More Bill Clinton Impeacher Sex Hypocrisy

I think what he did in this matter was reprehensible... I feel very comfortable with my vote ~ Mark Sanford (dob 5/28/1960) current House member representing SC and former SC Governor who was facing impeachment for an extramarital affair (although he was censured and not impeached), explaining his decision to back impeachment articles against Clinton (on 12/19/1998 during his original stint in the House).

And this time it's not just more hypocrisy, in that we're not talking about one of these impeachers cheating on their wives, but illegalness, as now we're now talking about an impeacher who buggered did something inappropriate with a young boy (allegedly).

Although, in regards to what he's being charged with (withdrawing money while attempting to circumvent laws that say a bank withdraw over 10k has to be reported to the feds), I believe that it's been pretty well established that he did this (in violation of the law). Although nobody is guilty until convicted (so this crime is also "alleged" I guess).

I'm referring, if you've read this far and still don't have a clue, to the following...

Former Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert was paying a former student to keep quiet about allegations of sexual abuse from the time when Hastert was a teacher and wrestling coach in... Yorkville, Illinois between 1965 and 1981 before entering politics. Federal prosecutors indicted Hastert on Thursday for lying to the FBI about $3.5 million he agreed to pay to an undisclosed person to "cover up past misconduct". A federal law enforcement official confirmed... that the former student was a male and a minor when the alleged abuse took place. Federal law enforcement officials also said that investigators decided not to pursue a possible extortion case in the matter. (Hastert's hush money was to cover up sexual misconduct with former student, sources say by Alexandra Jaffe, Tom LoBianco and Pamela Brown. CNN 5/29/2015).

To be clear, it's the banking laws and not the (alleged) inappropriate behavior that he's in trouble for (which might be statutory rape, rape, or inappropriate touching).

Anyway, now we know that *all* those in the House leadership position (3 individuals in total) were guilty of sexual misconduct. The first hypocrite, Newt Gingrich was cheating on his wife at the same time the House was preparing to impeach Mr. Clinton for lying about cheating on his wife with WH intern Monica Lewinsky.

Because news of his cheating got out, Newt was forced to step down. The next guy the House Repubs selected as Speaker was Bob Livingston [3] who, "on the day of the impeachment vote... announced he was resigning following revelations that he had engaged in an extramarital affair". Although it was actually four women Livingston cheated with and he came clean because Larry Flynt outed him.

Then they selected Denny specifically because they thought he was scandal free. But now we know they were wrong, as the (alleged) misdeeds took place before Hastert entered politics (What We Now Know About The Men Who Led The Impeachment Of Clinton).

By the way, when I say "alleged" I mean we all know he did it, but that it just hasn't gone to court yet and the conviction is still a ways off. Which there damn well should be (a conviction), even though Hastert cries about being a "victim".

Fox Nooz pundits too have attempted to paint poor Denny as a victim of "a blackmailer, extortionist" (according to Brit Hume and Geraldo Rivera), although legal expert Lisa Bloom points out that "threatening to expose someone unless he pays you is extortion [while] threatening to sue someone unless he pays you is legal and common". (Fox News And The Victimization Of Dennis Hastert).

This represents further hypocrisy on the Right, if you ask me. Alan Dershowitz, desite being a supposed "political liberal", writes for the far Right site NewsMax where he says the case smells and that Denny "was trying to solve a rather personal problem".

Does the fact that "on 12/30/2014, a FL court filing named Alan Dershowitz as one of several prominent figures alleged to have participated in sexual activities with a minor" have anything to do with Dershowitz referring to (alleged) child molestation as "a rather personal problem"? I'm not sure. I do know that this guy is someone I used to have some respect for, but now I'm feeling a lot different about him [4].

But I digress. The purpose of this commentary was to point out the hypocrisy of the three GOP Speakers who participated in impeaching Bill Clinton over a "rather personal problem", when (in regards to Clinton) it actually was, but with Hastert it was not. Because Monica Lewinsky was above the age of consent and the affair was consensual.

Although Gingrich and Livingston's affairs were also consensual. Still they were hypocrites due to them thinking Bill Clinton lying about sexual indiscretions was an impeachable offense when they had indiscretions of their own that they did not want disclosed (for obvious reasons). No doubt both men lied numerous times before getting caught.

And they think Clinton lying about cheating on his wife was something to impeach him over? When they likely did the same so their wives would not find out? In any case, the only reason they settled on the lying about sex charge was because none of the other things they investigated the Clintons over panned out.

First Kenn Starr looked into the suicide of Vince Foster (in regards to an out-there conspiracy theory concerning Hillary Clinton murdering him)[5], then he moved on to Whitewater (but no wrongdoing by the Clinton's concerning this land deal in which they lost money could be proven) and finally he went after him for lying about an affair.

This, when it turns out the final Speaker they brought in had committed real crimes involving sex. In the end the persecution of the Clintons turned out to be nothing but a politically-motivated witch hunt by reprehensible hypocrites, lead by an individual we thought was scandal free all these years... except that he turned out to be the most hypocritical (and actual alleged law-breakiest) of all!

Remember Hastert's ignoring of the Mark Foley scandal? RawStory says "it had long been rumored that Hastert was aware of Foley's activities but had chosen to take no action".

And, in an act of even further hypocrisy, "Dennis Hastert promoted himself as a crusader against sexual abuse of children".

In July 2006, shortly before Democrats won the midterm congressional elections and ended his speakership, Hastert spearheaded a bill to toughen punishments for sex crimes against children. The legislation, named after the abducted and murdered Florida boy Adam Walsh, passed the Republican-controlled House unanimously. In a statement at the time, Hastert said protecting children from predators was as high a priority for him as national security - this, post-9/11 and during two wars. (Article by David Sirota, International Business Times 5/29/2015).

Despite all this the offended Alan Dershowitz says "I suspect they're going to lose this one" in regards to the case against Hastert. But if there is any karmic justice at all I really think that should not be what happens.

Somebody really should have squealed on Hastert back in 1998 when Hustler Magazine publisher Larry Flynt offered one million dollars for each unflattering sexual story about Republican members of Congress. Seriously, it's a crying shame he paid out in regards to Livingston but not Hastert.

