Lord, use me. Let your will be done". I believe that the Lord has raised him up for such a time as this. (see video below).

There was a similar Mormon prophecy that some of Mittens' followers thought he was the one to fulfill. The White Horse Prophecy says that "the United States Constitution will one day hang like a thread and will be saved by the efforts of the White Horse". Some believe "Mormons expect the United States to eventually become a theocracy dominated by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints". And some believed that Mittens was that "White Horse", although Mittens himself said it wasn't "official church doctrine" and that he didn't "put that at the heart of my religious belief".

But Ted Cruz apparently DOES believe he is anointed by God to bring theocracy to the United States. Unless his father is lying about what he thinks God told Ted. But Ted was there (at Copeland's church) where he spoke for an hour. It might be possible that Ted is just going with his father's delusions (that have him believing the cloud of the Holy Spirit descended and spoke to his son)? Perhaps Ted decided he could use his father's delusions to dupe religious nutjobs into voting for him?

Anyway, if Rafael Edward Cruz were somehow elected president, I'd suspect fraud. And, if President Cruz attempted to steer our nation toward theocracy (I have no idea HOW he'd accomplish this, but let's say, for the sake of argument that he found a way) I'd suspect he was the AntiChrist. I say this seriously, as someone who identifies as Christian.

But I doubt any of this will come to pass. It's far more likely, IMO, that Ted Cruz won't be the nominee, let alone elected president (and then attempt to be a theocrat). And it's far more likely that Ted and his father are total nutjobs. Or liars who think they can take advantage of Rightwing "Christians" who think Ted is "the chosen one".

Video: Televangelist Kenneth Copeland (introducing Rafael Bienvenido Cruz) says, "I believe, with all my heart, that his son is called and anointed to be the next president of the United States".

SWTD #332

On Peyton Manning Kissing Papa John After The Superbowl, Then Saying Several Times He Was Going To Drink A Lot of Budweiser

Peyton cheapened his personal brand for products during what was likely his last shining moment. That is, of course, only until his Hall of Fame induction ensues, and Peyton... whips out a Sham Wow to extoll its virtues as he shines his bust ~ What Peyton Manning Lost After Winning Super Bowl 50 by Stephen Rosa, 2/9/2016.

First of all, let me note that I did not learn of this by actually watching the Superbowl. I have zero interest in football, or any other televised sport. I can not imagine anything on TV more boring which some people consider "entertainment".

No, I skipped this event entirely, and am confounded that (according to what I've heard) the ratings/viewership set records. As for the Peyton/Pappa love affair, Peyton isn't the guy who cheated by deflating balls, nor is he the guy who went to prison for animal cruelty (and then was rehired by another football team). And I just recently saw a rerun of the time he appeared on SNL (and did a decent job).

My point is that he seems to be someone that people like. So I guess I couldn't say anything bad about him, except for his association with the Papa John jerk. I've seen the commercials and wondered why Manning would want to be associated with a company founded by such a dick. And, remember, Peyton isn't just shilling for Papa's crappy pizza (so I've heard), he also appears alongside Papa in these commercials.

...the political firestorm - when [Papa John] Schnatter warned that Obama's health care changes would raise pizza prices and could cost workers their jobs. Most famously, Comedy Central's Steven Colbert, responding to Schnatter's claim that the insurance law could add as much as 14 cents to the cost of a pizza, said: "That's three times the value of a Papa John's pizza". ...pundits and late-night comedians have mocked and vilified him for saying the health care overhaul might add 14 cents to the cost of each pizza - and that some franchisees might cut workers' hours to avoid paying insurance costs. ... Though conservatives cheered Schnatter for telling it like it is, Trout, the former consultant, said it was a horrible public-relations error. "Why upset half your market?" Trout asked. "Why would you even go there?" ... Unlike former Godfather's CEO and Republican presidential candidate Herman Cain, Schnatter says he has no desire "right now" to run for office, though he adds, "You never want to say never". Schnatter is a registered Republican but says he grew up in a staunch Democratic Southern Indiana family.He said he supported Romney — he and his wife gave $120,800 to Romney and the Republican National Committee last year - because of his support for balancing the budget. (Papa John makes no apology for wealth, Obamacare remarks by The Louisville KY Courier-Journal. NYT 1/14/2013).

On the other hand the article says Papa John added that it was "good news [that] 100% of the population is going to get health insurance". Apparently he's "cool with that [because] "we've always wanted 100% of our employees on health care". Yeah, I don't quite buy that, given the fact that he originally said "we're not supportive of Obamacare".

If he REALLY wanted "100% of our employees on health care", he could have spoke about how good a deal the ACA is for him at 14 cents per pizza. At the very least he could have kept his mouth shut instead of fear mongering over 14 cents (and avoided the bad press). Sounds to me like he is/was against the ACA and - after the negative publicity over the remarks - backtracked. If he does get into politics (and hopefully he does not) we'll probably see his true (Republican) colors.

As for Manning, a link within the quoted story says "Peyton Manning to own 21 Papa John's locations". And the Denver Post reports that "Peyton Manning rolling in the dough with Papa John's profits".

