On Hillary Clinton Saying (During the Democratic Debate) That She is "A Progressive That Likes To Get Things Done"

When someone shows you who they are, believe them the first time ~ Maya Angelou (4/4/1928 to 5/28/2014) an American author, poet, dancer, actress, and singer.

Note: This commentary concerns the 1st Democratic Party presidential debate, which was held on 10/13/2015 in Las Vegas NV at the Wynn, a luxury resort and casino owned by self-described "job creator" Steve Wynn. This would be the whiner who bitched about the Obama administration painting a "bulls-eye" on his back by promoting "class warfare" (a slight increase in taxes on the wealthy by returning to the Clinton-era rates) prior to Obama's election to a 2nd term.

Hillary, when asked by Anderson Cooper if she identifies as a Progressive, said she does. This is an example of Hillary "casting herself as a liberal fighter who has been progressive for her entire life". (Something a CNN article says her campaign is doing). However (the CNN article goes on), "to many on the left, those lines never really rang true".

To which I say yes, Hillary claiming to be a Progressive does not ring true for me. First of all, as Anderson points out, Hillary just recently said "you know, I get accused of being kind of moderate and center [to which] I plead guilty" (at a Women for Hillary event in Ohio on 9/10/2015). I think that statement represents the truth of where Hillary stands politically. She is not a Progressive, but claiming to be one because that is what Democratic presidents of late do... they run to the Left but move to the Center (Right) after they're elected. Bill Clinton did it and so did Barack Obama.

I'd like to believe Hillary on this, but, given the fact that she JUST identified as a Moderate, I can't. Does this fit in with the Right's "untrustworthy" narrative? No. They're referring to bogus "scandals" regarding her email (SWTD #313) and the phony-baloney never-ending House "investigation" into Benghazi. This would be the "investigation" that CA Rep. Kevin McCarthy recently admitted was a politically-motivated waste-of-taxpayer-money effort to damage her presidential campaign.

So, while I recgonize that these bogus scandals are no reason to find HRC "untrustable" (the palinism used by the former potential Boner replacement), I don't trust HRC to act as a "liberal fighter". Unless by "act" you mean to play a part. For example, she says that now she's opposed to the extremely bad trade deal being pushed by the Obama administration known as the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP). But, while serving as Obama's secretary of state, she referred to it the "gold standard" (as well as exciting, innovative, groundbreaking... and numerous other superlatives).

When AC360 brought this up Hillary's response was that she had hoped it would be the gold standard, but now she has concluded that it isn't. Not a biggie, perhaps. Even though PolitiFact concludes that Hillary revising her past statements on the TPP is "half true" because "her previous remarks actually gave the impression that she had confidence in the deal as it stood". However, as a member of the Obama administration, she couldn't very well come out against it. Surely it would be awkward if she had publicly contradicted an administration she was a part of?

The important thing is that she is against it now, right? Except... is she? Remember when Obama was running for office he said "we should use the hammer of a potential opt-out as leverage to ensure that we actually get labor and environmental standards that are enforced". And, according to PolitiFact, Sherrod Brown was "absolutely confident Barack Obama [would] reopen the negotiations on NAFTA" because the administration "assured [Brown that] his [Obama's] position is constant". But did Obama do squat in regards to NAFTA after getting elected?

Not only did Obama renig on his promise to renegotiate NAFTA after his election, he "warned... against a strong impulse toward protectionism" and then BSed the American people, saying he was still "serious about changing NAFTA". Now, in the final days of his administration, he pushing another negotiated-by-and-for-the-plutocrats job-destroying (bad) trade deal? He does this as he's leaving because he won't have to face the voters to answer for his trade treachery.

But, given Obama's campaign fictions regarding renegotiating NAFTA, nobody should be overly surprised he's pushing the job-killing TPP. He is, after all, a self described Blue dog Moderate Democrat. None-the-less, I must say that I am incredibly disappointed. Which isn't to say that I regret my vote, as he absolutely was a better choice than McCain or Romney.

Both of these losing potus candidates, being members of the more-plutocrat-friendly party, support exterminating American jobs via "free trade". In fact, regarding the TPP, McCain says to would be "crazy" to "squander a historic opportunity" to send American jobs to low wage countries, while Romney says expatriating US jobs so the plutocrats can become even richer is "good for America".

But polls show that, while "Americans tend to support trade, they oppose an expansion of status quo trade policies". The status quo being trade agreements (like NAFTA) that destroy American jobs. Although Americans knew NAFTA would cost American jobs back when Hillary's husband ran for president, which is why he said "American companies must act like American companies again, exporting products, not jobs" when he accepted the nomination.

Then, after his election, WJC, in a betrayal of one of his New Convenant promises, signed NAFTA (on 1/1/1994) and, as a result, American citizens heard the "giant sucking sound of American companies fleeing the United States for Mexico, where employees would work for less pay and without benefits".