Notes #1-2 and Footnotes #3-5
[1] Mark Sanford (quoted at the top of this commentary) represented SC's 1st district for 3 2-year terms from 1995-2000 (and it was during this House tenure that he voted to impeach Clinton). Next he served as SC governor for 2 4-year terms from 2003-2011. During his 2nd term he faced impeachment due to his own extramarital affair, although the state legislature voted 6–1 against impeachment, stating that they had better things to do... although they did censure him and due to the scandal Sanford abandoned a possible 2012 bid for the WH. Sanford did not resign and finished out his term. He returned to the House in 2013 (representing the same SC Congressional district).
[2] In regards to the word "buggered" which I strike out above (because the allegations involve touching, I believe, and not "buggery", which involves penetration. Although we do not really know exactly what happened), I am unsure if this word is considered offensive by gay people. Although pedophiles (if Hastert is one, and the evidence says he likely is) are usually straight, not homosexual, men.
[3] Further irony regarding Louisiana rep. Livingston... after he left Congress in disgrace due to his being outed as a cheater by Flynt, he was succeeded by the philandering David Vitter — who later admitted to having been involved in a prostitution ring run by Deborah Jeane Palfrey!
[4] Dershowitz Denies Rape Allegations as New Court Documents are Filed, Ring of Fire 1/22/2015.
[5] Vince Foster was just one of several dozen people the Clintons are alleged to have offed. Debunking this FALSE conspiracy theory Snopes says "in a frenzied media climate where the Chief Executive couldn't boff a White House intern without the whole world finding out every niggling detail of each encounter and demanding his removal from office, are we seriously to believe the same man had been having double handfuls of detractors and former friends murdered with impunity?"

SWTD #285

George Pataki's Bizarre Reference to TR & St. Ronnie In His "I Wanna B POTUS" Announcement

It's all part of a determined rewriting of history that casts any Republican president not named Coolidge or Reagan as a progressive and therefore a socialist determined to undermine the Constitution ~ Edmund Morris, author of the book The Rise of Theodore Roosevelt, the first volume of what would eventually become a trilogy on the life of the 26th president. It won the 1980 Pulitzer Prize and National Book Award for biography.

George Pataki, the 53rd Republican Governor of New York (from 1995 to 2006) who is fiscally conservative and socially liberal, recently announced he's launching a futile bid for the presidency.

The following is from his announcement speech.

George Pataki: We are here in Exeter, NH, birthplace of the Republican Party. Abraham Lincoln's party, who saved the Union and brought the promise of freedom to all Americans. Teddy Roosevelt's party, who fought for the Square Deal, to make sure the rich and powerful couldn't limit the freedom of working Americans. And Ronald Reagan's party, who restored Americans' belief in ourselves and in the transcendent value of freedom; the freedom that has given us the greatest country the world has ever known; the freedom a man named Amos Tuck, declared as the foundation of that party right here in Exeter, NH. The same freedom that I fear is at risk today from an ever more powerful, ever more intrusive government in Washington. It is to preserve and protect that freedom for us that I stand here today. It is to preserve and protect that freedom for future generations that I rise. It is to preserve and protect that freedom that I am announcing I am a candidate for the Republican nomination for President of the United States. (Read the speech George Pataki gave in Exeter, N.H., the Buffalo News 5/28/2015).

Pataki's bid for the presidency is futile because it's mostly the Base that turns out to vote in primary elections, and the Republican Base is socially conservative. But that isn't what is most bizarre. What is even more bizarre is that Pataki mentions two past presidents who could not be farther apart ideologically in his announcement that he's going to run for prez.

Teddy Roosevelt (president from 1901 to 1909) fought for the Square Deal to make sure the rich and powerful couldn't limit the freedom of working Americans... because he was a Progressive Republican. Wikipedia notes that "by 1907, his agenda had worn thin his mandate with Congressional Republicans". Because the GOP had become more Conservative (moving away from it's Progressive roots) TR split with the Republicans to form his own party, the Progressive or "Bull Moose" party in 1912.

Teddy ran for POTUS again that same year but was defeated by the Progressive Democrat Woodrow Wilson. After this election TR's Progressive Party faded and died, and the Progressive banner thereafter has been largely born by Democrats.

Failing to make itself a believable third party, the Bull Moose Party ended up losing strength. Its candidates did poorly in 1914. It vanished in 1916 with most members following Roosevelt back into the Republican party. However, the Taft conservatives controlled the party and its platform from 1912 to 1928, and thus some Progressives like Harold L. Ickes joined the steadily more liberal Democratic party. (Wikipedia/United States presidential election, 1912/Consequences).

(Note: Harold L. Ickes was responsible for implementing much of President FDR's New Deal (as Secretary of the Interior) along with Labor Secretary Frances Perkins).

The Republican Party of today is the party of Reagan, a Conservative Republican - both fiscally and Socially [1+2] - which is why George Pataki mentioning two Progressive Republicans (Lincoln then TR) and thirdly Reagan is bizarre.

He of course mentions Lincoln because he freed the slaves, and Republicans like to bring that up to "refute" the fact that LBJ signed Civil Rights Legislation and the vast majority of African Americans vote Democratic. What they're saying is "hey, it was our guy who freed the slaves, Blacks, so why aren't you voting Republican?". Except that Lincoln was a Progressive Republican and Republicans aren't progressive anymore. But a lot of White voters are ignorant of history and do not know this (although African American voters obviously do).

By mentioning TR and his Square Deal, I'm guessing Pataki is attempting a run as a populist Republican, but it won't work. Not for him, anyway [3]. I mean, he knows the current Republican Party worships Reagan, which is why he mentions him, but Reagan stood in opposition to the Progressivism of TR.

Prior to the Reagan presidency, the concept of supply side economics—with its lower personal income tax rates for the wealthy, reduction in the capital gains rates and increased tax responsibilities for the middle and lower classes—was viewed with considerable suspicion by mainstream Republicans. For many, it was, as defined by the first President Bush, "voodoo economics". (The Numbers Don't Lie-Why Lowering Taxes For The Rich No Longer Works To Grow The Economy by Rick Ungar. Forbes, 9/16/2012).

And the modern Republican Party stand opposes the Progressivism of TR to an even greater degree than Reagan.

The GOP's War on Teddy Roosevelt: Here's how crazy our politics have become... Legendary Republican President Theodore Roosevelt is being called a socialist by conservatives like Glenn Beck. The man on Mount Rushmore, the Rough Rider president, is getting caught up in a party-purity dragnet 91 years after his death, an exaggerated symptom of the rabid hunting of RINOs... If conservatives want to kick TR out, Obama seems ready to welcome him in. As if on cue, the president's press secretary, Robert Gibbs, announced yesterday that the president is now reading the classic The Rise of Theodore Roosevelt by Edmund Morris... In [the] book, Glenn Beck's Common Sense, the author devoted a chapter to "the cancer of Progressivism" and lays the blame at TR's feet, in addition to Roosevelt's rival Woodrow Wilson. (Article from The Daily Beast by John Avlon, 3/8/2010).

So TR has been kicked out of the Party for his Socialist leanings and for being opposed to everything the modern Republican Party stands for.

...TR was an early apostle of health care reform - not to mention draconian regulation of banks and interstate corporations, inheritance taxes, and protection of the environment by executive order. These things are a matter of record, although TR's progressivism was actually much more radical after he left the presidency in 1909. He didn't call for national health insurance until he ran for a third White House term in the famous Bull Moose campaign of 1912. His platform was so radical that many of its proposals were not enacted until the New Deal administration of his fifth cousin, Franklin Delano Roosevelt. (Article from The Daily Beast by Edmund Morris, 3/9/2010).