Which explains the smooch. Republican love being based on money. Not that I know whether or not Manning is a Republican. I wouldn't be surprised if he was, however. As for the Budweiser plug, the Washington Post (The real story of Peyton Manning's weird love for Budweiser, Papa John's and Gatorade) notes that the quarterback (?) "owns a stake of two of the mega-brewer's distributors in his native state of Louisiana".

So, no, he wasn't paid by Bud for his endorsement, but he did benefit financially. Was this Manning's way of circumventing the fact that "the National Football League bans players from officially endorsing alcohol brands"? Can he not be paid for an endorsement or not endorse period? Is this something the NFL at least issue him a warning over?

The WP notes that "companies paid an average of $5 million for 30 seconds of super-saturated airtime during Super Bowl 50", yet with Manning's mention Bud got free airtime which some marketing firm says amounted to 3 million dollars in "in brand recognition value". Given the fact that I really don't give a crap about anything Superbowl related, I am not seriously outraged... but I do see this as another example of the rich getting richer. Because the wealthier one becomes the easier it is to make money (I'm going to drink beer = 3 million $).

And Mr. 47 percent Romney was a terrible candidate that exemplified the Right's contempt for the poor. That Papa John supported him (with a fundraiser at his mega mansion) is just another reason for me to not like the guy. Or Manning for his association with him.

Image: A gif of Peyton smooching his money honey Papa. btw, WHY was Papa allowed on the field?

SWTD #322

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

The Donald Sez GOPers Copying Him (Including Wanker & The Huckster)

We need a great president ~ The Donald Trump (dob 6/14/1946) an American business magnate, television personality, con man and infamous racist who is widely viewed by the American people as a complete joke.

Note: This commentary is my response to the video at the bottom of this post, which is an excerpt from a Donald Trump "70-minute speech before an audience of 1,500 in Sarasota, Florida on Thursday night". A video that came to my attention after viewing it on the blog of rAtional nAtion.

Wealthy real estate/reality TV buffoon Donald Trumps sez "Politicians are all talk and no action" but this doofus has said he's "considering" running for the White House on multiple occasions... and never has. The Donald is all talk and no action. Although when he said this it was only to get attention for his "Apprentice" TV program. Is that show still on? I really have no idea. Although I did watch it once or twice many years ago. There was someone named "Omarosa", if I recall.

In any case the Donald does NOT have any intention of running for POTUS. He did not before and he does not now. Yet he has lead people to believe he might run... and he keeps speaking as if he might... so him saying anything about talking without action really makes him appear as even more of a dumbass (if that is possible).

Also, if the Donald is to be believed, "make America great again" is a phrase he originated, or that it's his "theme". Although when Ronald Reagan said it, he wasn't referring to a Black Socialist illegitimate president going on an "apology tour" and messing up America (and how he would fix that). Which is what Trump is talking about when he uses that phrase. So maybe GOPer Prez hopefuls are copying him when they use that phrase and are also referring to Birther conspiracy theories.

Still, I don't think Trump came up with that "theme" (WND/Joseph Farah and Orly Taitz being the primary ones I remember). So, while Scott Walker may have jumped on the Birther train in the past, I don't know why he'd continue to ride it now that all the GOPer hopefuls are anticipating Hillary Clinton being the Democratic nominee. Does Walker agree with Trump on Ted Cruz (that being born in Canada could be a problem for him)? It's possible some of the GOPer hopefuls who aren't Ted Cruz might want to copy that theme, but I am not aware that any currently are.

Mike Huckabee, a candidate who the Donald mentions next in the video clip (saying he likes him), won't cut Social Security, Medicare or Medicaid... and this is also copying the Donald. The problem, however, is that the Huckster doesn't know how to "bring the money in" because "that's what he [Trump] does" and he's "really done a good job". So the Republican president would (presumably) have no choice but to cut these programs, not being Trump and having Trumpish abilites to "bring in the money" (despite filing for bankruptcy 4 times).

But is the Huckster really "copying" the Donald, or is he avoiding saying something that would be political suicide, given how popular these programs are with the electorate? The Huckster is obviously aware of the public associating the GOP with cutting these programs, which is why he makes a point of saying he would not do that.

One of the factors explaining why Mittens did not win the last election, perhaps? I'm referring to him selecting as his VP Paul Ryan, the dude who authored the budget that proposed cutting these programs (that the Congressional Republicans all voted for).

In any case, I doubt the Donald is thinking he would "bring in money" by increasing taxes on the wealthy, instituting a Wall Street transaction tax, or bringing our jobs back by raising tariffs (thus reviving the economy by getting people working again with decent paying jobs). What he's referring to is a mystery to me. Perhaps he would star in the first POTUS reality program?

For the record, it's not that, with the exception of raising taxes on the wealthy, the Dems are talking about doing anything to "make America great again". America's greatness is behind us, so long as we continue down the Neoliberal path. Which, unfortunately, President Obama, with his pushing of the TPP, is foolishly doing. Would Hillary Clinton chose a different path? I doubt it.

