A Right-wing Perspective Regarding The Invasion Of The Illegals & The Ground Zero Victory Mosque

Usually the nonsense liberals spout is kind of cute, but in wartime their instinctive idiocy is life-threatening ~ Ann Coulter (b. 12/8/1961) an American lawyer, conservative social and political commentator, author, and syndicated columnist.

A guest commentary by: the lovable Radical Right Wing Terrorist Free Market Guy (an infrequent commenter and more often lurker on this blog)...

Hi, RRWTFM Guy here... In case you're wondering why a sane voice of intellect and reason has chosen to post on a commie socialist Hussein-worshiping blog such as this one... well, you can chalk it up to my love for Jesus and our awesome free-market system. I'm just an ordinary hard working American who loves his country, and is hopeful that ONE Librul might see the error of his ways and embrace the only Party that can defend our glorious free market system from the terrorists and Librul saboteurs... a system that was surely gifted to us by our all-mighty creator.

Although I realize that most of you Librul/commie types are Godless "secular humanist" atheists or pagans, there are a few who claim to be Christians. Like the proprietor of this blog. Even though I often think Libruls only claim to be Christians to mock us - as it is clear that Christian-bashing is all the rage these days, what with your continual War on Christmas and what not, but I digress...

I originally composed this comment in response to w-dervish's last post, but after I published it he contacted me and asked if I'd like to turn my brilliant monologue into a guest commentary. At first I said, "what is the point, as your blog gets virtually zero traffic, so nobody will read my guest commentary - intelligent and persuasive though it may be - it won't have any chance of converting any Libruls, because no one will ever see it". w-dervish then pointed out that he has FIVE followers who might read it, even though none of them responded to his last post. Because they most likely realized that reading w-dervish's insane rantings was a complete waste of time. Surely their time would be better spent composing their own insane rantings for their own commie/Librul Obummer-loving blogs?

Finally I concluded that, seeing as I had already written the comment, I might as well turn it over to w-dervish and see what happens. Although I suspect that he may modify what I've written and turn it into a Right-wing parody that he and his commie/Librul followers can make fun of. We shall see. If that happens I may have to start my own blog... in order to spread the truth regarding how the Axis-of-evil (Hussein, Pelosi and Reid) are destroying our country in hopes they can transform it into a communist/socialist/fascist paradise. In any case, my original comment, left in response to the lies contained within w-dervish's previous post, follows... hopefully my insightful commentary will convince at least one Librul or centrist Democrap to see the error of his (or her) ways.

NOBODY has jumped in yet, even though your post has been up for 4 days, and given the RIGHT rebuttal... so I guess it's up to me to set you straight... even though I probably shouldn't be encouraging you... which is why I've refrained from posting on your looney blog for several months.

It seems as though, even with no one reading and no one responding, you refuse to give up. Typical Librul... you'd probably stand in an empty field with no one around for miles screaming (for hours) your terrorist-loving-free-market-hating POV... even if no one could hear you, or would even care about what you're saying if they did. Because the majority of Americans strongly disagree with your wacky FAR LEFT positions.

Obviously the culprits here ARE the "brown skinned" people (as you call them). But this has NOTHING to do with race! We're being invaded by a foreign army! An army that is stealing our jobs and costing us billions! And, in addition to stealing our jobs they're stealing our medical services. And they're stealing our educational services. A lot of them are criminals bringing in drugs and guns. And they're killing our citizens! Remember when the BRAVE governor Jan Brewer alerted us to the FACT that decapitated bodies are being discovered in the Arizona desert! (And YES, I believe Governor Brewer, despite what the article I linked to says! I couldn't find one that upheld her claims, damn Librul media!)

Do you not care one whit for your fellow Americans w-dervish! OF COURSE NOT! Instead of blaming the illegal-coddling ordinary-hard-working-American-hating Democrat Party, you wish to REWARD sneaky illegal invaders! SHAME on you, you stupid freedom-hating Libturd! You and your kind disgust me. If the 2008 election hadn't been stolen by ACORN John McCain would be our president now, instead of your "dear leader" who is hoping to change our previously great country into a socialist dictatorship with the help of 20 million new voters! I'm surprised he hasn't already granted amnesty by executive order to the job-stealing illegal-border-crossing drug-smuggling white-women-raping freeloaders! (yes, I realize that not ALL illegals are drug smugglers or rapists, so hold your horses before labeling me a racist, Librul! This isn't about racism, it's about the FACTS!)

If we should be comparing anyone to the Nazis it should be people like w-dervish! Our American-loving-job-creating corporations WANT to hire genuine hard-working Americans, but due to the affirmative-action-loving Libcommies they're forced to give American jobs to identity-thieving illegals with phony social security numbers! And, instead of stopping them at the border... you want to wait until they've already entered the country before doing anything to foil their job-stealing plans! Because you're not really interested in catching them.

Workplace enforcement! Give me a break. I know what that is code for... instead of allowing our border security officers to do their jobs you want to place an undue burden on business with the free-enterprise-crushing regulations you big-government-loving collectivist statists love so much. You also falsely claim that honest American job-creators are hiring illegals to drive down wages for all Americans! UNTRUE! Supply and demand is "driving down" wages (actually supply and demand is setting FAIR wages - if you don't like the wage being offered go find another job, or get more education). Illegals are actually leaving the country due to this recession, which, while it may have begun under George W. Bush, was exacerbated by the spending spree the exalted one went on following the election (which was stolen by ACORN, as I previously said).

We would be well into the McCain recovery if not for the socialist free-market-hating community-organizing ACORN-orchestrated coup! Karl Rove is right, "the economy is recovering, but this is in spite of the Recovery Act, not because of it". So, instead of the STRONG recovery we could be experiencing under President McCain, we're stuck with a fragile recovery thanks to the failed Obummer "stimulus". Which is why we MUST NOT allow the bush tax cuts to expire! So what if they go primarily to the wealthy, they are the "job-creators" after all. They need those tax cuts in order to create jobs.

Unfortunately many Democrats "would rather have high taxes and a lower standard of living than low taxes and a higher standard of living", as Mr. Rove correctly points out in his brilliant polemic "Courage and Consequence".

Let us not forget that the recession was caused by free-market-hating hippie Libruls who bought up all those worthless housing derivatives in a evil communist anti-capitalist plot to bring down our glorious free market system! I saw your last post trashing Sean Hannity and Citizen's United films! Everything you wrote (in that post) was a LIE, you stinky lying communist Libterrorist! Personal responsibility IS the key! Although it doesn't work when hippie traitors bring down our system from within! Regulation? You and your ilk probably laughed when you realized that, after crashing our glorious free market system, you could credibly advocate for more regulation in the aftermath of the destruction you wrought. We who believe in personal responsibility and the free market will not be fooled into accepting your regulatory big-government communist schemes!

You and your ilk should be shipped off to Gitmo (which, "The One", BTW still hasn't closed, as he "promised"). Ha-ha-ha, stupid Libruls! Even your Kenyan poser prez realizes that the Gitmo detainees cannot be released! As much as I'm sure he'd like to... given the fact that he's constantly siding with our enemies... case in point, the Ground Zero Mosque, which will surely be used as a terrorist training center if it is allowed to be built. Face it, you American-people-hating Libturd, The American people have spoken! Although the Muzlums have a Constitutional right to do so, we should revoke the permit that allowed construction to go ahead.

Don't give me any crap about the NY city board approving construction! They must have all been Moslum-loving Liburls, which is why they QUIETLY issued their approval. They knew that if the American people were allowed to weigh in that they would democratically decide that a Allah-tells-me-to-blow-up-America victory mosque financed by a Saudi prince and others with terror-ties was a extremely bad idea. Which is why the Liburl surrender-monkeys support it! And why Obummer wants to ship the Gitmo prisoners off to a facility in Illinois! So that, once on America soil, they will be "entitled" to access our American court system. And, once all charges were dismissed against the terrorists by the Librul terrorist-coddling activist judges, they could have set up residence here in the US (probably on the tax-payer's dime), and begun plotting new terror attacks.

This is why Obummer and AG Holder wanted to bring KSM to New York for trial... they were hoping that he would be "exonerated" and set free. Or that his confession would be thrown out because he was "tortured" (actually harmless waterboarding, which our own troops undergo - do Libruls think we torture our own troops? ridiculous!). Thankfully, after the American people voiced their outrage the Obummerites had to back down. Hu-rah! That surely was a victory for our side... the side that STANDS WITH AMERICA instead of with our enemies!

Hussein a Christian! Come on Libruls, nobody is buying that lie any longer. People are waking up to the fact that Hussein is actually a Muslim terrorist sleeper! Prepare to be crushed in November, and lose the White House in 2012. I'm extremely hopeful that most of your America-destroying Librul policies will be reversed once Romney/Palin kick Obummer/Biden out of the WHITE House!

