Anti-Choice Extremist Scott Walker Would Sentence Women To Death (Sez No To Life Of Mother Abortion Exemption)

You cannot have maternal health without reproductive health. And reproductive health includes contraception and family planning and access to legal, safe abortion ~ Hillary Clinton (dob 10/26/1947) 2016 potus Democratic candidate.

Of the 10 top-tier GOP potus candidates, which is the MOST radically anti-choice? Jeb Bush, Ben Carson, Chris Christie, Ted Cruz, Mike Huckabee, Paul Kasich, Randal Paul, Marco Rubio, Donald Trump, and Scott Walker all describe themselves as "pro life", but is there one who stands out as being the most rabidly anti-choice?

The following transcription from the Fox Nooz 8/6/2016 prez debate at the Quicken Loans Arena in Cleveland OH.

Megyn Kelly: Would you really let a mother die rather than have an abortion? And, with 83 percent of Americans in favor of a life exception, are you too out of the mainstream on this issue to win the general election? Scott Walker: I'm pro-life. I've always been pro-life. I've got a position I think is consistent with many Americans out there [audience cheers] ...in that I believe that an unborn child is in need of protection. I've said, many a time that the unborn child can be protected and there are many other alternatives that will also protect the life of the mother.

Thom Hartmann remarked (on the 8/7/2015 edition of his radio program) that Scott "apparently has some magical medical knowledge that the rest of us don't know about". Which is correct. The question, re the life of the mother, has to do with situations where there are "no other alternatives". I mean, Scott could have said he's wary about doctors claiming a "life of the mother" excuse and maybe doing something about people lying so they can get an abortion... but if the mother's life REALLY is in jeopardy, then, YES, they can get an abortion.

But he didn't say that. His answer indicated that he's a solid NO in any conceivable scenario.

Conditions that might lead to ending a pregnancy to save a woman's life include severe infections, heart failure and severe cases of preeclampsia, a condition in which a woman develops very high blood pressure and is at risk for stroke... "There are certain cases where ending the pregnancy is the only option..." Cecily Kellogg, 44... says that was the situation she faced when she was nearly six months pregnant with twin boys in 2004 and developed severe preeclampsia. One fetus had already died and "my liver had shut down, my kidneys had shut down and they were expecting me to start seizing at any minute"... The doctors said they had... perform an abortion to save her. "...they told me I would die — that it was either me and my son or just my son". (Doctors say abortions do sometimes save women's lives by Kim Painter. USA Today 10/22/2012).

Scott Walker has got to know this. I mean, surely he did some research when deciding what his position on this important issue (to him as a governor and presidential candidate) would be? He probably spoke with some doctors to make sure what he was saying about these "many other alternatives" was correct, no?

Apparently not. Obviously this is just a political position. He wouldn't really condemn women to death, would he? I think he would. And, if elected, Scott could appoint SCOTUS justices that would overturn Roe V. Wade. It's scary that someone with such a radical notion re condemning a woman to death could possibly be elected president.

As for the other 9 candidates, none of them are that much better when it comes to respecting a woman's privacy. Below I have ranked below in order of most to least extreme (in my opinion). Walker being the most extreme, while Rubio (despite having previously sponsored legislation that included exceptions) now seems to be as extreme as Walker. (in which case they tie).

[2] Marco Rubio does not support an exception for rape, incest or the life of the mother. During the debate Rubio said "I believe that every single human being is entitled to the protection of our laws... whether they have a birth certificate or not". (source).

[3] Mike Huckabee, who says "that if he were elected president he would consider using the FBI or National Guard to end abortion by force", is (almost?) as nuts on this issue. In disregarding Roe, he'd trigger a constitutional crisis.

Huckabee said "I think the next president ought to invoke the Fifth and 14th Amendments to the Constitution now that we clearly know that that baby inside the mother's womb is a person at the moment of conception". Although he has said (in the past) that he would allow an exemption for the life of the mother. (source).

[4] Randal Paul also holds the un-Libertarian view, that "human life begins at conception and should be granted legal protection from that moment on". Although he does support the idea of exemptions for medical reasons. (source). He wants to defund Planned Parenthood, and says he will "use all legislative vehicles at his disposal"... meaning government shutdown. (source).

[5] John Kasich is "pro-life" and opposed to abortion with exceptions for rape and incest (as well as the life of the mother... I presume). He also believes there should be a litmus test. (meaning Republican candidates for office should be rejected unless they are "pro-life"). As governor of Ohio Kasich signed legislation to defund Planned Parenthood (John Kasich Defunds Planned Parenthood in Ohio The Blaze, 2/22/2016).

[6] Jeb Bush would "ban abortion after 20 weeks, while making exceptions for the life of the mother, rape or incest". Jeb believes "the next president should defund Planned Parenthood". (source).

[7] Chris Christie, who used to be pro-choice, now thinks there should be a ban abortions after 20 weeks with exceptions. He wants to eliminate family planning funding from the state budget.

[8] Ted Cruz says that companies can deny insuring birth control and is in favor of a "partial-birth abortion" ban. Is threatening to shut down the government unless Planned Parenthood is defunded. (source).

[9] Ben Carson says "the thought of abortion for the sake of convenience does not appeal to me". What that means, policy wise, is not clear. Depending on whether or not he thinks abortions should be banned (when, with exemptions or not) would affect his ranking. (souce).

[10] Donald Trump (probably realizing there is a litmus test) changed his mind and is now "pro-life" (after years of supporting the pro-choice position).

[End Anti-Choice Extremist Rankings]

Being willing to let pregnant women DIE so their babies will be born is about as extreme as you can get, which is why I rank Walker as the MOST extreme. Rubio has previously sponsored legislation that allowed for exceptions. But now he appears to have changed his mind?

Even Huckabee, with his totally wacko idea of calling out the National Guard to stop abortions, has said there should be an exception to save the life of the mother.

As for this 20 week abortion ban, which that wanker Scott asked the Wisconsin state legislature to author and send to him for his signature (which they did), the reasoning behind it is because "anti-abortion-rights groups claim... that's the point at which fetuses experience pain". But the scientists reject this claim.

And there are other reasons to oppose the 20 week cut off.

...women terminate their pregnancies due to fatal fetal anomalies. Often, those conditions aren't recognizable until the fetus is at least 18 to 20 weeks old. "Say it's a serious heart defect", says Daniel Grossman, a member of the American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. "There isn't a blood test for that. The fetus needs to be a certain size before you can see that. And then it may take a while for a woman to make up her mind about what to do". (20-week abortion bans explained by Molly Redden. 1/23/2015 Mother Jones).

I say abortion should be between a woman and her doctor and find Repubs pandering to anti-choicers for their votes to be sickening. Congress needs to repeal the Hyde amendment because it punishes poor women who need abortions. If you're against abortions don't get one yourself. Stay the hell out of other people's personal lives and personal decisions. It's a matter of a woman's privacy, as the SCOTUS decided in Roe.

This "litmus" test is yet another reason I don't like Republicans. In addition to these recent lies about Planned Parenthood, which Hucky participated in during the debate, saying PP is "in the business of selling baby's body parts like the parts of a Buick" (they're recouping their costs and doing society a solid via the fact that fetal tissue is necessary for medical research, you moron). Heck, even the "moderate" gay-marriage-attending Kasich is quite radical in his opposition to women having control over their own bodies!

