Dennis' Problem With Anti-Semitism

The sad truth about bigotry is that most bigots either don't realize that they are bigots, or they convince themselves that their bigotry is perfectly justified ~ Wayne Gerard Trotman (dob 5/16/1964) a British independent filmmaker, writer, photographer, composer and producer of electronic music who was born in San Fernando, Trinidad.

Chalk up another in the virulent lie category, here we have another comment from the Contra O'Reilly blog. A blog, it should be noted, where the proprietor, Willis Hart appreciates the lies of Dennis Marks (AKA dmarks). What does that say about Mr. Hart?

The comment in question...

Dennis Marks: We know [Dervish] is an extremist with a strong tilt toward totalitarianism and away from human rights, along with a lot of other nasty things (his racism and antisemitism, hatred of democracy when the people choose something he doesn't like... (2/23/2014 AT 3:57pm).

Actually, Dennis, we know you have a strong tilt toward fascism, with your worship of the plutocrats and desire to see them buy our elections by allowing those with the most money to buy the most "free speech". And we also know that Dennis speaks against racism combating policies like Affirmative Action and spends a lot of time accusing Black people of racism. We also know that he spends a lot of time accusing Jewish people of anti-Semitism.

Dennis said "you defend antisemitism" because I cited Francis Boyle as an individual that believes George W bush is guilty of war crimes. As it also turns out, the Jewish Boyle is also "a harsh critic of Israel, Zionism, and American foreign policy towards Israel". What Dennis is arguing is that anti-Semitism and Anti-Zionism are the same thing, which I do not necessarily believe to be true. Certainly not in the case of Dr. Boyle, who is Jewish himself.

But this is just ad hominem from Dennis, given the fact that I don't agree with Boyle's Anti-Zionism (although I do believe there are legitimate criticisms to be made of Israel and American foreign policy toward Israel). But I do believe Israel has a legitimate right to exist. And, even though I pointed this out, it makes no difference to Dennis. Even when I say I agree with Bolye (a professor of international law at the University of Illinois College of Law) on George bush having committed war crimes, but NOT with Boyle on the subject of Anti-Zionism, Dennis STILL slimes me as "defending" anti-Semitism.

Now (with this most recent comment) I've gone from "defending it" to outright endorsing it. This is a virulent lie - both that a Jewish man is an anti-Semite for having anti-Zionist views, and that I "defend" these views (or share them) because I say I disagree with them (but agree about GWb and war crimes).

I've never defended anti-Semitism or endorsed it. And Francis Boyle is not "on record stating his fond wish for the ethnic cleansing of Israelis". This detestable slur is wholly an invention of the despicable lying Dennis. Jewish people, I should note, are the only people I've ever seen Dennis accuse of anti-Semitism. The Jewish Francis Boyle and the Jewish Norman Finkelstein, whose parents were Jewish Holocaust survivors.

What I find particularly stomach-churning and vile about Dennis' continual slandering of the Jewish Boyle and the Jewish Finkelstein, slanderous comments such as the following...

Dennis Marks: Forget his genocidal hatred of Jewish Israelis. This man is one of those Holocaust-deniers. The kind of person WD defends, probably with the usual "calling people who dare criticize Israelis antisemitic" canard..... Yeah, these people are antisemitic because they criticize Israelis for not hurrying up and being ashes scraped out of industrial ovens (12/8/2012 AT 7:25pm). see note below regarding this comment.

Right. Finkelstein's "denying" must include believing that both his parents were liars, right Dennis? Wikipedia notes that, according to an upcoming memoir, "Finkelstein recalls his strong youthful identification with the outrage that his mother, witness to the genocidal atrocities of World War II, felt at the carnage wrought by the United States in Vietnam". But that identification must have come before he decided his mom lied about growing up in the Warsaw Ghetto and being sent to a slave labor camp.

And, I should also note that Norman Finkelstein supports the two state solution, so he, unlike Boyle, is not an anti-Zionist. He did, however, author a book titled The Holocaust Industry, "in which he argues that the American Jewish establishment exploits the memory of the Nazi Holocaust for political and financial gain, as well as to further the interests of Israel" (description pulled from Wikipedia).

And, in regards to this book - for writing it, the Anti-Defamation League labeled Finkelstein a "Holocaust denier". But I find this charge utterly ridiculous given the subtitle of the book, "Reflections on the Exploitation of Jewish Suffering". The suffering he refers to is the Holocaust - a Holocaust both his parents experienced first hand!