In the meantime I will continue to advocate against the illegal invasion and the GZ Victory mosque, and I'll continue to advocate in favor of Arizona's "deport the illegal invaders" law and in favor of the de-funding and repeal of the unconstitutional Obummercare (which will happen after the Republicans have retaken the House and Senate). Your days are numbered Libruls... the American people's voices will be heard! You can either get on the winning team's bus or be run over by it - or be thrown under it when the Obummer Administration places the blame for their defeat on your professional-Left-loving asses.

Or, if the American people are defeated in 2010 because the fix is in, we may have to exercise our 2nd amendment rights! Remember Thomas Jefferson said, "the tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants". If that means an armed rebellion, then I say the true patriots have no choice. The Obummerites cannot be allowed to remain in office, or they will surely destroy our great nation. The blood of any innocents killed will be on their hands!

Well, that does it for me for now. Excuse the length of my post, although I'm sure w-dervish followers are used to it by now. Or sick of it, which could explain why his last post received no comments from any of them. In any case, I had a lot to say to refute all the lies w-dervish has been promulgating. Oh, and w-dervish wanted me to mention that this will be his blog's 50th post, as if it were some grand milestone or something. I've visited numerous other blogs, and most of them do more than 50 posts in 5 years! I actually think it's quite pathetic. He thinks he's out there spreading his Librul ideology, when, in fact, he allows most issues to pass without a peep. Not that it matters since no one reads his Librul nonsense anyway.

See also: The Pets.com Sock Puppet Wants A Bailout by Nicholas Carlson, Business Insider 11/29/2008

SWTD #50

Racist Arizona Law Passed For Political Reasons

This week, Arizona signed the toughest illegal immigration law in the country which will allow police to demand identification papers from anyone they suspect is in the country illegally. I know there's some people in Arizona worried that Obama is acting like Hitler, but could we all agree that there's nothing more Nazi than saying "Show me your papers?" There's never been a World War II movie that didn't include the line "show me your papers". It's their catchphrase. Every time someone says "show me your papers", Hitler's family gets a residual check. So heads up, Arizona; that's fascism. I know, I know, it's a dry fascism, but it's still fascism ~ SNL's Weekend Update anchor Seth Meyers (dob 12/28/1973) on the 4/24/2010 broadcast.

As anyone who follows politics already knows, portions of the unconstitutional "papers please" racial profiling anti-brown person law signed by the never elected Republican governor of Arizona, Jan Brewer, were blocked Wednesday 7/28/2010.

Uninformed Conservatives responding to the news that the law, which was not needed and passed for political reasons, incorrectly accused the "Liberal" judge of accepting bribes from the Obama administration, ruling on high from her "ivory-tower", and having to (eventually) answer to God for the "lies" she fabricated in order to justify her ruling.

However, according to Attorney General Eric Holder the Arizona law "effectively skirt's the federal government's constitutional purview over foreign affairs", because it violates the Constitution's Supremacy Clause. The Supremacy Clause states that federal law trumps state law (or state constitutions). US District Judge Susan Bolton, realizing that to quite clearly be the case, ruled accordingly. It was just that simple.

Being a Liberal, I am, of course, in favor of totally open borders and amnesty for all illegal aliens currently residing in our country. Racist Conservatives, blinded by their intense hatred of brown-skinned people (legal citizens or not), choose to ignore the Constitution when defending this law.

Actually, that is not entirely true - I am not in favor of open borders. I am in favor of not permitting US employers to drive down the wages of American workers through the hiring of undocumented immigrants. Simple economics will tell you that when the number of people looking for a job is greater than the number of jobs available, wages fall.

This situation is bad enough as it is, due to the bush recession and Republican efforts to depress union membership - we do not need to make a bad situation worse by allowing non-US citizens to compete for US jobs. Those jobs should be reserved for legal citizens.

Which means we need to strengthen employer sanctions against the hiring of undocumented workers. The problem is not that people are crossing our border illegally (or overstaying visas). The problem is not babies born to people illegal immigrants receiving birthright citizenship under the 14th amendment (often referred to derisively as "anchor babies".

The Migration Policy Institute, in a May 2004 article titled Evaluating Enhanced US Border Enforcement points out that the problem is "token workplace enforcement". Even though funding for border security has tripled over the last 10 years, it amounts to nothing more than a "weak deterrent" because, once over the border, an undocumented worker's chances of being arrested and deported are quite low.

The fact that there are an estimated 10.8 million illegal immigrants currently residing in our country undeniably proves that the REAL problem is workplace enforcement and NOT border security. People would stop trying to cross our southern border illegally if there were no jobs for them when they got here. It does not matter how much money we spend, people WILL NOT stop attempting to cross (successfully or unsuccessfully) the border until we get serious about workplace enforcement.

And, by the way, in addition to it being virtually impossible to "seal" the border (as some Republicans suggest), it would also not be wise. Because the border fence currently in place is a threat to endangered species.

Obviously the Arizona law, and other similar approaches, attack the problem from the entirely wrong direction. We should be prosecuting the employers who knowingly hire undocumented workers. We also need to provide a reliable method by which an individual's right to work in the United States can be verified. Employers who wish to follow the law should be able to do so easily - without worring about being fooled by forged documentation.

The fact is that so-called "illegal aliens" are actually victims. Victims of poverty in their own countries, US trade policies, and of US employers who entice them to cross the border by illegally employing them when they get here. The current "illegal immigration" problem is actually an illegal employer problem.

And it was Ronald Reagan's failed 1986 amnesty that guaranteed the problem would not only continue but get worse. It signaled to anyone who enters our country illegally in the future that we approved, and all they needed to do was wait for the next amnesty to gain citizenship. (The Immigration Reform and Control Act is considered a failure not because it granted amnesty, but "because the strict sanctions on employers were stripped out of the bill [before] passage").

Republican politicians today refuse to address the real problem because the upper class desires a continual stream of cheap labor flowing into the country. They do not want to pay American workers a fair wage because it cuts into their profits. Republicans are happy to go along with this scheme because it keeps the campaign donations flowing, and energizes their base to get out and vote for the Party who wants to go after the "brown people" stealing American jobs (instead of the rich white guys who want virtual slave labor).

Militarizing the border, border fences, deportation statistics, ending birthright citizenship and denying social services are all Republican distractions designed to shift the blame from their wealthy corporate donors to people whose only goal is to escape poverty and provide for their families. People are dying attempting to cross our border. People could (potentially) die if denied medical services. As a Liberal I believe we have a moral obligation to ensure all inhabitants of our country have access to all the social services we provide (with a few possible exceptions), legal or illegal.

I don't understand how Republicans can vilify people who have accepted our INVITATION to come here and work. Make no mistake about it, we did invite them in - via weak enforcement of our immigration laws that have allowed tens of millions of people to stay years (or decades) in a country they are not citizens of. In my opinion our illegal immigration problem is due entirely (or almost entirely) to our virtual non-enforcement of own employment laws.

The answer to this problem unquestionably must be comprehensive immigration reform, including a path to citizenship for people who have been here a certain length of time and committed no crimes while here (aside from entering the country illegally). Then we need to enforce the laws prohibiting the hiring of non-US citizens. All employers should be required to verify that anyone they hire is eligible to work in the US. Instead of wasting money on militarizing the border, that money should be going toward improving and expanding programs like E-verify.

(E-Verify is an Internet-based, free program run by the United States government that compares information from an employee's Employment Eligibility Verification Form I-9 to data from US government records. If the information matches, that employee is eligible to work in the United States).

But according to Arizona's largest newspaper, The Arizona Republic, "Most Arizona employers aren't using E-Verify" - likely due to the fact that "if a business doesn't sign up for E-Verify, chances are slim it will be caught" and because "federal officials don't enforce Arizona's employer-sanctions law and state officials don't track who's signed up for E-Verify".

So why the hell was the passage of SB1070 necessary? The answer is that is wasn't. The "Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act" was passed for reasons purely political. A Libertarian blogger, writing on "The Daily Paul" correctly points out that this law is an attempt to circumvent people's 4th (protection against unreasonable searches and seizures) and 5th (due process guarantee) Amendment rights.

Under the fourth amendment "a police officer does not have the authority to arrest someone for refusing to identify himself when he is not suspected of committing a crime". It is a crime to be in the United States illegally, but having brown skin does not qualify as probable cause. Jan Brewer herself said "I do not know what an illegal alien looks like", yet she signed into law a bill that will lead to the harassment of legal US citizens of Hispanic ancestry.

Jan Brewer was not elected to Arizona's governorship. She was elevated to the position when former Governor Janet Napolitano accepted Barack Obama's Secretary of Homeland Security job offer. Now the former Arizona Secretary of State (a position to which she was narrowly elected) recognizes that she needs to energize the Republican brown-skin-people-hating base or the governorship could revert to Democratic hands.