Image: 10 Repub hopefuls (hopeful that they'll make a lot of money running for preznit) on stage inside the Quicken Loans Arena (AKA "The Q"), 8/6/2015. (Left to Right) Chris "Big Boy" Christie, Marco "Big Gulp" Rubio, Ben "Obamacare is slavery" Carson, Scott "union buster" Wanker, Donald J. Trump (AKA "The Trumpster"), John Ellis "I'm my own man" Bush (AKA Jeb!), Mike Hucksterbee, Rafael Edward "Ted" Cruz, Randal "Liberty Freedom" Paul, John "no chance" Kasich. (click to enbiggen).

SWTD #302

On Debbie Wasserman Schultz Not Knowing The Difference Between A Socialist & A Democrat

Civil government, so far as it is instituted for the security of property, is in reality instituted for the defense of the rich against the poor, or of those who have some property against those who have none at all ~ Adam Smith (6/16/1723 to 7/17/1790) a Scottish moral philosopher and pioneer of political economy who is best known for two classic works: The Theory of Moral Sentiments (1759), and An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations (1776).

Debbie Wasserman Schultz, appearing on MSNBC's Hardball on Thursday 7/30/2015, was asked by Chris Matthews what the difference is between a Democrat and a Socialist. Instead of answering the question Debbie dodged it and spoke about the difference between the Dems and the Repubs.

The reason she didn't answer is because the response would not look good for Democrats. Because, as Bernie Sanders himself explained, democratic socialists are for The People.

[If] one takes a hard look at countries around the world who have successful records in fighting and implementing programs for the middle class and working families... Finland, Norway, Sweden, and other countries that have had labor governments or social democratic governments... what you find is that... health care is a right of all people and their systems are far more cost-effective than ours, college education is virtually free in all of those countries, people retire with better benefits, wages that people receive are often higher, distribution of wealth and income is much fairer, their public education systems are generally stronger than ours. (No Really—What's the Difference Between a Democrat and a Socialist? by Arit John. Bloomberg Politics 7/31/2015).

Republicans are the corporate party that fights for the large corporations and the wealthy, and Democrats are the corporate party that tries to strike a balance between fighting for the large corporations/the wealthy and the "lower classes" (and small businesses). Although they do have an entire caucus (the Progressives, which is Congress's largest caucus) that fights for The People.

This "balance" was laid out officially by Bill Clinton, who called it the Third Way. The First Way being fighting exclusively for The People and doing what is best for The People in all cases. While recognizing that what is beneficial to The People will also benefit corporations and the wealthy. Because when The People are doing well the economy does well. And that is beneficial to everyone. This describes the Progressive caucus. And I'd be hard pressed to say what the differences between Progressives and democratic Socialists are.

The Second Way is to sell out totally to the wealthy and corporations and work hard to feed their greed. Even though the wealthy and corporations do well when The People are doing well, for many greedy rich a-holes doing well (and sharing the wealth) is not good enough. They want more, and they want it at the expense of The People. They want the economy run exclusively for their benefit... and screw the "lower classes". They will be harmed in order that the wealthy do FAR better than the rest of us. This is the Way the modern Republican Party has chosen.

The Third Way was a path taken by Bill Clinton and is still the strategy to win elections that the Democratic Party (by and large) follows today. This strategy panders to the corporations and wealthy in order to get cash to fund their elections, while doing less to help The People. Pandering to the wealthy and corporations comes first, while doing what is best for The People comes second. Bill Clinton determined that this Third Way was necessary in order to combat the Republican advantage (of donations from the corporations and the wealthy going mostly to them).

Libertarians, FYI, stand with the Republicans (and follow the 2nd Way). Although they do it with a slight twist, which is their jettisoning of the social conservatism that the Republicans use to trick "lower class" bigots into voting for them. Because the corporations and the wealthy don't care about social conservatism. It simply does not affect their bottom line. In fact, being bigoted might cost a business money (and they'll say NO to Social Conservatism for that reason).

But this explains why the Libertarians are a very minor party. The Republicans have their dupes in the bigots, the Democrats have their dupes, although many vote Democrat simply because there is no better option. Except for the Progressives. They're the better option, and people who aren't duped will vote for them when they can (if a Progressive is running).

Libertarians have their dupes, but they are significantly less of them. They don't have the bigots and they don't have the non-dupes who realize that Libertarians, Repubs and 3rd Way Dems are fighting for the wealthy. The voters who remain, the non-bigoted dupes who believe that fighting for the wealthy will benefit all, work out to be a very small group.

There is another twist in how the Libertarians wish to serve the wealthy that I didn't mention yet. This second twist is that they profess to want to get government out of the way by decreasing regulations significantly. And they also profess to oppose bailouts and crony capitalism. Because they hate government and believe that the wealthy should have all the power (which they do not wish to share with government).

Although (excepting the true believers) this is a somewhat lie. I say somewhat because this is their true desire, but they will not spurn government help so long as it is available. The Koch brothers being an example of plutocrats who say they are Libertarians but fight for handouts from government. (How Koch Industries Makes Billions By Demanding Bailouts And Taxpayer Subsidies 3/1/2011).

The Koch Brothers might prefer to get government out of the way, but so long as the system exists as it does (a system where bailouts and crony capitalism exist) they will get in line and shamelessly beg for these gifts paid for by taxpayers.

But back to Wasserman Schultz... she obviously could not lay out this distinction... because it would look bad for the 3rd Way Democratic Party. Which the Democratic Party is; in spite of the existence of the Progressive caucus. Most Progressives have to go along to get along. They TRY to serve The People primarily, but simply are not able to. Because the alliance between the corporate Republicans and the corporate Republicans prevent them from working for The People alone.

As for WHY Chris Matthews asked this question in the first place... he was acting as the "tip of the spear" in the 3rd Way Democrat plan to take down Bernie Sanders (for more on this see DSB #16).

Video: Matthews "Dumbfounds" DNC Chair: "Tell Me the Difference Between You and a Socialist". (1:24).

SWTD #301

ACORN Target Of GOP Lies Because They Registered Voters

The greatest achievement was at first and for a time a dream. The oak sleeps in the acorn, the bird waits in the egg, and in the highest vision of the soul a waking angel stirs. Dreams are the seedlings of realities ~ James Allen (11/28/1864 to 1/241912) a British philosophical writer known for his inspirational books and poetry and as a pioneer of the self-help movement.

Remember the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, or ACORN, and all the flap surrounding this organization that concluded with Congress defunding them, resulting in them closing their doors (they went out of business and no longer exist)?

It was a number of lies that brought down ACORN, all of them emanating from the Right. Seems the Right was desperate to get rid of this organization. Why? Because, ACORN "advocated for low and moderate-income families by working on neighborhood safety, voter registration, health care, affordable housing, and other social issues".

So... because ACORN advocated on behalf of people who usually vote Democratic, the Rightwing decided ACORN was the enemy, and that getting rid of ACORN would mean less poor and moderate-income voters registered and therefore fewer votes for Democratic candidates. (Although, of course, some of the people they registered voted Republican).

Paul Weyrich, the head GOP election-cheating guru (prior to his death near the end of 2008) conveyed the Repub strategy for winning elections when he said, "I don't want people to vote... In fact, our leverage goes up as the voting populace goes down". (see video below). Knocking as many legitimate voters off the rolls as possible (who might vote Democrat) explains why ACORN was a target.

ACORN, in fact, did absolutely nothing wrong. Nothing wrong except register people who were more likely to vote for Democrats than Republicans, that is. (Although they did some issues with hirelings who decided they wanted to be paid for doing no work and stupid employees who took the bait thrown out by GOP operatives. But that is on a small number of bad employees, not ACORN).

