An Agenda Of Truth Telling Re Global Climate Change "Tiring" And "Distracting" Sez Irrational Fellow

Stopping the development of clean energy in its tracks by ending the wind-energy tax credit and other clean-energy initiatives, while keeping subsidies for Big Oil ~ One of the goals of the GOP-Controlled Congress in service of their corporate masters. (From the National Resources Defense Council).

The blogger rAtional nAtion has issued a cease and desist order in regards to truth telling about global climate change he does not like on his blog. This after he indicated that he might agree with the majority of climatologists who say the earth is warming.

rAtional nAtion: According to new scientific data the earth has been warning at the same rate the past decade as it did during the previous decade. There has been no pause in climate change, aka global warming. (6/5/2015 AT 3:52pm).

The title of the commentary by the rAtional oNe is "climate change skeptics, now what say you?". Now that I think about it, Mr. Nation does not say anything himself. Does he agree or disagree? He only speaks of what "new scientific data" shows. He never says whether or not he is one of these skeptics himself.

Although he has said things in the past that lead me to believe he might be in agreement with those of us who are sane and do not believe the majority of climatologists are lying bastards.

That the climatologists are liars (with the exception of a few "luminaries") is what the Libertarian blogger Willis Hart preaches. It's central to his conspiracy theory involving James Hansen, Michael Mann and Barack Obama (the nimrod prez with the balls to pimp moronic AGW talking points in his commencement speech at the Coast Guard Academy, which was the last straw for Willis).

This "new data" has "James Hanson's lying-assed paws written all over it" Willis sez.

Then he mentions "the satellite data that you CANNOT screw with". This is a reference to research conducted by John Christy and Roy Spencer using satellite data. Their conclusion was that this satellite data shows the earth is not warming that much conspiracy of evil climatologists to protect their jobs is real.

The problem is that the research by Christy and Spencer has been discredited, which I pointed out on Mr. Nation's blog.

Dervish Sanders: I read Will's commentary concerning "satellite data that you CANNOT screw with" when he first cited it (and continued to cite it over and over)... but Christy and Spencer DID "screw" with it. First, they did not account for something called the "diurnal drift" (which refers to the fact that "The satellites must pass over the same spot on Earth at the same time each day to get a temperature average [however] the time the satellite passes drifts slightly as the orbit slowly decays)... And second they made an algebraic error. But these things happen. I would not go as far as to label either fellow a "scoundrel" for not being perfect. Christy acknowledged the mistake. (6/7/2015 AT 03:03:00 PM EDT).

This is information I excerpted from a commentary I wrote for my blog back in 10/17/2013 (SWTD #211) in which I cite the website Skeptical Science (this is the origin of the info regarding Christy and Spencer getting it wrong in regards to their research involving temperature readings via satellite).

According to Willis "the tropsosphere temperatures would have to increasing at a faster rate than the surface site temperatures AND THEY ARE NOT". (this from a "Contra O'Reilly blog dated 10/15/2013).

But Willis is wrong. This information has been discredited by Skeptical Science (a climate science blog and information resource created in 2007 by John Cook that Willis sez is an "anti-science smear site").

But Skeptical Science says the satellite data (the data Christy and Spencer used to conclude that there was a "warming trend of only 0.09°C per decade, well below the surface temperature trend of 0.17°C per decade"), when corrected, shows that the temperatures in the troposphere "are in good agreement with models".

Now, I know Willis does not read my blog, so he (although he could have found out that Christy and Spencer were wrong via other channels) continued to cite the discredited Christy/Spencer conclusions. Over and over.

So I was wondering how Willis would respond when I posted this info on the blog of Mr. rAtional nAtion. But guess what? He posted his angry "rebuttal" (referring to James Hansen as a "scoundrel") and did not return. Or he did return and chose not to respond.

And when I submitted a comment asking WHY Willis would not reply, ye ol rAtional fellow replied with the following comment.

rAtional nAtion: It is time you took the issue to Will's blog and or your own. I has been increasingly obvious you do indeed have an agenda with respect to Will, dmarks, and me. And, it is again getting tiring as well s distracting. Your point has been made, you know Will is not going to change his views on the issue, and by continuing any further on this post you certainly are not going to force agreement. (6/8/2015 AT 07:38:00 PM EDT).

This is interesting. Mr. Nation knows I cannot take the issue to the blog of Willis because Willis banned me from further comment on his blog. Seems my comments to his blog contained facts that made him extremely uncomfortable (and this caused him to fear seeing my comments, which caused him to take LOL-able measures to not see these comments). Although this is just "conjecture" as another regular on the rAtional nAtion blog might say.

So, even though this is conjecture, I think it is quite likely. Willis saw the rebutting and total refutation of his oft-repeated reference to "the satellite data that you CANNOT screw with"... and he got very uncomfortable. And perhaps a bit afraid. Afraid that the house of cards he has built on the discredited research of his "luminaries" had been blow away. Or that the supporting structure of it was greatly weakened, at least.

Maybe it would be best to ignore the rebutting and discrediting and simply pretend it didn't happen? Only Mr. Nation responded, so maybe nobody else saw it? Better to run home to his safe echo chamber and compose yet another "the scoundrel climatologists are deceiving us" screed. Which is exactly what Willis did... with a commentary in which he whined about "diehard alarmists" and "people who think that it's AOK to torture the data".

People who think it's AOK to "torture the data" is, I am fairly confident, a reference to yours truly. "Torturing the data" is, apparently, pointing out that the "luminaries" screwed up and that the satellite data is actually "in good agreement with models".

Ha ha ha ha ha ha.

That is actually quite funny. How DEEPLY in denial this guy is. Also funny (but not "funny ha ha") is rAtional's cease and desist order. He says things that imply he might be with the scientists, but tells me to cut it out when I post a comment that goes too far (in making Willis look bad).

I have to ask... What's HIS agenda? Maybe he's just being a good friend and is concerned about his friend Willis' world getting shattered via the "distracting" truth? Or maybe he, as a good Objectivist/Libertarian realizes that the plutocrats have no intention of slowing down their raking in of the profits when we should be moving away from dirty energy?

Again, conjecture. But as a Libertarian it is a position I'd expect him to take. As Willis does. "Green energy", is, after all, a "scam". A "scam" because, if we got serious about it, then it might take off and cut into the sales of fossil fuels. And that would be bad... for "Big Oil".

Or "Big Natural Gas", which is the industry Libertarian Gary Johnson thinks needs enriching. As opposed to going Green, Gary thinks that the "free-market approach" should mean less coal and that "we're going to see a lot of natural gas electrical generation come online".

So, continued dependence on dirty fossil fuels. And that is the agenda that the Hartster has the talking points down pat in regards to. Although he obviously disagrees with Gary when Gary says "I'm accepting that global warming is man-caused".

Gary thinks the way to support the fossil fuel industry is to push for natural gas, while Willis thinks the best way to support our plutocrats is to continue using coal and oil (and deny there will be any consequences).

rAtional nAtion, while being on board with doing what is best for our beloved plutocrats, thinks an "all of the above" strategy is best. People like Willis can continue denying (and that will be good for Big Oil), while Gary can acknowledge global climate change and push policies that will benefit Big Natural Gas. Either way the plutocrats win. Just so long as we don't get ridiculous and go the cap and trade route. Which Gary opposes. God forbid we actually make polluters pay for their pollution!

Or this is my guess as to what the rAtional gUy is thinking. Something he does not like (me guessing). But this is my blog so I can engage in as much conjecture as I care to. And Mr. Nation did say "it is time you took the issue to Will's blog and or your own". I cannot take the issue to the blog of Willis, so the only option is to take it here. Which I have now done.

Image: NOAA graph from the article The recent global surface warming hiatus: fact or artifact of data biases? Contrary to much recent discussion, the latest corrected analysis (or "tortured data") shows that the rate of global warming has continued, and there has been no slow down.

SWTD #288, lDel #22, wDel #75.