I'd never hear of Jan Brewer before the controversy regarding this law. Now that she has gained national prominence and the support of frustrated voters and bigots across the country, her campaign coffers are most likely overflowing money being spent by "outside groups" advocating on her behalf will likely be quite significant.

Arizona's Yuma Sun reports that "The Republican Governors Association has put more than $1.1 million into its Arizona account", which when you take into account the money she has already received though public financing, is double how much will be spent by, and on behalf of, her Democratic challenger, Arizona Attorney General Terry Goddard.

The Yuma Sun also reports that Brewer currently maintains a "double-digit lead over Goddard", which probably explains why The Democratic Governors Association has, so far, set aside virtually no dollars in support of AG Goddard. The reason for this lead, however, is not because "the American people have spoken" or any such nonsense. It is because many Americans believe the Right-wing spin regarding the immigration problem. And the reason they believe it is because the Democrats, for the most part, refuse to explain what the actual problem is.

There are small groups on both sides (Conservative and Liberal) that correctly identify that the problem is illegal hiring by business, although they are unfortunately in the minority. Most Republicans are thrilled with things the way they are, because continuing to vilify brown people keeps the donations flowing from corporate America, and earns them the support of misinformed voters. Democrats, realizing that money wins elections, feel that they have no choice but to kowtow to the corporations, and to support spending billions militarizing the border - when our border defenses are not the root cause of the problem.

Because the Democrats know that "illegal immigrants" are actually the victims in this equation, they refuse to vilify them. For this I applaud my Party. Both Republicans and Democrats are, however, dead wrong regarding what we need to do first when tackling "comprehensive immigration reform". The first step is not to "secure our borders" (against an illegal immigrant "invasion") as the Republicans would have us believe, nor is it establishing a "path to citizenship" as the Democrats insist.

While both should be components of any immigration reform bill, the first step must be to stop enticing non-US to enter our country illegally by allowing US employers to offer them jobs. If there are no jobs for them when they get here they will stop coming, it is that simple. And those who do not qualify for the "path to citizenship" will leave.

I'm not going to get into who should qualify, or what the process of the "path to citizenship" should be with this post, except to say that it won't be fair - because there is no way it can be. Critics will say that people who have broken the law by entering our country illegally shouldn't be rewarded with citizenship. I believe that this criticism might have some validity, if not for the fact that our government has granted it's de facto approval of "illegal immigration" by virtue of it's refusal to prosecute employers for illegal hiring practices.

In conclusion - I'm in favor of enforcing the laws against employing non-US citizens which are already on the books, and strengthening and expanding the E-Verify program - and opposed to unconstitutional laws that encourage racial profiling and the violation of the rights of legal US citizens who happen to have brown skin. I'm also opposed to punishing the victims of our immigration and employment laws (and the non-enforcement of said laws), and in favor of a "fair" (relatively speaking) "path to citizenship".

That is where our efforts should be concentrated, instead of on diversions involving the vilification of brown skinned people. Unfortunately this is exactly where the Republicans will continue to focus their energies - because it benefits them politically. Unfortunately practicing racism for political reasons appears to be working.

Further Reading
[1] REAL ID Act, Wikipedia entry
[2] Arizona's one-man prison industry by The Rachel Maddow Show writers 8/14/2010.
[3] U.S./Mexico Border Wall Risks Endangered Species Extinctions from Gene Isolation. Just say NO to Border Wall!! 8/28/2008.

SWTD #49

The U.S. Republic Is Dead, Long Live The U.S. Democracy?

What is wrong with us, America? Why are people not in the streets? Your Republic is over ~ Glenn Beck (b. 2/10/1964) The Tea Party Prophet ranting on the 7/22/2010 edition of his television program.

To answer Glenn Beck's question, it must be because we are a republic when there is a Republican in the White House and a democracy when the president is a Democrat - and in the last election, the people voted for democracy. The reason Republicans like to insist the United States is a republic and not a democracy is because "republic" sounds like "Republican" and implies that their party best represents the vision of our Founders.

Prior to 1787 the words "democracy" and "republic" were interchangeable. Before the ratification of the Constitution, the form of government our Founders sought to institute was referred to as a representative democracy (and still is by the rest of the world). James Madison created the artificial distinction in Federalist No. 10.

Ironically, Federalist No. 10 argued that the United States government should not be partisan! Ironic because our government has never been more partisan than it is today. The Founding Fathers would be horrified by the modern day Republican Party's attempt to deliberately sabotage our economy.

The Democratic Senator from Michigan, Debbie Stabenow recently observed, "it is very clear that the Republicans in the Senate want this economy to fail. They see that things are beginning to turn around. In cynical political terms, it doesn't serve them in terms of their election interests if things are beginning to turn around".

Keep this in mind the next time you hear a Right-winger rabidly proclaim that we're a republic and NOT a democracy. Although it isn't quite as nonsensical as their other assertions regarding the Founding Fathers (that they were, for the most part, Conservative Christians who used the Bible as their guide when writing the Constitution), their simplistic view is a misrepresentation of historical fact. If you encounter a Right-winger who wants to play that game simply point out to them that it was the Democratic party that first paid tribute to our "republican" form of government and can trace it's beginnings back to Thomas Jefferson and the Democratic-Republican Party.

On second thought, it's probably far to complicated for your average tea-party type to comprehend. The Democratic-Republican Party is referred to as such by historians to differentiate Jefferson's Party from the modern Republican Party. However, while the Party officially was the "Democratic-Republican Party", and members referred to themselves as Republicans, the Democratic-Republican Party was actually the forerunner to today's modern Democratic Party (they represented yeoman farmers and the working class).

The Republican Party is the modern day incarnation of the Federalist Party, which was formed to represent the interests of urban bankers and businessmen. The Federalists, who distrusted the public and believed that government should be run by the elites, were "too wedded to an upper-class style to win the support of ordinary voters". This explains their eventual demise.

The political Party representing the elite and the wealthy today is undoubtedly Republican. Yet average Americans continue to vote for their candidates. Unbelievably Republicans are expected to gain seats in the November election, possibly retaking the House. When will the average voter wise up and vote for the Party which most represents the people? How much longer do we have to wait, and how much more damage can our representative democracy endure before the voters set this Party clearly on the path to it's eventual demise?

On a positive note, after the November elections it will be possible for the Senate to change the filibuster rule. At the beginning of every new Senate the rules for that session are voted on by it's members. Only a simple majority is needed to reform the abused filibuster. "The Constitution's framers never meant to design a system that would enable the GOP's modern level of obstruction". I think that, after the election and provided the Democrats hold the House, we may actually get a Congress that is more effective than the current one.

If the Democrats don't hold the House, then it may only be a matter of time before the people take to the streets, because our representative democracy will be over. The will of the people will be supplanted by the will of the wealthy elites. Congress will grind to a virtual halt. Instead of bills designed to stimulate the economy and get people back to work, the House will concentrate on cutting taxes for the upper class and investigating President Obama.

In my opinion this upcoming election will determine the fate of our country for many years to come. Will we chose to help the Democrats pull our nation out of recession, or elect Republicans and slide into a full blown depression?

Buzzflash guest commentator Stephen Crockett asks, "Is the Republican Victory Plan Another Great Depression?"... Tax cuts at the highest marginal incomes brackets do concentrate wealth and political power in the hands of the economic elite. ... This reduces the ability of most Americans to buy goods and services. As a result, the economy unwinds because customers do not have enough disposable income to keep the flow of goods and services at a healthy economic level. (7/31/2010).

Further Reading
[1] House GOP "Jobs Plan" Would Give Billions In Budget Busting Tax Breaks To Huge Corporations by Ethan Berman, The Wonk Room 8/3/2010.
[2] Momentum For Senate Filibuster Reform Builds by Ryan Grim & Sam Stein, The Huffington Post 7/26/2010.

SWTD #48

Hannity Zero

Now there are some who would like to rewrite history - revisionist historians is what I like to call them ~ George W. Bush (b. 7/6/1946) 43rd President of the United States (1/20/2001 to 1/20/2009) revising history, and warning others not to call him on HIS revisions.

The debate is over whether we want the government to serve the needs of the bulk of the population or just the purposes of the rich and powerful. Progressives must stop helping the Right hide its real agenda ~ Dean Baker (b. 7/13/1958) American macroeconomist and co-founder of the Center for Economic and Policy Research, referring to the Left's acceptance of the legitimacy of the Right's belief in the "free market".

Hannity Assists Citizens United In Financial Sector Crisis History Rewrite

The Conservative spin machine went into overdrive following the economic crisis and bailout. It was obvious to (almost) everyone that deregulation, as championed by Republicans and Conservative Democrats, was what allowed the thieves on Wall Street to rob us blind. But the Republicans were determined to place the blame elsewhere. One of the ways the "popular notion" that deregulation was the culprit was countered was with a faux documentary titled "Generation Zero". According to Sean Hannity, the fact that "massive deregulation caused the economic downturn and, as liberals say, capitalism failed" is completey refuted by this film.

