If You Ever Find Yourself Deep In A Hole It Might Be A Good Idea To Stop Duggaring

To engage in pedophilia while at the same time claiming gay and transgender individuals are the ones posing a risk to children ~ definition of "duggaring" according to the Urban Dictionary.

Regarding the 19 Kids And Counting scandal concering one of their many sons inappropriate touching involving his own sisters... On one hand I can understand that parents love their children and don't stop loving a child even when they do something terrible. On the other I don't know how these idiots (the Duggar parents) thought they could do a reality TV program and this would not come out eventually.

I mean, not only did they open their lives up to public scrutiny, but then they thought they could use this platform (and the fact that because of said show they acquired a fanbase) to lecture other people in regards to their (fundy Conservative bigoted) morals? Really?

Specifically I refer to the Duggar lie concerning transgendered people being pedophiles.

[On 8/13/2014] the City Council of Fayetteville AK considered a new law that will protect citizens against discrimination in employment, housing, and public accommodations on the basis of their sexual orientation, gender identity, socioeconomic background, marital status, or veteran status. In a... robocall obtained by the Fayetteville Flyer, [Michelle] Duggar claimed that the bill would "allow men - yes I said men - to use womens' and girls' restrooms, locker rooms, showers, sleeping areas and other areas that are designated for females only". She goes onto describe "males with past child predator convictions that claim they are female" who would enter these private areas. (Michelle Duggar Warns Arkansas Community That Transgender People Are Child Predators by Zack Ford. ThinkProgress 8/19/2014) Note: I modified this article excerpt to place it in the past tense.

No doubt the 19-Kids mom says what she does due to extreme ignorance (in addition to bigotry), but that does not excuse her diseminating such vile lies! According to New Scientist, brain scans can differentiate between the brains of transgender and straight males (Transsexual differences caught on brain scan 1/2011).

Transgender men view themselves as females. They are not going into female restrooms to oogle or molest women or girls. And if any man dressed as a woman was caught doing anything inappropriate they would be arrested no matter the excuse. The Duggar mom's robocalling in order to advocate against rights for transgender people is sick hateful bigotry. What is particularly disgusting about this sickness is that those on the religious Right (RR) who have it view their bigotry as "faith based" and, if object you're discriminating against them!

Anyway, my point in bringing this up is to point out the hypocrisy of the Duggar mom. She has a son who is a pedophile and she has the gall to advocate against rights for transgender men with lies about them being pedophiles? Now, it would be just as bad for her to do this even if this thing with her son had never happened, but, given the fact that her comments likely angered many people, might it not have occurred to her that someone (thinking that the truth about the Duggars needed to get out in light of their hypocrisy) might release this info?

By the way, in regards to their son Josh's pedophilia, the Duggar parents spun some self-delusions during a 6/3/2015 interview with Megyn Kelly that just does not hold up. (Regarding the Kelly File interview NPR TV Critic Eric Deggans said "It seemed to be pretty much about helping the Duggars salvage their brand rather than getting to the bottom of what happened in this family").

Jim Bob Duggar: ...a pedophile is an adult that preys on children. Josh was actually 14 and just turned 15 when he did what he did, and I think the legal definition was 16 and up for being an adult preying on a child. So he was a child preying on a child. Megyn Kelly: You do not view Josh as a pedophile? [Jim Bob Duggar] No. (The Duggars open up about molestation allegations on The Kelly File, Transcript).

I did consider what the Duggar dad said concerning pedophiles being adults [1], but then I heard that one of the girls their 15-year-old son touched was a five-year-old. Who views little kids sexually? Pedophiles, that's who. I mean, if he'd only touched sisters with boobs that would still not be right, but maybe wouldn't make him a pedophile. Plus Josh was 15, which is old enough, IMO. These people need to wake up.

Unfortunately they didn't wake up. They are not "awake" now and they were not awake enough to realize they needed to act as soon as they found out about this. Instead, according to the Duggar parents, their son came to them THREE times with confessions before they removed him from the home for some counseling (they sent him to work for a family friend who was remodeling a building for 3 months). But this was far to late. What makes this even more uber-strange given the fact they believe men and women should not even hold hands until after they are married. (Michelle and Jim Bob Duggar Reveal Strict Rules of Courtship: No Holding Hands, No Kissing! 4/2/2014). What freaks.