An Example Of An Individual Taken In By The Lie That The bush Administration Received Faulty Intel & Made A Mistake In Invading Iraq?

the [bush] Administration repeatedly presented intelligence as fact when in reality it was unsubstantiated, contradicted, or even non-existent ~ The conclusion of Phase two of the Senate Report on Pre-war Intelligence on Iraq.

As a result of John Ellis Bush (AKA Jeb Bush) being asked whether or not he would have done the same as his war criminal brother and invaded Iraq, the question of whether Iraq was a "mistake" or not has come up again. (Although Jeb lied, pretending to mishear the question as whether or not he'd invade at the time NOT knowing what we know now, when the question actually was would he have invaded knowing what we know now. He said he would have... and Hillary would have too. When Hillary would not have).

Les Carpenter (AKA "rAtional nAtion", RN, or "Lester Nation") of the blog rAtional nAtion uSA, falling for the lie, answered the actual question in a recent blog post. Les said "Yes, Iraq was a mistake".

Problem is, that question is bullshit because it plays up the false narrative that the bush administration received faulty intelligence. The fact is that the bushies never received any intelligence that said what they so desperately wished to be true, which is that Saddam had WMD he might use. Perhaps on the US. With the proof being a mushroom cloud.

While there were some tidbits of info suggesting the bush version of the intel might be true (which turned out to be misleading bullplop propagaged by liars like Ahmed Chalabi, passed on with the goal of tricking the bush administration into toppling Saddam), the actual intelligence was clear that Iraq having WMD was doubtful.

And the IAEA produced a report saying so (the IAEA is the UN agency that sent a team of inspectors into Iraq to look for WMD and did not find any). They told the UN this, which is why the UN voted not to authorize the war.

So, despite the fact that we know now (and we knew then) that Iraq did not have WMD, the narrative now is that Iraq was a mistake (and we didn't know then). Although, for quite some time following Jeb's doofus brother leaving office, the narrative was that it was the right thing to do despite no WMD being found. bush said a number of times that he'd make the same decision again. Now the narrative is that it was a "mistake". Which is as far as they want to go, I believe.

Perhaps some day we'll get to the point where the American public largely accepts that gwb lied, same as they accept that LBJ lied us into Vietnam? Who knows. Obviously the bushies want to stop that truth from becoming widely accepted. Right now because it would not be good for Jeb to have to run with the electorate believing his brother lied (as opposed to having been a victim of bad intel).

Today [2/9/2015], The Wall Street Journal op-ed page has Republican judge Laurence Silberman fiercely insisting that the Bush administration did not lie, and that the claim it lied is itself a calumny. Silberman's argument is a simplistic one aimed at confusing those who have already forgotten the basic sequence of events. Silberman argues that a bipartisan commission, which he co-chaired, investigated the matter, and found that the Bush administration was victimized by faulty intelligence. (Republicans Still Denying Bush Lied About Iraq by Jonathan Chait. Daily Intelligencer).

Les Carpenter (AKA "rAtional nAtion") is one of those who, despite being a Libertarian and not a Republican, believes the false narrative currently being spun.

rAtional nAtion: Whether GWB knowingly lied or the intelligence was wrong I am not in a position to know; with certainty. Neither aRe you Dervish. Irrespective of this it was unwise to invade a foreign country that posed no threat to the USA. 5/14/2015 AT 06:55:00 PM EDT)

Actually, Les, I am in a position to know that bush lied. All one really needs to do is be aware of the facts, as the Daily Intelligencer points out in it's article (continued from above).

Silberman does not mention that the commission he chaired did not even investigate whether the Bush administration manipulated intelligence. Senate Republicans refused to allow the commission to investigate this matter, fearing it would harm Bush's reelection prospects. Indeed, Silberman himself wrote in the report at the time, "Our executive order did not direct us to deal with the use of intelligence by policymakers, and all of us were agreed that that was not part of our inquiry". This was a favorite line of pro-Bush spin. It is true that passing on faulty intelligence by mistake is not the same thing as misrepresenting intelligence. Bush's defenders habitually rebutted accusations of the latter by insisting that the former was true. In reality, both things happened - the administration suffered from honest intelligence failures, and it misled the public about the facts as it understood them. The question of whether, in addition to being victimized by faulty intelligence, also misrepresented the intelligence it did have, was left to a second Senate report, called the "Phase II" report, which came out a few years later. That report, which was endorsed by two of the committee's seven Republicans and all its Democrats, concluded, "the Administration repeatedly presented intelligence as fact when in reality it was unsubstantiated, contradicted, or even non-existent". (Republicans Still Denying Bush Lied About Iraq by Jonathan Chait. Daily Intelligencer).

It is a "demonstrable fact that the Bush administration deliberately misled the public". Iraq was not a mistake, but a deliberate decision by the bush administration to lie to get the war it wanted. Case closed.

The only question that remains is... why does Les Carpenter of the Libertarian/Objectivist blog "rAtional nAtion uSA" say he doesn't know "Whether GWB knowingly lied". I suppose he might be telling the truth when he says he isn't in a "position" to know, which he wouldn't be only if he is deliberately avoiding reading anything that gives the accurate facts concerning this matter. Which he might be doing because he doesn't want to know the truth. Or he might be on board with the false narrative. Perhaps because he's a fan of Jeb and doesn't want his chances of winning the White House harmed.

Of course this is all conjecture, as Les, when I presented him with some of the facts, declined to respond again. Personally I think the reason for Les going along with this lie is because he wishes to protect the GOP. He does not care for Jeb as such (or any of the other potential candidates who are expected to declare), but he does dislike Hillary intensely and does not want to see her win. In his mind a Republican might be better than Hillary.

Although this does not jibe with Les' recent claim that he is "moving away from the right", but it's the best explanation I can come up with. Pure conjecture, in other words. Which Les and his yes man Dennis Marks have indicated they loath.

Awhile ago an Anonymous commenter on this blog said "ever notice how RN never really says what he thinks? He likes to bait people, without stating his position". I agreed that I had noticed this. In fact, I continue to notice that he does this. He also loves to cry about "old bones" if inconsistencies are pointed out between past and current statements (by him or his toady Dennis).

For example, he frequently says he's an adherant of Ayn Rand's Objectivism (which views selfishness as a virtue), even though this does not jibe with his claim of supporting what he calls "Thomas Paine style benevolent capitalism" (which is not really a thing. What Les actually refers to is a mixed economy wherein capitalism and Socialism both exist and compliment each other. Which *I* am an adherent of). But Rand opposed Socialism, being something that encourages the "parasites and leeches" and is THEFT under this worldview.

But apparently "self interest" means whatever Les decides it means. And he's a fan of Rand even though Rand would consider him a collectivist pawn. So, what's my conjecture in regards to this? It's that Les does not explain himself because he can't (because he realizes he's a very bad Objectivist). That, or he's still having fun playing games with my delusional ass (actual quote: I've had fun playing games with your delusional ass).

More likely it's a combination of the two, and he's playing games with his readers concerning his perpetrating the good for Jeb (or at least not as bad for him) false "Iraq war mistake" narrative. Or maybe it's his ass that is delusional. I surely cannot say with any certainty. His clinging to Objectivism and Rand points to his being delusional, that's for certain. Especially in light of his support for the socialistic parasite-encouraging "benevolent capitalism" thievery.

As well as LOL-able claims of me "misquoting" him when I cut, paste and link to prior comments of his. Les said "Medicare as a model for universal healthcare, with some modifications (improvements to insure long term fiscal viability) may not be such a terribly bad idea" on another blog. I linked to this comment on his blog and that's when he (feigned) anger and the "misquoting" allegation occurred.

No doubt I'm misrepresenting him with this commentary. In his delusional mind, at least (Note: It is my opinion/conjecture that Les Carpenter is "deluded").

See also: George W. Bush didn't just lie about the Iraq War. What he did was much worse by Paul Waldman. The Week, 5/20/2015. [What was "much worse"? That what the Bush admin launched in 2002... may have been the most comprehensive, sophisticated, and misleading campaign of government propaganda in American history... the theory on which the WH operated was that whether or not you could fool all of the people some of the time, you could certainly scare them out of their wits. That's what was truly diabolical about their campaign].