This was exactly what Ross Perot warned us about. Americans knew that Perot, who ran on this SINGLE topic was right, which is why he received 18.81 percent of the popular vote, "the most won by a third-party presidential candidate since Theodore Roosevelt in 1912". (And Perot, had he had not dropped out of the race and later re-entered it, might have ended up with an even higher percentage).

"Will you say anything to get elected" the Coop asked HRC in regards to her flip-flop on the TPP (in addition to other positions she has "evolved" on... see video below). Hillary said no. But was she being completely honest or simply giving her sales pitch... one designed solely to sell her as president?

Three words help explain why Hillary Clinton now opposes the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade accord - after once laying the groundwork for it as secretary... Her newfound opposition... protects her left flank against Bernie Sanders' challenge; it helps her solidify her support with organized labor... It's also consistent with modern Democratic politics: In the 2008 Democratic primaries, both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton railed against NAFTA and free trade accords. But after winning the Democratic nomination, Obama warmed up to free trade... he's now made this TPP trade accord a chief goal in his final months in the White House. So it wouldn't be surprising if Clinton makes a similar move back to the middle if she wins the nomination next year. (Hillary Clinton Protects Left Flank With TPP Opposition by Mark Murray. NBC News 10/7/2015).

While I'd welcome a genuine change of position (re the TPP) and identification (Moderate to Progressive) from HRC, I frankly do not believe her reversal is genuine. It might be, and if she is the nominee I will vote for her and hope that she does not move to the center, but why take that chance when the possibility that we might get snookered again is a strong (IMO) possibility? Why not vote for the true Progressive in the Primary and make Bernie Sanders our nominee?

Bernie Sanders, the founder of the Progressive caucus, is a lifelong Progressive with a proven track record. He does not need to move to the Left for the election because he's always been to the Left. Which, IMO, is what America desperately needs... a genuine Progressive in the White House. This is what America wants, as WJC and BHO lying about their positions on free trade during their respective campaigns proves. They were saying what they needed to in order to get elected, that is. I'm not saying they did not believe what they were saying at the time.

But, that both of our previous Democratic presidents moved to the Left during their campaigns, is proof that America wants a genuine Progressive as their next president. And the ONLY genuine proven Progressive is Bernie Sanders, which is why I'm supporting him for president. At least until HRC defeats him in the primary. Which, if this happens, will mean that the American people bought her sales pitch. It will mean they listened to the naysayers who don't believe that a Democratic Socialist can win the general. But I think that he can, because he's the president America needs. And if enough Democrats realize and vote for him in the primary - he will win in the general.

BTW, in regards to Steve Wynn, US News & World Report notes that he "leans Republican but calls Democratic debate hosting a point of pride". So what's going on here? Does Wynn's pride stem from the fact that he can curry favor with both sides? Is this an indication that he'd be OK with HRC being elected the next potus? I think the answer to this question is YES, and is yet another reason why Democrats should be voting for Bernie.

Video: Hillary Clinton says she is a "progressive who likes to get things done"... but does she mean that she's a progressive (only while running for the Democratic nomination) and that what she'd like to "get done" is getting elected potus #45? (transcript).

SWTD #315

Thom Hartmann on Fox So-Called News (AKA Fox Nooz) In The Context Of HRC's 10/22/2015 Benghazi Questioning

A continual circulation of lies among those who are not much in the way of hearing them contradicted, will in time pass for truth; and the crime lies not in the believer but the inventor ~ Thomas Paine (2/9/1737 to 6/8/1809) as quoted in The American Crisis (1776-1783).

The following is an excerpt from the Thom Hartmann Radio Program, 10/23/2015, which I edited for brevity and clarity. Thom discusses the Fox "news" coverage of Hillary Clinton's testimony before the House sham Benghazi "investigation" committee.

Thom: Fox News cut away from the hearings once it became obvious that Hillary Clinton was owning these guys. Instead they went to just playing the clips in which Republicans would lay out a fantasy scenario and then Hillary Clinton would say - no, that's not true, that didn't happen. But they didn't include Hillary's response.

This is what Fox so-called news does. They are not a news channel. They are the official media arm of the Republican Party. This is how it was proposed to Richard Nixon by Roger Ailes to back in the 70s, and that's what it is. And it's obscene that they're allowed to call themselves NEWS.

[End Thom Hartmann Rant]

From Media Matters...

Washington Post opinion writer Erik Wemple noted that while Fox News has often heavily covered the 2012 Benghazi attacks, "the Benghazi network", as he called it, abandoned live coverage of Hillary Clinton's testimony before the House Select Committee this evening in favor of general political commentary on The Five. Wemple described Fox's decision as "conceding that today's marathon congressional hearing on the topic is going nowhere". (Wash. Post's Wemple: Fox "All But Acknowledges The Benghazi Hearing Is A Snooze" by the Media Matters Staff. 10/22/2015).