So, how do we make America great again? The ONLY way is to bring back our jobs by returning to a sane trade policy. Pull out of the WTO and kick the TPP to the curb along with NAFTA. Which is what a president Bernie Sanders would push for (along with raising tariffs). What we REALLY need is a revolution at the ballot box. The "revolution" being the election of Bernie Sanders along with enough Progressive Democrats so that Bernie can get things accomplished when he gets to the White House.

Hillary Clinton would, no doubt, be a MUCH better choice than whoever the Republicans run, but neither the Democrat nor the Republican will be willing to do what is necessary to make America great again. Unless that Democrat is Bernie.

That said, I doubt anyone seriously thinks there is a snowball's chance in hell that the Donald will actually run. And, I'd be surprised if the Republican nominee sought the advice of the Trumpster. He's a joke that no serious contender for the White House would dare be seen speaking with, let alone copying.

Although I have heard that Scott Walker is the Koch brother's choice. Does that mean that Walker, being one who "copied" the Donald, isn't serious? I don't know. It depends on how close to the Donald he gets, I'd say. If he is serious I think he needs to keep his distance. But I also don't think people should take Walker seriously given his union busting in Wisconsin and clearly being the Koch's lapdog. I mean, how funny was it when he fell for that prank Koch phone call?

Yet the voters in Wisconsin chose to keep Wanker instead of recall him (as they should have), so I guess they don't view him as a total joke like Donald Trump.

Video1: Real estate mogul & professional doofus Donald Trump, who is strongly considering a preznit-dential run in 2016, says politicians are "copying" him (1:38).

Video2: Thom Hartmann talks about how David and Charles Koch are turning on the cash spigots to fund Republican Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker's potential bid (6:32). 1/19/2015.

Video3: The BEAST's Ian Murphy calls Walker, posing as archconservative moneybags David Koch, and they casually discuss crushing all public unions by ("David Koch" suggests) physically intimidating his Democratic opposition with a baseball bat, dressing hobos in suits to whip up a good counter-protest, and planting troublemakers to discredit the pro-union demonstrators... to which Walker responds "We thought about that" (9:59). 2/22/2011.

SWTD #283

What Happened When A Deluded Conservative Ventured Outside His Usual Echo Chambers & His Buddies Weren't There To Stick Up For Him?

We are more connected than ever before, more able to spread our ideas and beliefs, our anger and fears. As we exercise the right to advocate our views, and as we animate our supporters, we must all assume responsibility for our words and actions before they enter a vast echo chamber and reach those both serious and delirious, connected and unhinged ~ Bill Clinton (dob 8/19/1946) The 42nd President of the United States (1/20/1993 to 1/20/20011) who presided over a budget surplus between the years 1998 and 2000, the last three years of his administration.

What happened when a delirious and unhinged Conservative wandered away from his usual echo chambers and his buddies weren't there to stick up for him? He was so shocked he couldn't comment again. This is what happened to dmarks (real name Dennis Marks) when I encountered him recently on a blog where the proprietor did not agree with him when Dennis said I lied. The discussion that ended with Dennis running away was prompted by a post on the blog Progressive Soup titled Fox "News" Once Again Exhibits Common Nonsense.

Following is an excerpt from that discussion (I begin with a snippet from the original post by the author and proprietor of Progressive Soup, Malcolm).

Malcolm: Fox cited [The rapper] Common's spoken word poem from a few years ago ("A Letter to the Law") which includes the line, "Burn a Bush cuz for peace he no push no but-ton. Killing over oil and grease, no weapons of destruc-tion". Fox [has] devoted a lot of airtime to a fake controversy [inviting Common to the White House] in yet another effort to discredit President Obama. (Originally posted on 5/16/2011 & 6/3/2011*). dmarks: Common lied about then current events [concerning no WMD being found in Iraq]... As for Common bashing black people using the N-word, it is not even discussed here. Yes, Fox News [creates fake controversies]. And MSNBC creates fake controversies, and disagrees with Romney... Like the fake Romney bully controversy which MSNBC ran with... and it evaporated: no substance. (6/30/2013). Malcolm: ...simply using the N-word in lyrics is not bashing black people. also, do you believe that weapons of mass destruction were found?! (6/30/2013). Dervish Sanders: dmarks does [believe WMD was found in Iraq]. I have debated dmarks on this topic before and therefore know he is referring to old buried barrels of chemical weapons. But bush scared people by referring to "mushroom clouds". bush was talking about nuclear weapons or missiles or usable chemical weapons, not useless degraded chemicals in buried barrels. dmarks is wrong about Common lying. Common told the truth. bush lied about WMD. [Also, I agree with you that simply using the N-word in a song or rap is not bashing Black people], but don't try to tell dmarks that. He thinks the MSNBC personality (and African-American) Touré "bashed" Herman Cain for being Black. dmarks likes to imagine that Black people are bashing other Black people, or bashing White people. I can't think of even one instance when he complained about a White person bashing a Black person. (7/1/2013). Dervish Sanders: Romney bashed a fellow student because he was perceived to be gay. The story was TRUE. It was confirmed by multiple people, as I recall. Apparently this is a "bashing" dmarks is willing to excuse? Romney was a bully when he was young, and a bully as an adult... when he shut down companies and stole worker's pensions. An all-around bad guy. (7/1/2013). dmarks: [Dervish] is lying here on many things. The existing WMD in Iraq were prohibited by the cease fire agreements. The old weapons were usable, and were WMD and were outlawed. The accusers of Romney refused to come forward... if they ever existed. Toure did in fact bash Cain for being a typical black sexual predator. [Dervish] is also a troll who has gotten banned on many blogs. from mine for posting dozens of profanity-based comments per day in which he ranted about the length of his penis. "Common" did indeed lie. Bush told the truth. (7/1/2013). Malcolm: Dervish Sanders, thanks for stopping by. You called it correctly about dmarks referring to the old weapons as WMDs. I've gone back and forth with him on the Toure thing and as I see above, he's still at it. [He is] distorting Toure's comments about Herman Cain. What he was saying is that there are people who are still threatened by what they perceive to be predatory black sexuality. [dmarks, you have a] false narrative on Toure and you're sticking to it. dmarks, If this doesn't convince you there were no WMDs, nothing will [link to a FactCheck.org article titled "No WMDs in Iraq"]. As for the Romney incident, Phillip Maxwell (who took part in the bullying) confirmed that it happened around the time this story surfaced last year. The victim (John Lauber) has been dead for years and thus was unable to come forward. Romney's response to the accusation wasn't much of a denial. Considering the specifics given of the incident (holding someone down while you cut their hair), I don't believe Romney when he says he didn't recall it. (7/1/2013).