On 2/23/2010 Hannity invited the film's producer, David Bossie of Citizens United Productions, onto the show. He called it "A Hannity Special", and touted it as an "exclusive first look".

David Bossie, who currently serves as President AND Chairman of the conservative non-profit organization, has a long history of attacking Democrats by manipulating the facts to fit his narrative. During the Whitewater Investigation Bossie attempted to use "selectively edited transcripts" to smear President Clinton. Bossie was fired from his investigative position by Newt Gingrich, who described the episode as embarrassing. (The transcripts were culled from "tapes that were routinely recorded last year while Hubbell, Clinton's first associate attorney general, was serving a federal prison term for defrauding his Little Rock law firm").

A 4/25/2008 CBS News story reported that Mr. Bossie's GOP Dirty Tricks Dupe Media. The dirty trick was to produce political attack ads containing dubious information, then, instead of paying to air these ads, they would post them on Republican websites or YouTube. Eventually, after receiving enough exposure, the videos would be picked up by the news media and covered as if they were actual stories. The CBS News article points out that the news media "[running] the ad over and over is tantamount to giving free air time to smear machines...".

During the 2008 Democratic primaries Bossie attempted to circumvent campaign finance laws by airing an "advertisement" for "Hillary: The Movie", even though the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (also known as "McCain-Feingold") specifically prohibits the airing of "broadcast ads that name a federal candidate within 30 days of a primary or caucus or 60 days of a general election". Citizens United argued that their obvious hit piece, which included clips of all the most incendiary attacks against Mrs. Clinton, was not a political ad. It was a advertisement for their "documentary", and so was not subject to McCain-Feingold. Instead of ruling against Citizens United due to their blatant violation of the law, the ultra-right leaning activist Supreme Court struck down (a portion of) McCain-Feingold as "Unconstitutional", overturning 100 years of settled case law.

With "Generation Zero" Bossie continues the Conservative propaganda campaign. Utilizing all his old dirty tricks, he, along with writer/director Stephen K. Bannon, attempt to shift the blame from the Conservative economic philosophies which unquestioningly caused the financial sector crisis to "a frightening alliance between the Democratic Party and big business". When Hannity claims that banks and insurance companies failing is a "myth", Bossie responds, saying "Certainly. It's hubris and greed at the same time that it's the cultural and social breakdown from the '60s that is really taken that 30, 40 years that led up to September 18th crisis".

According to the filmmakers it is the baby boomers who we should be blaming. Specifically, the Democratic Baby Boomers, although, in my reading of the Hannity Special transcript, I see no facts presented on which that conclusion could possibly be based. It was Liberal greed and hubris that lead to the economic collapse, and not Republican greed or hubris? Nevermind that Libertarianism holds that it is personally responsible to act in your own self-interest, and according to (Libertarian and Con hero) Ayn Rand it's a virtue. Does Bossie think that Conservative greed is good and Liberal greed is bad?

In describing the "sociopathy that is at the heart of the far-right worldview", author Tim Wise, in his Daily Kos diary explains that the Conservative "worldview holds, quite simply, that doing for others is contemptible; that doing for self is the purpose of human life; that altruism and service are somehow pathologies pushed by collectivists and should be subordinated to selfishness and greed".

And everyone knows that it is the Republican Party which is in the pockets of big business. Hannity himself points this out, in an obvious setup for Bossie, who counters by claiming that, while that WAS true, "the Democratic Party has truly taken over that position of power on Wall Street". What's going on here is that Bossie is twisting the facts, as he is prone to do. Wall Street did make significant contributions to Barack Obama's campaign, but that was because they saw how badly bush had screwed the economy. Wall Street shifting more of their contributions to the party they believe is going to win the election does not an "alliance" make. If they had thought the Republicans were going to win - their contributions would have gone to the GOP.

Republicans have been in the pocket of big business for decades. It is why they've been defending BP and referring to President Obama negotiating with Tony Hayward for a $20 billion victim's compensation escrow account as a "shakedown". It is why they objected to, and forced the removal from the financial reform bill of a provision designed to set up a $50 billion fund allowing the industry to pay for the dissolution of insolvent banks (instead of the taxpayer). Despite the fact that this fund would ensure the exact opposite, Republicans lied and said the reason for their objection is that the fund would "institutionalize bailouts".

As for the Wall Street's alliance with Democrats? It appears as though they feel the Democrats have not "put out" to their satisfaction. A 2/7/2010 New York Times story says, "in a message to Democrats, Wall Street sends cash to GOP" as part of their "campaign to thwart Mr. Obama's proposals for tighter financial regulations". According to the article, "Republicans are rushing to capitalize on what they call Wall Street's buyer's remorse with the Democrats".

Who Needs Regulation When We Have Personal Responsibility?

Regarding Hannity's claim that Republican deregulation did NOT lead directly to the economic downturn - this ridiculous claim proves that the people behind (and promoting) this propaganda film are complete idiots. Because, even if selfish risk taking Liberals ARE who we should hold responsible, wouldn't regulation have been the best method by which to stop them? Bossie suggests that those responsible lack personal responsibility. Presumably, the solution, in his mind, would be more "personal responsibility".

Wikipedia states that "moral hazard occurs when a party insulated from risk may behave differently than it would behave if it were fully exposed to the risk". The Republican solution is to get rid of the moral hazard problem by refusing to engage in bailouts. Which leads to increased personal responsibility, less overly risky behavior, and a self-regulating free market. Because people realize that they, instead of the taxpayer, are on the hook if anything goes wrong.

The primary flaw in this theory is that it does not take into account greed coupled with human stupidity. The character Gordon Gekko from Oliver Stone's Wall Street acted in a way that he thought was in his own self interest, and ended up in prison. Greed, aside from being a negative character trait for many other reasons, is most definitely not good (regardless of what Ayn Rand thought, or Conservative ideology holds) because it often causes people to only consider the short-term benefit and ignore any possible future risk.

Certainly BP did not act in a personally responsible way. Their risky corner cutting netted them an increase in short term profits but ended up causing the greatest ecological disaster in US history. Since the explosion that sank the Deepwater Horizon BP's stock has lost half it's value - and market analysts continue to speculate as to whether the company will survive.

Personally I am sick of hearing this idiotic meme that "personal responsibility" is a legitimate alternative to sensible regulation. We're supposed to cross our fingers and hope that everyone behaves themselves, because it is in their own best interest to do so? It is total insanity. Bernie Madoff's actions were hugely personally irresponsible. And Bernie Madoff was not an aberration. According to a 10/2/2009 USA Today article, "ponzi schemes are the most prevalent type of investor fraud". This, despite the fact that ponzi schemes are always eventually uncovered. The perpetrators go to prison, and the victims are left to litigate for the possible return of a portion of what they lost. Certainly ponzi schemers don't expect to be bailed out if (or when) their scams are uncovered. So, shouldn't "personal responsibility" have stopped them? That IS the Con theory, is it not?

I think that those in the financial sector making money hand over fist during the lead up to the meltdown and bailout cared as much about the possibility that everything may eventually come crashing down about as much as those arrested for running ponzi schemes. Yes, for some it may have been something they thought about, but I seriously doubt that an expectation of no bailouts would have prevented this crash. The only thing that could have prevented it was regulations enforced by competent government employees.

Free Market Fundamentalism Or Fakery?

And don't forget that it was Con hero Ronald Reagan who set up the moral hazard dilemma by deregulating the S&Ls, causing his successor to have to bail them out when they came crashing down (thanks, in part, to his sons Jeb and Neil). Economist Paul Krugman, in a 5/31/2009 article titled "Reagan Did It" points out that "Reagan-era legislative changes essentially ended New Deal restrictions on mortgage lending - restrictions that... limited the ability of families to buy homes without putting a significant amount of money down".

Further deregulation shepherded through Congress by former Republican Congressman and McCain Campaign financial advisor Phil Gramm blew away the remaining FDR era protections.

There is a reason the Cons keep pushing the laissez faire fairy tale of deregulation and personal responsibility leading to a self-regulating free market, and it isn't because they actually believe in this nonsense. The real reason they continue to insist that economic liberalization is the pathway to nirvana is that they want to turn our economy over to the wealthy elites. They believe that our economic system should not exist for the benefit of everyone, but only serve to make the rich richer. It is about time people wise up and realize that, whatever position the Republican part takes, it is always because that position will best serve the interests of the wealthy and corporations.

Unfortunately a lot of people have been fooled by the Con's insincere rhetoric concerning their "opposition" to the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008. Even though a Republican president signed the bill into law, they were actually against it. Baloney. They knew that the Democrats, being the responsible party, would make sure the bailout went though. Because a collapse of the financial sector would have been extremely bad for the country.