Going nowhere in regards to furthering their Benghazi narrative, that is. The narrative being that Hillary Clinton issued a stand down order and is therefore personally responsible for the deaths of Chris Stevens, Sean Smith, Tyrone S. Woods and Glen Doherty. In fact, it is virtually the same as if she had murdered them herself. Making these yet more murders Hillary is responsible for. Previous murders including that of Vince Foster (in addition to the dozens of other people Hillary and her husband bumped off)!

Obviously Benghazi disqualifies Hillary from being president. Because 4 Americans died and she was Secretary of State. Even though, as Hillary pointed out, attacks on diplomatic outposts have occurred under Republican administrations, and Democrats responded by working with Repubs to try to fix the problem. As opposed to "investigating" to, as the House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy put it, damage HRC politically.

Kevin McCarthy: Everybody thought Hillary Clinton was unbeatable, right? But we put together a Benghazi special committee, a select committee. What are her numbers today? Her numbers are dropping. Why? Because she's untrustable. But no one would have known any of that had happened, had we not fought. (Source: The Washington Post 9/30/2015).

And where did Kevin McCarthy accidentally utter this truism? Why, it was on Sean Hannity's program! This is a prime example of why, even though Fox may do some actual news (with it's defenders citing Shepard Smith, among others), their main agenda is to act as the official media arm of the Republican Party.

While msnbc, the other channel on which political opinion can be found, has recently decided to move to the Right (SWTD #305). According to Talker's Magazine, NBC News Chief Andrew Lack "plans to rebuild MSNBC to focus on breaking news coverage and to be less of a left-leaning talk outlet"... so I don't think a similar accusation can be made against them. At least not any longer. Not that I think they have BEEN a mouthpiece for the Democratic Party.

Fox, on the other hand, CLEARLY is. Which is why I've referred to them in the past as Fox Nooz (DSB #12). And why I will continue to do so. It's because there are not "two so similar nooz channels"... despite what dissemblers on the Right (who attempt to present themselves as "consistent and non-partisan") may claim.

SWTD #314

HRC email Controversy Way Overblown Compared To bush Admin eMail Scandal (Imaginary Vs Actual Crimes)

You have Democrats beginning to panic about the one thing that a lot of them never worried about, which was Clinton's electability in the general election ...the challenge she faces in the general election is both the trust problem and the likability problem ~ Robert Shrum AKA "Dumb Shrum" (dob 1943) an American political consultant, who has worked on numerous Democratic campaigns, including the losing presidential campaigns of Al Gore and John Kerry.

Regarding Robert Shrum's nickname of "Dumb Shrum", my memory tells me that I heard this on Al Franken's Air America radio program. I might be wrong, however, as I could not confirm this via a Google search. In any case, the nickname comes from the fact that "in eight elections (for either the presidential nomination or for the presidency itself), Shrum's candidates have never won". (Wikipedia reports).

Regarding the quote at the top of this post; it is via the far-Right website 9/9/2009 Newsmax story "Democrats Eyeing White Knight If Clinton Implodes"... which is complete nonsense, as there is almost nothing to this so-called scandal. Despite deluded Righty fantasies of Hillary (and perhaps Obama) ending up behind bars... for their fictional "lawlessness".

Hillary did SOMETHING wrong. As long as the Republicans keep looking, eventually they'll find a transgression with substance. Although they've been looking for the last 35 years and both Hillary and Bill are still free. Not imprisoned for their many imaginary crimes, much to the chagrin of the (real) vast Rightwing conspiracy.

The latest imaginary crime of Hillary Clinton involving her emails, being yet in another in a series of desperate attempts by the Right to derail her POTUS candidacy. Another attempt that will fail, despite what Dumb Shrum sez. Those who do not trust HRC or find her "likable" did not trust or find her likable to begin with. They would not be voting for her even if Congressional Republicans were not continuously investing fake/overblown Clinton misdeeds.

Overblown HRC email Scandal Aspect #1: Used Personal email & Server Which Was Either Illegal Or At Least Shady

This allegation concerns Hillary doing something wrong by using a private email and server. Perhaps even illegal! Except that... no. "Clinton and her staff have stated that her use of the private email account was above board and allowed under State Department rules" and this is indeed the case.

HRC, in using/maintaining a private server broke no laws that existed at the time.

...federal regulations went into effect in late November, 2014 when President Obama signed H.R. 1233, modernizing the Federal Records Act of 1950 to include electronic communications. It was signed two years after [Hillary] Clinton stepped down. (That Story About Hillary Clinton's Private Email Account Isn't as Awful as It Seems by Bob Cesca. The Daily Banter 3/3/2015).

Frankly I think it should have been law long ago that government employees were legally required to communicate using government (and not private) systems. However, until recently it has not been. Hillary Clinton followed the law and is guilty of nothing, nor has anything been uncovered (via the release of these emails) that show she was trying to hide something. At most she could be "convicted" of falling "short of the Obama administration's preferred best practices". (A Crystal-Clear Explanation of Hillary's Confusing Email Scandal).