SWTD #282, lDel #21.

Not Lying About Muslim Bigotry (Stop The Lesterizaton Of America)

They swear by Allah that they said nothing (evil), but indeed they uttered blasphemy... ~ The Holy Quran, Al-Tawba, 9:74. This is in regards to those who reject the fundamental doctrine of the finality of the Prophethood of Hazrat Muhammad. Such persons are outside the fold of Islam.

Wikipedia notes that "the belief in Muhammad's prophethood is the main aspect of the Islamic faith". But on another blog I was called a "lying bastard" for questioning whether or not the following remark (by the blog proprietor) indicated a bigotry toward Muslims...

rAtional nAtion uSA: When moderate Muslins, in concert throughout the world stand tall and renounce all terrorism, acknowledge that the "prophet" muhammad was a evil man who raped, plundered, and pillaged then maybe I might believe they want to live in peace with non Muslims. (8/10/2014 AT 11:09:00 PM EDT).

Now, I am NOT a scholar of Islam or of the prophet Muhammad. I do, however, think that rejecting THE main aspect of one's faith might cause others practicing that faith to view any individual taking that stand as not a true adherent of said faith. Indeed, (as per the quote at the top of this post) if someone rejects that Muhammad was a prophet AT ALL (as Lester suggests by his use of quotes around the word) are they not also rejecting "the fundamental doctrine of the finality of the Prophethood"?

This is, by the way, a doctrine that says Muhammad is the last prophet. Surely he cannot be the last prophet if he is not a prophet at all, right? And, in regards to anyone who calls for disavowing this main aspect of Muhammad's prophethood, are they not actually calling for Muslims to abandon their faith?

So (given this logic), would it not be a fair assessment of the statement above that [1] the "rAtional" fellow is calling for Muslims to abandon their faith and that [2] if they do not do so, then the United States and any allies that would join us should wage a "jihad" against any Muslim that decided to remain a Muslim?

"Jihad" conclusion based on the following comment...

rAtional nAtion uSA: You put together a coalition of rational western nations along with eastern nations who are sane and want terror stopped. Pool remeasures and plan a concerted strategy to take out the terrorists in their hiding places everywhere... Then, the sane rational world lets the terrorist states and organizations know that a strike of any kind on any member nation is a strike on all, and any will unleash such destruction on them they'll wish they were never born. (8/10/2014 AT 08:04:00 PM EDT).

This, as I recall, was the rationale for going into both Afghanistan and Iraq. And with the comment above the rAtional guy is calling for more Afghanistans and more Iraqs? Our government has a website called State Sponsors of Terrorism that lists four countries (Cuba, Iran, Sudan and Syria) that qualify for the list. Is Lester suggesting (as soon as his "coalition" is formed) that - the next time either of these four countries does something that qualifies them to be on this list - that we will declare war?

War, or something short of war that would still qualify as unleashing "such destruction on them they'll wish they were never born"? Whatever that might be... I doubt the American people will support more war. Although Lester himself has said in the past that he thought Iraq was stupid. Now he's calling for MORE of the same stupidity?

Sounds like it to me. And what's up with Lester referring to Muslims as filthy or "lice ridden"? Some might be, but I doubt they all are. Frankly, I'm somewhat surprised he didn't throw a "towel head" or "sand ni**er" in there. It isn't as if Lester is searching for additional pejoratives to use against the hated terrorists only...

rAtional nAtion uSA: ...the Palestinians are as infested with camel fleas and lice as they were a thousand years ago. (8/10/2014 AT 6:21pm).

So it's not just radicalized Muslim terrorists who are "infested" with fleas and lice, but Palestinians. ALL of them, presumably. Which is why I have a hard time believing the following...

rAtional nAtion uSA: I'm not BIGOTED AGAINST muslims I've friends who are Muslim, wonderful caring people who are NOT CRAZY and who do not call for the genocide of the Jewish people and infidels in general. I am however most decidedly bigoted against the jihadist that are fueled by their violent, irrational, genocidal, devoted allegiance to the madman :prophet muhammad (piss be upon him) and the organizations the belong to. (8/11/2014 AT 01:02:00 PM EDT).

Lester's "Muslim friends" belong to an imaginary sect of Islam where either: Muhammad isn't a prophet, or one in which it's OK to denounce him as a rapist and plunderer (but still acknowledge him as a prophet)? Either way this sect is completely imaginary... which means Lester has no such friends. I suspect that this claim is similar to the one made by Whites who say they have a "Black friend" but are lying.

So, let's review: Lester wants all Muslims to reject the "main aspect" of their faith (i.e. reject Islam for some imaginary version of Islam that does not exist) or go on the "naughty list". Which means we might declare war on them? Maybe if they live in Cuba, Iran, Sudan or Syria... then some "shock and awe" that kills civilians (which happened/continues to happen in Afghanistan and Iraq) is justified?

Sounds like a "convert or be killed" ultimatum (convert to some imaginary form of Islam that either says it's OK to believe Mohammed was a terrible person, or one that says he wasn't a prophet). But didn't the radicalized Muslim terrorists issue a similar ultimatum? I'm pretty sure they did.

Given this, am I out of line to think that [1] suggesting we "unleash such destruction on them they'll wish they were never born" for not rejecting the "main aspect" of their faith and [2] suggesting that people who live in this part of the world are "lice infested" - ALL the people and not just terrorists... that these views might be indicative of a person who harbors some bigoted thoughts in regards to all Muslims and not just "the terrorists"?

I think so. But Lester was so offended by my pointing out his bigotry that he said I "no longer exists in [his] consciousness".

That must be worse than being banned, which Lester did just previous to wishing me into the cornfield. OK, so Lester has banned me before, but now? I must REALLY be banned this time! Although it's my own fault for "lying" about Lester's bigotry. A bigotry that has him calling for Muslims to convert to some imaginary form of Islam or not be trusted by him to really be desirous of peace.

Although it is possible that Lester won't believe they want peace even then - he only said he MIGHT believe them. Regardless he'll probably go on being convinced that they are flea and lice infested. That was one point I think he was crystal clear on, that they all have fleas and lice... the Palestinians (at least). I don't know about other Muslims.

Now, for stating this obvious conclusion based on Lester's own words, Lester says I am a "lying SOB". But I did not lie. I told the truth. And surely it is not my problem if Lester does not see the bigotry in his own words.

Update, 5/14/2015: I was not aware of it when I originally authored this post, but I just found a commentary from the Lester blog (dated 2/26/2011) in which Mr. Nation defends Muslim bigot Pamela Geller. According to Lester, SPLC Slanders Pamella Geller.

Lester's commentary says "The Southern Poverty Law Center has just named Pamella Geller... and her group, Stop the Islamization of America a hate group". Lester disputes this.

However, the Anti-Defamation League, which "fights anti-Semitism and all forms of bigotry, defends democratic ideals and protects civil rights for all", says SIOA is guilty of "consistently vilifying the Islamic faith under the guise of fighting radical Islam".

Lester says SIOA's "work to educate people on the dangers {and evil} of extreme Islam should be applauded", but SIOA demonizes all Muslims, which is why they're CORRECTLY classified as a hate group! I mean, the name of the organization says it all... there is NO "Islamization" of America taking place! This is nothing but irrational fear mongering, and that Lester actually defends Geller is shameful. Although it does point to me being absolutely correct when I originally authored this commentary. Lester does harbor at least a tiny amount of bigotry toward Muslims (and it looks like it is even MORE than what I originally thought, given his defense of Geller).

As for Lester's call that "moderate Muslims, in concert throughout the world stand tall and renounce all terrorism"... this will absolutely NOT happen. Not to Lester's satisfaction, anyway. First of all, most moderate Muslims have already taken this stand. Secondly, a lot of moderate Muslims realize that all the droning we're doing around the world is creating this problem, and they (if this has not caused them to become radicalized) are more likely to hold the opinion that the increasing radicalization is our fault... that radical Islam was a small problem to being with and we helped it grow. These people are not likely to be eager to "stand tall" in regards to a problem they believe the US caused.