As for the "exploiting", the purpose of this commentary is not to defend or rebut any of the claims Finkelstein makes, nor to declare that he is 100 percent right or wrong... although there is SOMETHING to his claims, I believe. But I have not read any of his books. I am ONLY to defending Finkelstein against charges of "Holocaust denial". I mean, how can he deny the Holocaust while claiming that the memory of it is being exploited? Obviously this charge - made by the Anti-Defamation League and repeated by Dennis (in the quote above) - makes no sense, given the FACT that it would be impossible to "exploit" something that did not happen.

While I believe there are legitimate criticisms to be made of these two individuals and their opinions about Israel, Dennis crosses a line by accusing a Jewish man of wanting to "Wipe out Jewistan!" (this is a fake quote Dennis attributes to Boyle), or reduce them to ashes via a new Holocaust. Comments such as these are themselves anti-Semitic, in my strong opinion.

For the record, I have NEVER defended Holocaust deniers, nor will I. Holocaust denial is an inexcusable and deplorable offense, and Dennis is a lying sack of shit for accusing me of "defending" it.

But Dennis' belief that Jewish people who accuse bush of war crimes does not stop with Jews who also happen to critics of Israel. Marjorie Cohn, a professor at Thomas Jefferson School of Law, former president of the National Lawyers Guild, and the US representative to the executive committee of the American Association of Jurists, also argues that bush is a war criminal. Cohn is a Jewish woman who lacks the reputation of Boyle and Finkelstein of being strong critics of Israel.

Despite the lack of anything factual Dennis could use to bash Cohn with, Dennis still thinks she MIGHT be anti-Semitic. When I brought up Mrs. Cohn's name in a discussion, Dennis replied "there are indeed many self-hating Jews. That you are surprised shows how little you know". So, in other words, he thinks it's possible that Marjorie is an anti-Semitic Jew, based on absolutely nothing other than her belief that members of the bush administration are guilty of war crimes!

What this points to, in my opinion, is the anti-Semitism of Dennis - although he is the type of bigot who doesn't realize he's a bigot. What other kind of odious scumbag would accuse Jewish people of anti-Semitism just because they suggest bush is guilty of war crimes - and go so far (at least in the case of Norman Finkelstein) as to state that they want their fellow Jews to "hurry up and be ashes scraped out of industrial ovens"? A scumbag anti-Semite that goes by the alias of dmarks would say such abominable things, that's who.

Update 8/18/2014: Dennis deleted his vile anti-Semitic "scaped" comment (for the amusement factor) and the Google cached page has been updated (and also shows the comment as removed). Make no mistake, however. Dennis said it, and it ABSOLUTELY is anti-Semitic (claiming that a Jewish man wants his fellow Jews exterminated). See image below for a screenshot that I grabbed before the deletion.

Also, for the record, in the original comment Dennis spells the word "scraped" as "scaped" (without the "r"). A typo, no doubt, but I mention it because I correct it above... which might be cause for someone to claim I'm misquoting or "fabricating". Although I think Dennis is inclined to stand by the comment. Update 6/8/2015: Turns out I was wrong. Dennis now says the screenshot is fake.

SWTD #234, dDel #17. See also TADM #6.

The Frances Delusion. Coupled With A High Probability of Spittle Flecking

The ignorant mind, with its infinite afflictions, passions, and evils, is rooted in the three poisons. Greed, anger, and delusion -- Bodhidharma (dob 6/22/1966) a Buddhist monk who lived during the 5th/6th century CE. Regarded as the first Chinese patriarch, he began the physical training of the Shaolin monks that led to the creation of Shaolinquan (According to Chinese legend). Bodhidharma is regarded as the father of Zen Buddhism.

Francis Boyle, or "Frances" Boyle, as Dennis Marks likes to call him, is a Jewish man who has accurately described ex-preznit bush's invasion of Iraq as illegal and a war crime. Aside from that, Boyle has controversial views regarding Israel that I disagree with. Although I do NOT believe these views make the Jewish Boyle an anti-semite (only an anti-Zionist). Nor do I believe these views invalidate his correct conclusions regarding the legality of bush's invasion of Iraq, which is that it wasn't.

Actually, in regards to misspelling of Dr. Boyle's first name as "Frances" - this is something Dennis thinks I am guilty of. I've asked him on multiple occasions to to produce a link that shows where I used the wrong spelling, but Dennis never has... and I always assumed he was lying.

However, while researching a previous post on the topic of Mr. Boyle I found the comment where I misspelled "Francis" as "Frances". So, Dennis was right about me misspelling Dr. Boyle's first name. But - and get this - my misspelling was in a comment immediately following one by Dennis in which HE misspelled "Francis" as "Frances".