Which differs significantly with what happened during the bush administration. In 2007 it was discovered that preznit bush (and underlings in the office of the preznit) corresponded "via a non-government domain hosted on an email server not controlled by the federal government... in violation of the Presidential Records Act of 1978, and the Hatch Act". (Wikipedia/Bush White House email controversy).

What the bushies were attempting to hide was that their Attorney General, Alberto Gonzales, fired US attorneys who wouldn't investigate fake/non-existent voter fraud cases.

Investigative journalist Greg Palast: David Iglesias of New Mexico was one of seven U.S. Attorneys fired by the White House for their refusal to bring voter fraud prosecutions. [According to Iglesias] "We took over 100 complaints... We investigated for almost 2 years [and] I didn't find one prosecutable voter fraud case in the entire state of New Mexico". Specifically, Attorney General Gonzales... wanted him to bring what the prosecutor called "bogus voter fraud" cases. In effect, US Attorney Iglesias was under pressure from the boss to charge citizens with crimes they didn't commit. (Gonzales "wrong and illegal and unethical" by Greg Palast. GregPalast.com 8/28/2007).

The purpose of prosecuting phony-baloney "voter fraud" cases? According to Greg Palast, Karl Rove "convinced Bush to fire upright prosecutors and replace them with Rove-bots ready to strike out at fraudulent (i.e. Democratic) voters". This was another example of bushie election thievery antics, in other words... which is why this (genuine) controversy was viewed as a possible violation of the Hatch Act... which is a law that says the president or VP can't direct their underlings to engage "in some forms of political activity".

The firing of the US attorneys who wouldn't investigate bullpucky "voter fraud" cases to help Republicans win via cheating (preventing legitimate voters from casting ballots by scarring/harassing them away from the polls) was a purely political act... so here we have actual violations of the law, coordinated via email that the bushies tried to hide... and the only thing that happened was that Gonzales fell on his sword (took the blame and resigned).

With HRC, no wrongdoing of any kind has yet to be shown. Should she have used a private server? No, she absolutely should not have IMO. But did she break the law or do anything shady? There is no evidence she did.

Overblown HRC email Scandal Aspect #2: Classified Info Was Sent/Received Through Private Server

Here there appears to be a little more substance, in that Hillary may have actually sent or received classified information. Although, it should be noted that nothing HRC sent/received was marked classified at the time. "None of the emails we reviewed had classification or dissemination markings..." according to Intelligence Community Inspector General I. Charles McCullough III (Hillary's emails touch off debate about classified documents by Josh Gerstein. 07/24/2015).

It appears, however, that it is possible that some of these sent/received communications should have been treated as classified (even though not marked as such).

...foreign government information [is defined by] The US government... as any information, written or spoken, provided in confidence to U.S. officials by their foreign counterparts. This sort of information, which the department says Clinton both sent and received in her emails, is the only kind that must be "presumed" classified, in part to protect national security and the integrity of diplomatic interactions... "It's born classified", said J. William Leonard, a former director of the U.S. government's Information Security Oversight Office (ISOO). Leonard was director of ISOO, part of the White House's National Archives and Records Administration, from 2002 until 2008, and worked for both the Bill Clinton and George W. Bush administrations. (Dozens of Clinton emails were classified from the start, U.S. rules suggest by Jonathan Allen. Reuters 8/21/2015).

If HRC is "guilty" of anything, it appears as though this may be the smoking gun. Although I would say this, if it occurred, is most likely an oversight and not due to any nefarious intentions on Clinton's part. Quite unlike bush's email scandal, where the intention was to hide illegal politicking (in the form of election thievery) using the office of the White House (in violation of the Hatch Act).

So we are clearly not dealing with anything of an illegal nature re the Hillary email non-scandal, although a Libertarian blog I read sez that if HRC asserts that she did not know the emails were supposed to be treated as classified "she looks like a total incompetent and a moron".

Personally I do not agree with this assessment. Smart competent people make mistakes all the time. In any case, HRC's team destroyed a large number of communications they deemed "personal", so if there is any incriminating evidence, it's likely gone. "Incriminating" her in regards to what, I do not know. Unlike with the bushies. With this genuinely lawless administration I know they covered up and escaped prosecution in regards to their election thievery.

This is why I predict the Republican investigations will go nowhere (the same direction they've been going thus far). Congressional Republicans know this, of course. They simply want to firmly plant the idea in the gullible base voter's noggin that HRC is getting away with unspecified illegalities. And spread that false meme into the general electorate as widely as they are able. There is no real "investigating" in other words. What is going on is all political in nature.

Hillary Clinton will likely be the nominee as well as our next president... in my estimation. This so-called scandal will not be "devastating" to campaign as the aforementioned Libertarian asserts.