But these facts won't stop people like Lester for calling for them to "stand tall and renounce all terrorism" (the Lesters aren't referring to the terrorism perpetrated by the US). They will continue to do it despite it being illogical (for the reasons I just laid out). This is what I have decided to call the "Lesterizaton of America". And if we are to come to an accord with moderate Muslims, it MUST be stopped!

See also: TADM #54 and OST #42.

SWTD #269, lDel #20.

The Irrational Hypocrite Strikes Again; Breaks Own Rule & Discusses "Old Bones"

Because hypocrisy stinks in the nostrils one is likely to rate it as a more powerful agent for destruction than it is ~ Rebecca West (12/21/1892 to 3/15/1983) a British author, journalist, literary critic and travel writer. A prolific, protean author who wrote in many genres, West was committed to feminist and liberal principles.

A blogger who (ironically?) calls himself rAtional nAtion has a STRICT policy against discussing what he calls "old bones". What is in the past should stay in the past, given that it is over and done with and we can therefore do nothing about it. Discussion on said topic is pointless.

Or that might be one rationale for someone to call a topic "old bones" and chastise those who bring it up. Or it might be a defense mechanism designed to prevent conversation on a topic the objector does not like. In the case of the "rational" individual that topic is any criticism of former preznit bush and his illegal wars launched while our nation was in shock after 9-11. A shock the former criminal administration used to steal from the American people via war profiteering.

I recently brought this up on the rAtional oNe's blog and was immediately shot down. My comment and the "rational" response as follows...

Dervish Sanders: The Bush Family profited greatly as a result of the war with Iraq. Yeah, I know that's an "old bone" according to RN and one other who comments here, but why, simply because the former prez is no longer prez should no one be outraged by this? (6/28/2914 AT 01:30:00 PM EDT). "rAtional" nAtion uSA: It is old bones and GWB is not a war criminal which I know you have proffered in the past. Having said that O I have no problem putting into motion such actions that would make that impossible in the future. (6/28/2014 AT 02:20:00 PM EDT).

Huh. Mr. Nation has "no problem putting into motion such actions that would make that impossible in the future". But why would Congress do this? Given that the rAtional oNe wishes everyone to not discuss any transgressions of the bush administration, which involves any discussion of war profiteering that took place. Why put anything into place when there is no reason (no reason that we're discussing, in any case).

Those who don't remember the past are doomed to repeat it. Perhaps that is what the rAtional oNe desires? Who knows. Also, who brought up bush's war crimes? I didn't mention them. I didn't use the term "war criminal" in any case, although war profiteering might be considered a war crime. I'm not sure. Surely I would deem it to be highly immoral.

But whatever immoralities or war crimes those in the former bush administration might have indulged in are "old bones" and thus not worthy of discussion. Which is why you'll NEVER see the rAtional oNe mention them, except to chide anyone who might do something as pointless as bring up anything that might have anything to do with such things.

Nope. No way Mr. Nation would write and submit a comment like this one...

"rAtional" nAtion uSA: GWB, elected to office twice. Playing to the fears and reality of 9/11 he was able to advance rather idiotic agenda, Afghanistan excepted of course. Although he. couldn't even get the job done there cause he had to turn to Iraq. Big scare over phantom WMD and all. Yep, historians are going to have a blast with the dude's legacy down the road. Oh, did I mention his poor (very) economic and fiscal policies? I hate say it, but GWB indeed managed to screw up his wet dream. (7/1/2014 AT 7:58pm).

But this is a genuine comment (from the blog Contra O'Reilly). The rAtional oNe actually wrote it. I wonder if he "hates to say it" because it makes him a hypocrite? No, that couldn't be it. And he's largely correct, excepting Afghanistan, of course (both wars were illegal). But this is ALL "old bones", as the rAtional individual would say. Discussion of this nature is strictly verboten. On his blog as well as on ANY blog that this rAtional dude might view... and that includes MY OWN BLOG!

On 9/28/2013 I authored a post for this blog in which I offered my thoughts on a discussion with one of the liars who sold us the Iraq war. The commentary was my response to an airing of the Thom Hartmann radio program in which Thom interviewed bush war criminal Douglas Feith.

In response to this commentary Mr. Nation scolded me due to my foolishness in bringing up a topic that nobody cares about.

"rAtional" nAtion uSA: Do you think Mr. Sanders that anyone is concerned with this any longer other than yourself? Inquiring minds want to know. (10/01/2013 AT 10:17pm).

Ok, if nobody cares, why did this supposed rAtional person author a comment on Willis Hart's "Contra O'Reilly" in which he brought up "old bones" like bush exploiting the fear that gripped the nation following 9/11? SURELY the rAtional oNe would not let me get away with such a comment... on his blog or on any blog where he comments. Not even on my own blog. "Old bones" would, withOUT a doubt, be a phrase included in a reply Mr. Nation would be sure to submit if he saw me make such a comment.

And if the rAtional gUy reads this... he KNOWS I speak the truth. Also, in regards to the "phantom WMD", I know another commenter who would object to that narrative. That person wouldn't be me, of course, but another that frequents the "rAtional" blog. This is a person who is absolutely convinced that Saddam had WMD and the invasion NEEDED to happen in order to "disarm" him. This fool even goes so far as to claim that it wasn't bush who started the war (with his invasion) but Saddam!

In any case, I don't know why someone who is supposedly so rAtional would concern himself with things he deems to be old bones while believing others should not discuss them. I'm going with hypocrisy. No, make that astounding hypocrisy that stinks in my nostrils (a stink that I've reported on previously).

But I'm guessing that this rAtional mAn only objects when CERTAIN people bring up such topics. I know I'm in that group. Others are likely added (or excluded) by the rAtional hYpocrite as he sees fit.

SWTD #263, lDel #19.

Howard Dean Tells Truth About Republicans & Purveyors of Untruth Slander Him With Old Lies Re So-Called "Dean Scream"

...the obvious conclusion about voter identification laws: They are enacted as a barrier to the franchise, an un-American tactic hatched by conservatives to prevent certain people from voting ~ Excerpt from a PennLive Op-Ed by Cynthia Tucker. This, in her words, is the obvious conclusion about voter identification laws arrived at by federal Judge Richard Posner, one of the nation's most respected conservative jurists (7th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals).

"Republicans aren't American, should leave the country" Howard Dean said "while speaking at a fundraiser for Colorado Congressional candidate Andrew Romanoff" (paraphrase of Dean comments from 5/13/2014). A comment from Dean that prompted a post from the Libertarian/classical Liberal/self-described "purveyor of truth" Rational Nation. A commentary in which Mr. Nation brings up the infamous "Dean Scream".

The tolerance hyperbole of Howard Dean. He wants republicans to move to Russia. Personally I am hoping for Howard to figure continue to speak out vocally. And loudly. Very loudly. The public just might get to see another Howard tirade like the one that ended his presidential aspirations. The intolerance of the left for views that differ from their own equals or exceeds the intolerance of the right. Examples of intolerance can be found daily on the left as well as the right. It is nauseating as well as hypocritical. But don't expect either side to acknowledge their own brand of PC and intolerance. (Howard Dean Rant, a 5/21/2014 commentary from the Rational Nation USA blog).

OK, so never mind the fact that this is a lie disproved shortly after the clip began playing ad infinitum on the TV news programs.

Diane Sawyer [reported] ...that Dean was using a special microphone that night that filters out crowd noise to heighten his voice; other videotapes taken illustrate that his "scream" was barely audible to his live audience. (CNN Says It Overplayed Dean's Iowa Scream, Truthout 2/9/2014).

Getting fired up and speaking with enthusiasm is NOT a "tirade". Howard did not "speak very loudly", nor can his speech honestly be described as Dean "bellowing like a beast" (another negative description of Dean's speech used by a dishonest detractor).