Not only that, but Dennis, when I first brought up the topic of Francis Boyle being among a number of people who believed ex-preznit bush's invasion of Iraq was illegal, referred to Boyle using the female pronoun multiple times... excerpt from said comment as follows...

Dennis Marks: Francis Boyle has no experience or authority in the matters she is writing about. This is why the real professionals dismiss her crankery out of hand. She's a clown who is out of her league. No one takes her seriously. Look at her latest call to impeach Obama. She's playing "model UN", but can't run with the grownups. So what if she has an actual law degree which she uses in a bogus claim that she is qualified in matters way out of her league. Armchair attorney indeed. (9/7/2011 AT 6:57pm).

Dennis was so embarrassed when I pointed out to him that Francis Boyle is a man that he immediately seized upon my repeating of his "Frances" misspelling (a comment in which I typed "Francis Boyle" twice and then "Frances Boyle" the third time I input his name).

In response to my repeating the feminized version of "Francis" that Dennis used first, he said...

Dennis Marks: Fair point on Boyle's gender. I read extensively on his qualifications to make such silly claims (none), and missed the gender point. Big oops! [then he quotes my one misspelling and says] You gave him a female name. You do it also. (9/13/2011 AT 4:04am).

I call BS on Dennis' claim that he read "extensively" on Boyle's qualifications. If Dennis had he surely would have noticed male pronouns being used. I also call BS on Dennis' claim that he thinks I made a "fair point". If it was fair, then would Dennis be obsessing on me repeating a misspelling he made first... over a year ago?

Here is an excerpt from a comment from 1/3/2014 in which the delusional Dennis brings up the "Frances" misspelling from 17 months prior... a misspelling that allowed him to combat my "fair point" about him getting the gender of Mr. Boyle wrong by saying "you did it also"...

Dennis Marks: That was a real hoot, wasn't it? That Boyle guy, an armchair attorney (WD spelled his first name "Frances") was his main, and for a while only, source on the idea that Bush was a war criminal. (1/3/2014 AT 5:11am).

This idiocy by Dennis posted in response to a commentary by Willis Hart of Contra O'Reilly titled Think Insanity"; a post that concerned how I'm insane. But how insane is it to obsess over a 17-month-old gaffe? Yeah, it was a huge screw-up (majorily criticizing a person without even knowing if you're talking about a man or a woman)... but Dennis CLEARLY lied about thinking I made a "fair point" or he would have let my repeating of his typo go. I didn't even notice his spelling mistake, but if I had I would haven't said anything (as we all make typos).

Clearly, if Dennis thought it was fair he wouldn't be lying about me calling Francis "Frances" more than a year after the incident (an incident in which he misidentified Boyle as a woman and then misspelled his name, afterwhich I repeated the misspelling ONCE)... would he? No. In fact, I bet Dennis' computer monitor was flecked with spittle on that day.

No doubt Dennis screamed and pounded his keyboard in anger when he realized his goof (in getting Boyle's gender wrong) which made him look bad in that debate. Lucky for Dennis he could (falsely) claim "you did it too" when I inadvertently repeated his spelling error (either because I had just read his comment and did it unconsciously, or because it was a simple typo). Either way it gave the insecure nutcase something to latch on to.

Point: Dervish Sanders. Delusional Point: Dennis Marks.

Also, in regards to Mr. Boyle's qualifications, he is a professor of international law at the University of Illinois College of Law. Further qualifying Mr. Boyle in regards to pronouncements of war criminality is the fact that, "during the war for independence of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Dr. Boyle became the first international-law legal adviser to the First Bosnia-Herzegovinian President Alija Izetbegovic" (excerpt via Wikipedia), so he has actual experience practicing (or advising) on international law.

Which means the ignorant Dennis is full of shit when he says Dr. Boyle is "no more an attorney involved in matters of war crimes or international law than you or I".

Point: Dervish Sanders. Delusional Point: Dennis Marks.

Final Tally... Dervish Sanders: 2 points; Dennis Marks: 0 points. Due to the fact that delusional points aren't actual points.

 swtd-233. dDel-16.  See also tadm-38.

The Truth About Dennis Marks

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

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

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

Five of Dennis Marks' Vile Lies

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

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

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

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

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

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

My Response To These Five Vile Lies From Dennis Marks

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

SWTD #232, dDel #15.

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.