The bailout, claims economist Paul Krugman, saved us from a second great depression by "averting the worst". And, it should be noted, that the Republican solution of eliminating the moral hazard problem (the one that Reagan set up) by allowing the financial sector to fail and thus virtually guaranteeing a depression - would only work (if it did) the next time. This time we would have suffered the dire consequences. In essence the Republicans were "demanding that the government stop standing in the way of a possible depression".

But it isn't as if they would have actually let this happen. Economist Dean Baker points to irrefutable proof that the Republicans are faking their allegiance to the free market with an essay titled "Free Market Fundamentalism Is an Invention of Progressives". It seems that the House Republicans recently put forward legislation to "discourage" strategic defaults.

Even though it many states non-recourse loans - which allow you to discontinue payment after turning your property over to the bank - are completely legal. Obviously the goal of the Republicans was to protect the banks from the terms of their own contracts. So much for letting the free market do it's thing.

Bottom line when it comes to "Generation Zero" or any instance of a Republican politician, pundit, or other insider lecture regarding the "free market" - is to not take anything they say at face value. Any argument put forward is most likely a deception or twist of the truth designed to help out their wealthy constituency while pulling the wool over the eyes of the average voter - and convince them that they should vote Republican even though it isn't in their best interest to do so.

The goal of "Generation Zero" is just that. Defend the wealthy elites and argue that they should be left to run our economy as they see fit (with no oversight), shift blame to the Democrats, and make money telling deluded voters what they want to hear.

Notes, Clarifications, & Additional Points
[1] Thanks to Sue, who brought this "documentary" to my attention with a post on her blog. A Conservative calling himself "Silverfiddle" said, "It's all true, and verifiably so. Of course, you can argue with his conclusions, but he uses facts to make his case". Seeing as the "documentary" is a huge lie I felt obligated to respond.
[2] Regarding Wall Street's "alliance" with Democrats - I stand by what I wrote above, even though the financial sector IS receiving favors in return for their contributions to Democrats (The Goldman Sachs-Obama Administration association is particularly troublesome). The financial regulation that is about to pass Congress has been watered down in an effort to gain a few Republican votes - but it wasn't strong enough to begin with. I still would not characterize this as an "alliance", but a very unfortunate reality of the political system as it is. The real alliance was and still is between Wall Street and the Republican Party.
[3] In the GWB quote at the top of this post ex-president doofus was referring to his illegal invasion of Iraq and the fact that Saddam Hussein posed zero threat to the US, although I think it can very easily be applied (ironically) to his entire presidency.
[4] In regards to the financial sector bailout, you may have surmised that I am a fan. You would be wrong. While acknowledging that the government did need to take action, and that the action they took did work (to a certain degree), I disagree with exactly how they went about it. (See "Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008: Alternate Proposals for more information).

Further Reading
[1] Bernie Madoff, Free at Last: In prison he doesn't have to hide his lack of conscience. In fact, he's a hero for it. By Steve Fishman, New York Magazine 6/6/2010.
[2] Profiling CEOs and Their Sociopathic Paychecks by Thom Hartmann, The Huffington Post 7/27/2009.

SWTD #47

The Grassroots Organizing Business

There are three critical ingredients to democratic renewal and progressive change in America: good public policy, grassroots organizing and electoral politics ~ Paul Wellstone (7/21/1944 to 10/25/2002) a two-term U.S. Senator from the state of Minnesota and member of the Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party.

...there will be false teachers among you. They will secretly introduce destructive heresies... bringing swift destruction on themselves. Many will follow their shameful ways and will bring the way of truth into disrepute. In their greed these teachers will exploit you with stories they have made up ~ Saint Peter (ascribed) referring to false prophets (2 Peter 2:1-3 NIV).

Why is the Left so afraid of Glenn? Could it be because he's shining a light where they don't want it to be shined?

This question was asked in the 7/6/2010 edition of Glenn Beck's "newsletter". Why should the Left be afraid? Because of the soon to be launched "Beck University". Motto of the online "university" is "Revolution Against Tyrants; Submission to God". Obviously Barack Obama is the "tyrant". Because he stole the 2009 election with the help of ACORN, presumably. But now, with ACORN's corruption revealed and it's funding cut, the people of American will "take our country back" starting this year.

The Tea Party morons have been a gold (line) mine for Beck. "Beck U" is another in the growing list of scams devised by Beck (or his advisers) to separate Right-wing fools and their money.

Other topics covered in the newsletter were President Obama's appeasement of our enemies (which started with his "apology tour"). Now, after cutting the space program, Obama has tasked NASA with making Muslim countries "feel better about themselves". The email didn't include details, just a link to a Beck radio program transcript.

He also trashed President Obama's "spin" regarding the touted "recovery". I'm not going to go into either of those topics. I've already established that Beck is an greedy hypocritical opportunist who is ripping off the "movement" he is pretending to lead - with God's help. He's a snake oil selling huckster, racist and false prophet. In my opinion, in any case. He's the one who is going to have to answer to the God he professes to believe in.

Finally, the Beck email contained a link to the self-proclaimed grassroots organization "FreedomWorks". Dictionary.com defines "grassroots" as "of, pertaining to, or involving the common people, esp. as contrasted with or separable from an elite".

In a 9/2/2009 post (Who Opposes Healthcare Insurance Reform), I noted that FreedomWorks contributors include foundations controlled by the conservative Scaife family. An organization run by foundations representing the interests of the wealthy elite is fake grassroots (or Astroturf). The purpose of FreedomWorks is to dupe low information voters and idiots into electing Republicans. Because the Republican Party has completely sold out to the interests of the wealthy.

Referring to grassroots organizing as a "business", which Glenn Beck and FreedomWorks do, shows just how stupid they believe the "common people" who watch Beck's show, listen to his radio program, buy his products, and show up at their rallies to "take America back" - on behalf of the wealthy elite - are. They are programmable pawns to be used to achieve their goals.

I clicked on the link and ordered their "Take America Back Action Kit". The kit includes... "a detailed strategy DVD video laying out how FreedomWorks plans to turn these many protests into electoral results this November, and a Don't Tread on Me souvenir flag. Because it was free. For me that is - of course it will cost them something. Next they asked me for a $20.10 contribution, and I told them to fu*k off. I said this not via email, but only in my mind. Which worked out OK, because they probably wouldn't send me an action kit otherwise.

Although, they did previously send me an "impeach Obama" bumper sticker. That was after I filled out an online poll of their's, selecting all the answers which clearly indicated that I am a Progressive. Obviously they did not match up the answers to the names and addresses, otherwise they would have realized that sending me the bumper sticker was a waste of money.

Also, they must have made a mistake, because a short while after I received the bumper sticker, they mailed me a second one (I only filled out the poll once). I did NOT attach either sticker to a bumper. I took some magnets and stuck it to my refrigerator. Because I find it hilarious! It was the last president who should have been impeached, not Barack Obama.

So, if you too want to screw with FreedomWorks by requesting a free action kit from Freedomworks and waste their money as I did - click the link below. However, as a tree hugging Liberal I must implore you not to order the kit if you intend to throw it in the trash as soon as you receive it. Personally, I could not resist. I'll keep ordering free items from them as long as they keep offering them. It's a way to amuse myself while I wait for Glenn Beck's swift destruction.

9/26/2014 Update: The Freedomworks "free action kit" is no longer available. Clicking the link takes you to a "page not found" error message on the FreedomWorks site.

Also, Glenn Beck's "swift destruction" obviously has not come quite yet. Instead he has become fabulously wealthy fooling conservative morons, earning $40 million in 2012 with subscriptions topping 300k to his TheBlaze TV (according to The Wall Street Journal).

Meanwhile, Keith Olbermann has left the world of Progressive punditry and returned to his old gig of sports commentating. Proof that pandering to stupidity pays (and pays big). *Sigh*.

SWTD #46

Abolishing The Fourth of July Holiday

That's the ultimate pornography ... There's nothing more pornographic than glorifying war ~ Tom Clancy, (b. 4/12/1947) an American author, best known for his technically detailed espionage, military science and techno thriller storylines set during and in the aftermath of the Cold War.

I'm a far Left Liberal, and thus a pacifist (and an atheist, although that has nothing with the point I am about to make). The Fourth of July holiday glorifies war, and should be abolished. The genius Liberal Documentary Filmmaker Michael Moore agrees, and being a far-left Liberal and blind partisan, I agree with whatever Michael Moore says.

Initially I learned of Mr. Moore's campaign to end the holiday during a Starz free preview weekend, during which an incisive docudrama titled "An American Carol" aired. The film starred Kevin Farley (Chris Farley's younger brother) as Michael Moore, although for some reason they changed his name in the film to "Michael Malone".

In addition to being a proponent for the abolishment of this holiday because it glorifies war, I also a support getting rid of the implements of war. According to what I've heard, President Obama may institute the U.N. gun ban in America, which would dissolve our Bill Of Rights and begin confiscation of all US civilian guns. It's a Liberal wet dream come true!