As for the un-Americaness of Republicans, Dean tells it like it is. He speaks, of course, about Republican efforts to disenfranchise (mostly) Democratic voters. We all know this is taking place. I've written about it previously on this very blog, so there is no need to go into it in great detail (follow the link if you want details).

Further dishonesty is this framing of Democratic objections to Republicans wishing to disenfranchise legally entitled-to-vote individuals as "intolerance". It's "intolerant" of Progressives to not be tolerant of Republican homophobia and it's "intolerant" of Progressives to not be tolerant of Republicans who want to take away your right to vote. Or so say fools like the individual I quote above (in regards to the "intolerance" of wanting everyone to vote, at least. Being a Libertarian this individual doesn't subscribe to homophobia. I'll give him kudos for that, at least).

But do rational/thinking people believe this nonsensical definition-defying logic? The term "intolerance" doesn't apply to people objecting to your intolerance, Conservatives! And actively seeking to make it harder for people to vote in order to make it easier for Republicans to win isn't "intolerance" either, Conservatives and Libertarians!

Howard Dean doesn't want Republicans to move to Russia; he wants everyone who is legally-entitled to vote to be able to vote. Republicans do not. That is the truth here, and anyone spinning otherwise (lying about him wanting Repubs to move to Russia or going on a "tirade". Or lying about practically non-existent voter fraud being a "cancer") is doing so because they agree with the Republican goal of winning elections through dishonest means. In my opinion.

Sure it may have been hyperbolic for Dean to talk about Repubs moving to Russia, but it sure as hell is NOT "intolerance" (and hyperbole can sometimes be a useful tool, IMO). And *I* find it nauseating that some fool who thinks he's better than the majority of the country (who vote either D or R) would insist that "intolerance" should include objecting to the disenfranchising of voters that the Repubs desire.

But untruths like this are to be expected from a liar who loves to play the "both sides are equally quilty" card (that's "guilty" misspelled with a "q", because that's just how this deluded individual rolls).

Audio Description: The truth about the "Dean scream"... not what it seemed. (1:49)

SWTD #254, lDel #18

Giving Them What They Want

It's the way humanity is; give them what they want, and it turns out it's not what they wanted after all ~ Kelsey Sutton, author of Some Quiet Place.

Seems as though I'm in a position now that another post setting the record straight is required. This time in response to a commentary on the blog of the individual who calls himself "rAtional nAtion", as well as a comment from Mr. Nation on the blog Progressive Eruptions in which he refers to me as "pond scum".

According to Mr. Nation's blog post, I have "taken it upon [my]self to set up a spoof site named Lying Lester", but this is an inaccurate characterization of what actually happened. It first came to my attention that RN was desirous of me setting up a site that focused on him by way of the following comment thread from Willis Hart's blog...

rAtional nAtion: Just got a lovely letter from Dervo. He wants permission to do a feature article on me like he has recently done on Will and dmarks. I ignored him of course. So, I suppose he'll go back to sulking, or... playing with his willy. Dude is seriously narcissistic. (3/26/2014 AT 9:28am). Willis Hart: Les, doesn't he already have a blog that's dedicated entirely to you? I thought that he did. (3/26/2014 AT 10:41pm). rAtional nAtion: Yeah, while back. It was a bunch of BS, made lies, and the delusional stuff Dervo is so proficient at. Dude sent me another e-mail on the subject. He's seriously peeved that I'm not posting his blathering comments any longer. (3/27/2014 AT 3:40am).

Now, I had no idea WTF Mr. Nation was talking about (and still do not). Apparently he thinks I had a blog dedicated to him a while back? I'd ask him to give a link to it, but Willis Hart does not allow me to comment. Maybe he thinks I had one but deleted it? Or maybe he wanted me to set up one so desperately that he imagined that I already had? That was my guess, in any case. Although that email (which wasn't actually an email, but a comment submitted to his blog) was me telling him I wasn't going to do it (set up a blog about him). I flatly said NO.

But then I reconsidered. I thought, if he really wants me to set up a blog that focuses on him, maybe I should just give him want he wants. I mean, it might be good for a laugh or two. And, seeing as he banned me from further comment on his blog, I said... what the hell, and went ahead and did it.

As for it being a spoof blog, I remembered that the blogger Shaw Kenawe said "parody can be very funny when handled by someone with a sharp wit and intelligence", so I decided to try that. But my parody attempt of RNUSA appears to have fallen far short of qualifying as possibly being described as being written by one someone with those qualities. Which is OK, as I am not narcissistic. Seriously.

Now, I don't think one should be criticized for trying, but apparently humor wasn't my goal. The "real reason" is that "the object of the parody drives [me] mad, and it is the only way [I] have to retaliate". Or maybe it's the "real reason" when the person doing the assessing believes your parody attempt fails to be either witty or intelligent?

No matter, as this blog will likely whither and die sooner than later, despite Mr. Nation's hunger that I be "quite active" in posting to it. But I seriously doubt that will be the case. Remember that I initially had no intention of setting up a blog for Mr. Nation at all. It was only after he cajoled me into it that I reluctantly decided to give him what he wanted.

And he jumps on that with a post on his own blog in which he clearly was attempting to solicit negative comments about me. On his own blog and on Progressive Eruptions. At worst I guess you could say that I fell for Mr. Nation's trap. I never asked "permission" to do a "feature article" on him. I actually told him I didn't wasn't interested... but he lies about me asking "permission" and (at first) saying I'd already done it.

Now he's acting all mad and posting angry comments on multiple blogs about how I'm "pond scum". And sending me emails as well, each one "sent from my Verizon Wireless 4GLTE smartphone". Although I should note that it has only been 2 so far... it isn't as if he's flooding my inbox with messages (although I'd just block him if he did). Anyway, I guess this points to him being genuinely mad.

Not just mad, but virtually boiling over with pure rage. Which is strange, given that he practically begged that I set up the blog in the first place, and then enthusiastically endorsed it with a post on RNUSA in an attempt to drive traffic to it. However, I now suspect his post was tongue-in-cheek and that the real purpose of it was not to praise the parody blog, but to elicit negative comments about me, as well as turn other Progressive bloggers against me.

And now, at this point in the commentary, I see that is exactly what has happened. Everything up to this point was written yesterday (April 3rd)... and now (on April 4th) the blogger Octo came to the defense of his buddy RN and demanded that the Lying Lester site be closed... and so it shall be.

Seems that Octo and RN have now joined up in a public shaming exercise. Serves me right for thinking I could get away with talking back to Octo, I suppose.

So... sorry about that. It won't happen again. If Octo has a problem with me in the future all he has to do is let me know and I'll try my best to do whatever Octo wants. Although Octo will probably never read this, as, in addition to the public shaming, I may also now be shunned by who-knows-how-many members of the Progressive blogosphere.

Finally... Shaw Kenawe wrote about Internet trolls: Sadists and psychopaths and apparently Octo is trying to shoehorn me into the "troll" category when he implies I'm someone who takes "sadistic pleasure in taunting other people"... but actually, no, that is not me.

It's the "oh, but he started it first" that explains my actions. That and I thought it was funny and that RN agreed. And when I found out he was mad... well, I surely was not inclined to try to please someone calling me "pond scum". Not that any of that is any kind of excuse, mind you. Because when one person ridicules, demeans and takes continual pot shots at someone... it is only if the object of the derision responds that anyone can be accused of doing anything wrong. Live and learn.

Update 7/17/2015: I ended up NOT closing "Lying Lester", although I recently switched it from spoofing RNUSA to spoofing another blog. Although the spoofing of RNUSA continued for quite awhile after this commentary in which I said I was quitting because Octo insisted (until 6/14/2015).

SWTD #246, lDel #17.

On Juan Williams Defending Condi Rice Re Rutgers U Profs Opposed to Her Being Invited To Speak There

Michelle Obama, you know, she's got this Stokely Carmichael in a designer dress thing going. If she starts talking... her instinct is to start with this blame America, you know, I'm the victim. If that stuff starts coming out, people will go bananas and she'll go from being the new Jackie O to being something of an albatross ~ Juan Williams (dob 7/6/1946) in a 1/26/2009 comment to Bill O'Reilly while appearing on the O'Reilly Factor.