(The first link was inserted by me, it is to an article titled Friend: Romney "Was The Ring Leader" Of 1965 Bullying Incident. The second link is Malcolm's. It is to an article titled Bullying Story Spurs Apology From Romney.)

Dervish Sanders: I am not a troll. I posted no comments containing profanity to dmarks' blog. I never "ranted about the length of [my] penis". These are lies. Also, I have been banned from three Conservative/Libertarian blogs**, but these three people are all buddies who stick together, so it really only counts as one banning. See here for the truth regarding the first banning (from the blog of an individual named Will Hart), and here for the truth regarding why dmarks banned me from his blog. dmarks' narrative regarding Toure is indeed false. Also ridiculous. He says a Black man can "bash" another Black man for being Black. This makes no sense at all. Another false narrative that dmarks sticks to is that WMD was found in Iraq. According to the link Malcolm provided, "the ISG report was sufficient to convince the Bush administration that there were no WMDs to be found". bush should have been convinced when the IAEA told him Iraq had no WMD PRIOR to the invasion, but at least he admits he was "wrong" now, unlike dmarks. In regards to people like dmarks, FactCheck says, "we suggest ridicule". Indeed, that is all these claims warrant. (7/1/2013).

Mine is the last comment (as of the publishing of this blog post). Dennis (AKA dmarks) did not comment again. But two other things happened. First, Malcolm added me to his Google Plus Circles (click on my profile and check under "Have you in circles" to confirm).

The second thing that happened was that Dennis ran back to Willis Hart's blog to complain about his treatment at Progressive Soup. I know this because I found the following comment from him on that blog (Contra O'Reilly)...

dmarks: In fact, WD the Everlasting Blogstalker understood, it, Russ, and he whined about it in someone else's blog. So unfair. (7/1/2013 AT 3:24am).

Dennis is referring to another comment on Progressive Soup in which I called out Dennis for his overuse of the "Mom's basement" insult. Prior to me showing up Dennis had levied that particular insult (an insult wherein Dennis says whoever disagrees with him is a loser who is sitting in front of a computer located in his or her parent's basement). In response to Dennis using that insult I said, "...the mom's basement slander (when you have absolutely no way of knowing) is lame. At first I thought you were talking about me, which was weird because I hadn't commented".

Dennis did not comment again in that thread either. Instead he went running back to the Hartster's echo chamber and spun our encounter as ME whining. But, in reality, it was Dennis who was whining. Dennis was so stunned (concerning his treatment at Progressive Soup) that he couldn't comment again. He's used to Willis or rAtional nAtion sticking up for him.

So Dennis ran crying back to the open arms of Willis and complained about how I was mean to him. Then he, Willis and Rusty engaged in some "just friends spooning" and cuddled under the covers while Dennis cried it out and Willis comforted him by gently stroking his hair. At least that is how I (metaphorically) interpret Dennis' comment.

By the way, in case you're wondering WHY I chose to comment on a discussion on another blog... the reason is because Dennis is out there spreading lies about me on other blogs, and I (of course) don't like it. Commenting on the blogs of Conservatives (or Libertarians) does not make me a "troll" or an "everlasting blogstalker" (I bet Dennis thinks he is mighty clever in coming up with that). It makes me a person who is interested in what the other side is saying. A member of their own group does it. The fellow who ironically calls himself rAtional nAtion uSA posts on Shaw Kenawe's blog Progressive Eruptions.

rAtional banned me from his blog** (thanks to Dennis), but none of the mostly Left-leaning commenters on Shaw's have called rAtional a troll (to my knowledge), nor an "everlasting blogstalker". Perhaps it's because Liberals are more tolerant of differing points of view?