Lie #1: ACORN was involved in Election Fraud (2008)

Factcheck.org, in their article "The Whoppers of 2008 - The Sequel", refers to the charge of "election fraud" as "breathtakingly inaccurate" (under the heading "ACORN Fables").

FactCheck: There's a huge difference between voter fraud and voter registration fraud. And while ACORN, which hires part-time, $8-an-hour canvassers to go door-to-door and register people to vote, has had widespread problems with phony registrations invented by employees who don't want to work, the problem has never been that it sent people to the polls using bogus identities or to vote in any other fraudulent manner. Even the Republican prosecutor of the largest ACORN case to date said the shenanigans of ACORN workers were "not intended to permit illegal voting". (10/31/2008).

These were the hirelings who wanted to collect a paycheck and not actually do the work of collecting the voter registrations from real people. So they (on their own, in an effort to defraud ACORN) filled out the registrations themselves (by making up fake people). ACORN never directed their workers to do this. In fact, ACORN was a victim in these instances (of the lazy cheating individuals they hired to do ACTUAL work... as opposed to pretend work).

Lie #2: ACORN employees engaged in criminal activity (2009)

These charges came about as a result of "under cover" videos filmed by James O'Keefe and Hannah Giles. O'Keefe dressed as a pimp and Giles dressed as a prostitute... outside ACORN offices. Then they removed their costumes and entered ACORN offices. While inside they did not appear on camera (as the cameras were hidden on their bodies). The LIE was that they went into the ACORN offices in their ridiculous pimp and a prostitute costumes and ACORN employees interacted with them dressed that way... which is something that did not happen.

ACORN suffered an extremely damaging nationwide controversy beginning in the fall of 2009 after two conservative activists secretly made and released videos of staged interactions with low-level ACORN personnel in several offices, portraying them as encouraging criminal behavior. Some media publicized the videos without investigation. These videos were later found in several independent law enforcement investigations to have been partially falsified and selectively edited... (source: Wikipedia).

Unfortunately "the California Attorney General granted immunity to O'Keefe and Giles in exchange for their raw videos shot at three California ACORN offices"... which is why the lying fraudsters were not prosecuted. Although O'Keefe agreed to pay fired ACORN employee, Juan Carlos Vera, $100k and issued a public apology as part of a lawsuit settlement. (O'Keefe inquired if Vera could help "help get underage girls across the border". Vera said he could, but called the police after O'Keefe left).

Some other employees went along (thinking it was a joke), and others tried to help the "pimp and prostitute" because... who know? Perhaps because they're idiots? Or perhaps they actually were inclined to help O'Keefe and Giles commit criminal acts? Whatever the reasoning of these individual employees, they were fired by ACORN.

The ACORN verdict

ACORN (the organization), in regards to ALL these charges... of "election fraud" and of helping pimps and hos commit criminal acts... was found to be completely innocent.

The Seattle Times: The Congressional Research Service says in a new report that it couldn't find any instances in which people improperly registered to vote by the activist group known as ACORN showed up at the polls on Election Day. The report also found no instances in the past five years of the group misusing federal funds. Both houses of Congress voted to cut off money to the group after the release of videotapes showing employees advising two conservative activists posing as a pimp and prostitute. (Congressional report clears ACORN of voter fraud by Jonathan D. Salant, 12/24/2009).

Although this investigation confirming ACORN's innocence came AFTER the Right demanded a vote to defund the organization. And a number of chickenshit Democrats joined with Republicans to pass the Defund ACORN Act (DAA). As a result of this legislation pulling federal funding (10 percent of ACORN's budget) they also lost private donations and were forced to file for bankruptcy.

"That 20-minute video ruined 40 years of good work", said Sonja Merchant-Jones, former co-chairwoman of ACORN's recently closed Maryland chapter. Although ACORN did have some of it's own problems that contributed to it's downfall. (Acorn on Brink of Bankruptcy, Officials Say, 3/19/2010).

In any case, the GOP got it's way and stopped the evil ACORN from continuing to perform it's evil task of registering citizens legally entitled to vote, thus increasing citizen participation in the election process. Because when more people vote it's bad for the GOP and good for Democrats.

Republicans want fewer people to vote (and will cheat and scheme to achieve their dishonest agenda), whereas Democrats want more people to vote (although they will often wuss out in pursuance of their honest agenda of expanding participation). It's that simple.

Note: The final vote tally for the DAA was 345-75 in The House (with 2 "present" votes) and 85-11 in the Senate. Although, as Fox Nooz points out, "Democrats offered overwhelming support to the ACORN measure because they didn't want to derail the student aid bill" (which the DAA was attached to).

Video: Paul Weyrich, the founder of ALEC (The American Legislative Exchange Council), giving a speech in which he said "I don't want people to vote... In fact, our leverage goes up as the voting populace goes down". YouTube Publish Date: 4/6/2012. (0:38).

SWTD #300

WND's Subtle (Or Not So Subtle) Bigotry Of Placing Quotes Around "Gay"

You, then, why do you judge your brother or sister? Or why do you treat them with contempt? For we will all stand before God's judgment seat ~ Romans 14:10, The Christian Bible.

Has anyone else noticed that when the Rightwing site World Net Daily (AKA Wing Nut Daily AKA Black Mob Central) prints the word "gay", they place quotes around it? What they're saying is that being gay isn't a real thing. People aren't born gay, they choose to be gay (these bigoted nuts are saying).

"Christian Homosexuals" plot Church's transformation... Evangelist Ray Comfort issues warning: "Do not be deceived"... Christians considering how to respond to the Supreme Court's creation of "same-sex marriage" face a challenge from within – those who call themselves "gay Christians" and contend the Bible does not condemn homosexual behavior. One of the most conspicuous figures in the movement is Matthew Vines, who has written a book arguing Scripture does not condemn same-sex sexual relationships. ... [sez Comfort] "Matthew Vines would do well to take notice that the verses begin with Do not be deceived. There's a reason for that. We mustn't be deceived of the fact that fornicators, idolaters, adulterers, homosexuals and thieves will not inherit the Kingdom of God. Or to put it more soberly, they will end up in a terrible place called Hell. ... "So let's summarize. There is no such thing as a fornicator Christian, an adulterer Christian, a homosexual Christian or a thieving Christian. Those who call themselves Christians but continue to cling to their beloved sins will see their great deception on Judgment Day". (7/25/2015).

Ray Comfort is a Rightwing bigot minister demagogue who sez one of the ways we will know the end of days is upon us is that "homosexuality will increase [and] the institution of marriage will be forsaken". Which means we should all start preparing for the Lord's return, I guess. Although as a Progressive Christian I agree with Matthew Vines and categorically reject the irrational homophobia and hatred of those like Comfort.

In quotes (signifying they don't believe they are real things) are... "same-sex marriage" and "gay Christians". The Supreme Court "created" same-sex marriage... as opposed to recognizing that the 14th amendment protects marriage equality. And, of course there are no gay Christians, just sinners who are going to burn for eternity in Hell. Huh. Sounds more like "hate the sinner" to me than "love the sinner, hate the sin".

Personally I think these un-Christian bigots are going to be muy surprised when they stand in judgement before the Creator. Specifically, The Lord is not going to be pleased that these "Christian" bigots judged their gay brothers and sisters and treated them with contempt (by condemning them to Hell). Judgment is the Lord's alone (James 4:12).