The bottom line here, I'd say, is that I just do not f*cking give a shit. Barring me hearing (at the very least) some sane sounding conspiracy theory concerning ACTUAL wrongdoing by HRC. WHY did she (or her underlings) destroy thousands of emails they say were "personal"? What is she hiding/what is the REAL crime? I mean, the bushies got away with fricking election fraud shenanigans simply by having Alberto fall on his sword and resign.

Although preznit doofus defended him, saying that Gonzales' "good name [was] dragged through the mud", and that he stepped down only because he received "unfair treatment that has created harmful distraction at the Justice Department". Right.

Now we have Hillary-haters who are calling for her head on a pike for significantly lesser transgressions? I am NOT going along with it. She isn't an "incompetent moron" nor a brilliant criminal mastermind who has evaded successful prosecution for 30-plus years for her many (imaginary) crimes... committed as a part of her husband's administration, via the charitable Clinton Foundation, and as a member of the "lawless" Obama WH.

Congressional Repubs just can't seem to get anything to stick. Perhaps because there is (and have been) no wrongdoings by HRC? Call me a partisan, but I say f*ck these Rightwing idiots who think there is even the remotest chance that HRC will end up behind bars for this nothing-burger. Or the even bigger non-scandal of Benghazi.

Which, by the way, was one of the conspiracy theories floated back in March. That a Benghazi stand down order might be found among the HRC emails. A conspiracy that is leagues away from sane sounding, you poor deluded desperate Repub-identifying halfwits.

Video: Alberto Gonzales said "I don't recall" 72 times during his January 2007 Senate hearing. Gonzales resigned on 9/17/2007 (0:52).

SWTD #313. See also OST #71.

Iraq War Based On gwb Lie Of "Disarming" Saddam When IAEA Officials Who Were There, On The Ground, Said Iraq Had No WMD

George W. Bush made 232 false statements about Iraq and former leader Saddam Hussein's possessing weapons of mass destruction, and 28 false statements about Iraq's links to al Qaeda according to a 1/22/2008 study by the Center for Public Integrity and its affiliated group, the Fund for Independence in Journalism. In total the Bush Admin made 935 false statements in run-up to war.

According to the gwb administration, the purpose of the vote on the Iraq War Resolution was to pressure the UN and Iraq into getting inspectors back into the country. At least that's what Hillary Clinton has said when defending her vote on the matter.

Hillary, before voting, asked "If you are given this authority, will you put the inspectors in and permit them to finish their job". She was told that, YES, that was the goal. To show the UN and Iraq that the bush administration was serious, Congress needed to authorize war if the inspectors were not allowed back in (Hillary Clinton Never Supported the Bush/Cheney Invasion of Iraq).

Well, it worked. Inspectors for the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) were allowed back into Iraq... and so bush, realizing that the threat worked, allowed the inspections to do their job and the UN to decide what to do if Iraq again balked and did not cooperate (as the UN charter stipulates).

No, wait... that isn't what happened at all. Saddam did drag his feet (as before) and not cooperate fully. Although the inspectors thought progress was still being made. None-the-less the bush administration (already having the Congressional authority it needed) launched an attack.

And the bush administration launched it's attack in spite of (1) telling members of Congress they were voting to get inspectors back in and that war would be a last resort, and (2) The UN charter saying "it is up to the council itself, and not individual members, to determine how the body's resolutions are to be enforced".

bush, in deciding to go ahead with the invasion despite the UN not voting for war, violated articles 33 and 39 of the Charter (33 says disputes are to be resolved peacefully and 39 says that the UN "decides what measures shall be taken" when the resolutions it makes are violated).

Because UN charter does not allow individual countries to act unilaterally a number of UN and IAEA officials condemned the US invasion of Iraq. (Condemned it, or pointed out why it was unnecessary).

Six UN & IAEA Officials Who Either Condemned US Invasion of Iraq Or Confirmed It Was Unnecessary

1. Kofi Annan: The UN Secretary-general from 1/1/1997 to 12/31/2006 said (in regards to the bush invasion of Iraq) "I have indicated it is not in conformity with the UN Charter, from our point of view, and from the Charter point of view it was illegal". This, according to a statement made to the BBC in September 2004. According to spokesman Fred Eckhard this "has been the Secretary-General's longstanding view [because the UN charter] does not allow pre-emptive attacks".

2. Mohamed ElBaradei: The IAEA director from 1997 to 2009, in regards to bush's claim that Iraq had WMD and the invasion was needed to "disarm" Saddam, said, "deliberate deception [isn't] limited to small countries ruled by ruthless dictators" (this is a quote from his book Age of Deception).

3. Hans Blix: The former head of the IAEA (1981–1997) who was called back from retirement by UN Secretary General Kofi Annan to lead United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission and was in charge of looking for WMD in Iraq said that his inspectors "found no stockpiles of WMD and had made significant progress toward resolving open issues of disarmament". Iraq was not complying or having difficulty complying (because of misplaced stockpiles) but Mr. Blix was confident that everything would be resolved. The only thing that was needed was time ("a matter of months").