Today's GOP loathes FDR and the New Deal because it "succeeded in doing something that Republicans detest from the bottom of their hearts, which is using government as a tool to better the lives of middle-class and poor Americans". With his Square Deal, TR called out the "the representatives of predatory wealth" as guilty of "all forms of iniquity from the oppression of wage workers to defrauding the public".

Huh. Sounds like TR's Square Deal bashed the "job creators". But the only deal Republicans are interested in extending to wage workers is a raw one [4], given their favoring of things like eliminating the minimum wage and union busting via Right-to-Work-for-less laws [5].

And Pataki, while he may be socially liberal, is not Progressive, but a believer in Reagan's Supply side Voodoo Economics.

Pataki has been a long-time advocate of tax cuts during his administration and his time in the state legislature. He signed and sponsored several tax cuts during his first term in office and in addition made spending cuts to the budgets he proposed. (Wikipedia/George Pataki/Fiscal Policy).

In regards to the ACA, Pataki said "ObamaCare is worst law of my lifetime" and that "he would repeal and then replace ObamaCare with a more market-based alternative". WTF? ObamaCare *is* market-based, in that it relies on for-profit insurers [6]. This is the ACA's huge flaw, BTW. We should have gone the TR route of national health insurance provided by the government on a not-for-profit basis [7].

Additionally, Pataki, as governor, strongly opposed spending the necessary monies to ensure the students of his state received a first rate education. According to Pataki "the state constitution only guaranteed a sound education until 8th grade". This despite the fact that High school encompases grades 9-12 [8].

This does not sound Progressive to me. So, was his mention of the Progressive TR is his "I'm running" announcement, suggesting he is a populist Republican, total BS? Was his mention of Reagan, given the fact that Reagan was a Social Conservative (and Pataki is not) transparent pandering? Yes and yes, I say [9].

Also bizarre, given the current GOP's rejection of TR and Progressivism and worship of St. Ronnie for his Voodoo Economic theories involving cutting taxes on the wealthy (the antithesis of Democratic Progressivism)...

Footnotes
[1] Real Clear Politics: Ronald Reagan... Social Conservative? (article excerpt) Abortion was not then an issue, but Ronald Reagan's strong stand for life came from this coherent core to his thought. Almost 25 years ago, a mother named Ruth Smith wrote to Reagan to thank him for standing strong for life and family... The fact that abortion was illegal saved her daughter's life, she said... "I just liked Ronald really well. He was put down for his stance for life, and since I had that experience - I had gotten pregnant and had the child and she such a blessing! ...life and marriage... are core conservative issues... (by Maggie Gallagher, 2/9/2011).
[2] Wikipedia/Conservatism in the United States: President Ronald Reagan set the conservative standard in the 1980s; in the 2010s the Republican leaders typically claim fealty to it. For example most of the Republican candidates in 2012, "claimed to be standardbearers of Reagan's ideological legacy". Reagan solidified conservative Republican strength with tax cuts, a greatly increased military budget, continued deregulation, a policy of rollback of Communism... and appeals to family values and conservative morality.
[3] Even more bizarre than Pataki thinking he can appeal to both populist Republicans AND socially conservative ones, it appears that Rick Santorum - he whose prior campaign was financed by the billionaire Foster Friess - is running as a Republican populist. He'll
have better luck with this deception than Pataki, IMO.
[4] In the book by Joe Conason "The Raw Deal: How the Bush Republicans Plan to Destroy Social Security and the Legacy of the New Deal", the author examines how the New Deal is under attack by Republicans.
[5] Right-to-Work Laws, Explained (Mother Jones article excerpt): Jimmy Hoffa, the president of the Teamsters, has said that right-to-work proponents are waging a "war on workers," and Martin Luther King Jr. called right-to-work a "false slogan" and said the laws "rob us of our civil rights and job rights". Where does Pataki stand on busting public sector unions or on unionization in general? I admit I am not sure. I Googled for awhile but could not find any definitive answers. Although the NY Firefighters union apparently likes him, but then so do the unions that Scott Walker exempted from his changes in collective bargaining rights (police, firefighters and state troopers but not educators).
[6] A number of RW sites also advocate for "market-based" reforms. Heritages says "[The ACA] moves health care in the wrong direction. It puts government, not patients, in charge of individual health care decisions"... To which I say (again) WTF? How are people NOT in charge of their individual HC decisions under the ACA? Heritage also claims that people are "forced" "into government-run health insurance exchanges" but this is a LIE, as people are only required to purchase HC insurance. Buying from the exchange is an OPTION. HC insurance can be purchased outside the exchange if a person so desires. In any case, most Americans get HC insurance through their employers. So, most people aren't using the exchanges (or being "forced" into them, as Heritage claims).
[7] Wikipedia notes that "Under the Pataki Administration a number of new health care programs were created focusing on expanding care to the state's poorest citizens. ...Governor Pataki... provided health insurance coverage, under Family Health Plus, to lower income adults [and] children [and later offered] free insurance to families and single adults who had too much income to be covered by Medicaid but could not afford insurance... NY's EPIC program lowers fees and expands eligibility [in regards to medications for seniors]. [There is also] ban on smoking in public places... The NY Times ran an editorial praising his work on health care". So... in regards to HC it appears Pataki is a lot more progressive than your average GOPer. So why not do the same (be more progressive) in regards to education (see below)?
[8] From Wikipedia/George Pataki/Fiscal Policy: Pataki's tenure had been marked with the long-standing Campaign for Fiscal Equity suit regarding the state's funding of public education. The CFE sued in order to get more state money for the New York City public schools and to guarantee a sound education for all students. Pataki fought the lawsuit, saying that the state should not pay for the increased funding and that the state constitution only guaranteed a sound education until 8th grade.
[9] Pataki may not be a Progressive, but he (Wikipedia excerpt) "has long been regarded as an environmentalist and he has made the environment and open space preservation a top priority of his administration. He has long cited that Theodore Roosevelt is his political hero for his work as a conservationist". So his mention of TR may not have been as BS as I originally thought... although Pataki did specifically mention TR's Square Deal, and not his environmental work. Is there any evidence that Pataki is a Square Deal guy? My opinion is NO, and I stand by my conclusion. It seems a lot of presidents admired TR, including Reagan... and Edmund Morris (whom I quote at the top of this commentary) was commissioned by Reagan to write the Reagan bio "Dutch: A Memoir of Ronald Reagan". Does this mean Reagan was a Progressive? The evidence decisively says NO.

SWTD #284

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

SWTD #283

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

SWTD #282, lDel #21.

Race-baiting Libertarian Blogger Joins The Filthy Scum Of White Society

Thus we've reached the inevitable conservative endpoint of any race conversation in the United States. Racism, violence, the horror of an entire community - these are mere emotional reactions cynically drummed up by "race hustlers", marshaled against a demonized white society ~ Mobutu Sese Seko as quoted in his 4/5/2012 Gawker article The Dog Whistle Has Sounded: How the Right Talks About 'Thugs' Like Trayvon Martin.