H/T to Lester Nation of rAtional nAtion United States of America for his highlighting of Juan William's defense of the ex Secretary of State regarding her invitation to speak (and receive an honory degree from) Rutgers U, and some professors with a "political agenda" speaking against it.

Juan Williams, who Mr. Nation describes as a "a rational and reasonable liberal", cites Condi's credentials (including a PhD, college teaching, provosting at Stanford U, and working her way up from a working-class family in the segregated South) and concludes that "only partisan hatred can blind the faculty to her extraordinary level of accomplishment for herself and her country".

rAtional strongly agreed, and several Liberally inclined commenters also weighed in and said they said Condi should be allowed to speak. I attempted to submit two comments citing Rice's involvement with an administration that mislead the American people into a war based on cherry-picked faulty intelligence and outright lies, but rAtional was having none of it. No doubt because bringing up such things would fall into the category of "gnawing on old bones".

"Gnawing on old bones" is a phrase rAtional likes to use when anyone brings up crimes or misdeeds of Republicans. This makes rAtional uncomfortable so he dismisses such talk by implying there is a problem with the person who brings up these things. The point being that I agree with the faculty's objections and (if I worked there) would sign their petition (my Liberal colleague's disagreement not withstanding).

It isn't "partisan hatred" to be concerned about misdeeds and lies of prior presidential administrations. That such things are swept under the rug explains why current and future administrations will continue to push the envelope. The Obama administration continued the policies of spying on the American people that began under bush (rAtional professes to be opposed). And the drone strikes in a country we aren't at war with (Pakistan and elsewhere) have only increased (but two examples).

I think "gnawing on old bones" is a phrase rAtional uses to express his opinion that the idea that we could learn from past misdeeds or "mistakes" (and not repeat them) is BAD. So, we disagree on that, as well as the belief that Juan Williams is a "a rational and reasonable liberal".

This time Mr. Williams defends Condoleezza Rice. Previously Juan defended Clarence Thomas when Thomas was accused of sexual harassment. If Williams were a Conservative defending Black Liberals, I think other Conservatives might say he was doing so only because they're Black. I won't say that because I can't think of an example where Williams has defended a Black Liberal. He seems to have a habit of exclusively defending Conservatives.

And remember he was fired by NPR for Islamophobic comments on Bill O'Reilly's "Factor", and then hired by Fox. Because he played to the Islamophobia of their base, IMO. Frankly I question whether Williams is either rational or reasonable. And I have questions regarding how Liberal he really is. Williams agreed with the Rutgers Profs that Rice had a role "in pushing the false claim of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq" and supported "using enhanced interrogation techniques to get information from terror suspects", but says she should still be allowed to speak.

Allowed to speak, in Juan's opinion because "all of that is [not] negated by her service in President George W. Bush's administration". No, Condi's accomplishments aren't "negated". We simply should not ignore her participation in the lying-into-war and supporting of war crimes, Juan! "Rational" my ass.

The article by Williams is under a header (on the Fox site) that asks "why do liberals have so much hate Black Conservatives"... even though the text of Williams' article does not mention this "hate". The "hate" is brought up by Sean Hannity in a video (at the top of the article).

According to one protesting prof interviewed by Fox Nooz, it's not about Republican and Democrat. Said prof says "I have good Republican friends who are members of the Tea Party. That's not the issue. For me it's the morality of what was done during the war".

Rudolph Bell, a history professor who signed on to the petition, agreed (who knows why) to be interviewed by Sean Hannity says he is concerned about the choice of Condi to give the commencement speech in regards to her role in misleading the American people concerning WMD Iraq didn't have, as well as her support for EITs (i.e. torture).

Some excerpts from the Hannity program...

Hannity: Did Barack Obama mislead the American people when he said if you like your [insurance] plan you can your plan? Rudolph Bell: She's absolutely welcome to come. I think $35,000 would be a little high. We normally pay at the most $2,000. Anyway, on academic freedom grounds I would never protest her coming to Rutgers. As a commencement speaker, that is different. That is a faculty governance issue. I'm not trying to silence her. She is entirely welcome to come as anything other than a commencement speaker.

Sounds very reasonable to me, and not "partisan hate", hatred for Black Conservatives or "Liberal lunacy". Allow her to speak, just not in a commencement capacity. That way people who want to listen can attend and those who don't can skip it. This way, people who wish to protest can do so by not attending and not have to miss their commencement. Also, we can avoid an "ugly" scene of people turning their backs on her (as has happened previously). Not that I'd be against that form of protest, but I'd have thought the University might want to avoid that. And I surely would not be OK with giving her 35k either.

As for Hannity claiming that Obama mislead the American people about keeping their insurance policies if they like them... that is a false claim. The ACA contains a provision that grandfathers in plans that do not meet the ACA minimum requirements.

Grandfathered health plans do not have to meet all of the law's new coverage requirements. But in order to be grandfathered, health plans must have existed on March 23, 2010. Those with individual grandfathered plans had to have them before the law took effect. And to maintain their grandfathered status, the plans must not be changed to cut benefits or significantly raise prices for consumers through deductibles or co-pays. (Source).

The insurance companies changed plans to cut benefits or significantly raise prices for consumers and therefore those plans did not maintain their grandfathered status. Obama told the truth. It was the insurers who (in my estimation) changed the plans ON PURPOSE so they couldn't be grandfathered in (so they could try to trick people into paying more) while blaming Obama.

But that is another topic entirely. I only wanted to address it because Hannity lied about misrepresenting - misrepresenting that, it should be noted (even if you think Obama misrepresented) - is not comparable. Telling people they can keep crap insurance plans (plans that do not meet minimum requirements) when some didn't meet the grandfather requirements is NOT the same as lying about WMD in order to hoodwink the public into supporting an illegal war!

In conclusion I must say that Juan Williams is a poor "Liberal" for attempting to give Condi a pass (even given her impressive resume prior to lying to the American people). Also, when the rAtional dude said "I would be most interested in hearing what my more liberal leaning readership has to say about the New Brunswick Faculty Council of Rutgers University request to nix the invitation" he lied. I submitted 3 comments (2 critical of Condi and one of Juan) and rAtional declined to publish either.

Video Description: Proof Condi Rice lied about WMD Iraq destroyed.

SWTD #238, lDel #16.

Dennis Butt-Kisses In Gratitude For rAtional Hypocrisy

Someone who does anything to get their boss/co-worker/a$$hole friends to like them. Also someone who should be punched in the jaw ~ definition of Butt Kisser, courtesy of the Urban Dictionary, which is "a Web-based dictionary of slang words and phrases" (entry #1).

I have a long history of arguing with crazy, pathological liar Dennis Marks (AKA dmarks), and, as a result, Dennis drops lies about me into any conversation he can (even when I am not present), the latest example as follows...

Dennis Marks: [In regards to] unnecessary regs, RN, add those put in place... [by] big business [who] does mere lip service complaining about it, because these regulations destroy mom-and-pop operators (which some have called "plutocrats" anyway and want wiped out) and strengthen the fat-cats. (2/9/2014 AT 3:50pm via the rAtional nAtion blog).

There actually is some truth contained within this comment by Dennis. Big business does often lobby for regulations they believe will harm their smaller competitors, but the lie here is that (1) Liberals love regulations, regardless of whether the are needed or not (because they empower bureaucrats and allow them to help cronies over their competitors) and (2) Conservatives support smart regulations. They do not. They put forward this reasonable sounding argument as a way of chipping away at ALL regulations.

Corporations (in lobbying for regulations that harm smaller competitors) are simply playing both sides (as they always do). If there must be regulations, then they're going to find a way to make them work in their favor. This DOES not mean corporations like regulations (they still hate the ones that protect consumers from their malfeasance), and Dennis, in arguing against "unnecessary" regulations, actually argues against ALL regulations.