*Note 1: The comments from Progressive Soup are snippets (not the full comments); some of them are also the combination of 2 different comments. Although I have edited the comments, I did so only for the sake of brevity, and because I was choosing only the snippets that were pertinent to the point I was trying to make with this post... not to change the meaning of any of them. I have included a link to the original post so you can read the comment thread in full if there is any doubt. I don't want to be accused to lying by omission or of twisting anyone's words.

**Note 2: rAtional nAtion has retracted his ban, in that he usually publishes my comments (after telling me I was "banned forever"). Now and again he'll decide he does not like a comment I've submitted and decline to publish, but most of them get through.

SWTD #175, dDel #11.

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. Willis L. Hart (who I refer to as "PA" below). This post explains why. He banned me over a stoopid disagreement over 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 Willis Hart this 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 eliminating 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 the Hartster does just that, in agreement with his Conservative buddy dmarks who contends that Brookings is a "well known leftist group".

But 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 Willis Hart fellow is really not all that Moderate.

Afterword: On 2/10/2013 PA (AKA Willis 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 PA. 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). Willis 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 voices of Progressive disagreement. I would have told Willis 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 [1].

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 PA 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 PA to suggest the Left is entirely silent? The progressives (that Willis dislikes with much intensity) ARE speaking out. That he ignores this fact is as dishonest as PA'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 PA actually had with me was that, when I disagreed I wouldn't end up caving when he kept insisting he was right.

Footnote
[1] AKA blowback, which is a concept the idiot Willis, while he criticizes Obama for his drone policy, does not agree with. According to dope, the idea that all the murdering via drone that we're doing (of mostly innocents) causes anyone to seek revenge "ultimately fails". The US, in his mind, is blameless, in other words. Sounds like something a jingoist fear mongering warmongering MIC-stooging Republican would say. (Note: This footnote was added on 7/19/2015).

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

SWTD #160, wDel #27.

The Left Does Not Need to Lie to Make Romney Look Bad

When you express an attitude that half the country considers itself victims, that somehow they want to be dependent on government, my thinking is maybe you haven't gotten around a lot ~ Barack Obama (b. 8/4/1961) 44th president of the United States, responding to a question about Romney's bogus and insulting claim that 47 percent of Americans pay no income tax and believe they are victims and entitled to an array of federal benefits at a Univision town hall-style forum on 9/20/2012.

On 9/22/2012 self-described "Moderate" blogger Willis Hart asked the question, "still don't think that MSNBC lies like Fox?". The title of the post was a link to Youtube video of some remarks by Mitt Romney that were supposedly deceptively edited by NBC's Andrea Mitchell to enforce the Left's narrative that Mitt is a rich out-of-touch douche (Youtube video title: "MSNBC's Andrea Mitchell Caught Blatantly Lying & Distorting The Truth About Mitt Romney").

My response, which I cannot make on his blog because he recently banned me, would have been that I don't think Andrea Mitchell lied. Primarily because lying to make Mittens look bad isn't necessary. Yes, the video was edited, and yes the edit did make it appear he was confused by the "amazing" technology he witnessed at a sandwich making business he had recently visited (Wawas of PA). After airing the edited video on her MSNBC program Andrea Mitchell Reports, Mitchell "suggested this might be Romney's supermarket scanner moment". The point he was actually making was that government is behind in using technology to improve it's efficiency because government has no competition.

So, the video WAS edited, and those edits did make it appear that Romney's comments are an example of him being rich and "out of touch" with the common man. However, when viewed in their full context, it is clear his comments are not an example of this. So, why do I doubt Andrea Mitchell lied? Because there are numerous other Romney quotes that the Left can use to "make Romney look bad". There is NO NEED for them to fabricate any. I suspect someone else edited the video and handed it off to someone at MSNBC. Andrea Mitchell did not lie... although an argument can be made that this is an example of poor reporting. Whoever put the story together (not necessarily Andrea Mitchell) did a bad job of confirming if the (out of context) quote was what it really appeared to be.

Regarding those quotes that actually do make Romney look bad (and make it completely unnecessary for the Left to have to fabricate any), two examples that recently were reported on include Romney making it clear he has no idea what a dirty bomb is, and that Romney thinks it would be a good idea for people to be able to open windows in airplanes (in case of a fire). The first comment I've transcribed from the 9/18/2012 broadcast of Rachel Maddow Show and is as follows (it is IN CONTEXT, BTW)...

(The quote is from the same video in which Romney disparages the 47 percent of people who refuse to take personal responsibility... according to him.)

Mitt Romney: I mean, if I were Iran and a crazed fanatic, I'd say, "Let's get a little fissile material to Hezbollah and have them carry it to Chicago or some other place. And then if anything goes wrong or America starts acting up, we'll say, guess what? Unless you stand down, why, we're gonna let off a dirty bomb.