Furthermore Blix said that if "the inspections been allowed to continue, there would likely be a very different situation in Iraq today. As it was, America's preemptive, unilateral actions have bred more terrorism there and elsewhere". (For The Record, Yes, George W. Bush Did Help Create ISIS).

Although, according to Blix, US President george w. bush and UK Prime Minister Tony Blair did not act in bad faith, but only exhibited "a severe lack of critical thinking".

4. David Kay: The Chief weapons inspector said "I think there were stockpiles at the end of the first Gulf War and a combination of U.N. inspectors and unilateral Iraqi action got rid of them" when he resigned on 1/23/2004.

I should note, however that Kay defended the Bush administration, saying that even if Iraq did not have weapons stockpiles, this did not mean it wasn't dangerous. Was Iraq dangerous? Perhaps, but there are many countries with "dangerous" regimes, and the US isn't invading them all. That Kay also blamed "faulty intelligence gathering" for the prewar WMD conclusions (even though this is pure bullplop) explains why he defended the lying bush administration.

Although the conclusion of the Senate report on prewar intelligence on Iraq (that the bush Administration repeatedly presented intelligence as fact when in reality it was unsubstantiated, contradicted, or even non-existent) wasn't released until 5/25/2007, so perhaps Kay's idiotic partisan statement is understandable? The US government had not yet confirmed that the bush administration blatantly lied. Even though the IAEA had.

But, and this is the important point, Kay knew Iraq had no WDM because he was one of those on the ground in Iraq who was looking for it (and did not find it). Thus confirming that the war was (if not illegal/based on a lie) unnecessary as per the bush administration reasons for waging it (to "disarm" Iraq).

5. Charles Dulfer: Dulfer, who replaced David Kay as Chief weapons inspector, said "it turns out that we were all wrong [and] I believe that the effort that has been directed to this point has been sufficiently intense that it is highly unlikely that there were large stockpiles of deployed, militarized chemical weapons there".

6. Scott Ritter: A United Nations weapons inspector in Iraq from 1991 to 1998, while not a participant in the 2002 inspections, has remarked that "since 1998 Iraq has been fundamentally disarmed: 90-95% of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction capacity has been verifiably eliminated". The nuclear program was eliminated and there was no evidence Iraq had retained chemical or biological weapons according to Ritter.

The Republican-identifying Ritter who says he voted for gwb was later (in 2001 and 2010) accused of "soliciting minors for sex on the Internet" (the 2001 charges were dismissed and the 2010 charges resulted in a conviction). For this reason Ritter's critics discount his statements re Iraq having WMD. Obviously the two aren't connected, but still the crime he was convicted of calls his character into question. He desired sex with minors, so he obviously lied about finding no WMD (so say his critics... see SWTD #232 point "5A" for more info concerning what one specific critic said when I brought up Ritter's name in a discussion re the illegality of gwb's Iraq invasion).

**End list of 6 UN and IAEA Officials Who Either Condemned US Invasion of Iraq Or Confirmed It Was Unnecessary**

In regards to ex-preznit bush saying (on 3/19/20013, in an address to the American people notifying them of the beginning of the illegal invasion of Iraq), "my fellow citizens, at this hour American and coalition forces are in the early stages of military operations to disarm Iraq, to free its people and to defend the world from grave danger"... we knew/know bush was lying and he knows/knew he lied/was lying.

How do we know for certain that bush lied? Mohamed ElBaradei told the Security Council (on 3/7/2003) via written report that the "UN inspections in Iraq worked". Please note that this report was delivered on 3/7/2003 and bush ordered the invasion on 3/19/2003. So bush said "invade to disarm" AFTER the head of the IAEA told the world that the inspections worked and that Iraq was already disarmed!

A fact that the UN Secretary General Kofi Annan, as well as everyone at the IAEA (listed above) confirms (despite Kay going along with the "faulty intel" BS). My conclusion is that bush CLEARLY lied. And it was a blatant bold-faced lie.

This is something our own government concluded with a bi-partisan majority report issued by the Senate (on 6/5/2008) that said "the [bush] Administration repeatedly presented intelligence as fact when in reality it was unsubstantiated, contradicted, or even non-existent".

Yet the bush apologists continue to lie... both about bush lying about Iraq having WMD (it was an "intelligence failure", they say), as well as Iraq having WMD. Iraq really did have WMD these liars/dumbshits say! Wikileaks documents prove Saddam had WMD!

Sorry, but no. bush claimed that we needed to invade to "disarm" Saddam, not that we needed to invade to clean up old, forgotten, buried and degraded chemical weapons. Which is what was actually claimed, and this was NOT what bush hyped (in order to scare the American people into accepting war). According to Wired's Noah Shachtman "Saddam's toxic arsenal [was] largely destroyed after the Gulf War". (WikiLeaks Iraq War Logs: No Evidence of Massive WMD Caches).