Narratives of Benghazi Hoax True Believers Debunked (Part 1)

...there's no evidence in the emails that the idea of spontaneity was initiated by anyone associated with Obama, the White House, or the president's wider political fortunes. Did Obama benefit from the spontaneity narrative? Yes. But to embrace intelligence from your CIA that is favorable to you - when you have no reason to doubt your intelligence service - is not the same as making up a false story. It's not even a sin ~ John Dickerson; an American journalist. He is chief political correspondent for Slate magazine and political director of CBS News. Before joining Slate, Dickerson covered politics for Time magazine for 12 years, serving the last four as White House correspondent.

This commentary is in response to a post on the site of a Libertarian blogger who asserts 35 witnesses and survivors of the Benghazi terrorist attack will tell us - if only the administration were not stifling their desire to tell the American people the truth - that President Obama has "patently lied" to us. The "lies" are spelled out by the Libertarian Willis V. Hart (WTNPH) as follows...

Willis Hart: They will tell us that a) there wasn't any protest outside of the consulate (and hence no spontaneous eruption resulting from it), b) the weaponry that was used was of a high-powered nature (mortar, AK-47s, etc.) and not the type of shit that an individual would simply have in their back-pocket, c) a terrorist splinter cell was claiming "credit" for the attack WHILE IT WAS HAPPENING, d) the terrorists knew where everything was and had obviously cased the facility well prior to the attack (in other words, THEY PLANNED IT), and e) the consulate itself was being used as a conduit to a gun smuggling operation into Syria and that many of the weapons probably landing into the hands of al Qaeda - none of which this President wants the American public to hear, obviously. (2/5/2014 AT 9:43pm).

According to WTNPH this was a "cover-up"; but he lies. There was no "cover-up", at least in regards to things that don't concern national security (which I'll get back to), but there are logical explanations for the issues raised by Hart, which I will address point by point, starting with his assertion that "there wasn't any protest outside of the consulate" with the rest of this commentary (assertions B through E will be addressed in a subsequent post).

First of all, The Obama Administration NEVER said there was a "spontaneous eruption" outside the Benghazi Mission; or Susan Rice (who was tasked with presenting the official White House response). On 9/16/2012 then United States Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice "appeared on five major interview shows to discuss the attacks". In delivering her CIA talking points, Rice asserted the following...

Susan Rice (relaying CIA/State Dept Talking Points): Based on the best information we have to date, what our assessment is - as of the present - is in fact what began spontaneously in Benghazi as a reaction to what had transpired some hours earlier in Cairo where, of course, as you know, there was a violent protest outside of our embassy—sparked by this hateful video. ...we do not have information at present that leads us to conclude that this was premeditated or preplanned. (Wikipedia/2012 Benghazi attack/U.S. government response).

Notice that then ambassador Rice referred to "what had transpired some hours earlier in Cairo". Rice didn't claim there were protests outside the American diplomatic mission at Benghazi, although there were reports at the time that the attack was in response to the Innocence of Muslims video (IOM), as this excerpt from a 10/15/2012 Huffington Post article points out...

Michael Calderone, writing for HuffPo: On Sept. 12, Reuters reported that there were protesters present when the U.S. consulate in Benghazi was attacked and described the assailants as "part of a mob blaming America for a film they said insulted the Prophet Mohammad". (Reuters' Early Report Of Protesters At Libya Attack Raises Questions, 10/15/2012).

The book The Benghazi Hoax cites this Huffington Post article, and further points out that "Reuters correspondent Hadeel al Shalchi... "reported what people told me they saw that day, all of whom she met face to face" [The Benghazi Hoax, Page 30]. So there actually WAS a question regarding whether or not the attacks were in response to the IOM video, however, "State Department officials said they never concluded that any protests over the video took place near the Benghazi mission on Sept. 11 (and the Rice talking points referenced protests in Cairo, NOT Benghazi, as I already pointed out) [quote from Calderone HuffPo article cited above].

And former White House correspondent John Dickerson concludes that there was no cover-up, because, as he writes in a 5/16/2013 Slate article...

Michael Calderone: In the initial round of emails, one CIA official reports that the White House signed off right away on the full initial CIA assessment. ... So rather than being the authors of the bowdlerizing effort, the White House was just fine with the fully caffeinated version that mentions [Islamist militia group] Ansar al Sharia, al Qaeda, and that the CIA had produced numerous warnings about extremists in Benghazi. White House aides reviewed the talking points, made no substantive changes, and moved them along. (I Was Promised a Cover-Up, 5/16/2013).

"Bowdlerize", according to Dictionary.com is "to expurgate (a written work) by removing or modifying passages considered vulgar or objectionable", and John Dickerson says the emails don't show that the White House did that. So, how did the terrorism references get bowdlerized (and the IOM video and the attack being a "spontaneous eruption" get the blame)? John Dickerson says "when the language does eventually change in the talking points, it is clear that it is at the behest of State Department officials, not anyone in the White House" [same article as quoted above].