Lies About Who I've Referred to as Plutocrats

But those lies aren't the lies of Dennis I was referring to. The lie about me that Dennis dropped into his anti "unnecessary" regulation argument is that "some" call "mom-and-pop" operators (small businesses) plutocrats and "want them wiped out". This is a call-back to a prior discussion wherein Dennis lied and insisted I called small business operators "plutocrats"...

Dennis Marks: ...anyone who believes that the way to stop plutocrats (identified by Dervish Sanders as small businesses, school boards, doctors) is with a strong state is an extremely gullible "bootlicker": the exact type of person who is first in line saying "Yes SIR!" when stuff really went bad in Mao's China... 1990s Serbia... Lenin's Russia, or mid 20th century Germany. (1/26/2014 AT 5:36pm via the rAtional nAtion blog).

This is just one example of Dennis promulgating this absurd lie. Here is another...

Dennis Marks: ...don't take Mr. Sanders' references to "plutocrats" too seriously. He has painted the term with very broad strokes, having in the past accused small business owners, doctors who are good at what they do, and school boards all of being plutocrats. (1/24/2014 AT 11:54am via the rAtional nAtion blog).

And here is another one from a little further back in time...

Dennis Marks: Remember, this is the same WD who called school boards that want to fire bad teachers and small business owners who want to pay a fair wage all 'plutocrats'. Then he said they were all engaged in some sort of genocide and called them Nazis. (8/15/2012 AT 3:31am via the Contra O'Reilly blog).

I'm not sure, but I think the lie from Dennis about who I've referred to as plutocrats began during a discussion from August of 2012 that concerned tenure. I said "getting rid of tenure is part of the plutocrats' plan to destroy all good paying middle and upper middle class jobs. That way there is more money for them. It's all about greed" - and from that Dennis deduced that I was calling "school principals and school boards plutocrats".

Then Dennis said "we were discussing people who hire, fire, and pay teachers. You slammed these people as plutocrats". This is where Dennis made his mistake. He may have been talking about these people, but I wasn't (not with that comment). Attempting to set Dennis straight, I clarified that "we were discussing people who oppose tenure. I referred to a certain group of people who oppose it and gave their reason".

But did Dennis accept this clarification? No, he continues to lie about - and make a joke out of - who I refer to whenever I use the term "plutocrat". And, despite the absurdity of this lie, it not only persists, but continues to grow - with more and more people being in included in the "plutocrat" category by me in the delusional mind of Dennis - even after I posted the following to the rAtional nAtion blog...

Dervish Sanders: I never said [Mom-and-pop store operators are plutocrats]. But, for the sake of argument, let's say I did. I am now changing my mind. I categorically reject the idea that the operators of mom-and-pop stores are plutocrats. Will Dennis stop saying this now? (note: I'm asking a question, not requesting he do this). I predict no. (8/16/2013 AT 8:50pm via the rAtional nAtion blog).

As you can see my prediction was 100 percent accurate. I said I categorically rejected calling small business owners (or "mom-and-pop" owners) "plutocrats" - and Dennis responded by saying "I am glad WD changed his mind" (even though I couldn't "change my mind", as I never believed that to begin with). But still Dennis repeats this lie again and again. Even though he acknowledged I "changed my mind".

Also, I never called teachers being denied tenure "some sort of genocide" nor did I call anyone a Nazis. This addition to the lie is nothing but pure imagining by Dennis.

Lies About Others

But I am not the only person Dennis likes to tell absurd lies about. Anyone who talks back to Dennis, or (God forbid) agrees with me, might find themselves the target of mendacious fabrications from the blogger who loves to beat dead horses. Following are two such examples, the first one concerns blogger John Myste...

Dennis Marks: [Reagan is] proof that African-Americans just need an environment of economic opportunity, and don't need affirmative-action quota policies that treat them as if they are inferior beings (damaged, in the words of that Myste guy) that can't compete on a level playing field. (2/1/2014 AT 7:30pm via the Contra O'Reilly blog).

John Myste is someone who used to comment on the "Contra O'Reilly" blog, but left over a dispute with Dennis on 11/5/20012 - and I have not seen any comment from him anywhere since (not even on his own blog). Obviously Dennis holds onto grudges - and keeps bitching about years-old arguments - even when the person in question isn't around any longer.

And, just as I never said what Dennis continually insists I said about who is a plutocrat, John Myste never said Black people are "damaged" or inferior. In regards to that false quote Dennis keeps trying to stuff into Mr. Myste's mouth, he said...

John Myste: [Contra O'Reilly] has been dominated by the repeated assertions of a completely irrational man, who insists on making up straw men and refuting them. ... I would prefer debating my opinion against someone else's on philosophical grounds to debating what my opinion is. I don't enjoy posting something and then have 50 comment long treads trying, not to defend what I believe, but having people tell me I am saying something I clearly am not saying and having this discussion (someone inventing claims and calling them my opinion) be the discussion. That is pointless, childish and boring. (11/5/2012 AT 8:35am via the Contra O'Reilly blog).

Indeed, this is exactly what Dennis does. And he never lets the argument drop, even when the person says "farwell" and never returns, or even when the person in question has never commented on the blog Dennis is complaining about him on.

Such is the case with Malcolm Bondon of the blog Progressive Soup (my second example of someone Dennis keeps lying about). This time Dennis' anger stems from a June 2013 discussion about Fox Nooz complaints concerning the White House inviting the rapper Common to perform there. I agreed with Malcolm's criticisms of Fox Nooz and Dennis disagreed with them.

Approximately 6 months later and Dennis is still fuming that his efforts to slime me on another blog failed (Dennis lied about me using profanity on his blog and called me a troll... in addition to other lies (SWTD #124). And, not only were his lies about me not believed, but the proprietor of the blog actually had the audacity to agree with me that no WMD was found in Iraq (SWTD #154), MSNBC personality Toure never (SWTD #131) "bashed Herman Cain for being Black", and that the rapper Common didn't lie about no WMD being found in Iraq or "bash" Black people - by using the N-word in his raps (TADM #59).

And, although Malcolm of Progressive Soup has never commented on the blog Contra O'Reilly, and the proprietor of Contra O'Reilly has never (to my knowledge) commented on Progressive Soup - that did not stop Dennis from whining about Malcolm with this recent comment...

Dennis Marks: Fox News is in a position of being a voice of dissent against the most powerful ruler on the planet. In this they deserve support. Damn those like that Progressive Soup guy who want Fox silenced. That's bootlicking. (2/4/2014 AT 2:40am via the Contra O'Reilly blog).

That "Progressive Soup guy" never said he wanted "Fox silenced" in his commentary about the Fox News/Common story. Someone exercising their free speech rights to voice their disagreement with a Fox Nooz story does not amount to wanting the organization "silenced". Not once does Malcolm suggest any such thing. In regards to "silencing", Dennis is blatantly lying, but, as I've already pointed out, this is something the dishonest Dennis does with great regularity... about me, and about others.

Butt kissing in Response to Hypocrisy Regarding Lies

Two blogs where the constant lying of Dennis is permitted (and even encouraged) are those of Willis Hart and Lester Nation. The blog of Willis Hart, because the guy hates my guts (referring to me in his latest post as a "vapid, insular, virulent, shameless, paranoid, and amoral partisan stooge"), and the blog of Lester Nation, because his opinion of me is not that dissimilar from that of Mr. Hart.

The butt kissing referred to takes the form of Dennis immediately adopting (and referring to me) using the latest nickname Lester has come up with... the current one being "Derv The Swerve". Before that I was "Canardo". Every time Lester comes up with a new nickname, Dennis latches onto it and starts using it immediately.

The reason being that Dennis is appreciative of Lester going along with his lies about who I've referred to as plutocrats, and he recognizes (as do I) that the "warnings" issued by Lester in which he says things like "it will be most appreciated if you and dmarks take your personal issues elsewhere", don't apply to him. This warning from Lester because Dennis inserted the plutocrat lie into one of his comments (first Dennis quote at the top of this commentary) and I responded. Key here is the fact that the warning wasn't issued until I responded and was clearly directed at me.