In regards to Comfort's anti-homosexual propaganda film Audacity, WND notes that he sez "homosexuals and those who consider themselves supporters of homosexuality will... be pleasantly surprised [because] there's not an ounce of hatred or stereotyping in it".

Sure, I can believe that. It's pretty easy to put on a different face in order to soft-sell a message of hate that has gay people burning in Hell for all eternity. In interviews conducted within the film, Comfort asks his dupes if they think adultery and fornication are human nature, to which the dupes reply "yes". Then Comfort sez "But even if it's human nature, we don't act on that, because we know it's bad".

Presto, being gay is a "choice". Because, even though it's human nature for people to want to fornicate or adulter, good Christians suppress these desires. Thus gay people can suppress their "sinful" desires as well.

Except that when people are married they usually AGREE to be faithful to one another. Unless you and your mate agree that your marriage will be an open one, you are betraying the agreement you made when you got married. It is the betraying of your mate's trust that is sinful, not the acting according to your nature (straight or gay).

Being straight or gay is not a choice. Acting on either behavior is a choice. Although this "acting on" is not a sin. The sin is hurting a person you love deeply by betraying their trust.

Regarding Comfort's interviews, one critic says, "in these manipulative, cringeworthy clips, he tricks people into saying that being gay is a choice through a series of faulty comparisons and leading questions". The people being manipulated are "random LGBT people and allies on the street"... so, yeah, that's why they don't ramp up the hate and stereotyping. It wouldn't work with the people being interviewed. But just about anyone can be manipulated.

I would strongly disagree, however, that there is "not an ounce of hatred". There is hatred present, it's just subtle and the interviewees are manipulated into accepting it. Which stands in stark contrast to the up front hate presented on WMD. Because that's the audience they're catering to (the rabid haters).

Which doesn't mean they can't utilize subtlety as well (such as the quote marks around "gay"). WND-types can appreciate the subtle stuff in addition to the front and center hate. Although I'm not sure how subtle the quote marks are... I mean, it's pretty obvious what they're implying when they use them. It's just a tad less obvious than most of the hate WND peddles.

Video: Matthew Vines, the gay Christian that has Ray Comfort and other Christian bigots freaked out, speaks on "the Reformation Project" (AKA "plot the Church's transformation"). Published on YouTube on 11/7/2014 (5:45).

See Also
[1] The Gay Debate: The Bible and Homosexuality by Matthew Vines. (Hour-long video w/transcript).
[2] Willis Hart sez "I strongly suggest that you check out the black on gay violence chapter in Colin Flaherty's disturbing volume, White Girl Bleed a Lot". The reason Willis recommends Colin Flaherty's work of demagoguery is because it, in addition to revealing the "disturbing" extent of just how violent Blacks are, also covers Black homophobia. BTW, concerning WND (the bigot online rag Flaherty works for), the Rational Wiki says, it "regularly runs stories that engage in base racism, often focusing on white fears of violent blacks. The website regularly features the work of journalist and alleged human being Colin Flaherty, who has done more reporting than any other journalist on what appears to be a nationwide trend of skyrocketing black-on-white crime, violence and abuse". Yea, figures Willis would be a fan, given that he regularly traffics in this kind of demagoguery on his blog. Although he calls it "a fuller rendering of the narrative".

SWTD #299

Neil deGrasse Tyson Explains Why Government Investment In New Technologies Is So Important

Our free enterprise system is what drives innovation. But because it's not always profitable for companies to invest in basic research, throughout our history, our government has provided cutting-edge scientists and inventors with the support that they need ~ Barack Obama (dob 8/4/1961) 44th POTUS (1/20/2009 to 1/20/2017). Excerpt from his 1/25/2011 State of Union Address.

Back during the 2012 primary season, a 1/23/2012 GOP NBC debate featured a Newt Gingrich moment that had him proposing the construction of a permanent base on the Moon. Newt said that by 2020 (the last year of his *snicker* administration provided he *snicker* served two terms), private sector businesses spurred on by government-provided prize money would accomplish the task.

At the time I wrote a short commentary of a humorous nature on Newt's proposal titled "A Winning Strategy: President Newt". (Follow the link to read my side-splittingly hilarious laugh-a-palooza from 4/3/2012).

Following this unlikely proposal by Newt (unlikely that we'd build a Moon colony and unlikely that we would have elected Newt preznit), astrophysicist, cosmologist, author, and science communicator Neil deGrasse Tyson appeared on MSNBC with Martin Bashir to discuss how probable the building of a base on the moon by 2020 might be.

During the 1/26/2012 airing of Bashir's eponymous MSNBC program, Mr. Tyson pointed out that, aside from the technical and scientific hurdles that would have to be overcome, the political climate would have to change. Simply put, the political climate makes this proposal very improbable - or it would have been improbable if Newt had improbably been elected and we had actually pursued it.

Mr. Tyson went on to explain why government investment in new technologies is so important (something those on the Right who believe the "market" should decide don't cotton to).

NDT: There is rampant delusion out there about what the future will hold for us. One of the problems is, the expectation is that the private sector will just advance the space frontier. No, they're not going to advance the space frontier. Because the frontier of space is expensive, dangerous, with unknown risks and unknown costs. That is not ripe for capital markets to value, OK. The history of human exploration is one where governments take the first step. They pay for the first patents, they draw the maps. Government paid for Columbus' voyage. Magellan's voyage. Louis and Clark. That's who figures out what's going on out there. Then private enterprise comes in afterward. ...we are receding while the rest of the world is advancing. Because they realize the value of such investments. (MSNBC's Martin Bashir 1/26/2012: Dr. Neil deGrasse Tyson explains why the Newt Gingrich vision for space is too grand of an idea).

Conservatives HATE this idea, even though it is the model that has worked time and time again, as Mr. Tyson points out. Conservatives and Libertarians say this is government "picking winners and losers" and they strongly oppose it.

They object despite the fact that, without this model (where government leads the way when it comes to new technologies), the Internet would have never been invented (for example). The internet began with a government investment when "the US Department of Defense awarded contracts". Later, legislation championed by future president Al Gore led to the development of the interwebs as we know the series of tubes today (for which I thank him).

When I pointed out how crucial government investment is when it comes to new technologies (in the context of the green economy and the government loan program to support companies who invest in green energies such as solar), a whiny Conservative complained about "taxpayer funded gifts to wealthy investors and corporations".

But the evidence shows that when We The People intervene to "advance the frontier" (when the private sector is too timid to take the risk), the American people choose themselves as winners. When we fail to do this we chose to be losers (which is what the whiny guy I mentioned earlier would have us do).

The trick, of course, is to not let the corporations corrupt the system by bribing our elected officials in order to select them (the plutocrat business owners) as the winners. This crony capitalism problem is what greatly concerns Libertarians.

The solution, however, is NOT to do as Libertarians wish and give up because the wealthy special interests will always corrupt the system (that's what they say, at least). But it does not have to be this way! What we should do is reform the system (by getting rid of Citizens United and publicly financing elections, for example) and get down to picking the winners that will benefit We the People.

Unfortunately there is more and more of this defeatist Libertarian loser attitude going around today, and this is why other countries are surpassing us in the areas of green energy and high speed rail, for example [1+2].

Newt's campaign might have been a joke, but at least he was concerned about us losing our status as the cool country (despite being an uber-nerd), which we might have been able to recapture if gwb had not said NO to human-animal hybrids. If not for that bush decree we might have been on our way to a real Planet of The Apes! How cool would that have been? (Are "Humanzees" Possible?).