I think that pretty much proves that the following assertion by WTNPH has very little merit...

Willis Hart: ...the Obama people... pushed this imbecilic narrative about a spontaneous eruption... from some stupid-arsed Youtube video and then continued with it for weeks. Yes, the Republicans are playing some politics here but so, too, is the Obama administration (their brazen attempt to convince us that Al Qaeda was somehow on the run). (5/12/2013 at 11:44:00am, From the "Rational Nation USA" blog).

They may have "pushed" it, but they didn't author it - and there was no narrative about Al Qaeda being on the run. WTNPH's assertion that the Obama campaign was claiming this (in order to help win the election) echoes statements made by Senator John McCain, who, on the 11/14/2003 airing of Greta Van Sustern's "On the Record", said "it interferes with the president's narrative, We got bin Laden, al Qaeda's on the run, therefore, I'm a great commander-in-chief".

In regards to the supposed "brazen attempt to convince us that Al Qaeda was somehow on the run", David Brock and Ari Rabin-Havt (authors of The Benghazi Hoax) put forward the facts that squash this lie concerning a narrative the Obama White House didn't have a hand in creating...

Excerpt, The Benghazi Hoax: Obama had never sought to declare an early end to America's stepped-up operations against terrorism... Conservatives claimed that Obama didn't want to discuss "terror" because he wanted to fool voters into thinking Al Qaeda had been vanquished. Yet at the president's acceptance speech at the Democratic convention in Charlotte several days before the Benghazi attack, he said: "[F]or all the progress we've made, challenges remain. Terrorist plots must be disrupted". (Page 23).

But, back to the corruption of the talking points, which, as I already pointed out, originally contained terrorist references WTNPH says were removed so the Obama Administration could push a narrative of Al Qaeda being on the run. That allegation, as I have just proven, is false. It was the State Department, as John Dickerson revealed, which modified them, specifically Victoria Nuland, a former Dick Cheney aide at the State Department.

It was Nuland who pushed for the revisions because she worried members of Congress [might] "beat the State Department for not paying attention to agency warnings", and why, Nuland asked, "would we want to seed the Hill?".

So, in conclusion... the talking points were NOT "all about the administration protecting Mr. Obama's narrative". This is simply more bunk from the Hartster. Even Fox News admits this with a 5/10/2013 article titled "Benghazi attack: State Department pushed for changes in the administration's talking points" (Note: the article is via the Associated Press, but the link is to Fox's website), and emails the White House released prove this to be the case. Also, there was evidence to suggest the attacks were indeed a "spontaneous eruption" in response to the IOM video (the on-the-ground Reuters reporting by Hadeel al Shalchi).

Given these facts, was it a lie to go with the talking points as modified by the State Department's Victoria Nuland and present them to the American people - while noting that "This assessment may change as additional information is collected and analyzed and as currently available information continues to be evaluated" (as Susan Rice did)? I say NO.

The Obama administration may have accepted a spin that benefited them (as pointed out by John Dickerson in the quote at the top of this post), but they originally signed off on the "fully caffeinated version", so when State came back with the version that said the attack began spontaneously in Benghazi in reaction to the earlier Cairo protests over the IOM video, the administration going with that story for the time being (until the investigation was complete) "is not the same as making up a false story". What IS a false story (and a canard) is WTNPH's dishonest narrative that President Obama "patently lied".

At worst I think the administration could be criticized for taking the politically safe road (if you believe the argument that the original talking points that included the terror references would have hurt them in the election) by accepting the talking points as modified by State (at the hands of Victoria Nuland), but you can NOT say the president "patently lied". He patently did NOT lie, as the facts I just presented unequivocally prove.

1/28/2016 Update: Despite this post being labeled "part 1" and me promising a "part 2" in the body of the commentary... I haven't yet authored a second installment. Anyway (given the fact that a 2nd installment likely will not be forthcoming)... to answer the other point raised by WTNPH concerning the assailants having weapons "of a high-powered nature" that they wouldn't have "in their back pockets", I heard that people were there with those weapons because (at least ostensibly) to turn them over under the weapon recovery program (Source).

SWTD #230, wDel #50.

On The Idiot's Narrative Concerning Me And Libertarianism

There is no longer any such thing as fiction or nonfiction; there's only narrative ~ Edgar Lawrence Doctorow (dob 1/6/1931) is an American author known internationally for his unique works of historical fiction. Doctorow spent nine years as a book editor, first at the mass-market paperback publisher "New American Library" working with Ian Fleming and Ayn Rand among others; and from 1964, as editor-in-chief at The Dial Press.