After the warning Dennis lied again and said he was only making a "general comment" and not referring to me specifically. In response the hypocrite Lester posts the following...

rAtional nAtion: dmarks... My comment was indeed in direct reference to what appears at least to me to be a running issue between Mr. Sanders and yourself. Mr. Sanders, or Derve the Swerve as I have come to call him, thoroughly enjoys taking every opportunity to toss out the bait. Ignoring the bait and not responding to it is IMO the prudent course. That and not tossing out bait of your own, which Mr. Sanders always takes. I hope you get what I'm saying. For dudes like Derv, who are always right even when they are wrong, it is advisable to let him just talk to himself. (2/10/2014 AT 8:07pm via the rAtional nAtion blog).

The hypocritical part isn't the first bit (which he gets right), but the accusation that *I* "tossed out the bait", even though I was simply responding to a tired (and absurd) lie from Dennis. And, then Dennis says "I can see how it can appear to be such a reference. In light of that, I will do better to avoid such references that might trigger tantrums in the future".

An obvious lie, this "general comment" and "appearance" BS, yet Lester allows him to get away with it - and even encourages it by adding his own lies. Well, at this point I know it would be futile of me to try and reply, as Lester sometimes publishes comments I submit, but rejects many others - which is why I decided to set the record straight here. No "tantrum" throwing, just a setting straight of the record. Now I can, if Dennis brings this up in the future on the blog of Lester or the blog of anyone else, simply link back to this post; a post in which contains the unequivocal evidence of Dennis lies (as well as Lester's hypocrisy).

SWTD #231, dDel #14, lDel #15. See also TADM #57.

Irrational Goose-Stepping By Libertarian Hypocrite Appreciated By His Masters

Sorry, libertarians: You're still hypocrites ~ RJ Eskow of AlterNet, in an open letter to those who responded (with great vitriol) to his guide to exposing the lies of free market radicals.

It appears the nation of scandals has yet another scandal to add to its long list of scandals. While this time it is a scandal occurring on a little read blog that surely will not be machining it's way all the way to national notice. It is nonetheless a scandal I feel it is worth my time mentioning on my own (even lesser read) blog.

This time the scandalous party is none other than a Libertarian Progressive-basher (ironically?) known as rAtional nAtion. It seems this Nation fellow wishes to exact a pound of flesh from a movement the paranoid irrationally fears had the audacity of having nothing to do with an actress deciding to resign from an acting gig after endorsing a Tea Party candidate for California Governor.

A summary/excerpt from the story that offended the sensibilities of Mr. Nation as follows...

Fox 44 Celebrity News: A San Francisco arts organization has parted ways with a well-known Latina actress, who was to star in its rendition of "The Vagina Monologues", after the thespian appeared in a political ad with a California Tea Party lawmaker who is running for governor [Tim Donnelly]. "We really can’t have her in the show, unfortunately", Eliana Lopez, the producer, told KPIX 5 of Maria Conchita Alonso's resignation on Friday from the cast of Brava! For Women in the Arts' upcoming Spanish performance of the Eve Ensler play. "Of course she has the right to say whatever she wants. But we're in the middle of the Mission. Doing what she is doing is against what we believe". (Fox News.com 1/19/2014).

So, what we have here is a post by Mr. Nation in which he blames the ENTIRE "liberal progressive left" for an incident in which a Conservative lost their job due to voicing political views (supporting a Tea Party candidate). Blogger Shaw Kenawe was the first to respond, and what she pointed out was that, in his post, Nation is "painting with a broad brush". Nation disagreed and instructed Shaw to "read carefully". Then he said he stood by what he wrote.

Well, I read carefully, and labeling this as story as "the open hypocrisy of the liberal progressive left" can NOT be described as anything other than painting with a broad brush. So I submitted a comment saying that I agreed with Shaw.

In response the defensive Mr. Nation posted the following bullshit comment...

rAtional nAtion: What that conclusively proves is the partisanship you share. Carry on, your lockstep (or is it goosestep) is appreciated by your masters. (1/19/2014 AT 8:16pm).

An attack belittling me while praising himself (Nation is above "goose-stepping", being more highly evolved than the rest of us partisans) is no big surprise. But my reply to Nation's bullshit obviously didn't fit his narrative, and therefore Nation could not publish (which he did not). What I said in this unpublishable comment is as follows...

Dervish Sanders: Here is some Goose-stepping for you RN... I don't believe anyone should be fired (or forced to resign) from a job for their political views. But RN's masters might appreciate that his sowing of discord and hatred for the "liberal progressive left" with his blaming of the ENTIRE Left for something a small group is responsible for. [Note: this is not the actual comment I submitted but only what I remember submitting... as I didn't save it. It is close, however].

I suppose I can see why Nation did not publish, as the comment is tinged with a little hostility. But, given that the guy can not seem to ever respond to a comment by me without condescending and insulting (while at the same time praising himself), I don't know why he should expect sweetness and niceness from me. He does the same to me on my own blog, and I don't take it personally. I don't like it, but do still publish (most of) his comments.

Although I do not believe the primary (or only) reason Nation did not publish my comment was because he was offended. More importantly, what I said did not fit his narrative, which is that the ENTIRE Left is comprised of hypocrites who would cry foul if someone spoke their mind and voiced their political opinions... and those opinions were Progressive in nature; but that they would NOT do the same if the person speaking his or her mind was a Conservative or Libertarian... or Tea Partier.

And I am sure that Nation's "masters" are appreciative that dupes such as himself are eagerly buying into and spreading his message of the "hypocritical Left".

On the other hand, another commenter made a contrary point that I found some agreement with...

Jersey McJones: Alonso's another anti-Castro Republican Cuban, and this Donnelly guy is just another pandering scumbag of the lowest order. Support a pandering scumbag and don't be surprised if people call you out on it. I wouldn't book her either. Let her go perform for the tasteless, humorless, witless cons. (1/20/2014 AT 12:23am).

My agreement has to do with the fact that ex-Minuteman and gun nut Donnelly is an individual who demonizes undocumented workers because it plays with the racists in the Tea Party. But this is the kind of racism that does not play with the Hispanic community, the target audience of the play Maria Conchita Alonso was to participate in. And, due to her endorsement of Donnelly, those bankrolling the play faced loses if the Hispanic community boycotted it.

Alonso was the one who decided to give the political endorsement, so why should the play's financial backers lose their shirts if the play was boycotted? Surely a consumer has the right to refuse to attend an entertainment event if they strongly disagree with an endorsement one of the entertainers has made.

Eliana Lopez, the producer of the play did say that "of course she has the right to say whatever she wants", but then she also said "We really can't have her in the show, unfortunately". The right thing to do would have probably to make a statement letting people know that the play has nothing to do with politics and that Ms. Alonso has the right to speak her mind on political issues just like anyone else... but that may have ended up costing them.

Think about this, if you will... an employee saying something objectionable that might cause a loss of money for the employer... is that situation in which a Conservative would say the employer (as well as the other employees) should suffer the consequences of their employee's words? For some reason I think not.

Also, is it not possible that Ms. Alonso resigned for that reason (so as to not hurt the other actors she would have co-starred with). The story does not say she was forced to resign, only that she did. I'm guessing she realized that, by staying in the play she would be doing a disservice to her co-stars. If that is the case there certainly is no "scandal", as Nation implies. Not really that much of one even if she was strongly "encouraged" to get lost, as pissing off the play's target audience wasn't a very smart thing for her to do (and RIGHTLY not appreciated by her employer).

My conclusion? This isn't a "scandal", and those backing the play were within their rights to ask that Alonso leave (if they did). Also, what happened is definitely not indicative of the "open hypocrisy of the liberal progressive left", although, as I already said, I'm sure Nation's "masters" are appreciative of this type of discord sowing. Some "offended" Donnelly supporters might even decide to throw a few bucks his way that they may have otherwise not.

SWTD #227, lDel #14.