Libertarian blogger Willis Hart (AKA "Will Take No Prisoners Hart" or WTNPH) jumps the shark with his latest race-baiting commentary. Not very long ago, if you had asked me if Willis was a racist, I'd have said no. Although I'd have added that his racial biases were clearly stronger than most. On a scale of 0 to 10; with 1-3 being where most people would register (given that ALL of us hold some racial biases) I'd have said Willis was in the 4-6 range.

But lately virtually all of Mr. Hart's commentaries have contained tinges of racial bias. Mostly these race-baiting commentaries deal with excusing police officers who murder African American men, or condemning BLACK rioters for their criminal destruction of property (which is understandable, given the Libertarian belief that property rights are far more important than the rights of people to to LIVE. Although where he crosses the line is when he makes a POINT of the criminal rioters being African American).

Willis is clearly suffering some cognitive dissonance in regards to all this racist crap he is has been posting, however. I say this is the case due to his mixing in of commentaries in which he attempts to blame Progressives and members of the Labor movement as "racist". Commentaries like "Waging Wages"... in which the dumbass claims that the minimum wage is racist.

Why? Because, and I shit you not, Black labor is worth less than White labor and not allowing business to pay lower wages to Blacks will result in higher Black unemployment. Because White business owners will (when there is a minimum wage) favor the hiring of Whites. Obviously, if they're forced to pay more, they'll go with the workers who are worth the higher wage (White workers).

Yes, this is how the racist Hartster's mind really works! Anyway, as I already said, his trajectory away from the normal amount of biases into more racist territory has been on a radical upswing as of late. Now I'd say he has moved up a few notches from the prior 4-6 range, into a range of 6 or 7. Perhaps even an 8 (9 being a confirmed racist and 10 being a KKK member).

But back to Willis' jumping of the shark, which I believe he assuredly does with this commentary.

Willis Hart: On MSNBC's Pathetic Nightly Minstrel Show... If a white person in black face went on TV and acted like this horse's ass, the outrage would be harsh, unrelenting, and deservedly so. But because this fellow is black there is almost total silence from the left. I mean, I know that the white liberals won't touch it out of political correctness and the black community is no doubt hesitant to throw him under the bus (out of solidarity perhaps) but this guy is such an embarrassment (the fact that he's stupid, a rank opportunist, a hypocrite, etc.) that something really needs to happen here. (5/15/2015 AT 7:32pm).

Clearly Willis knows what a minstrel show is, as he writes "if a white person in black face went on TV". But the Reverend Al Sharpton is NOT a White guy donning blackface, nor is the Reverend any kind of stereotype, so his program can't be called a minstrel show!! Now, I won't deny that the Reverend has some eccentricities (which SNL exaggerates when parodying him on their program), but that hardly makes him stupid or an embarrassment (I've read some speculation that he may be dyslexic, but could find no confirmation of this).

Not that (if it were true that Sharpton conforms to the minstrel stereotype) it would excuse the use of this racist term when referring to his program. It absolutely would not.

In any case, notice that this absurd commentary also carries with it an accusation against MSNBC - that their goal in airing a show starring Sharpton is to "lampoon black people as dim-witted, lazy, buffoonish, superstitious, happy-go-lucky, and musical". Well, not "musical" and perhaps not "lazy", but the other adjectives do describe how the bigoted Willis views Sharpton. And, IMO, Willis is projecting his racism onto MSNBC.

Because WTNPH isn't a racist! He's absolutely correct to note that Sharpton is all the bad adjectives to describe Black people as per the definition of minstrel show. MSNBC has GOT to know this (the Hartster is convinced)! But the truth is MSNBC does NOT know Sharpton is dim-witted, buffoonish or an embarrassment. Because HE IS NOT!

...Sharpton [is] the "go-to" guy for many blacks for reasons that say as much about him as about the ongoing struggle for equity and justice in America. The long parade of Sharpton bashers still delight in ridiculing and pounding him as an ego-driven, media hogging, race baiting agitator and opportunist who will jump on any cause to get some TV time. But the personal hits on him are nothing more than the ritual anti-Sharpton name calling. Turn the attacks on their head, and it becomes apparent why he's popular. He's the subject of the relentless attacks in part because of who many perceive him to be and the influence he has with many blacks, Latinos, the poor and community activists. This is a constituency that no liberal or moderate Democrat, and that certainly includes Obama, can afford to ignore or alienate (Black America doesn’t lack leaders: Poll shows 24 percent say Sharpton speaks for them by Earl Ofari Hutchinson. The Grio, 3/28/2013).

This is why the Left is NOT "silent". No, the Left calls out those on the Right who traffic in the blatant racist slandering of a respected Black leader. Neither "political correctness" nor the "black community being hesitant to throw him under the bus out of solidarity" has anything to do with either of these groups not sharing Willis' racist take on Mr. Sharpton.

Those of us on the Left "[praise] his ability and willingness to defy the power structure that is seen as the cause of their suffering [and consider him] a man who is willing to tell it like it is". And we know that is why the Conservative and Libertarian Right slanders him with racist accusations. "Race hustler" being the primary pejorative WTNPH has utilized in the past.

Referring to a program hosted by an African American using the pejorative minstrel show is a new one. And particularly nasty and racist, given the fact that minstrel shows depicted African American stereotypes. And given how the Left and the many in the Black community REALLY view Mr. Sharpton (as a respected leader). For this reason I say Frederick Douglass' description of blackface performers as "...the filthy scum of white society" absolutely applies to Mr. Hart.

I mean, if he wanted to criticize Mr. Sharpton for his political views that would be one thing, but to call the television program of a Black man a minstrel show is beyond the pale. The racist buffoon Willis Hart should be embarrassed. But as with most stupid racists, he views himself as not being racist. He's just telling it like it is (in his mind).

I'd say that something really needs to happen here, but it won't. The racism on the WTNPH blog will continue, and (if this trend continues) likely get even worse.

See Also: On The Racist Idea That Black Leaders Are "Race Hustlers" (OST #44) 5/18/2015.

SWTD #281, wDel #74.

The Liberty To Wage Slavery & Slavery's Free Trade Connection

Spanish-American merchants wanted "more liberty", and they defined liberty as their right to buy and sell humans as they would. In the United States, Kentucky's 1850 "bill of rights" stated that the "right of an owner of a slave to such a slave, and its increase, is the same, and as inviolable as the right of the owner of any property whatever" ~ Greg Grandin (dob 1962) an American historian, and professor of history at New York University.

The roots of "free trade" can be traced back to slavery. One of its first applications being the worldwide slave trade, which kicked off the Atlantic world's capitalist market revolution. Yeah, that's right, folks. One of the main reasons that the slave trade flourished was racist Libertarian schmucks and their desire for a "free trade in Blacks".

Critiques Of Libertarianism/Slavery: Slavery is a free-market, capitalist phenomenon. Slavery has almost always been abolished by acts of government that regulate the market, making it illegal. 19th century slave owners defended their property rights in slaves in "economic freedom"-like terms that are unmistakably libertarian... The only way to eliminate... slavery is for government to regulate against it. (Critiques Of Libertarianism by Mike Huben).