The following from the blog of an idiot named Willis V. Hart... note that in this post he refers to me as an idiot while revealing that the real idiot is himself.

Willis Hart: What the idiot fails to comprehend... is that libertarianism, just like with a lot of other things, is a) a continuum (from the moderate policy oriented libertarianism of the Cato Institute to the harder, more doctrinaire, orientation of the Mises and Ayn Rand Institutes) and b) a construct that has a great many permutations to it... [blah, blah, blah] I mean, I know that the simpler that person is, the more that this type of individual requires a clear-cut dichotomy, ideal types, etc., just to get frigging by in their life but enough. Enough. (1/28/2014 at 7:51pm).

This from an idiot who spends a lot of his time mischaracterizing Keynesian economics. I used to have SOME respect left for the guy, thinking he was intelligent and well read, but had simply reached the wrong conclusions. That was until he started lying about Keynesian economics by creating obvious strawmen descriptions of what Keynesians "invariably" say when they don't invariably say it.

I mean, it would be LOL-able if it wasn't so frigging pathetic. I'd say "enough", but I'm sure there is a lot more to come from the strawman-loving Hart. More of his insisting Democrats walk in lock step and we're all of a like mind in supporting anything that comes out of the Obama administration... which is completely false, but something he and his like-minded cohorts sit on their high horses feeling superior about (they are men of reason who think for themselves while criticizing both sides equally... in their minds); and more of his ridiculous characterizing of Democrats and Democratic politics/economic policies.

It's pretty easy to knock down theories you disagree with when you misrepresent them to the extreme extent that Mr. Hart does on his blog. And this idiot has the nerve to accuse me of misunderstanding Libertarianism, labeling me "simple" and requiring a clear-cut dichotomy to "get frigging by" in my life? Obviously constructing and knocking down strawmen is the only way this Hart fellow can get by. I, on the other hand, do recognize that, as with any political ideology, there are many different flavors and that only the most die hard (a small minority) walk in lockstep.

But, that Democrats who "support" Obama are simple, while "freethinkers" such as himself are far superior to the rest of us (Dems and Repubs) is a narrative that clearly gives the dude comfort. Without his arrogance I think Mr. Hart would be nothing but a shell of a man who, no doubt, couldn't go on living if the idea that he's got it all figured out was taken away from him.

"Support" is in quotes above, BTW, because, while I consider myself an Obama supporter, I do have my problems with the fellow, some of which Mr. Hart points to a comment on the (ironically titled) "rAtional nAtion" blog.

Willis Hart: This is what Jeremy Scahill of "The Nation" has to say about President Obama. He makes some pretty solid points... "And then, in Western societies, you have, on the one hand, President Obama saying that his administration is going to be the most transparent in history and that they want to be friends with the press; and on the other hand, they are monitoring the metadata of journalists, they are seizing phone records, they're trying to compel journalists to testify against their sources, they're trying to figure out who journalists are talking to within government so that they can go and indict those people... [end quote] Finally, a progressive with some guts, integrity, and consistency. (1/28/2014 AT 11:49pm).

OK, so it was AFTER I said I agreed (with Mr. Hart's agreement with Jeremy Scahill) that the Hartster authored his post about me requiring a clear-cut dichotomy and "ideal types"... so I guess absolutely nothing is going to derail the Hartster when he's spinning his narrative. There are SOME reasonable Dems, but REALLY, Willis Hart (as a "small L" Libertarian) is among a select few that REALLY gets it... (which is why he says "finally" in regards to Mr. Scahill. Scahill is a Progressive that doesn't represent the norm).

Video Description: Jeremy Scahill says Obama White House Doesn't Want Journalists, It Wants "State Media". (posted to "Real Clear Politics" 12/5/2013).

SWTD #229, wDel #49.

Highly Dubious LBJ Quote & What It Says About Those Who Eagerly Believe It

When he signed the act he was euphoric, but late that very night I found him in a melancholy mood as he lay in bed reading the bulldog edition of the Washington Post with headlines celebrating the day. I asked him what was troubling him. "I think we just delivered the South to the Republican party for a long time to come", he said ~ Bill Moyers, on page 167 of his 2004 book, Moyers on America. Bill D. Moyers (dob 6/5/1934) is an American journalist and liberal public commentator who served as White House Press Secretary in the Lyndon Baines Johnson administration from 1965 to 1967.