What we found after the invasion was "remnants". Remnants are what the Wikileaks documents revealed were found in Iraq post invasion. Would the American people have agreed to war over "remnants"? We all know the answer to that question is NO. Which is why bush ignored what the IAEA was telling him about Iraq having no WMD and lied about "disarming" Saddam.

Wikipedia notes that "In a White House Iraq Group meeting, chief Bush speechwriter Michael Gerson proposes the use of a smoking gun/mushroom cloud metaphor to sell the American public on the supposed nuclear dangers posed by Saddam Hussein".

The "smoking gun/mushroom cloud" metaphor was just one of the 935 false statements, (including 232 lies that bush himself disassembled) the administration used to SELL us the Iraq war. "Intelligence failure" my ass!

Video: Terrorist leader bush scares the shit out of Americans with BS about Iraq possessing nuclear weapons and using them to attack us. Clip from a 10/7/2002 TV address broadcast from Cincinnati's Museum Center at Union Terminal (0:07).

Notes
[1] From an 8/28/2011 discussion on the blog of Willis Hart: When I pointed out that HRC said the gwb WH told her a YES vote wasn't a vote for war, but a vote to pressure Iraq to agree to "complete, unlimited inspections", Willis Hart responded by saying, "My God, wd, what do you expect her to say, I screwed up? You know as well as I do that, if the war had gone better, the lady would have been patting herself on the back till the cows came home. She (and Kerry and Biden) knew exactly what they were voting for".

See also: SWTD #154: Intellectual Honesty Concerning ex-Preznit bush's WMD Lies (5/23/2013).

SWTD #312

Rasmussen Asks Leading Question To Discredit Black Lives Matter Movement

To say that Black lives matter is not to say that other lives do not; indeed, it is quite the reverse - it is to recognize that all lives do matter, and to acknowledge that African Americans are often targeted unfairly... ~ Rev. Dan Schatz, Minister of the BuxMont Unitarian Universalist Fellowship in Warrington PA(and White man), in his 12/15/2014 HuffPo article On Being Asked to Change 'Black Lives Matter' to 'All Lives Matter'.

The following poll results from an 8/20/2015 Rasmussen Reports survey.

Rasmussen: Yes, black lives matter, but don't all lives matter? That seems to be the subject of some political dispute. When asked which statement is closest to their own views, 78% of Likely U.S. Voters say all lives matter. A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that just 11% say black lives matter. Nine percent (9%) say neither statement reflects their point of view. (To see survey question wording, click here.) Thirty-one percent (31%) of black voters say black lives matter is closest to their own views, but just nine percent (9%) of whites and 10% of other minority voters agree. Eighty-one percent (81%) of whites and 76% of other minority voters opt instead for all lives matter, and 64% of blacks agree. (source).

The bias of Rasmussen is evident in the very fist sentence. Black Lives matter is NOT saying all lives don't matter... yet Rasmussen says it's "a subject of some political dispute" when IT IS NOT! The phrase "Black Lives Matter" is in reaction to a system that says Black lives don't matter. What they're really saying is Black lives matter just as much as White lives, although our system doesn't act as if they do.

So, because OF COURSE "all lives matter", Rasmussen get responses that indicate most people agree that "all lives matter" is the statement that is closest to their own views. 69% of Black respondents choose "all lives matter" because ALL LIVES DO MATTER!

But notice that Rasmussen did not also ask if the respondent supports the Black Lives Matter movement? Why didn't they? Because those responses would have revealed the boggussness of their poll. A poll CLEARLY intended to discredit the BLM movement. Had they asked people if they also support the BLM movement, I strongly suspect that there would have been a huge amount of overlap.

People would have said, YES "all lives matter" is the statement is closest to their own views, while at the same time supporting BLM. As for the 31% of African American respondents who chose "black lives matter" as their statement? I believe (most/a large percentage of) those people realized they were being asked a leading question designed to get the response Rasmussen wanted... and they refused to play Rasmussen's game.

Personally, I would have also asked if "do you support the BLM movement" was a followup question, and if I was told "no" I would have replied that "black lives matter" is closest to my view, whereas if they had said yes, I would have said "all lives matter" is closest to my view. I would have refused to play their game and give them the response they wanted in their leading poll, in other words.

BTW, for proof that this was a leading poll - just take a look at how the Rightwing-o-sphere has responded... they trumpeting this poll result. It's proof that the BLM movement has no support... even among the Black community. But note that "do you support the BLM movement" is NOT the question that was asked!

Is this proof that Rasmussen Reports is a tool of the Rightwing? Are they Conservatively biased? I'm not sure. I Googled for confirmation of this suspicion, and found some evidence that backs up this suspicion, but not a lot. Nothing that said, oh yes, that Rasmussen is Conservatively biased is well know. I do know that this specific poll was biased, however.