Rachel Maddow: OK... Mitt Romney doesn't know what a dirty bomb is. A dirty bomb is not a nuclear explosion... you do not need to have a nuclear program in order to make a dirty bomb possible. You do not need fissile material from somebody's nuclear weapons program in order to put together a dirty bomb. A dirty bomb is just a regular bomb that explodes the regular way - except that it's been packed with radioactive material - and that radioactive material can come from anywhere. From medical waste, from a nuclear power plant (which Iran has)... Every country in the world has access to the radioactive material necessary to make a dirty bomb. By singling out a nuclear armed Iran as a threat to the US in terms of what it would take to make a dirty bomb, Mitt Romney has just display profound ignorance on a really important subject.

Back to my commentary: As has been pointed out, these 47 percent of people who don't pay income taxes include a lot of likely Romney voters (who may not be Romney voters anymore after hearing these remarks). Senior citizens, military personal, and voters who live in southern states (states that receive more in federal money than they pay in, as opposed to northern states that tend to vote democratic and pay in more than they get back). On the other hand, these people probably aren't paying attention (or seen this reported on Fox Nooz) so they'll probably still vote for Romney despite the utter contempt Romney clearly has for these people.

Now, on to my second example of Romney saying something dumb that makes it unnecessary for the Left to fabricate anything to support their "narrative" that Romney is out-of-touch, makes dumb gaffes, and is otherwise not qualified to be president.

As reported by the Huffington Post (and numerous other "less biased" news sources), a fire broke out on a private plane carrying Mitt Romney's wife Anne (which was then forced to make an emergency landing). Speaking about the incident, Romney said, "the windows don't open. I don't know why they don't do that. It's a real problem. So it's very dangerous". According to Romney, it's "dangerous" because "you can't find any oxygen from outside the aircraft to get in the aircraft...".

There are several problems with this statement. First of all, there is less oxygen at high altitudes, oxygen feeds a fire, and the pressure outside the plane isn't the same as inside it. Although, regarding the oxygen issue, Romney was concerned about the occupants of the plane being able to breath (I guess it didn't occur to him that fire needs oxygen to burn). The cabin pressure issue, I think, really makes this a super dumb statement. Or, perhaps he was just joking, as, according to the NYT writer who first filed on the comments, "it was clear from the context that he was not being serious".

If a "joke" then I agree with the Telegraph reporter who said Romney has "[a] sense of humour that no one else quite gets". In any case, we still have two examples of Romney making stupid gaffes that make it completely unnecessary for the Left to have to fabricate any. He disparaged the 47 percent of Americans who pay no federal income tax, even though this number includes members of the Republican base, and his complete lack of understanding regarding what a dirty bomb is (and the fact that individuals in Iran could construct one absent Iran having a nuclear weapons program.

Andrea Mitchell lied? Why? There's no reason for her to lie; all the Left needs to do is tell the truth to make Romney look bad. Lie, and you can get caught, so why do it when it isn't necessary?

Also, who uses a link as the title of a blog post as Willis Hart of Contra O'Reilly does? Links are supposed to be embedded in your post. Try learning a little basic HTML. Failing that, don't use a frigging LINK as the TITLE of a blog post (put it in the body)! It just looks dumb.

SWTD #120

Republican Rigging Benefits Wealthy, Hurts Everyone Else

The fact that Romney may be viewed as wealthy doesn't necessarily pose problems for his candidacy. The challenge for Romney lies more in the fact that large majorities say if he is elected president, his policies would likely benefit the wealthy ~ Kim Parker, associate director of Pew Social & Demographic Trends. (Quote excerpted from the article, "Americans Say Rich Are Greedy, Dishonest, Don't Pay Enough In Taxes: Pew Report" by Hope Yen of the AP, 8/27/2012).

The following is an excerpt from the 9/2/2012 broadcast of MSNBC's Weekends With Alex Witt, which I edited for brevity and clarity. Host Alex Witt and guest Carmen Wong Ulrich discuss a new Pew poll that finds 75 percent of Americans believe the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer.

Alex Witt: Now a new study that paints a fascinating picture of what Americans really think about rich people. Carmen Wong Ulrich is a personal finance expert and the president of Alta Wealth Management, so she's making people rich with that company.

As we get to this survey, it's from the Pew Research Center, it says people see those who are wealthy as more intelligent, more hard working, yet also greedy and less honest. Where does this come from?

Carmen: Well, here's the thing. If you break it along party lines... Democrats are much more likely to say that people who are rich are basically more greedy and less honest. Republicans are more likely to say they're intelligent and hard working. So it really cuts across party lines.

But a third to 50 percent of Americans said it doesn't matter if you're wealthy. That doesn't make you more intelligent or less likely to be honest. It doesn't matter at all. So it's a big number that said it doesn't matter.

Alex Witt: OK, let's get to taxes. This one shows, that when it comes to paying them, 58 percent said [the] rich pay too little, 26 percent said they pay their fair share, and just 8 percent say they pay too much. Anything here surprise you?

Carmen: No... Again, this split along party lines. 78 percent of Democrats say the wealthy do not pay enough in taxes. Only 33 percent of Republicans said the same thing.

Alex Witt: On the campaign trail wealth is certainly one of the big issues. What's the takeaway from what the study tells us... do you think this tells us more about how people view the rich...