Conservatives hate that African Americans vote Democratic in overwhelming majorities. Obviously, in their minds, the reason for this must be that they were (and are still being) tricked and/or are lazy. Offer Black people goodies and get them hooked on those goodies. Then they'll have to keep voting Democratic... that or get jobs, work hard and provide for themselves. But, if you're thinking that sounds racist (that an entire group of people could be manipulated in this manner), well, the Cons and Libertarians are quite eager to point out that the reverse is actually true... it is actually the Democrats who are racist!

In fact, the very president who signed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was himself "a bigot and a racist of high order" according to Libertarian blogger Willis Hart who repeats a supposed quote from LBJ in a post on his blog...

Willis Hart: Lyndon Baines Johnson 1963... "These Negroes, they're getting pretty uppity these days and that's a problem for us since they've got something now they never had before, the political pull to back up their uppityness. Now we've got to do something about this, we've got to give them a little something, just enough to quiet them down, not enough to make a difference... I'll have them niggers voting Democratic for the next two hundred years". (12/31/2013 at 8:42pm).

Whether or not the quote is authentic is questionable, but I'll get to that later. First an excerpt from a political talk radio program in which the host, Thom Hartmann, discusses racism with Jennifer Burke of the "Tea Party News Network". Jennifer Burke, herself an African American, subscribes to the "tricked" theory to explain why a majority of African Americans vote Democratic, as well as the claim that it is actually the Democrats who are racist.

Excerpt from the discussion between Thom and Jennifer on the 10/23/2013 airing of Thom's program as follows (Thom does his set up and then introduces Jennifer 2:20 into the first hour & I pick up the conversation at the 5:17 mark)...

Jennifer Burke: It amazes me that the Left tries to take their racist history... the KKK was formed by the Democrats... Thom Hartmann: Oh, the Democrats were definitely the party of racism in the early 20th century, absolutely. And they changed in the 1960s, and, as I'm sure you know, in the 1970s Richard Nixon's Southern Strategy was to reach out to Southern racists. That's why, when Ronald Reagan was nominated to be president, the first speech that he gave as a presidential candidate; his first official speech was in Philadelphia MI where those three Civil Rights workers were murdered. And he gave a speech about State's Rights, wink, wink. JB: So, State's Rights now equals racism, so Ronald Reagan was a racist? TH: It certainly did in 1980. In 1980 there still was an ongoing effort to roll back the Voting Rights Act and the Civil Rights Act. Yes. JB: You mean the Civil Rights Act that the Democrats tried to stop from happening? TH: No, the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act that the Democrats passed overwhelmingly, Lyndon Johnson signed; and that's how the Democrats lost the South. He told Bill Moyers at the time he signed it that the Democratic Party would lose the South for a generation. Turns out it's been two generations. [Thom next points out that, although the Democrats used to pander to the racists, now it is the Republicans who do, and that a large number of racists have gravitated to the Tea party. Thom then asks Jennifer Burke what she thinks the Tea Party should do about it]. JB: I have no idea what you're talking about. ... I've been a member of the Tea Party since it's inception, and I've not seen that. Now, what I have seen is a history in the Democrat Party of having a control factor under the guise of compassion for Black people. It was Lyndon Johnson that said, and it holds true to this day, and these are his words, during his Great Society push... "I'll have those niggers voting Democrat for the next few hundred years". And, that is the stronghold that they have had; that guise of compassion; let us take care of you... TH: I have no knowledge of Lyndon Johnson ever saying that. JB: Anybody that tries to get them [the Democrats] to see beyond skin color and to see beyond a certain circumstance; that government does not have to be the answer. And, if you ask me, Democrats constantly pushing big government as the answer to everybody's problems ... "generational welfare" is racist... TH: Well, it's not always productive, I'll grant you that. Lyndon Johnson did cut poverty in half in the United States, both in the poor Black and the poor White communities, and set the stage for an emerging Black middle class in the 70s, 80s and 90s. JB: And how are Blacks faring under Obama now? Black employment is... [Thom agrees with Jennifer Burke's statement about Black unemployment, but he correctly blames Reaganomics. Then, as the music indicating that the segment is nearly over has started to play, Thom says goodbye to Jennifer, plugs her writings on Teaparty.net, and thanks her for being on the program... but she has already hung up. The segment ends at 9 minutes & 45 seconds into hour 1 of the program].

That Jennifer Burke is African American does not make the suggestion that Black people vote Democratic because they've been tricked by racist White Democratic politicians not itself racist. Escaping poverty can be extremely difficult, and although welfare can sometimes be "problematic" as Thom points out, the solution isn't to get rid of it. That suggestion, that welfare actually "subsidizes" poverty is self-serving nonsense (this is an actual argument that Mr. LB has made previously).