Then, as today, the rich don't get their wealth from hard work - they get it from the exploitation of workers (stealing their labor and property). Heck, if you happen not to believe me, get a load of this little gem from the mother of Libertarianism, Ayn Rand, who said "any white person who brought the element of civilization had the right to take over this continent".

Rand was speaking of the White European's "right" to steal the property of the Native Americans who already resided here. Because they were primitive savages who did not believe in the concept of owning the earth. Nice. Surely it is no leap to go from justifying the theft of Native American land to justifying the theft of the labor of Black Africans. Both groups consisted of "primitives" and both groups had their rights usurped by "civilized" Whites.

Rand exhibited a racist attitude in regards to the Native American way of life. Today Libertarians argue that the labor of African Americans (specifically Black teens) is not worth as much as the labor of Whites. The only way they can compete is to to work for less. If you force employers to pay a "white man's wage", they'll only hire white men (The minimum wage's less-than-racist origins).

Sure, Libertarians will SAY that they oppose slavery, as every individual has the right to his or her own labor, but the fact remains that Libertarianism creates slavery. Although today owning another human is mostly illegal, there is a way around this. And it is actually much cheaper. If your wage slave dies from malnutrition or disease you aren't out what you originally paid for the slave. All you need to do is hire another! They are actually quite cheap.

Neoliberal policies such as free trade result in the offshoring of good paying jobs to third world countries were wage slaves toil for low pay in unsafe conditions. Back here in the US, Libertarians argue against a minimum wage so they might be able to force down wages to the minimum to sustain life.

With only so much wealth to go around and with rich people wanting it all; well, slavery is an absolute necessity. BTW, this kind of ties in neatly with that other big Libertarian idea of the early 20th Century known as Social Darwinism. I mean, think about it. If a poor can't get a job, they cannot eat, and if they cannot eat, they die. This type of coercion is a win for the wealthy Libertarian, in that it will allow them to force down the wages of their workers to as low an amount as possible. And also a win in that it will eliminate the inferior low skilled worker.

Herbert Spencer was a popular author during the nineteenth century who supported strict limits on the government and even opposed many forms of charity towards the poor. ...he also believed that neither government nor private charity should interfere with this process of natural selection. Though Spencer was not a eugenicist — he actually argued that the poor should be treated much more harshly than nineteenth and twentieth century eugenicists did — he was both a social acquaintance of Sir Francis Galton, the father of the eugenics movement, and a significant influence on Galton's thinking. Reading Spencer's many works today is an uncomfortable experience - the man devotes hundreds of pages to establishing a philosophical justification for a kind of neglect that most Americans would now view as a moral atrocity. Yet Spencer is also one of the foundational thinkers in the development of the economically libertarian philosophy that drives politicians such as Senator Randal Paul... (Major Libertarian Thinker On Human "Failures": "It Is Best They Should Die" by Ian Millhiser. Think Progress, 4/15/2015).

Libertarianism is naught but an excuse for the wealthy to enslave the workers of the world to further enrich themselves. The quote from Rand as well as the Social Darwinism of Spencer aught to convince you of that. We must not kid ourselves when it comes to this despicable and morally reprehensible ideology. Libertarians are are only concerned about their OWN liberty. Which would be the liberty to coerce others into neo feudal wage slavery.

SWTD #280

Libertarian Gun Nut Hazardous Advice Re Home Invasion Shootout & Dishonesty Re Gun Show Loophole

People who keep guns in the home are more likely to be victims of homicide than those who don't ~ Arthur Kellerman, founder of Emory University's Department of Emergency Medicine.

The gun nuttery of the Libertarian Right can be quite alarming. Take, for instance, the following examples of extreme gun nuttery from Libertarian blogger Willis Hart. The first having to do with a homeowner engaging an intruder in a gunfight, the second having to do with perfidy in regards to the gun show background check loophole.

Home Invasion Shootout

Willis Hart: On the Idea Proposed by Some Leftist Morons that the Best Solution to a Home-Invasion is Running or Hiding from the Perpetrator... Probably stems from the fact that a) they see the criminals as victims, too, and feel that we should take a much more compassionate approach with them, b) they don't respect private property and so why in the hell should anybody be shot over it, and c) they viscerally despise guns and gun owners... If I were to hazard a guess. (4/25/2015 AT 1:34pm).

The "Leftist moron" Willis refers to is me. What he's talking about is advice I gave in response to a question from a gun nut who calls himself the Constitutional Insurgent. The Insurgent spoke of the standard gun nut wet dream, which is that the intruder gets blow away during a home invasion.

In response I suggested that, instead of confronting an armed intruder and possibly getting yourself killed, it might be prudent to hide or run away. Just because you have a gun doesn't mean you're going to be the one who shoots first and kills the intruder. Or intruders.

You might just get yourself and your family murdered. Which is why I would advise someone in this situation to hide and/or run away. And then call the police. Because the chance of getting yourself killed would be much less than confronting the intruders and getting involved in a shootout.

Shooting an intruder (or "oxygen thief", as the The Insurgent referred to the intruder in his fantasy) should be a LAST resort. Not that I believe people should own guns for self defense, which I do not. Because statistics show that a gun owner (or family member) is much more likely to be injured or killed than the gun owner is to defend himself against an intruder.

But, if someone does chose to buy a gun to protect against a home invasion, I still think it should be used only as a last resort. Because you could get yourself or a family member killed. And yes, the intruder could also be killed, which would be something the gun owner would have to live with the rest of his or her life. Yeah, that might cause the gun nut to feel pride, but what if the killing took place in right in front of one of their family members? Such a thing could really mess a person up. Especially a small child.

But, yes, I'm also opposed to any loss of life that is avoidable. Even the life of the criminal. Yeah, I know that the gun nuts fantasize about blowing away an intruder in a home invasion, but most of us would prefer nobody get killed in such a situation. Instead he offers REALLY bad guesses and REALLY bad advice that has a victim of a home invasion risking their life by getting involved in a shootout. Because he's so caught up in a fantasy that it never occurs to him how dangerous such a course of action might be.

For the record I do respect property rights and do not "viscerally despise guns and gun owners". These Willis guesses are pure idiocy and are based on his hatred for "Leftist morons". I do believe, however, that often perpetrators of crime are victims of poverty who've made bad decisions. Laws do need to be enforced and criminals punished, but (theoretically) our criminal justice system is supposed to exist to rehabilitate offenders. As opposed to existing for purposes of being purely vindictive.

I am aware that most Conservatives and Libertarians do not share this view, but given the fact that most people who serve time in prison are eventually released, surely rehabilitation is the wiser course of action. As opposed to the system we currently have, which takes first time offenders and turns them into hardened criminals more likely to re-offend.

Gun Show Loophole Dishonesty

This relates to a comment made by the Hartster in which he presents "evidence" that he THINKS supports the ridiculous assertion that the gun show loophole doesn't exist. Willis posts a link and writes "yet one more leftist anti-gun talking-point bites the dust".