Carmen: What it really showed is there is a belief that there is a huge income gap between the wealthy and the poor. 65 percent of Americans say that gap exists. The study asked, "do you believe the rich get richer and the poor get poorer"? Over 75 percent of Americans agreed. If you're a Democrat it's 92 percent, while if you're a Republican it's still over 50 percent. So, no matter what party they're in, people are saying America is changing and the rich are getting richer.

My Commentary: "Perception is reality", is one of the lines (I didn't quote) that Carmen used in commenting on this poll. I don't know if that means she does not believe the rich are getting richer at the expense of the rest of us, but I believe it is true. I know it isn't only a "perception", but that the facts show this is the case. I also agree with the people who responded to the poll who said the wealthy aren't necessarily more intelligent (50 percent) or harder working (34 percent).

But, if the wealthy aren't necessarily more intelligent or harder working then why are they getting richer while the rest of us are getting poorer? Certainly, being wealthy is a huge advantage, as making money after you already have money is a lot easier, but I strongly believe the reason is (in huge part) because our economic system is rigged to favor the wealthy.

This is an assertion that I have been ridiculed for on a Conservative blog I used to comment on. One commenter even claimed that this assertion was one of the reasons I was viewed as a "laughingstock" by the other people who frequent that blog. According to these people, those who complain of a rigged system (like the Occupy Movement) are simply jealous, lazy and greedy individuals who are looking for government handouts.

However, as Liberal talk show radio host Thom Hartmann correctly points out (in a 10/26/2006 article), "what's normal in a free and unfettered economy is the rapid evolution of a small but fabulously wealthy ownership class, and a large but poor working class". Historical evidence shows us that (under normal conditions[1]) only governmental economic and social policy can sustain a large and growing middle class.

Pew also found that "63 percent of Americans say the GOP favors the rich over the middle class and poor"[2]. I think the results of this poll make it clear that most people realize governmental policy supports the middle class, and that the reason it is currently in decline is due to a rigging of our economic system by the GOP. Here's hoping that translates into a win for Barack Obama in November.

Footnotes
[1] The other method by which a middle class can arise is by, "a sudden change in the relationship between population and resources. After the Black Death wiped out more than a third of the population in 14th century Europe, the increased demand for labor drove up the price of labor to the point when a middle class emerged in some places. Many historians identify this as one of the factors that brought about the Renaissance". (Excerpt from the 10/26/2006 Thom Hartmann article, "There's Nothing Normal About A Middle Class").
[2] From the AP article, "Americans Say Rich Are Greedy, Dishonest, Don't Pay Enough In Taxes: Pew Report" by Hope Yen, 8/27/2012.

SWTD #119

Romney's Tax Plan Would Complete Reagan's Dream of an American Oligarchy

Where some people are very wealthy and others have nothing, the result will be either extreme democracy or absolute oligarchy, or despotism will come from either of those excesses ~ Aristotle (384 BC to 322 BC) a Greek philosopher who was a student of Plato and teacher of Alexander the Great. Together with Plato and Socrates (Plato's teacher), Aristotle is one of the most important founding figures in Western philosophy.

The Walton family owns more wealth than the bottom 40 percent of America. The top 1 percent owns 40 percent of the nation's wealth while the bottom 60 percent own less than 2 percent. Between 2009 and 2010 93 percent of all new income went to the top 1 percent, the other 99 percent shared the remaining 7 percent. The United States has the most unequal distribution of wealth and income of any industrialized nation on earth and it is worse now than since the 1920s. The United States has the highest rate of childhood poverty in the industrialized world. [source: Bernie Sanders on the 8/3/2012 Stephanie Miller Show].

In response John Fugelsang asked: "if 60 percent of the population controls only 2 percent of the wealth, does that mean that the top 40 percent needs to pay 98 percent of the taxes?" [John Fugelsang is a friday regular on the Stephanie Miller Show].

The rigged tax system of the United States has been moving up toward oligarchy for the past 30 years - ever since Ronald Reagan set us on that path. According to a non-partisan analysis conducted by the Brookings Institute and the Tax Policy Center, "...a revenue-neutral individual income tax change that incorporates the features Governor Romney has proposed – including reducing marginal tax rates substantially, eliminating the individual alternative minimum tax (AMT) and maintaining all tax breaks for saving and investment – would provide large tax cuts to high-income households, and increase the tax burdens on middle and/or lower-income taxpayers. This is true even when we bias our assumptions about which and whose tax expenditures are reduced to make the resulting tax system as progressive as possible".

Mitt Romney says he will reduce taxes across the board, but in reality his elimination of deductions would RAISE taxes on middle and lower income taxpayers. The Brookings/Tax Policy analysis says, "[Romney's] tax cuts predominantly favor upper-income taxpayers. Taxpayers with incomes over $1 million would see their after-tax income increased by 8.3 percent (an average tax cut of about $175,000)... while the after-tax income of taxpayers earning less than $30,000 would actually decrease by about 0.9 percent (an average tax increase of about $130)".