And that Democrats do not have genuine compassion (and belief that we are our brother's keeper), but that it is only a "guise" maintained for political benefit - is also self-serving claptrap. That government has a RESPONSIBILITY to all the people (including the poor ones) is one Democrats take seriously. "Buying votes" is how Conservatives and Libertarians characterize it because they see their responsibility as being only to the class that funds their campaigns; the wealthy.

The poor, in the minds of the "fiscally Conservative" deserve no representation because they cannot afford it. What we need to do is help the rich and the poor should be satisfied with what is "trickled down" onto them.

Also, as pointed out by a caller to Thom's show later in the hour, the LBJ quote is suspect; the source being an author and journalist who currently writes for NewsMax, of all places! (a Conservative propaganda machine that has a history of lying about Democratic Presidents).

What follows is from hour 1 of the same Thom Hartmann broadcast quoted above, this time beginning at the 37:14 mark...

Caller: ...the woman who gave a quote from LBJ; saying that the Democratic Party was going to have, quote, the "niggers voting Democratic for the next 100 years...". ... That quote can be found all over the internet on Rightwing blogs, and it can be traced back to one book by a very Rightwing author, Ronald Kessler, and it's in a book called Inside the White House. And [the quote] has never been corroborated by anyone else. He is the only person who ever alleged that LBJ said that, that I can find. TH: To say that trying to eliminate poverty in the United States, when the vast majority of people in poverty in the United States were [and are] White, was going to, somehow win the Democratic Party the Black vote for 200 years; that doesn't make any sense that LBJ would say such a thing... it's not how he spoke; it's not how he thought; and it certainly wasn't his motivation. But it has clearly brainwashed some young Conservatives. Thanks for sharing that with us.

Those brainwashed include some older Libertarians as well (as illustrated by the excerpt from the Hartster's blog above, as well as this comment from the blog of Ayn Rand devotee rAtional nAtion). And Wikipedia notes that Mr. Kessler is also the author of a 2004 book titled "A Matter of Character" which is "an admiring look at George W. Bush's presidency". That is reason enough to strongly suspect that the LBJ quote is not accurate.

While I can not say for sure if Mr. Kessler is the only source for this quote, LBJ's prior actions while in the Senate very much contradict the idea that LBJ was a racist who signed Civil Rights legislation because it would help Democrats trick African Americans into voting Democratic. The following book quote via an article on the Media Matters website...

LBJ biographer Robert A. Caro: In the Summer of 1957... Lyndon Johnson, in an abrupt and total reversal of his twenty-year record on civil rights, would push a civil rights bill, primarily a voting rights bill, through the Senate [even though it had] no realistic chance of passage [LBJ,] in one of the most notable legislative feats in American history, would cajole and plead and threaten and lie, would use all of his power and all his guile, all the awe in which his colleagues held him, and all the fear, to ram the bill through the Senate. It was, thanks to him, a bill that the House could also pass, and that the President could sign - the first civil rights legislation to be added to the statute books of the United States since 1870. The Civil Rights Act of 1957 made only a meager advance toward social justice, and it is all but forgotten today, partly because it was dwarfed by the advances made under President Lyndon Johnson's Civil Rights Acts of 1964 and 1965. But it paved the way - its passage was necessary - for all that was to come. As its Leader, he made the Senate not only work, but work toward a noble end. (Excerpt from Caro's Pulitzer Prize-winning book, Master of the Senate).

So, given the quote at the top of my post by Bill Moyers and LBJ's past history of championing Civil Rights legislation, do I think the quote is authentic? No, I do not. LBJ's signing of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 COST the Democrats, politically. They didn't benefit from it. Yes, the signing of the legislation by Johnson does have a lot to do with why African Americans vote Democratic, but the Republicans have won a few elections since 1964 without the Black vote. Fact is, Nixon's Southern Strategy gave the Republicans a virtual lock on the South (by appealing to White racists).

I find it quite unbelievable that the LBJ who rightly and correctly worried that his actions had "just delivered the South to the Republican party for a long time to come" would also gloat (racial epithet, or no) about how his actions had ensured that African Americans would be tricked into voting Democratic for a long time to come. For this reason my verdict is that the quote is false. And my other verdict is that people who very willingly believe that African Americans are gullible in this manner might be a wee bit racist.

Update 8/9/2015: Bob Mack likes this commentary and has placed it on his Facebook page.

swtd-228. wDel-48.

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.