On second thought, high speed rail would definitely be a lot more gnarly, and more practical than a base on the moon (not that we couldn't do both). But Republicans hate high speed rail. Why? Because rugged individuals drive gas guzzling SUVs, that's why. Or coal rollers, which "are diesel trucks modified with chimneys and equipment that can force extra fuel into the engine causing dark black smoke to pour out of the chimney stacks... as a form of protest against environmentalists and Obama administration emissions regulations".

BTW, in regards to Gingrich being an "uber-nerd", how could he not be with a name like "Newton Leroy"? He also has several degrees in History and was previously employed as an assistant History professor before being elected to Congress.

Although he has had 3 wives, the 1st 2 of which *HE* dumped for a newer model. But that comes with the territory of being rich and powerful. You can be a nerd and get hot women. Not that I'm saying Callista is hot, only that she is surely hot when compared to Newton.

Footnotes
[1] China's Renewable Energy Revolution: What Is Driving It? (article excerpt) China is building a renewables energy system that is now the largest in the world. ... In terms of generating capacity, by 2013 China's WWS sources (water, wind and solar) accounted for... close to 20% of energy generated... China now has the largest electric power system in the world, rated at 1.25 trillion watts (TW), exceeding the US power system's capacity at 1.16 TW (and German at 175 GW). China added more capacity in 2013 sourced from WWS than from fossil fuels and nuclear sources combined. ...our conclusion is that in 2013, China's leading edge of change in its electric power system is moving in a green direction, away from fossil fuels dependence. (Article by John A. Mathews and Hao Tan. GlobalResearch 11/17/2014).
[2] China has the world's longest HSR network with over 16,000 km (9,900 mi) of track in service as of December 2014 which is more than the rest of the world's high speed rail tracks combined. Since high-speed rail service in China was introduced on April 18, 2007, daily ridership has grown from 237,000 in 2007 to 2.49 million in 2014, making the Chinese HSR network the most heavily used in the world. Cumulative ridership had reached 2.9 billion by October 2014. (Wikipedia/High-speed rail in China).

Video1: Martin Bashir and Astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson discuss Newt Gingrich's intentions to colonize the moon by 2020, and to the funding of space exploration in general on MSNBC. Video posted to YouTube on 1/27/2012 (6:47).

Video2: With planet Earth in turmoil, Newt Gingrich leads a GOP-filled colony on the Moon. SNL 2/4/2012 (Season 37-Episode 13, Hosted by Channing Tatum).

SWTD #298

Is Removing The Confederate Battle Flag A "Solution In Search Of A Problem"? (Addendum)

By Tuesday afternoon, sales of a 3x5 Confederate flag on Amazon had jumped nearly 4,600 percent, presumably in response to the controversy generated by the shooting and its aftermath. Sales of a similar flag rose nearly 3,300 percent ~ Quote from a HuffPo article by Andrew Lord, Amazon Bans Confederate Flag Merchandise. 6/23/2015 would be the Tuesday in question as well as publish date for the article.

With my prior commentary (SWTD #296) I addressed the question of the removal of "Confederate Flag items" from retail stores, including major retailers such as Amazon, eBay, and Walmart. My conclusion was that this was the right decision.

Well, it appears as though I spoke too soon. I sell on Amazon, and today I was notified that an item in my inventory is now prohibited.

Hello from Amazon. We are writing to let you know that the following detail pages have been removed from our catalog: ASIN: B0015J9TU2, SKU: MN-5P28-QCML, Title: "the blue and the gray [soundtrack] [audio cd] bruce broughton". This item has been identified as confederate flag merchandise. Amazon policy prohibits the listing or sale of confederate flag merchandise. For more information on our policies, search on "Restricted Products" and "Listing Restrictions" in Seller Help. **Action Required: Within 48 hours of this notice, please review your remaining listings and make any changes necessary to ensure compliance with our policies. Failure to comply with this request may result in the removal of your selling privileges. We appreciate your cooperation and thank you for selling on Amazon.com. Amazon Services.

I should have said that I thought removing "Confederate Flag merchandise" was a good idea - if they did the removing intelligently. The item in question here, a film score to a TV mini-series about the Civil War that features the Civil War as a backdrop, does feature an image of the Confederate battle flag, but it is mostly obscured, in the background, and below an image of the American flag (see pic below).

This isn't even the mini-series itself, but the orchestra score from the mini-series. I took out my copy and an listening to it right now (as I type this). I am in no way offended (although I'm not African American).

Removal of actual flags, or of clothing items that featured the flag is what I thought they were talking about. Removing movies on DVD or blu-ray (or the soundtracks from movies) is pure stupidity IMO.

In any case, the reason Amazon notified me of this is because the item is in my inventory... although it is an "Inactive/Out of Stock" item... because this film score on CD is a sold out (from the manufacturer) limited edition (2000 copies) that I sold out of. I did sell it (and made a profit due to it selling out from the manufacturer), but I shipped my last copy awhile ago. So, luckily, I'm not now stuck with a bunch of copies and no forum through which to sell them (I'm guessing it's banned on eBay as well).

I would be mad (instead of just shaking my head in regards to the stupidity of this) if I had any copies left. On the other hand, they may now be more valuable... if I could find a way to connect with a buyer who really wanted it. But, like I said, I don't have any more - except my own personal copy, which I kept because I am a fan of the composer, not because I am a fan of the 1982 miniseries.

Which I do believe I saw when it aired, but on which my memory is very foggy. All I remember is that one of the actors was Stacy Keach... and that's about it.

Synopsis of the miniseries from Wikipedia... although, remember, what Amazon is objecting to is not the miniseries, but the score (orchestral music) from the mini-series (as released on CD).

The Blue and the Gray is a television miniseries that first aired on CBS in three installments on November 14, November 16, and November 17, 1982. Set during the American Civil War, the series starred John Hammond, Stacy Keach, Lloyd Bridges, and Gregory Peck as President Abraham Lincoln. It was executive produced by Larry White and Lou Reda, in association with Columbia Pictures Television. A novel of the same name by John Leekley, Bruce Catton and Ian McLellan Hunter was published as a companion to the series in 1983. The colors in the title refer to United States Army and Confederate States Army uniforms of the period, respectively. The plot revolves around the families of two sisters; Maggie Geyser and Evelyn Hale. The Geysers are farmers from Charlottesville, Virginia, and the Hales own a small newspaper in Gettysburg, Pennsylvania. The Geysers are generally indifferent to the issue of slavery, but are sympathetic to the Southern cause. The lone exception in the family is son John, an artistic young man who becomes sympathetic to the plight of Southern slaves and free Negroes. The Hales are pro-Union and anti-slavery, but, like many Northerners at the time, they hope for a peaceful solution to the nation's problems.

Even stupider (?), the DVD of the actual mini-series (not the film score) *is* still available on Amazon (here, as a 3-DVD set). I do not, however, see a Confederate flag included in the cover image (including in the background)... which must be why you can still buy it.

I have to confess that am no longer sure if Amazon (and other retailers) getting rid of merchandise featuring the Confederate battle flag was a good idea. If Amazon had banned actual flags (full size or mini) and (perhaps) clothing items... I think that would have been enough. But a movie score CD being banned? That is ridiculous (IMO).

Also, Amazon is still selling (via a 3rd party vendors as well as Amazon itself, depending on the item) an actual flag, this Rebel Flag Notebook, a 1969 General Lee Dodge Charger Model Kit, a book titled "The South was Right" which features the Confederate battle flag on it's cover (although the content is likely a lot more offensive), another (Kindle) book titled "A Confederate Flag Turned Me Gay" (again, with an image of the offending flag on the cover), etc, etc.