Hopefully an executive order will be issued soon. (I have never heard of this "U.N. gun ban", but it sounds awesome! Also, seeing as the "the right to bear arms" is only one of ten amendments that make up the Bill Of Rights, I'm not sure how a getting a gun ban dissolves them all... I'm just telling you what I heard. Check the link for further details).

Actually, I'm yanking your chain. "An American Carol" is a parody, albeit not a good one. It is a horrible film that portrays a man I admire as an America-hating terrorist-appeasing fool. Unbelievably I watched this terrible movie to the very end, thinking that it might, perhaps, be (unintentionally) funny in its extreme use of every Left-wing stereotype. By the time I realized what a piece of unredeemable crap it was, I was more than half way though.

So I decided that I might as well finish watching. As a fan of previous Zucker/Nielsen outings (notably "Airplane!"), I was extremely disappointed that either had chosen to associate themselves with this "jaw-droppingly awful" Con propaganda "film". It is indeed "about as not-funny as a comedy can get" (review by Steven Rea of The Philadelphia Inquirer). The film lost approximately 13 million dollars.

One thing the screenwriters got unintentionally right is the "stereotypical" Conservative. Intensely patriotic with zero tolerance for any criticisms of American foreign policy, unquestioning reverence for the military which includes equating supporting war with supporting our soldiers, the theft and history revisionist conversion of Democratic icons like JFK, appropriation of the Founding Fathers (George Washington in this case), intolerance and hatred for minorities (Muslims, African Americans and Homosexuals) - all the Conservative stereotypes are "parodied" in this film. But this movie is meant to parody Liberals - the Con stereotypes in the film aren't parodies but how they actually see themselves!

Another review that described the movie as "singularly inept and downright unfunny" elicited the following response (the website allowed reader comments) from a reviewer of the review: The reviewer is an idiot, reacting to his Hollywood leftist radical bosses. I hope you saw the movie and laughed as hard as I did at seeing Michael Moore get his well-deserved, long overdue comeuppance. It must be hitting the target, since some movie theaters are under reporting attendance numbers, and some even changed the rating (in their ads) from PG to R to discourage attendance! Big brother is alive and well in Hollywood! (Review: An American Carol by William Goss, Cinematical 10/4/2008. Reader comment #5 by "john" 10/08/2008)

This comment exemplifies the delusional paranoia of your typical Con. Information which does not reinforce what they already believe is dismissed as a Liberal conspiracy designed to conceal "the truth".

The following two observations extracted from an "Ain't it Cool News" review also sum up the Con mentality fairly well...

"It's a bunch of rich and arrogant people making fun of free speech, dissenting opinions, minorities and being middle class", and "[The director] equates criticism of America, the desire to see the country improve or discuss its mistakes, as heresy. [the film] takes complex issues that involve shades of gray and distills them into black and white, right wing and wrong. You watch this film and seriously wonder about the filmmaker's IQ" (We've Got Another Review Of "An American Carol", And This One's Gonna Make Dr. Hfhurrhurr Cry! by "Moriarty" 9/30/2008).

Now that I think about it, instead of wondering about David Zucker's IQ, I'm wondering if he may be suffering from brain damage. According to Wikipedia Zucker was "once a longtime liberal Democrat" who has completely flipped and now considers himself a Conservative Republican. This reminds me of Con hero Ronald Reagan. Reagan's Wikipedia page states that he "began as a liberal Democrat, admirer of Franklin D. Roosevelt, and active supporter of New Deal policies". Then something (brain damage?) warped his mind, and he switched to the Republican Party.

Anyway, the reason I'm bringing up an (almost) 2 year old movie is because I think this film illustrates quite clearly that not all is right with the Conservative brain. A Left-wing parody similar to "An American Carol" wouldn't work, because they'd view it as an accurate depiction of the ideal Conservative. We rebut their positions using the truth, while their counter-arguments consist mainly of lies. Lies that many of them are deluded into believing are true. Cons have suggested that progressivism is a mental illness or a disease (Glenn Beck), but only because our side said it first. It's the "uh-uh you are!" defense typical of a young child.

Read the quote below by Reagan and then explain to me what the hell happened to this once sane individual. Maybe mental illness is the cause, maybe not. Whatever it was, the inanity of "An American Carol" shows that the same thing happened to David Zucker. An article by Ronald Bailey titled, "Pathologizing Conservatism", concludes with the claim that, "academic researchers have surely amassed enough evidence of psychopathology that conservatism can listed in the next edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders".

(Strangely enough, this article is from the "Reason" website. "Reason" is a Libertarian publication. I've posted regarding my thoughts on Libertarianism before, so if you've read my blog in the past you know I'm no fan. Libertarianism is as loony as Conservatism, or possibly even more so. For that reason I debated as to whether or not I should cite this article, but perhaps it takes one nut to recognize another? Who knows. Read the article and judge for yourself - the claims, research, and conclusions sound solid to me).

Following are some quotes from Washington and Kennedy that prove their appropriation by the Right is outrageous historical revisionism at it's worst. BTW, I do not support abolishing the 4th of July, which a celebration of the birth of our nation, not a holiday glorifying war.

[the Republicans promised] ...a real increase in income for everybody. But what actually happened? The profits of corporations have doubled, while workers' wages have increased by only one-quarter. In other words, profits have gone up four times as much as wages ... the Standard Oil Company of New Jersey, which reported a net profit of $210 million after taxes for the first half of 1948; an increase of 70% in one year. ...high prices have not been caused by higher wages, but by bigger and bigger profits. ... Tax-reduction bills have been passed to benefit the higher-income brackets alone ~ Ronald Reagan (2/6/1911 to 6/5/2004) speaking against the Republican controlled 80th United States Congress (nicknamed the "do nothing Congress") and in favor of the re-electing the 33rd President of the United States, Democrat Harry Truman (Reagan Campaigns for Truman in 1948: Complete Transcript, and YouTube video).

As Mankind becomes more liberal, they will be more apt to allow that all those who conduct themselves as worthy members of the community are equally entitled to the protections of civil government. I hope ever to see America among the foremost nations of justice and liberality ~ George Washington, (2/22/1732 to 12/14/1799) 1st president of the United States (4/30/1789 to 3/4/1797).

If by a "Liberal" they mean someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the people - their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties - someone who believes we can break through the stalemate and suspicions that grip us in our policies abroad, if that is what they mean by a "Liberal", then I'm proud to say I'm a "Liberal" ~ John F. Kennedy, (5/29/1917 to 11/22/1963) 35th president of the United States (1/20/1961 to 11/22/1963) accepting the New York Liberal Party nomination (10/14/1960).

SWTD #45

GOP Propaganda Campaign Turns Failed Petraeus Iraq Surge Into Success

With the passage of time, President Bush's decision to champion a new counterinsurgency strategy, including sending 30,000 additional troops to Iraq when most Americans were bone-weary of the war, will be seen as one of the most impressive and important acts of political courage in our lifetime. And those who fiercely opposed the so-called surge were not only wrong in their judgment; in some instances their actions were shameful ~ Peter Wehner, former bush speechwriter (and butt kisser), revising the bush legacy.

You were probably unaware that the Petraeus Iraq surge failed. The reason being that the Con propaganda campaign has largely been a success. Even our President (the current one, not the "courageous" unelected war criminal), has been taken in by the Con disinformation exemplified by the factually inaccurate Peter Wehner quote. Even though he originally criticized the surge, correctly stating, "the surge is not working", now, according to General Petraeus, "President Barack Obama acknowledged that the troop surge in the Iraq war was a success". Sadly this erroneous conclusion was cited "during deliberations over whether to enact a troop surge in Afghanistan".

According to Robert Woodward's book, "The War Within", the decline in violence can be attributed to three factors (none of which is an increase in US troop strength). First, "the Sunni rejection of al-Qaeda extremists in Anbar province". This was the so-called "Sunni Awakening", and it isn't that big of a surprise that they "laid down their arms against coalition forces, patroled neighborhoods, and fought against other Sunni insurgents", since we paid them to do these things (although some of the Sunni militia decided two monthly paychecks were better than one, and "moonlighted" with the insurgency).

The other two factors contributing to the decline in violence, according to Woodward's book, were "the surprise decision of al-Sadr to order a ceasefire", and "the use of new highly classified U.S. intelligence tactics that allowed for rapid targeting and killing of insurgent leaders". (This information is from the 6/29/2010 article "Gen. Petraeus and the Surge Myth by investigative journalist Robert Parry. See also "Iraq War troop surge of 2007: Opposition", on Wikipedia).

There is also the fact that a civil war was fought in Iraq, unlike in Afghanistan. The Shia and Sunni were fighting and killing each other, and so had less resources to devote to fighting and killing American troops. But when then Senator Biden suggested dividing Iraq into a loose federation of three ethnic states, thus quelling the sectarian violence, the bush administration (and Iraq's majority Shia government) rejected a partitioning of the country, deciding to allow the bloodbath to continue. The level of violence went down because the numerically superior Shia (55% of Iraq's population versus 18.5% Sunni) eventually either killed or displaced enough of their enemies to effectively win the war.