Problem is, the "fact sheet" that Willis links to is pure propaganda from the National Shooting Sports Foundation (a national trade association for the firearms industry) that attempts to deceive gullible people like Willis with a mixture of facts, half truths and outright lies.

Claim: The law allows unlicensed dealers to sell guns at gun shows. Fact: Unlicensed dealers are criminals. It is true that a background check and other regulations do not apply if you are an individual that wishes to occasionally sell a firearm from your personal collection in a private transaction. ...all vendors leasing space at a show, including private parties, must agree to run background checks, regardless of whether they hold federal licenses or not. The vast majority of guns sold at gun shows go through federal background checks. (The Myth of the "Gun Show Loophole" by the National Shooting Sports Foundation).

Yes, licensed gun dealers who possess a Federal Firearms License (FFL) must perform background checks when selling a weapon. The gun show loophole isn't a reference to these sales (as the propaganda from the NSSF tries to make readers think). The gun show loophole refers to private sales. The section highlighted in red (above) is false. This is the loophole: the "individual that wishes to occasionally sell a firearm from your personal collection in a private transaction".

Private sellers are not required to run a background check, record the sale, or even ask for ID. And these legal sales do contribute to gun crime.

According to a 1999 report by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) commissioned by President Bill Clinton, these legal transactions contribute to illegal activities, such as arms trafficking, purchases of firearms by prohibited buyers, and straw purchases. (Wikipedia/Gun Show Loophole).

It is also important to note that licensed dealers may sell firearms without doing a background check under the following condition.

...it [is] legal for FFL holders to make private sales, provided the firearm was transferred to the licensee's personal collection at least one year prior to the sale. Hence, when a personal firearm is sold by an FFL holder, no background check or Form 4473 is required by federal law. (Wikipedia/Gun Show Loophole).

Obviously the loophole isn't a "myth", nor did Willis' linking to this NSSF "fact sheet" cause any "leftist anti-gun talking-point" to "bite the dust". According to the first video below, 1/4 to 1/2 of all gun show sellers are private sellers who do not have to conduct a background check. So we're talking about a lot of guns here. Many of which *do* end up in the hands of criminals according to the ATF.

Shame on Willis for not (1) not advising caution when confronting an armed intruder. As well as lying about why someone would say people in such situations should run/hide if they are able, and (2) propagating gun manufacturer propaganda in regards to the very REAL gun show loophole.

Yeah, he says he's "guessing" with his hazardous conjecture concerning WHY someone might advise running or hiding during a home invasion, but I don't buy it. Not unless he's a total moron. Because saving lives (anyone could get killed in a confrontation involving guns) is the MOST OBVIOUS reason, and he overlooks it completely. Just as he overlooks the very real gun show loophole.

But this kind of misinformation being touted as fact by a non-gun-owning-gun-nut when said nut "arms" himself with "facts" by the likes of John Lott (SWTD #258) is really not at all surprising.

Video1: Hidden camera video from gun show. Making it easy for criminals to buy guns (3:30).

Video2: Undercover sting shows 19 out of 30 sellers broke the law. Under the law private sellers can sell firearms without a background check, but only if they have no reason to believe the buyer would not pass a background check. In this video the buyers specifically say they "probably couldn't pass a background check" (1:59).

SWTD #279, wDel #73. See also OST #169.

Kicked Off Blog Of Mentally Ill Gun Nut (Re Assault Weapon "Intellectual Dishonesty")

The first thing to remember about the Gun Nuts'/Ammosexuals' intellectual dishonesty is a logical fallacy known as "special pleading", which can also be called "stacking the deck" or "ignoring the counterevidence". The GNs/Ammosexuals do this by completely ignoring or editing out the first 13 words. Those first 13 words, in law and grammar, are known as a "qualifier": "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state..."

Then, the GNs strictly interpret the rest of it, "...the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". This allows the GNs to use the "all or nothing" logical fallacy, whereby there are only two choices... a total gun ban or nothing, leave no third option or any middle ground ~ Andrew Rei Facebook posting excerpt.

This commentary has to do with me getting the boot on another blog. This time I expected from the beginning that I *might* end up being asked to leave, but when it actually happened it was rather abrupt and arbitrary. The blog proprietor, an obviously mentally ill gun nut who calls himself Constitutional Insurgent, decided he had had enough when he asked me a question and I politely answered it.

According to The Insurgent, the term "assault weapon" has been expanded by the "anti gun lobby" to include features that are purely "cosmetic" or "ergonomic". I disagreed, based on the fact that assault weapons have been previously banned. The Federal Assault Weapons Ban was signed into law by President Bill Clinton on 9/13/1994 and expired on 9/13/2004 (due to a sunset provision). The law was upheld in spite of numerous court challenges.

The important point is that the legislation banned certain "assault weapons" as well as "large capacity" magazines. So what is an "assault weapon" and what is "large capacity"? Obviously the word "large" does not refer to a SPECIFIC number. The legislation defined what "large capacity" meant, same as it defined what it was talking about with the term "assault weapon".

So, there you have it. "Assault weapon" has already been defined in legislation that was in place for 10 years. Legislation that was challenged in court and found to be Constitutional. I did not feel that I needed to say any more on the subject than that.

The Insurgent, however, pressed me for an answer. So I did some Googling and found a response to the "cosmetic" question that sounded reasonable (Note that I needed to search for this answer because I am not an expert when it comes to the "assault weapon" debate).

Nothing on a gun is cosmetic except the color. Every part has a purpose. The features of an assault weapon that look different from a sporting gun were carefully designed to maximize lethality on the battlefield. Assault weapons look different because they are different. (About Military-Style Assault Weapons: Gun Messaging. Excerpted from the Progressive Majority website).

The Insurgent used the terms "cosmetic" as well as "ergonomic"; words that have different definitions. The pro-gun lobby uses the term "cosmetic" because they're implying that the feature only affects the way the weapon LOOKS. An ergonomic feature, on the other hand, is a feature designed to enable easier use of the weapon by the user.

A weapon that is easier to use can be fired more rapidly. This is the reason weapons that borrow features from fully automatic military weapons were added to the 1994 assault weapons ban. They enabled the user to fire the weapon more rapidly. However, when discussing how rapidly a weapon can be fired, the gun nuts focus exclusively on the firing mechanism of the gun (is it semi-automatic or fully automatic) and ignore features that allow the user to fire more rapidly.

"Is the weapon fully automatic?" the gun nut will ask. "No? Then it isn't an assault weapon". End of discussion. This is why the Insurgent declared I was "done" on his blog. Because I "read from the script" with my definition (a definition previously codified in US law) that included weapons with ergonomic features which allow the user to fire more rapidly. For this transgression the Insurgent labeled me "intellectually dishonest".

We should also keep in mind here that the firearms with features borrowed from military weapons that The Insurgent believes are not "assault weapons" - were originally labeled by the gun industry itself as "assault weapons".