Why haven't these items been removed, Amazon?

Image: Front cover image from the "Blue and the Gray" audio soundtrack CD (2-disc set) by Bruce Broughton. Released by Intrada Records as a part of their Special Collection (Volume ISC 57). Sale of this 2-CD set of orchestral music is now prohibited on Amazon.

SWTD #297

Is Removing The Confederate Battle Flag A "Solution In Search Of A Problem"?

"We have decided to prohibit Confederate flags and many items containing this image because we believe it has become a contemporary symbol of divisiveness and racism", eBay said in a statement, echoing the sentiments of others in the aftermath of the fatal shooting last week of nine black parishioners in a South Carolina church and the arrest of a white suspect. (Confederate Flag Sales Soar as Retailers Pull Stock, the NYT 6/23/2015).

According to the Libertarian blogger Constitutional Insurgent it is. Or, removing it from retail stores is.

Constitutional Insurgent: So retailers from Walmart to Apple to Amazon to the National Park Service are falling over themselves in an attempt to not be the last entity selling or displaying the battle flag of the Army of Northern Virginia. Oh the horror... Attempting to erase history to soothe the intellectually frail and those prone to the vapors isn't going to solve problems of racism or violence. The flag in question plays no role in these problems. It's an inanimate object and should be treated as such. But that's how our society reacts... erase a symbol and it will be proof of "doing something!" That's all that matters... the optics. The battle flag should no more be flown over a government facility, nor incorporated into a state flag. (Erasing history: Solutions in search of problems 6/25/2015).

This is a strawman that the blog host is using to bash people he calls "assclowns". As far as I know, most people are arguing that this flag should be moved to a museum. And nobody has suggested that private citizens be ordered to turn over their flags for destruction ("erasing").

So what the hell is this doofus whining about? He doesn't like it that PRIVATE businesses have decided to no longer sell the flag? I thought that what PRIVATE businesses sell is their prerogative? If retailers from Walmart to Apple to Amazon to the National Park Service have decided they no longer wish to sell the flag (because it is a divisive representation of discrimination), do they not have the right?

And, businesses usually pay attention to public sentiment. If these retailers have come to the conclusion that they might lose business if they continue selling this flag, then it is purely a business decision to pull it (and who would expect a business to NOT make a business decision?).

As for those who are "intellectually frail", the Insurgent is referring to people who might protest this symbol of racism continuing to be sold? Screw him. The flag is an "inanimate object", but that does not mean it plays no role. It absolutely does. Removing a symbol of hate is a good thing. A step toward fixing the problem.

Yes, the Insurgent refers to removal from retail stores (and agrees it should be removed from government property), but retailers no longer selling this flag is the right decision, IMO. Does this mean the flag will be "erased"? No. There are plenty of them out there, I am sure. And other retailers and manufacturers will likely continue to manufacture and sell the flag. And they will continue to exist (in museums and in private hands) for a very long time to come. This is hardly "erasing".

Of course "doing something" involves more than removing a symbol from government property. But it is a good start. As is large retailers removing them from their stores.

The Insurgent is wrong on removing the flags from retail stores, and wrong when he says (later, in the comment thread of his post) that "the left has given the Battle Flag far more prominence and import than racists could ever have". What utter bullshit.

It's prominence is being greatly reduced, dipshit. Further dipshittery is the claim that the Confederate battle flag "honor[s] the courage and sacrifice of Americans". The flag is a symbol of hate and oppression, proof that is the case is why and when the South began flying this flag over government buildings.

The Confederate battle flag is about to be taken down in South Carolina, but as it comes down, it seems important to remember when and why it was put up in the first place. Ostensibly it was raised to celebrate the centennial of South Carolina starting the Civil War with its attack on Fort Sumpter. But... that centennial just happened to coincide with an increase of civil rights protests in the Palmetto State. In January 1961 a group of 10 black students sat in at a lunch counter in Rock Hill, S.C. Nine of them refused to post bail, and they became known as the Friendship Nine. If the flag were raised only to commemorate the centennial of South Carolina's leading role in the Civil War, we can imagine that it would have been taken back down at the end of 1961. (The Confederate flag was raised in S.C. as civil rights movement began by Jarvis DeBerry. NOLA.com & The Times-Picayune 7/9/2015).

The flag was raised to send a message to the Ni**ers who might protest for their civil rights. The flag is a symbol of racism, not a symbol that honors those who fought for South, or a symbol that honors "heritage". That retailers are not going to sell them any longer has nothing to do with "intellectually frailty" and *does* represent "doing something".

More must be done, of course, but we don't need to continue making any more of these symbols of hate. Those who belong to private citizens are private property. They can keep them. I surely do not care if anyone wishes to fly them on their private property (and advertise their hate). But make more of them? I say no. And I say retailers who decided not to sell them any longer made the right decision.

This in no way qualifies as a "solution in search of a problem", nobody who pushed for removal of this flag from retail stores is "intellectually frail", the symbol isn't being "erased", and optics are an important part of "doing something".

SWTD #296

My Message From The Land Of Nightmares, Part 2

Vision without action is a daydream. Action without vision is a nightmare -- Japanese Proverb.

Despite the pitch blackness that prevented me from viewing my surroundings, I did as the disembodied voice instructed and moved forward. My arms outstretched, I baby-stepped my way toward a door or wall the voice said was dead ahead. Eventually I felt my palm touch a cool hard surface. Running my hand back and forth and up and down I concluded I had reached what was probably a stone wall.

"Feel for a knob down and to your right" the raspy voice that was instructing me directed. I felt around in the location described and found a cold metal knob. Twisting and pulling resulted in a door banging into the tips of my shoes. Stepping back I swung open the rectangular barrier on hinges, revealing a dimly lit passage. Stepping through the egress I pulled the door shut behind me. "Er, wait a minute" the voice that had led me to the door squeaked. The knob was pulled from my grasp.

Surprised, I jumped away from the door into the passage. The door reopened and a small imp hopped over the threshold into the corridor. A old-timey oil lantern swung from a hook on the wall when I backed into it. The blood-red horned imp with talons protruding from it's leathery wings barred it's fangs and hissed at me. "Keep back human" the demonoid warned. "My purpose is to bring you to my master, he who summoned you here".

"Is that so?" I asked, not trusting this evil-looking creature. "Yes, Mr. Charles is waiting for you" the imp replied. "Who is Mr. Charles?" I inquired. "Enough!" the imp shrieked. "My purpose is to guide you, not to respond to your inane chatter". The imp flicked the door shut with it's tail. It slammed closed and I heard a click. "Yes, the exit is locked" the imp confirmed. "Not that it would matter. The portal that brought you here is one-way". The imp cautiously passed by me, keeping close to the opposite side of the corridor.

"This way" the imp said, motioning me to follow with one of it's talons. Not seeing any other option, I followed. Soon we came to a four way junction, oil lanterns hanging from the wall illuminating the way. The imp turned right and I continued to follow. Hours passed and the imp and I trudged along through the dimly lit subterranean corridor. Growing tired I asked demanded of the imp "how much further"? Stopping short the imp turned. an angry look on it's face.

"Not that far now" he said. "Although we should have been there long ago" the creature muttered under it's breath. "What's that?" I inquired, growing exasperated in addition to exhausted. "I misremembered the way" the imp concluded after standing there motionless for some time (apparently he had been pondering). "You mean we have to return to the 4 way juncture we encountered so many hours ago?" "Indeed", the devilkin affirmed.