As for Megyn Kelly, who later (the next day, I think) interviews the RR hate-pastor Robert Jeffress. During the interview a banner across the bottom of the screen reads "New attacks on the Duggar family". According to Jeffress, "the Left is using this tragedy for it's own agenda". Then he adds "if only perfect people can speak out on their moral principles, nobody is going to speak out. Which is what the Left wants". But this is nonsense, as what he calls "moral principals" is bigotry and discrimination against LGBT people.

Near the end of the interview Jeffress says "we all have episodes in our past that we hope will never be opening segments on the Kelly Factor" to which Megyn Kelly replies, "I don't know that show you're referring to"... Because her program is "The Kelly File", not "The Kelly Factor". I don't know about you, but I've never molested a child or tried to cover up an incident of child molestation and then go on to lie about about transgender men being pedophiles.

This BS by Jeffress, by the way, in response to Megyn asking (playing devil's advocate) if it's reasonable for people (not of the RR) to be offended by Josh Duggar "ascending to a moral perch" to lecture LGBT people. To which I say Y-E-S. Who the hell is he to lecture people on morality? Specifically on sexuality morality.

And yet Megyn is making hay playing to the RR base of Fox Nooz and the 19-kids program by defending the Duggars against "attacks" from the Left... for ratings. This when it was the Duggars who were attacking LGBT people and advocating against equality. Disgusting. Obviously Fox would not be doing this if the Duggars were not RR Conservative nuts that their misinformed (by Fox) viewers believe are being persecuted by the "liberal media". Shameful.

The Duggars should stop duggaring and go away [2]. And TLC should cancel their program (so far it's only suspended, not cancelled). Rick Santorum, to his credit, said "I was sickened by it. I was just sickened by it". And he added "I pray for those girls in particular". So no rationalizing or speaking of forgiving of Josh (that I'm aware of). Or attacking the Left for pointing out the Duggar's hypocrisy.

Although Santorum may have been miffed due to the Duggars endorsing him for preznit in 2012 but switching to Mike Huckabee for 2016. This likely explains why the Huckster rationalized up a storm and used this opportunity to attack the Left. And be rewarded with brownie points from the base. Screw you, Hucky. Although obviously Huckabee ultimately decided his stance was hurting more than helping him, as he recently removed all references to the Duggars on his website (Mike Huckabee Removes Nasty Duggar Stains From Campaign Website).

By the way, remember Hucky's "joke" that has him hating on transgender men while perving on high school girls (in agreement with the Duggar lie)?

Huckabee: [These] ordinances [say] if your 7-year-old daughter - if she goes into the restroom - cannot be offended and you can't be offended if she's greeted there by a 42-year-old man who feels more like a woman than he does a man. Now I wish that someone told me that when I was in high school that I could have felt like a woman when it came time to take showers in PE. I'm pretty sure that I would have found my feminine side and said, "Coach, I think I'd rather shower with the girls today". (Mike Huckabee Says He Would Have Pretended to Be Trans to Shower With Girls in School by Mark Joseph Stern. Slate 6/2/2015).

In addition to the hate and lies concerning transgender men, Hucky thinks (although this might be a common young male fantasy), that it's funny for him (as an older man) to joke about violating the rights of young women to not be oogled while showing? No apology for this later, so I guess he does think sharing his fantasies about raping teenage girls with his eyes is OK. In fact, he's pretty sure he would have done just that, if only it had occurred to him. Sicko pervert.

As Slate points out, "Huckabee isn't really concerned about facts: He's concerned about finding the kind of red meat Republican voters still care about" (quote from article linked to above). Indeed. This is why Megyn is lobbing softballs to the Duggars and encouraging the hate-pastor Jeffress to defend them (while bashing the Left) on her file. And why Fox Nooz is also either not covering the story, or going on the attack against the Left for "victimizing" the Duggars by objecting to their hate.

Additional Information excerpted from Wikipedia: Josh Duggar, who will not be prosecuted due to the 3-year statue of limitations being expired, resigned from his position at FRC Action, the non-profit political action and lobbying arm of the Family Research Council, which has been labeled an anti-gay hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center. The FRC opposes and lobbies against LGBT rights (such as same-sex marriage and LGBT adoption), abortion, divorce, embryonic stem-cell research and pornography.