More than 1.3 million Iraqis have lost their lives since the start of the war. 4.7 million Iraqis lost or were forced to flee their homes (16% of the population). What portion of each of these estimates can be attributed to the US invasion and what portion can be attributed to the civil war isn't known, as the bushies certainly had no motivation to look into the matter.

The majority Shia government rejected partitioning because they deemed that it was payback time for their former Sunni oppressors. Under Saddam Hussein's Baathist dictatorship, which was Sunni-led, the Shia and Kurds were mercilessly persecuted. The Saddam regime also convinced their fellow Sunnis that they were not a minority - which explains why, when the US sponsored elections resulted in the Sunni netting "only a modest minority of seats", many Sunnis suspected fraud. This suspicion became one of the primary forces that fueled the insurgency. (They also overwhelmingly rejected the new Iraq constitution).

The bush administration knew that a civil war would produce an eventual victor, and then they could claim success when the violence decreased. Which explains why they worked so hard to deny one was taking place. This course of action resulted in a high of 3000 murders per month (according to a 2007 report issued by retired US Army General Barry McCaffre) - but the price was deemed quite acceptable. My opinion is that the bushies believed that if Iraqi ragheads wanted to kill each other there is no reason they should not allow it to happen, especially when the result was to make the war effort appear to be going better than it was.

An article published by "The Economist" on 6/17/2010 reports, "sectarian animosity still prevails", and that "Iraq's fledgling democracy remains frighteningly fragile" due to there being "little sign of a genuine cross-sectarian consensus". Despite these facts victory has been declared in Iraq, news coverage has dropped to virtually nill, and focus has shifted to the other war. The ouster of McChrystal and the installation of Petraeus led John Arquilla of the Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey CA to remark, "It's kind of sad and ironic that the fall of McChrystal will result in the reaffirmation of a highly problematic strategy".

On Friday 7/2/2010 (a day after General Petraeus won Senate confirmation) the House approved $37 billion in Afghan war spending and a 30,000 troop surge. Both the President and Congress are still fully behind the war, even though a poll in March revealed that "American support for the war in Afghanistan has ebbed to a new low", with "42% of respondents saying the United States made a mistake in sending military forces to Afghanistan" (Americans who considered the war a mistake was only 6% in January of 2002).

The President, who, on 12/1/2009 explained to the American people that we would give the war one last shot, and then begin a draw down in July 2011 (with a goal of withdrawing most U.S. forces by January 2013), is now walking back that promise, calling people who keep bringing up the draw down date "obsessed", and insisting "his focus is on making sure the mission there is successful".

Translation? The withdraw will be delayed to allow the new commander a chance to achive results. Even though the strategy isn't changing. How many more US soldiers will lose their lives or their limbs, and how many more billions will be wasted (money which could be used here to improve our economy) before Congress pulls funding and forces an end to this debacle? The Karzai government is corrupt. Accepting the results of Afghanistan's last "election" was the final nail in the coffin. If we ever had a chance of successfully completing the mission, any possibility of that happening ended when we allowed the former Unicol (Union Oil Company of California) consultant to steal the Afghan presidency.

The bushies hand picked Hamid Karzai to be Afghanistan's figurehead, installing him so that he could approve the proposed Trans-Afghanistan Pipeline (The pipeline will transport Caspian Sea natural gas from Turkmenistan through Afghanistan into Pakistan and then to India).

Following the 8/20/2009 elections in Afghanistan, former President Jimmy Carter announced, "Hamid Karzai has stolen the election", and that "now the question is whether he gets away with it". (Incidentally, Mr. Carter was also right about the Petraeus Iraq surge, correctly noting that "it wasn't the surge of American troops that had caused an increase in calm, but General David Petraeus' willingness to pay bribes and pay Iraqi soldiers").

There were some brief grumblings from the Obama administration regarding the legitimacy of the Afghan elections, but in the end Karzai was allowed to get away with it. I'm positive that if bush were still in power the election would have been heralded as a victory for democracy and the Afghan people - the same purple-finger nonsense they pulled in Iraq. The Obama Administration, knowing that contesting the election would be very bad for the war effort, stopped it's grumbling, and instead congratulated Karzai on "winning" a second term. President Obama, while visiting the country, told Karzai "Although the process was messy, I'm pleased to say that the final outcome was determined in accordance with Afghan law".

Unfortunately Obama's proclamation was complete baloney. He knows the election was stolen. The American people and the Afghan people also know that Karzai's win was illegitimate (Karzai has been president since being "chosen" as interim president in 2002, served one five year term beginning in 2004, but will be ineligible to run again in 2014 due to term limits). How in the hell can we expect to win Afghan hearts and minds when they see our government give it's blessing to a corrupt administration's theft of it's supposedly democratic election?!

President Karzai (who says the US has undermined his legitimacy with the ballot stuffing allegations, even though they were made by independent monitors) is seeking to make his "own deal with the Taliban and the country's archrival, Pakistan, the Taliban's longtime supporter". A 6/11/2010 story in the New York Times reports that, when presented of evidence that the Taliban were behind a "spectacular rocket attack on a nationwide peace conference earlier this month", president Karzai said "he believed the Taliban were not responsible" and then suggested that Americans were behind the attack.

58% of Americans favor a timetable for withdrawl of US troops. 73% of Afghans opposed the Obama surge (according to a 2009 poll). The Taliban are united in their opposition to our military (unlike, as I pointed out earlier, there being multiple factions fighting each other). And the corrupt Karzai government is seeking to make deals with the Taliban and "blocking corruption probes [regarding the theft of] huge amounts of foreign aid" (a 6/30/2010 Huffington Post article alleges that "Afghan powerbrokers are moving millions of dollars out of the country").

Karzai will use the money he has stolen from the US, the proceeds from the Unicol pipeline (what this war was really all about in the first place), and eventually, the estimated 1 trillion in mineral wealth to create a "coalition government" by bribing the Taliban, cementing the country's status as a criminal and oppressive oligarchy. Foreign corporations will move in to build the pipeline and extract Afghanistan's mineral wealth. The rich will get richer, the corrupt will retain power, and the poor of Afghanistan will remain poor and oppressed. Mission accomplished. BTW, these things will happen regardless of when we pull out.

Continuing on this path is complete insanity. We either need to begin an orderly withdrawal as soon as possible, or come up with a plan for a negotiated peace. This isn't ideal solution, especially with Karazi still in charge for at least another 4 and a half years. I don't think it matters, as this war was lost some time ago (certainly before Obama's surge). That is, if it was ever winnable. Unfortunately, with the Republicans set to gain seats in the upcoming election, the prospect of a draw down anytime soon is looking quite dim.

Further Reading
[1] Petraeus: We Are In This To Win in Afghanistan by Deb Richman, AP 7/4/2010.
[2] Is Karzai punking Obama, yet again? by Laurence Lewis, The Daily Kos 6/11/2010.
[3] Afghanistan, the Taliban and the Bush Oil Team by Wayne Madsen, Democrats.com 1/2002.

7/6/2015 Update: The Libertarian blogger Willis Hart asks "if the surge was so damned successful, then why did it all come apart as soon as we took our finger out of the dike". Answer: gwb (and John McCain, Lindsay Graham, Joe Lieberman and anyone else who claims the surge was a success) were/are lying.

SWTD #44

Obama Administration Thugs Extort 20 Billion From BP For ACORN Slush Fund!

It is now clear that the Constitution of the United States of America may as well not exist, and it's not just over the slush fund and the shakedown of BP that took place yesterday at the White House. ... Where is the money going to go? What unions are gonna get it? What ACORN people are gonna get it? What Democrats who are experiencing great trouble here in their reelection bids, are going to get this money? ~ Rush Limbaugh, Conservative Talk Radio host and de facto head of the Republican Party, commenting on Obama Administration corruption (The Rush Limbaugh Show, 6/17/2010).

There's a sucker born every minute ~ P.T. Barnum (7/5/1810 to 4/12/1891) American showman, businessman, and entertainer, remembered for promoting celebrated hoaxes and for founding the circus that became the Ringling Bros. and Barnum & Bailey Circus (attributed).

Organized crime in the White House? That is what the header over at Rush Limbaugh's website declares. If only I had heeded the paranoid delusions of the Right-wingers who predicted this! Paranoid delusions that have now, apparently, proven to be true - if Rush Limbaugh is to be believed. The illegitimate President Barack Obama has used the disaster in the Gulf to apply political pressure to BP CEO Tony Hayward and shake him down for a cool 20 billion. The money, according to Rush, will go to Democratic campaign funds, Unions, and ACORN, and NOT towards cleanup costs or to pay economic damage claims submitted by individuals and small businesses affected by the oil spill.