"M-effer" I groaned, contemplating giving the small creature a swift kick. But the imp (reading my body language?) hissed and bared it's fangs. "It has been many years since I have been in these particular corridors" he explained. "Not that I need to excuse myself to human scum" he added. "Back!" he commanded, raising his small (but viciously clawed) hand, motioning me to press myself against the cool rock wall. Which I did, not wanting to tangle with a creature possessing razor sharp fangs and claws.

The imp passed by and we headed back toward the 4-corridor junction. Many more hours passed until we made it back to where the wrong turn had occurred. "Now which way?" the deviling hellion murmured softly. Minutes passed as the creature contemplated. "Well, we came from that way" I said, indicating the passage that led back to the room this journey began in. "And we went this way before turning around" I said, referring to the passage I was still standing in. "That leaves two options". "One must be the way to... wherever it is we are going".

"Obviously" the imp agreed. "But I can't recall which one". The imp was looking quite frustrated. "Damn!" he screamed suddenly after several more moments of silence, causing me to jump. "Mr. Charles is not going to be pleased". "Wait", the devilkin finally concluded. "If we return to where we started... there is a map there".

"But didn't the door lock when we left" I said, remembering hearing a click. "Shut yer yap, mortal" the demonoid growled, pointing a sharp talon at me as a warning. "Don't you worry about that". And, as it turns out, there was no need to worry, despite the door being locked. When we got back to where we had started our journey the devilish sprite stuck a sharp nail into the keyhole and picked the lock. "Bring a lantern" he instructed as the door to the black room reopened.

Bringing a lantern with me into the inky darkness illuminated the room. "There", the imp indicated, gesturing to the wall to the left of the door after we had entered. There, affixed to the stone wall, was an engraved map. A you are here arrow pointing to where we were. "That cavern is where we are heading" the imp said, pointing to a enormous blank space near the top of the map. "I'm not sure of the scale, but this appears to be many miles from where we are" I deduced while examining the map.

After tracing back the route to where we were, I concluded that we should have turned left at the 4-way juncture. There were, however, many other junctures along the way to the enormous cavern. "Perhaps we should take this map with us?" I suggested, reaching for topographical depiction affixed to the wall. "Oh no, that map is firmly attached" the demonoid replied, moving toward the exit. "No need to worry any longer, human" the creature assured me. "I shall recall the way, now that my memory has been refreshed".

And apparently he did remember, as -- after following him down the left corridor, we made our way with no hesitations at any further junctures. The imp knew where he was going (now). Or acted with confidence that suggested he did. And, after many more hours, the corridor opened into an enormous football-field-sized cavern (or many foot-field-sized, to be more precise). The cavern was lit brightly... and also quite warm.

In fact the temperature, before quite cool, increased to a degree that soon had me sweating profusely; and it was immediately apparent what the source of the heat was; a large burning lake of fire! "I do not wish to go any closer to the fire" I protested, feeling almost as if my clothing could burst into flame at any second. But the imp beckoned me on, pointing to the right. "There your host awaits you" he explained.

I looked in the direction the imp indicated and saw a long (60 foot?) wooden table surrounded by many chairs. Dinner plates, forks, spoons, goblets, bottles of wine and platters of food (down the center) rested atop the extended buffet. Approaching the far right end of the enormous feast, I was disgusted to find the food -- large platters of roasted chickens, bowls of creamy mashed potatoes, cheesy green bean casseroles, large brown gravy boats and various other dishes -- was rotten and squirming with maggots -- reminding me of that pizza I had almost consumed in my kitchen (so long ago now it seemed).

The worms slithered in and out of the decaying putrid feast. "Ugh" I muttered as the stench invaded my nostrils. The stink did not seem to offend the imp, however, who hopped up on the table. His wings flapping a few times as he hovered briefly over the mess, then touched down on the table top. "I am so famished" the imp exclaimed, grabbing a green chicken leg, tearing it off, and chowing down.

"Disgusting" I exclaimed as the imp devoured the remainder of the decomposing grub-infested poultry -- an act that almost caused me to vomit. "Over here" a gravely voiced proclaimed loudly. I turned and peered down the length of the table. At the other end a cowled figure was seated. This must be my host, I thought. Despite the intense heat a cold chill ran down my spine. Was this the mysterious Mr. Charles? The individual who had commanded my presence?

 swtd-295. mes-4.  Previous. Next.

George W bush And Dick Cheney Responsible For Today's Surveillance State

We can't go around telling people we're a free country when either the government or the corporate world knows every damn thing about you - that's not really freedom ~ Bernie Sanders (dob 9/8/1941) the Junior Senator from Vermont and 2016 Presidential candidate on the 6/1/2015 airing of of Late Night With Seth Meyers explaining his NO vote on the USA Freedom Act.

America's Surveillance State is a six part investigative documentary series currently airing on Free Speech TV [1]. During part 2 of the series, "Inside the NSA: How Do They Spy?" (which examines who is watching whom and why) retired CIA employee Ray McGovern says he became disillusioned and retired early.

According to McGovern the CIA conducted themselves "with respect to what they called the first commandment out there at Fort Meade, the NSA [which was] thou shalt not collect information [or] eavesdrop on Americans without a court warrant".

But McGovern says that changed after the election of gwb, "when Cheney came in he called [former Director of the NSA from March 1999 to April 2005] General Hayden and said "I know about that first commandment at the NSA. Forget about it". And that was before 9-11.

Then the interviewer asks, "so the decision for the NSA to begin collecting information on everyone and everything started with an order from above?", McGovern answers "oh sure, it was Dick Cheney and George Bush".

So this massive expansion of the surveillance state started before 9-11 and before passage of the Patriot Act. And it was so ordered (before 9-11) by bush and Cheney. Yes, Barack Obama has continued this unconstitutional (under the 4th amendment) collection of data, but that is hardly surprising, given that presidents rarely give up power. Not that this, in any way, excuses Obama, but still... I think it is noteworthy that it was bush and Cheney who began this unconstitutional data collection... and did so not in response to 9-11 (as many probably think).

Yet more proof that bush was one of America's absolutely worst and most lawless presidents!

The USA Freedom Act (legislation that modified the Patriot Act) supposedly puts an end to bulk data collection. However...

...the USA Freedom Act... gives the government a six-month period to transition to the new system, under which telecommunications companies would hold onto the data, only handing information over if the government has a targeted warrant. (Thought bulk data collection was gone? Think again by Jeremy Diamond. CNN 6/2/2015).

So the NSA will continue to bulk collect data for the next 6 months (so, to the end of 2015), and then the bulk data collection will continue... but be stored with the telecommunication companies and only handed over with a court order. But the data is still being bulk collected in violation of the 4th amendment. I mean, so what if it isn't the government directly that is collecting the data, but the telecoms at the direction of the government?

The Patriot Act is now repackaged with a new name, The USA Freedom Act and unfortunately government's unwarranted and indefinite storage of private records and communications continues. The new spy law, as was its predecessor, remains an attack on the 4th Amendment. Unfortunately for big government advocates, collecting and storing data on its citizens is not cited or even alluded to in Article I, Section 8 where the powers of the federal government are itemized. ... Actually such activity is specifically forbidden in the 4th Amendment which reads: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized". The amendment was specifically designed to prevent government spying on its own. "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers against unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be violated" is the strongest possible language conceivable. ... Moreover, the new USA Freedom Act violates the 5th Amendment as well in that the accused is, in a very real sense, forced to be a witness against himself... (The USA Freedom Act is an attack on the 4th Amendment. From the website Before It's News 6/19/2015)

Wikipedia says that "Before It's News" was started by Jake Kettle, and that Kettle is "self identifies as a social democrat, advocating for a combination of direct democracy and socialism", but this particular article is categorized under "Opinion, Conservative" (BIN is "a community of individuals who report on what's going on around them, from all around the world which anyone can join").