...before the gun industry trade association attempted to rebrand assault weapons as "modern sporting rifles" in 2009 - a change in terminology also adopted by the NRA - the gun industry and firearm publications routinely used the term assault weapon to describe the very military-style semi-automatic rifles that would be covered by Sen. Dianne Feinstein's assault weapons ban. (What Right-Wing Media Won't Tell You About Assault Weapons by Timothy Johnson. Media Matters, 2/6/2013).

So it was the gun industry, the NRA and firearm publications that adopted the term "assault weapon" in reference to military-style semi-automatic rifles. They used this word to refer to weapons that incorporated ergonomic features from military weapons into a weapon manufactured for civilian use. Now that the term they used to sell the weapon is being used in a manner they don't like? They're attempting a rebrand. And pretending someone else originated the term (or "fabricated" it).

Who might that someone else be? Why, it was "anti-gun" Democrats, of course! As well as clueless and "intellectually dishonest" Leftists. Right. Now that the term went from being a marketing ploy used to entice gun nuts to buy their product - to one that those who might want to ban them are using? Now the term is a "myth".

The Insurgent is one of the gun nuts who uses the gun industry/NRA script that attributes the origination of "assault weapons" to the wrong party. As well as the script that incorporating ergonomic features from military weapons into weapons manufactured for civilian use results in a product that has "cosmetic" differences only.

And *I'm* being "intellectually dishonest"?! By the way, the "intellectually dishonest" accusation has been levied at me before by another Libertarian (Willis Hart) who banned me from his blog. Because I am the "the most intellectually dishonest person that [Willis] ever had to deal with" (SWTD #160). Willis also said I was "done".

This made me wonder. Two Libertarians both using this term? They could not simply say they disagreed, but had to accuse me of being a liar? Why? I'm convinced the reason is arrogance. As well as mental illness.

The term "intellectual honesty" refers to "an applied method of problem solving, characterized by an unbiased, honest attitude". These Libertarians view their positions as being reached in this manner (through the use of "intellectual honesty"). Therefore there is absolutely no way they can be wrong. It is *so* obvious that they are right too. That being the case, anyone who disagrees is clearly a dirty rotten liar.

"Vermin" is a word The Insurgent used in the commentary he wrote after banning me (Children on the Internet). Because (in his mind) I lied and I knew I was lying. Except that I did not lie. I reviewed the information and decided the term "assault weapon" (as originated by the gun industry/publications/NRA and adopted by those seeking reasonable gun control measures) is being appropriately utilized.

Anyway, I think that explains why I've been banned on three Libertarian blogs thus far. I'm a liar (in the minds of the blog hosts) and they (again, in their minds) are only interested in honest debate. Although I don't know how you can debate honestly if you have a habit of accusing your debate opponent of lying simply for disagreeing. In my case answering a question The Insurgent specifically asked me!

But they obviously let some "lies" slide. Other commenters who disagree (in my experience) are allowed to do so, as long as the blog host gets the last word. That way the debate can be concluded with the host "correcting" the "false" information presented by whoever offered a differing opinion. My downfall in these situations is that I frequently will not let a subject drop. Thereby annoying the host with my continued "intellectual dishonesty".

In regards to this I say "oh well". And I don't give a f*ck either. This is likely why Willis Hart says this is "a classic example of why nobody likes you" ("Nobody" being the Libertarians Willis Hart, Dennis Marks, Lester Nation, The Insurgent as well as the Conservative Rusty Schmuckelford). Willis was sorry, however. So he might have been worried that his "honest" observation would cause me to cry my eyes out. You know, given that "nobody" likes me.

For the record, although I will say that I agree with how the term "assault weapon" is currently being utilized (by Democrats like Dianne Feinstein), I will also acknowledge that whether or not the original assault weapons ban (authored by Dianne Feinstein and signed by President Clinton) was effective is debatable.

Duke University public policy experts Philip Cook says "There is no compelling evidence that [the ban] saved lives" although this "should not be interpreted to mean that in general bans don't work" because "Feinstein's updated version of the ban, which she proposed in 2013 and is more restrictive [and] might be more effective". Cook also noted that "An American assault weapons ban might also have an impact on drug and gang-related violence in Mexico" (Fact-Checking Feinstein on the Assault Weapons Ban by Lois Beckett. Pro Publica, 9/24/2014).

10 years isn't a lot of time, given that the original bill only banned the manufacture and sale of new assault weapons. All the existing assault weapons were not confiscated. They were still out there and able to be used for whatever purpose the owner desired (legal or illegal). In any case, I never argued in favor of bringing back the ban on The Insurgent's blog. I did note that a 2004 report from The Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence determined that the ban resulted in a decline of 45% in regards to assault weapons traced to crime - as per crime gun traces the ATF conducted nationwide.

And another report (under the same heading on the same Wikipedia page as the report above) says the ban WAS effective.

[Research published in 2013] in the American Political Science Review suggests that lifting the U.S. Assault Weapons Ban increased homicides in Mexico. The 2004 expiration of the Assault Weapons Ban appeared to exert a spillover on gun availability in Mexican municipalities near Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas, but not near California, which retained a state-level ban. The authors state "We find substantial increases in homicides as well as homicides tied specifically to guns. Homicides rose by 60% more in municipios at the non-California entry ports, as compared to municipios 100 miles away, suggesting that the policy change induced at least 238 additional deaths annually in the area located within 100 miles of the border ports" (link).

I'm inclined to believe the ban worked. And I support the Feinstein bill that would reinstate the ban. Not that I believe it has any chance of passing, however. And I did not argue for reinstating the ban on The Insurgent's blog.

My "intellectual dishonesty" appears to come down to me agreeing with the definition of "assault weapon" as originally laid out by the gun industry, NRA, firearm publications, the 1994 ban signed by Clinton and the current Feinstein legislation that won't go anywhere (Note: the 1994 ban was also authored by Feinstein). Additionally, The Insurgent did not seem to like that I called Wayne LaPierre a terrorist (an assertion I stand by).

The Insurgent closes by stating "I have no time for prolific posting of absurdities", but I dispute this, given the fact that gun nut absurdities are the primary focus of his blog. That, and he had the time to reply to every one of my comments.

OK, so that is ANOTHER blog I'm banned from, although fellow gun nut dmarks lies when he says "this is like the 5th or 6th blog [Dervish Sanders] has stalked me to... and most of the time he gets banned from the blogs". dmarks (real name Dennis Marks) likes to imagine I'm "stalking" him, but this is nothing but pure delusion. I've encountered him on a few blogs, both Libertarian and Progressive.

And I do get annoyed when he drops his blatant falsehoods into conversations and other commenters allow them to slide. So I respond. I will admit to that. But that is not "stalking". I have no idea what 5 or 6 blogs he's referring to. I did, as a result of commenting on the blog of Willis Hart look into 2 other blogs (rAtional nAtion uSA and Libertas and Latte). Willis' blog is where I first encountered Dennis, so you could say I "followed" him from there to these two other blogs (where both proprietors banned me). And I "followed" Dennis to his own (now shuttered) blog as well. So that's 3 that I can think of.