Josh Duggar's position at FRC is the "perch" Josh ascended to (Megyn Kelly's wording), from which he advocated against LGBT equality.

Duggar's abuse of his sisters and a babysitter consisted of fondling their breast and genital regions while they were asleep and sometimes while awake without permission, according to a police report obtained by In Touch Weekly magazine. Duggar's father, Jim Bob, was a member of the Arkansas House of Representatives for two terms while Josh was a teenager. The Duggars avoid birth control saying they have decided to allow God to determine the number of children they have.

Footnotes
[1] Wikipedia notes that "Pedophilia... is a psychiatric disorder in which an adult or older adolescent experiences a primary or exclusive sexual attraction to prepubescent children, generally age 11 years or younger... A person who is diagnosed with pedophilia must be at least 16 years of age, but adolescents must be at least five years older than the prepubescent child for the attraction to be diagnosed as pedophilia". I guess the Duggar parents were relieved when they found out that Josh was too young by 1 year (or less) to be a pedophile! Although, I suppose one could argue that Josh does not have a "primary or exclusive sexual attraction to prepubescent children", given that he is now a married adult. But perhaps he does. Like I said before, what kind of a person would be interested in a 5-year-old sexually?
[2] Regarding the Urban Dictionary definition of "duggaring", I would modify it to read "To engage in pedophilia, or to defend/deny/downplay it, while at the same time claiming gay and transgender individuals are the ones posing a risk to children". The definition, as it is on the UD website, only applies to Josh Duggar. My modification expands it to include the Duggar parents, who, IMO, did a lot of duggaring when they appeared on The Kelly File. And it would also include people like Mike Huckabee, who was duggaring like crazy right up until he had his website scrubbed.

SWTD #287

Mike Huckabee Shameless Huckster Scams Low Information Social Conservative Dimwits With Bogus Diabetes "Cure"

The secret of being a top-notch con man is being able to know what the mark wants, and how to make him think he's getting it ~ Ken Kesey (9/17/1935 to 11/10/2001) an American author. Quote from his his 1962 novel One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest.

Have you heard that 2016 Presidential Candidate and Religious Right nutjob hypocrite [1] Mike Huckabee shamelessly huckstered an unproven diabetes "reversal system" that includes "dietary supplements" consisting of cinnamon and chromium picolinate in order to fund his campaign? (Huckabee Pursues Unconventional Ways to Fund a Campaign by Trip Gabriel. The NYT 3/15/2015).

So what's the problem? I'll tell you. "Both the American Diabetes Association and the Canadian Diabetes Association warn that dietary and herbal supplements are ineffective for treating diabetes".

Anyway.... cinnamon? Does it have any medically beneficial properties? WebMD says "some research has found that a particular type of cinnamon, cassia cinnamon, may lower blood sugar in people with diabetes. However, other studies have not found a benefit".

Sounds unproven. Also, Medical News Today notes that "some people who are sensitive to cinnamon may be at an increased risk of liver damage after consuming cinnamon-flavored foods".

What about chromium picolinate?

[According to Wikipedia] there are claims that the picolinate form of chromium supplementation aids in reducing insulin resistance, particularly in type 2 diabetics, but a meta-analysis of chromium (III) supplementation studies showed... inconclusive results for diabetics.

Inclusive? I guess that means the experts aren't really sure if a supplement made of cinnamon and chromium picolinate can do squat for someone with diabetes. Which is why it's being sold as a "supplement" instead of a medicine. Because supplements are unregulated.

Unregulated? This reminds me of the Last Week Tonight segment in which host John Oliver (formerly of the Daily Show) slammed Dr. Oz for his huckstering of another snake oily "miracle product".