Never mind that ACORN closed up shop on 3/22/2010 following the pulling of their funding by Congress. Which, I might add, was a direct result of the James O'Keefe undercover video which smeared ACORN with a "heavily edited" and deceptive splice job showed how corrupt they were. 20 Billion will easily be able to resurrect ACORN, who will then steal the 2012 election, same as they stole the 2010 election. More Disney characters than ever before will cast their ballots to re-elect the Socialist Kenyan dictator!

In order to make this a reality, the President has appointed one of his corrupt Czars, a sleazy individual by the name of Kenneth Feinberg, who will facilitate the payoffs in return, no doubt, for a small taste of the 20 billion. Never mind that it was Mr. Feinberg who oversaw the "September 11 Victim Compensation Fund", and was appointed to that position by bush administration Attorney General John Ashcroft. And never mind that he did most of the work pro-bono. That was all a setup for this, the ultimate payday! He'll probably retire to his own island in the Caribbean after the payoffs have been distributed.

And they will be able to get away with it because it's all a hoax. BP's well did explode and massive amounts of oil are spewing into the gulf, but that was all an accident; not to mention the fact that crude oil is completely harmless. Rush Limbaugh reminded us early on that "the ocean will take care of this on its own if it was left alone and left out there [because] it's natural. It's as natural as the ocean water is". The people of the Gulf States will be fine. The wildlife will be fine. The marshes will be fine.

Yes indeed, Rush spins one hell of a yarn, which is why he's a multi-millionaire with a brand new young trophy wife. Why shouldn't someone who has sold their soul, and certainly will burn in Hell for all eternity following his eventual demise due to a massive heart attack (what's the holdup re Dick Cheney?), be rewarded in this life? Only one question remains, however - teabaggers who have abandoned their critical thinking skills (or, more likely, they simply atrophied) to the Rightwing Spin Machine who DON'T live in the Gulf region will buy this baloney hook line and sinker - but what about the teabaggers who actually live in the region and DO see their livelihoods destroyed?

That must have been what the eco-terrorism story was for. Or maybe the Obama Administration and BP colluded in a scheme to produce an intentional leak. Teabagger candidate for North Carolina's 13th district U.S. House seat, Bill Randall speculated, "...personally I feel there is a possibility that there was some sort of collusion. I don't know how or why, but in that situation, if you have someone from a company violating a safety process and the government signing off on it, excuse me, maybe they wanted it to leak".

One thing the Right does offer it's adherents are numerous lies to choose from. If you don't quite buy one there's always another. Apparently it doesn't matter if they are contradictory. Regarding the Right's response to the disaster in the Gulf - I think it has never been more apparent exactly whose interests the GOP is looking out for. You can't come out in defense of an obviously criminally negligent oil company and NOT have people see through the blatant lies... can you?

SWTD #43

Conservatives Heart Bailouts

I think it is a tragedy in the first proportion that a private corporation can be subjected to what I would characterize as a shakedown - in this case a $20 billion shakedown ~ Joe Barton, Republican Congressman from TX and oil industry whore, apologizing to BP CEO Tony Hayward during a House hearing on 6/17/2010.

But if I was the head of BP, I would let the signal get out there - We're not going to be chumps, and we're not going to be fleeced ~ Michele Bachmann, Republican Congresswoman from MN and certified crazy person, speaking at a Heritage Foundation luncheon on 6/15/2010.

In my previous post I predicted that BP will not bear the entire cost of cleaning up the gulf, regardless of what Ken Salizar or Randal Paul think. I stand by this prediction, despite the fact that President Obama recently obtained a commitment from Tony Hayward for a 20 Billion dollar escrow account (administered by a 3rd party) "to cover the costs of cleaning up the spill and paying damages to individuals and businesses". This is a lot more than what I was expecting BP to be willing to be willing to shell out, and admit that it is good start - but it is still significantly lower than what the total price tag may end up being.

A 6/16/2010 MSNBC Business article notes, "Oil industry experts say it remains to be seen whether any amount of money can fully compensate victims and restore the Gulf Coast". Business Insider reports that, "Federal deficit spending will certainly rise by tens, and maybe hundreds, of billions as emergency appropriations are directed at larger and larger efforts to clean up this mess. At the same time, federal and state revenues tied to Gulf-region businesses will fall". The article concludes, predicting, "A double-dip recession has been made more likely by this tragedy" (5/2/2010).

Although President Obama insists that 20 billion is not a cap, I seriously doubt BP is going to be willing to pay hundreds of billions. I think it much more likely that BP believes 20 billion IS a cap. Or that they won't have to pay much more than a few additional billion. I also wonder if BP was promised anything in return for their 20 billion. Possibilities that I can think of include leniency in the criminal investigation or calculation of EPA fines. Maybe President Obama secured the money by informing Mr. Hayward that BP would be allowed to keep their oil leases and US government contracts (instead of canceling them all and kicking BP out of the country).

My last post also included a quote from US Chamber of Commerce President Tom Donohue who said, in regards to paying for cleanup of the Gulf, "We are going to have to get the money from the government and from the companies". I interpreted this to mean that Mr. Donohue was talking about a taxpayer funded BP bailout. So did a lot of other websites, including the Huffington Post, which was the story I linked to. Now, like Boehner before him, Mr. Donohue has issued a "clarification" of his earlier statement. The morning after I published my previous post I received an email that looked strange, and wondered why would I be getting an email from this particular person. The reason became clearer when I opened the email and read the following...

My name is Bryan Goettel and I work in the media relations department at the US Chamber of Commerce. I see you've been dedicating a lot of coverage to the BP oil spill and wanted to make sure you saw Tom Donohue's recent statement issued on Friday, clarifying his comments that he made at a breakfast in late May.

"Clarified" comments as follows...

Tom Donohue: Let me be clear - the recovery costs should not be on the backs of American taxpayers or the businesses that have been adversely affected by this tragedy. As I stated at the breakfast, we believe that abandoning the rule of law and retroactively changing the liability cap is not the best approach. (U.S. Chamber Statement on BP Oil Spill Cleanup, 6/11/2010).

I'm not buying Mr. Donohue's "clarification". Notice that he's still vehemently against lifting the liability cap. Meaning he doesn't think BP should pay the full cost of the "accident" caused by their reckless behavior. Although this time he adds that, oh no, he didn't mean taxpayers should pay either. I believe Mr. Donohue's first statement (the one where he was obviously suggesting that taxpayers pony up the dough), because his fellow Conservatives continue making similar BP butt kissing declarations.

Of course, SOMEBODY has to pay... likely those affected/the victims will end up paying quite a bit - as well as the taxpayers and future generations (when we borrow more money to pay for cleaning up after BP).

Texas Congressman Joe Barton apologized to BP's Tony Hayward for the White House "shakedown", branding the escrow account a "political slush fund". He later retracted his statement, but only because House Minority Leader John Boehner forced him to.

I agree with Representative Jan Schakowsky (D-IL), who, on the 6/17/2010 broadcast of the Rachel Maddow show, asserted, "What Joe Barton said, even though it does reflect what they really believe, was not a good thing to put out there" (which is why he really retracted his apology).

We know Representative Schwakowsky's belief is correct because Tom Price (R-GA) of the Republican Study Committee (a caucus of over 100 conservative House Republicans and part of the Republican leadership) is on record claiming, "BP's reported willingness to go along with the White House's new fund suggests that the Obama administration is hard at work exerting its brand of Chicago-style shakedown politics".

Minnesota Congresswoman Michele Bachmann believes that that BP is getting fleeced and being played for chumps, referring to the $20 billion escrow account as a "redistribution-of-wealth fund". And Rush Limbaugh suggested, instead of going to compensate BP's (human) victims (shrimpers, fishermen and others with legitimate claims whose livelihood BP has destroyed), the "slush fund" cash would instead be funneled to "union activists" or (the defunct) ACORN (The Rush Limbaugh Show, 6/16/2010).

Even though the fund will be administered by the same individual who oversaw the "September 11 Victim Compensation Fund", Kenneth Feinberg, who was appointed to the position by bush administration Attorney General John Ashcroft. So, the bush administration trusted Mr. Feinberg to "administer all aspects of the program, including evaluating applications, determining appropriate compensation and disseminating awards", but now he's so completely corrupt that he'd stand by while people who had no legitimate claim received payoffs?!

These statements show how outraged Conservatives are that BP is being made to pay for even a fraction of the damages they have caused. Because Conservatives truly believe that the rich and powerful operate under a different set of rules than the "small people". Unfortunately it will be the "small people" who pay the larger portion of the final bill. This, in my opinion, amounts to a bailout; and that what this, along with the bush administration bailout of the financial sector proves - without a doubt - is that Conservatives love bailouts.

See also: Right-wing Media Absurdly Declares Obama Admin Acted In "Illegal", "Unconstitutional" Manner by "Forcing" BP to Create Escrow Account by Media Matters for America staff, 6/18/2010.

SWTD #42