But that this article is written from a Conservative/Libertarian viewpoint is obvious, given the insertion of an "enumerated powers" argument (in purple). The enumerated powers argument says what the government does is limited to the "list of items found in Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution".

Although, being a Progressive Democrat, I reject that argument. As a Progressive I believe in an expansive interpretation of the General Welfare clause. An interpretation we are currently operating under and which the Supreme Court has upheld (DSB #6).

So, given that reality I think the reference to "Article I, Section 8" in the BIN article is not relevant. It is Conservative/Libertarian baloney that has no bearing on whether or not data can be bulk collected. One only need look to the 4th amendment for WHY the Patriot and USA Freedom acts both violate the Constitution [2].

Randal Paul, who voted NO on the USA Freedom Act, said "Congress may just be replacing one bulk collection program with another". This he is correct on, given that now it the telecoms bulk collecting our data (and storing the info if the government requests it).

Note that this would be one extremely rare instance when I would agree with Mr. Paul, although (my choice for our next president) Bernie Sanders also voted NO. (see final roll call here).

Hillary Clinton, the other major Democratic candidate for US president, tweeted her support, writing "Congress should move ahead now with the USA Freedom Act - a good step forward in ongoing efforts to protect our security & civil liberties".

Clinton voted for the initial Patriot Act during her time as a senator from New York in 2001 and again in 2006. Sanders voted against the Patriot Act as House member in 2001 and 2005, then again refused to back its re-authorization when he arrived in the Senate. (excerpted near-verbatim from here).

Footnotes
[1] View the entire documentary miniseries America's Surveillance State (2:45:14) here. To watch individual episodes, follow this link.
[2] The USA Freedom Act does not violate the 4th amendment says the editorial board of the Washington Post. They say that Randal Paul "is the one misstating constitutional law. [T]he phone records of law-abiding Americans are none of the government's business! his campaign Web site declares. Actually, the Supreme Court held 36 years ago that there is no constitutional right to privacy in phone records (as opposed to phone conversations). The court reasoned, realistically, that customers willingly convey numbers and times to the phone company each time they dial, knowing that the company retains the information for business purposes (excerpt from Rand Paul should stop stalling the USA Freedom Act. 6/1/2015).

Video: Bernie Sanders on the 6/1/2015 airing of Late Night with Seth Meyers (3:51).

SWTD #294

On Vilifying Americans Unwilling To Assent To The New Orthodoxy (i.e. Calling Out Bigots Who Won't Stop Discriminating)

The decision will also have other important consequences. It will be used to vilify Americans who are unwilling to assent to the new orthodoxy. In the course of its opinion, the majority compares traditional marriage laws to laws that denied equal treatment for African-Americans and women. The implications of this analogy will be exploited by those who are determined to stamp out every vestige of dissent ~ Samuel Alito, in his Obergefell v. Hodges dissent, 6/26/2015.

Friday June 26, 2015 will be recorded as an historic day for equality! On that day marriage discrimination was ended by a 5-4 Supreme Court ruling [1], making the US the 21st country to legalize same sex marriage [2]. The majority ruled bans on same sex marriage are unconstitutional due to such bans being in violation of the 14th amendment's equal protection clause. Marriage equality is now the law in all 50 states, to the horror of the Religious Right bigots.

I have no doubt, that if you were to check out message boards where these types preach their hate, you would find many people speaking about how this is a victory for Satan! I consider this to be the opposite. God does not sanction hate in response to love. Love is not a sin. When "traditional marriage" laws are compared to laws that denied equal treatment for African-Americans and women, the comparison is accurate and the people making them SHOULD be vilified for their bigotry.

Religious Right bigots like televangelist James Robison [3], who warns that... legalizing same-sex marriage is part of a satanic intent to take away freedom". Robison further warns that we should "keep in mind the enemy of God – Satan himself – is the father of all lies" [4].

With the first warning I disagree. Allowing gay people to marry has no effect on straight marriage at all. Suggestions that they do are made only by people who are stupid. With Robinson's 2nd warning, however, I agree! Satan, I believe, is deceiving those who oppose marriage equality. That many of these televangelists have accumulated vast personal fortunes is proof of who they serve [5+6]. Preaching the word of God should not be a path to enormous wealth. These preachers are being deceived, and are deceiving their flocks.

Now it might be amusing to witness how these Religious Right bigots react. Although, let us pray there is no violence. According to what I've read, signatories to a "defend marriage pledge" have been instructed by Rick Scarborough, a prominent Baptist pastor in Texas and one of the authors of the pledge, to resist all government efforts to require them to accept gay marriage. He said some, including himself, would accept any fine, arrest or even jail time to protect their religious freedom [7].

There will be no constitutional amendment banning gay marriage as desired by Mike Huckabee [8] and others. Nor will there be any amendment kicking the decision back to the states, as called for by Scott Walker [9]. This issue is now settled! There is no going back. Hopefully the bigots will accept this sooner than later.

And now that the marriage issue is resolved, hopefully we can put an end to all the other areas in which LGBT people face discrimination? The idea of a comprehensive bill covering discrimination in housing, employment, public accommodations, credit and federal programs is gaining traction. A bill that does not allow discrimination under the ruse of a "religious exemption". Or we could simply amend "the Civil Rights Act of 1964 - which provides protections based on race, color, religion, sex or national - to include the categories of sexual orientation and gender identity".

Whatever the approach, it is past time to completely ban discrimination of any kind in these areas. But Congressional Republicans will no doubt stand in the way, just as they have done in the states (Republican-controlled state legislatures being responsible for all these anti-gay state laws).

Footnotes
[1] Marriage discrimination was ruled unconstitutional in the Supreme Court case Obergefell v. Hodges on 6/26/2015. Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy authored the majority opinion, joined by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan. Chief Justice John Roberts, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas dissented.
[2] See here for listing of all 21 countries with marriage equality.
[3] James Robinson's Wikipedia page and Huffington Post bio.
[4] Robison: Satan himself and Demonic forcers are behind push for marriage equality by Brian Tashman. Rightwing Watch, 6/11/2013.
[5] Wikipedia notes that Robison's Christian relief organization "Life Outreach International" (which he is the president of) "third-world mission outreaches include distributing emergency food, drilling water wells, establishing orphanages, rescuing girls from sex trafficking, and providing medical care". However, his organization does not meet charity accountability standards. The author of the article "Beware of James Robinson's Ministry, David J. Stewart, says the reason for this warning (that LOI does not do proper disclosure) is "to expose the greedy televangelists who exploit Christianity to make money".
[6] Greedy Televangelists! Where is all that money going?
[7] Mike Huckabee and Rick Santorum among anti-gay marriage pledge signees by The staff of The Guardian, 6/21/2015.
[8] Mike Huckabee: I will not bow to the Court on this gay marriage decision any more than the Founders bowed to British tyranny by AllahPundit. Hot Air 6/26/2015. My commentary: This dum-dum is equating the SCOTUS judge ruling for equality to British tyranny pre war for independence? What a frigging moron.
[9] Scott Walker calls for Constitutional amendment to let states define marriage by Daniel Strauss. Politico 6/26/2015.

SWTD #293