...Mehmet Oz... was recently called to testify before a Senate subcommittee over his promotion of weight loss and dietary supplements that have no proven health benefits. "Dr. Oz is just a symptom of the problem", Oliver said. "The disease is that dietary supplements in the U.S. are shockingly unregulated". [Oliver] went on to explain our inefficient and confusing regulatory system, which lets supplements operate independent from almost any oversight. The Federal Trade Commission is supposed to manage the marketing of dietary supplements, but that agency defers to the Food and Drug Administration to determine whether a health claim is accurate. The problem, Oliver explained, is that the FDA can't investigate supplements unless people have already fallen sick. That lack of regulation means that... supplements that have not been shown to be either safe or effective can be sold in U.S. stores. "None of this is likely to change," Oliver conceded, "because companies have access to the one genuinely truly effective wonder drug. "It's called lobbying". (John Oliver Hilariously Shows Why Dr. Oz Is A Symptom Of A Much Larger Problem by Katie Jennings. Business Insider, 6/23/2014).

So, like Dr. Oz with his weight loss products, the Hucksterbee is hawking an unproven "supplement". This supplement contains ingredients that some people believe might maybe be effective if you have diabetes... although the American Diabetes Association and the Canadian Diabetes Association both say N-O.

Seems to me like the con men behind these supplements are using lack of regulation as an excuse to jump on a "cure" that might not be much of a cure at all... and as a way to make money and not be held accountable for promising the moon and the stars when there is scant evidence their product will have any effect at all.

And they're tricking gullible dimwits into shelling out their cash by hiring spokespersons (like Oz and Hucky) who people trust... which is the most smarmy aspect of these kind of pitches. They're hinging the pitch on a potential customer's eagerness to believe someone they look up to. Instead of using actual facts or studies to back up the claims they can (or can't) present.

If they were honest about the inconclusive studies maybe they'd get some sales. But surely not as many as when a "trusted" spokesperson exaggerates, leaves out information, and lies by claiming the "system" can "cure" "reverse" diabetes.

Why "reverse" instead of "cure"? Is there a difference between "reversing" and "curing"? The "reversing" is 100 percent says the narrator of the video advertising the "system".

That's strange. Is the word "reverse" being used to trick people into thinking this is a cure when they're not actually claiming it's a cure? Is it some kind of legal trick to avoid prosecution (they'll claim they never promised a "cure")?

No.

I watched the video, and a short while into it the narrator DOES use the word "cure". First he says the product offers the "freedom of cure" for your diabetes. Later he says "you can be cured of your diabetes". Those are the EXACT words used in the video (and the word "cure" is used multiple times thereafter).

But there is no cure for diabetes!

WebMD: With all the research on diabetes and advances in diabetes treatments, it's tempting to think someone has surely found a diabetes cure by now. But the reality is that there is no cure for diabetes - neither type 1 diabetes nor type 2 diabetes. ...Supplements don't cure diabetes, either. Some natural supplements may interact dangerously with your diabetes medication. Others have been shown to help improve your diabetes, but always check with your doctor before taking any supplement.

MAYBE the supplement could help lessen your diabetes symptoms, but it can NOT cure the disease! I'd say shame on Huck, but I do not think he's capable of it (being ashamed of any of his idiocy). I mean, he's for throwing people off insurance (or not giving it to them at all) if they have pre-existing conditions (Huckabee Says No To Insurance For People With Pre-Existing Conditions by Rick Ungar. Forbes 9/17/2010)... and this a-hole is a minister!

Or, he's a Baptist minister turned Right-wing politician turned Fox Noozer turned "miracle cure" pitchman/Social Conservative GOPer base-appealing POTUS candidate who advocates for (basically) transforming American into a Christian theocracy where women [2], LGBT people [3], the Poors [4], and Muslims [5] are discriminated against. (Mike Huckabee Pushes for an American Theocracy by David Atkins. Washington Monthly's Political Animal blog 1/24/2015).

God help us if, somehow, this Talibanish fundy con man [6] were elected preznit!

(The video selling the "diabetes reversal system" can be viewed here. It does not look as though there is a embeddable version of it, so you'll have to follow the link if you don't believe me that the word "cure" is used. Although the narrator of the video warns that it might be taken down at any time. I don't know why. Maybe they think they'll have to take it down if someone files a lawsuit because they realize they were lied to? I don't know. In any case, I did find the Huckster's intro to this video on Youtube... see Video3 below).