In other words: Romney wants YOU to pay for tax cuts for the wealthy! Unless you're rich and greedy, why would you cast your ballot for Mitt Romney? Barack Obama should win re-election in a landslide, but we all know he won't. It's going to be close. Why? I've been declared "arrogant" for saying so, but I'm convinced that a lot of voters are allowing themselves to be tricked into voting for oligarchy.

SWTD #118

Mitt Romney: A Destroyer of Companies & Jobs, A Vulture Capitalist, An Unethical Thief

Bain made billions by, as the Los Angeles Times writes, "firing workers, seeking government subsidies, and flipping companies quickly for large profits". In all, Bain bankrupted nearly one-quarter of the companies it invested in, often causing "substantial job losses", according to a new Wall Street Journal report ~ Scott Keyes, writing for ThinkProgres, in a 1/9/2012 article titled, "GOP Speaks Out On Romney’s Greed: He Likes Firing People, Bankrupting Them, And Taking All The Money".

Bane, definition: a person or thing that ruins or spoils; that which causes death or destroys life.

Bain Capital, definition: an investment firm founded by Mitt Romney that ruins or spoils people's lives; an investment firm that causes the death of jobs and destroys companies.

The following video is an excerpt from the 1/10/2012 edition of MSNBC's "Morning Joe". In the clip Newt Gingrich explains the issue he sees with Bain Capital. Below the video I've excerpted some of the dialogue from the interview that I'd like to address.

Gingrich (1:39 to 2:45): The question is, if you look at the Wall Street Journal report in the last day or two, if you have a company that cost 30 million dollars and they took out 180 million... and then it went bankrupt, they have some obligation, I think, to explain. Why did they take that much money out if it was bankrupting the company? I think that's just a fair question about process and judgment. I think people draw a very sharp distinction between investors who really want a company to succeed, and investors who basically take over the company for the purpose of draining out it's cash, and then walk out without any concern for the consequence.

I think Governor Romney is going to have to have a press conference at some point and explain what happened with these particular companies. Because they weren't just failures, they were just "oh, we went in, we invested, we lost money too". These were cases where they were making a LOT of money while the company was going bankrupt. I think you have to ask real questions about whether that's responsible management and the kind of management you want to see as president of the United States.

Gingrich (6:47 to 9:16): [responding to question: What are the specific concerns you have regarding his record at Bain Capital?] There was a company that they put 30 million dollars into that they, according to the Wall Street Journal, they got 180 million dollars. That's a 6 to 1 return. And the company went bankrupt. It doesn't seem to me like the owners were taking much of a risk. It doesn't seem to me like they were sharing in the problems of the workers. How could they, in good conscience, take 180 million dollars out of company that they invested 30 million in, and leave all the workers behind? What if they'd taken 60 million out, which would still have been a nice profit... would the company still be alive? Would the workers still have jobs? Would families still have paychecks?

I think there are at least three or four cases where it wasn't traditional capitalism. It's not, "I made an investment, the investment went bad, I feel sorry about it, but we all suffered". These are cases of, "I made an investment, I did really, really well. Sorry about the company going broke". I think people have the right to ask the question - is that the kind of management responsibility you want in a president. And is that the kind of attitude you want in a president. ... This is, "I invested in something, I got richer, they got broke". I think he's going to have to explain that model.

My Commentary: The "model" I think is, as Rick Perry first said, Vulture Capitalism. Granted, this may not quite be the modus operandi of Bain Capital. Many of the companies they took over went on to become successful. But I'd have a problem if they did this just once. In my mind it is basically thievery. A vulture picks from the carcass of an animal that is dead or dying. And this appears to be what Bain did.

If, in their judgment, the company could be turned around, they made the effort to do that. If, on the other hand, they determined that it could not, then they took advantage of the bankruptcy process to load the company up with debt, pay themselves with that borrowed money, and then laugh all the way to the bank with no concern at all as to whom they were shafting. I think this behavior is utterly deplorable and should be illegal. There should be provisions in the law that allow those who lost money to come after Bain to recoup it.

According to a 12/3/2011 LA Times article, "Bain expanded many of the companies it acquired. But like other leveraged-buyout firms, Romney and his team also maximized returns by firing workers, seeking government subsidies, and flipping companies quickly for large profits. Sometimes Bain investors gained even when companies slid into bankruptcy".

The Wall Street Journal, in the 1/9/2012 article referenced by Newt Gingrich, says one of their findings was, "that Bain produced stellar returns for its investors - yet the bulk of these came from just a small number of its investments. Ten deals produced more than 70% of the dollar gains". However, "of the 10 businesses on which Bain investors scored their biggest gains, four later landed in bankruptcy court".

Was it because the company, so burdened by the debt Bain forced them to take on (in order to pay them for their "services"), eventually went under? I think the facts say "yes". My question is, would an ethical person seek a profit so out of proportion with their initial investment that it put the company in danger of failing later (the unbelievable 600% return cited by Gingrich)? I say "no". In my opinion (at least some of) what Romney did at Bain Capital was very unethical... it may have been legal, but it was quite unethical.

Further Reading: Romney's Bain Capital Made Billions While Bankrupting Nearly One-Quarter Of The Companies It Invested In by Pat Garofalo, ThinkProgress 1/9/2012.

SWTD #103