Finally, as far as a "constitutional insurgent" is concerned... I'm sure he does not mean it literally, but the name does suggest he'd be into overthrowing our government in order to "restore" the 2nd amendment to a state that would be more to his liking. Which would be NO restrictions what-so-ever. No ban on fully automatic weapons (I'm guessing) and not even any background checks (no need to guess, as The Insurgent explicitly expressed support for this).

Which basically means the dude whose Blogger ID suggests he'd join an armed revolution to overthrow our government is in favor of granting easy firearm access to violent criminals. Something that (A) is NEVER going to happen, and (B) qualifies as EXTREME gun nuttery!

Note: In regards to me quoting Wikipedia in my article above... Wikipedia is "my speed", according to The Insurgent.

SWTD #278, dDel #22.

Magnum PI & Dennis Marks Investigate Human Rights Abuses

Why didn't you pull your gun? -- Thomas Magnum... from the episode "Legacy from a Friend" (#3.18, 1983).

Dennis Marks hesitantly entered the dark alleyway behind the local burger joint. He was more than a little nervous, never having done something like this before. A man wearing a trench coat lit a cigarette, drawing Dennis' attention. Was this the man who had phoned him earlier, telling him his package was ready?

A while ago Dennis had decided it made sense to get a good one if you don't have one. A firearm, that is. He determined then he would acquire one at a gun show or from a private seller to legally avoid the roadblocks put in place to hassle innocent people. Then the authorities couldn't come for his weapon and steal it. Because they wouldn't know he had one.

Dennis ultimately decided to go the cautious route and purchase a gun from a private source. Someone might see him at a gun show and report his purchase to the Obama gun-grabbing gestapo.

"You the guy I spoke with earlier about a private sale?" Dennis inquired, approaching the man.

"You got my cash?" the man replied, taking a drag from his tube-shaped tobacco product.

"It's right here", Dennis answered, clumsily drawing a wad of bills out of his jacket pocket.

"Here is your item", the man whispered, producing a shiny gun from inside his coat.

Dennis turned the firearm over and over in his hands, mesmerized by how it sparkled in the moonlight. "It's gorgeous!" Dennis exclaimed, close to breaking down and weeping with joy.

"The serial number has been filed off, making it untraceable", the stranger revealed, shoving a box of ammo into Dennis' quivering hands. "These are hollow points. They're designed to rip through the standard bulletproof vest. Useful if some jackbooted agent of the State tries to steal your weapon".

"In violation of my due process and 2nd amendment rights, which I love", Dennis concurred.

"Well, I've got to be going", the man said, dropping his cancer stick and extinguishing it with the heel of his boot.

"Thank you, God", Dennis remarked as the man turned and left. "I will treasure this beauty for the rest of my life". Finally Dennis felt fully empowered to defend himself, which is a basic human right. Now he could finally stop worrying about the violent thugs who were coming to get him.

Frankly Dennis couldn't believe he had lasted so long without a gun, what with all the worthless poor people who wanted something for nothing. And would shoot him dead to get it. Mostly young Black thugs. They frightened Dennis immensely. They were worse than wild animals. Dennis knew this because he'd seen it on Fox News. A young Black thug stole cigarillos in a strong-arm robbery. The cop who confronted the violent felon was forced to gun him down when he charged, intending to (continue) violently assaulting him. It was obvious to Dennis that this thug was likely berserking, high on marijuana.

Because of this Dennis spent many nights pacing the floor, sick with worry. And checking and rechecking his locks. The incidents of Black thug violence were clearly on the rise. It was only a matter of time before they came for him. He knew then the time was right to acquire a firearm for his own protection. He was also afraid Vincent Vanderschmidt might try to kill him, but that was another matter.

In any case, now that Dennis had his gun he could defend himself against anyone who came for him. That night he placed the weapon under his pillow. After polishing and cleaning it until the nickel plating shown brilliantly.

"You are a beauty!" Dennis exclaimed, holding up the gun so he could admire it properly.

"Thank you", came a reply.

Huh?

"Who said that?!" Dennis screamed, looking about frantically. Was there an intruder in his domicile? Quickly Dennis reached for his box of ammo, his hands shaking in anticipation. Would tonight be the night he gunned down his first violent thug?

"Don't worry", the same voice said in a soothing tone. "It's me, your gun", Dennis' gun told him.

"A talking gun? I must have gone nuts", Dennis lamented.

"No way, you're one of the sanest people on the planet", Dennis' gun assured him. "Trust me concerning who the nut is according to guns".

"OK, I will", Dennis acquiesced. Then he went to bed, exhausted after a long week of very little sleep. "I'm going to place you under my pillow for safekeeping", Dennis told Magnum PI, which is what Dennis' weapon said it's name was.

Hours passed as Dennis slumbered.

"Wake up, Dennis!" Magnum shouted, rousting Dennis from his sleep.

Withdrawing his weapon from under his pillow Dennis drowsily asked, "what's the problem, Magnum?"

"I heard something. Possibly a home invader", Magnum explained.

Dennis looked around but saw nothing. The sun was up, however, so Dennis decided to rise from his bed and check his windows and locks for signs of intrusion. Then Dennis heard a knocking at the door, which meant someone was on his porch!

Dennis had many no trespassing signs posted, including several facing the road. Therefore anyone approaching his property had fair warning. Dennis flipped off the safety on Magnum and approached his front door.

"It's the mailman, I need your signature on a package", a voice on the other side of the door said.

An agent of one of the socialist agencies of the Federal Government (just one of the many socialist agencies/programs that should be abolished)? Dennis didn't buy it. Probably a ruse so that the jackbooted governmental enforcers could steal his newly acquired weapon. Perhaps the NSA had been listening in during his phone call? Not that it mattered. Dennis had the right to fire given the fact that his no trespassing signs gave intruders warning. This individual was violating that warning -- and on Dennis' property against his will.

"Shoot!" Magnum urged him. "Obama's agents are here to steal me!"

Dennis raised his gun and fired through the door. Then he blew across the barrel, as he had seen actors in action movies do. How cool.

Hearing a body thud, Dennis remarked, "smoked him". Smiling, Dennis proudly strode toward the door, eager to see the results of the first exercise of his basic human right. Opening the door Dennis noted a man dressed in a mailman's uniform lying on the ground, a large hole in his chest. The man, however, was not dead. Blood trickled out of his mouth as he gurgled and struggled to speak.

"Didn't you see the signs?!" Dennis screamed. "You are on my property unlawfully and I am therefore within my rights to shoot!" Dennis added, pointing Magnum at the man's head and firing a second time.

"Good job!" Magnum congratulated him.

"Indeed", Dennis agreed. "I defended my basic human rights good. Now to dispose of the body. Not because, as a law-abiding gun owner I did anything wrong, but because I wish to avoid harassment and hassle placed there by out-of-line legislators".

 swtd-277. polfi-26.  Previous. Next.