Footnotes
[1] Huckabee is another RR hypocrite. An example of this being his "support for the ultra-Christian Duggar family of TLC's 19 Kids and Counting reality show after the 27-year-old Duggar son, Josh, admitted to alleged child molestation charges as a teenager". (Mike Huckabee is beyond gross: The sick hypocrisy of a man who slimes Obama's parenting, but defends Josh Duggar, admitted sexual molester by Bob Cesca. Salon 5/22/2015). Note that the Duggars are "devout Independent Baptists" and Huckabee is a Baptist. Wikipedia says "the Independent Baptist tradition began in the late 19th and early 20th centuries among local denominational Baptist congregations concerned about the perceived advancement of modernism and liberalism into national Baptist denominations". So... the Dugars are more fundy than the fundy Huckster?
[2] The Huck is strongly anti-choice, believing that abortion should be outlawed even in cases of rape or incest. In regards to Huck's offensive war on woman "Uncle Sugar" remarks, Cecile Richards of CNN notes that "women use birth control for a whole host of medical reasons - and that's their business, not Mike Huckabee's. In Huckabee's vision, every boss in America would be empowered to decide whether his or her female employees should have access to birth control the way they do for any other prescription medication". (Huckabee's libido comment chilling for women 1/24/2014).
[3] In regards to the LGBT rights movement, Huck says it "is... really a page out of 1984, when what things mean are the opposite of what they really are. And that's what I'm seeing here is that in the name of tolerance, there's intolerance. ...In the name of acceptance, there's true discrimination". (Mike Huckabee's Latest Anti-Gay Comments Prove How Delusional He's Become by Allen Clifton. Forward Progressives 4/4/2015). This is Hucky crying "victim" when it's the RR who discriminates. Disgusting.
[4] Huckabee supports the FairTax, which eliminates progressive taxation. In the article Five Things Mike Huckabee Doesn't Want You to Know About Him, John Gorenfeld writes "to boost his tax cred... Huckabee has eagerly signed onto FairTax, a proposal to abolish the IRS touted by [Libertarian] Neal Boortz... Boortz would end the income tax. Instead you'd pay a federal sales tax, and to offset resulting problems, the government would write you checks every month. How much you get depends on the number of people are in your household. And nothing else". (AlterNet, 11/21/2007). In regards to the so-called "fair tax"... Pat Regnier, writing for CNN Money, notes that "the trouble with a pure consumption tax is that it can put a hideous burden on poor and middle-class people". (Just how fair is the 'FairTax'? 9/7/2005).
[5] In an The Atlantic article Peter Beinart writes "...the most naked bigot in the emerging Republican field is Mike Huckabee. Earlier this week, Huckabee said that Everything he [Obama] does is against what Christians stand for, and he's against the Jews in Israel. The one group of people that can know they have his undying, unfailing support would be the Muslim community. There's no artifice here. Huckabee's not condemning Obama for being soft on ISIS or even radical Islam. He's condemning Obama for caring about Muslims". (The GOP's Islamophobia Problem 2/13/2015). Not to mention the fact that this is pure BS given the fact that Obama is a Christian. Dumbass.
[6] Huckstering fake diabetes cures isn't the only flim flam Mike has going. Unbelievably this minister is linked to a scam in which the pigeons are told that Bible passages can cure cancer! Huck defends himself by saying he rented his email list out. So, that means these renters are the ones responsible for the sacrilege? He only said they could use his name and he didn't care what they sold using it. So long as he got paid. (Mike Huckabee defends Bible cancer cure scam: It's like selling "catheters or adult diapers" by David Edwards. RawStory 5/6/2915).

Video1: Last Week Tonight's John Oliver outlines what he finds problematic about Dr. Oz and the nutrition supplement industry. Published 6/22/2014 (16:26).

Video2: Mike Huckabee, defending his diabetes infomercial, says "I don't have to defend everything I've done" (why the hell not?), then lies about the nature of what he was hawking, saying the program focuses on healthy living. Note that Bob Schieffer refers to a "diabetes CURE" (at the start of the interview) and Huckabee NEVER disputes that the product is marketed as a "cure". And near the end of the video he says we need to be looking for cures. Tapdancing dissembler. Also, Schieffer notes Hucky speaks as a "blue collar populist" which is just more huckstering. Published 5/10/2015 (2:29).

Video3: Mike Huckabee into to the diabetes solution infomercial. Published 5/14/2015 (1:55).

SWTD #286

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.