Here is another example (from the same page I pulled the above Rasmussen poll results from).

Rasmussen: ...82% of black voters think most black Americans receive unfair treatment from the police. White voters by a 56% to 30% margin don't believe that's true. Other minority voters are evenly divided. But 70% of all voters believe the level of crime in low-income inner city communities is a bigger problem in America today than police discrimination against minorities. (source).

OK, so Rasmussen is obviously trying to discredit the idea that black Americans receive unfair treatment from the police by following that question with another question that gets a response of "70% of all voters believe the level of crime in low-income inner city communities is a bigger problem in America today than police discrimination against minorities".

The two aren't mutually exclusive! Both are big problems, although I would say African Americans receiving unfair treatment from the police is the more serious problem... because the police are supposed to serve and protect all law abiding citizens regardless of race!

Sure, numbers-wise, the level of crime in low-income inner city communities is a bigger problem, but criminals commit crimes... that is what they do. The police treating people unfairly based on skin color is not supposed to be what they do! Yet, it seems that it is. Which is why the BLM movement exists... to draw attention to this problem.

It does not exist to say that ALL LIVES don't matter or that Black lives matter more... although this is EXACTLY how the Rasmussen poll question is phrased... and why they did not ask if respondents also supported the BLM movement.

Which is why my conclusion is that Rasmussen (at least with this poll) is obviously and transparently (IMO) shilling for the Rightwing... by asking a leading question to get the response they were looking for. A response that discredits the BLM movement and scrubs race from the conversation altogether.

In response [to "Black Lives Matter"], some white folks have countered with the phrase, "All Lives Matter". While this is seemingly a more empowering as well as a diversity affirming response, it is neither ..."All Lives Matter" is a form of willful colorblindness - the erasure of the issue of race. When people say "All Lives Matter" in response to "Black Lives Matter," they are not simply opening their arms to the greater diversity of humanity. Instead, they are taking race out of the conversation. While the statement masquerades as a bright and inclusive light, in the shadow of this statement hides a willful ignorance of America's racist past and present. (What's the Matter with "All Lives Matter" by David Bedrick. The Huffington Post 8/24/2015).

Erasing of the issue of race is the goal of the Whites pushing back against BLM in my opinion. There are some clueless people going along with this, but much of the pushback (replace "Black Lives Matter" with "All Lives Matter") is racist in nature. That's why it's mostly Rightwingers getting offended and claiming that BLM is "racist" and saying things like "All Lives Matter is beautiful" and "If your self-righteous, pompous, racist activism clouds the cognitive portion of your brain... Fuck You".

Speaking of FUs, Glenn Beck led a rally of 20k similarly clueless and/or racist individuals in an "All Lives Matter march" along the historic civil rights route from Kelly Ingram Park to Birmingham City Hall on 8/29/2015. Chuck Norris and Jon Voight were there, along with African American pastor Bishop Jim Lowe and Alveda King (a Conservative Fox Nooz contributing niece of civil rights activist Martin Luther King Jr).

Because Rightwingers love it when they can get Black dupes to tell them their racism is OK.

It is also "unfortunate" that Rasmussen Reports participated in the discrediting of the BLM movement (via replacement of "Black Lives Matter" with the color-blind history-ignoring "All Lives Matter"). Although I'm not at all convinced the Rasmussen poll was "unfortunate"... but rather it was calculated, in that Rasmussen asked the question that elicited the response they wanted. Too bad more respondents didn't realize they were being played.

Image: Protestors show the real message of the BLM movement, which is that Black lives matter as much (not more) than White lives. We need to laud this movement, not denounce it. We need to emulate it, not shut it down... which is what the Right wishes to do with their "all lives matter" counter-slogan... shut down BLM.

SWTD #311. See also TADM #80.

Additional Evidence Supporting The Hypothesis That Ayn Rand Hated Poor People

The poverty of our century is unlike that of any other. It is not, as poverty was before, the result of natural scarcity, but of a set of priorities imposed upon the rest of the world by the rich. Consequently, the modern poor are not pitied... but written off as trash. The twentieth-century consumer economy has produced the first culture for which as beggar is a reminder of nothing ~ John Berger (dob 11/5/1926) English art critic, novelist, painter and poet. Berger's essay on art criticism, Ways of Seeing, written as an accompaniment to a BBC series, is often used as a university text.

In a prior commentary (SWTD #303), I hypothesized that because Ayn Rand killed large numbers of fictional moochers in her massive tome (Atlas Shrugged), she hated poor people. Bolstering this case, I believe, was the fact that her "hero", John Galt, called for other wealthy individuals such as himself to take actions that resulted in the deaths of millions of citizens of the oppressive Socialist dystopia that Atlas Shrugged took place in. And, in regards to these deaths, Rand pontificated on how the dead deserved to die due to their support for the Socialist state.

Of course Rand denied that she hated the poor, but I think her writings speak for themselves. A commenter on my blog, when I asserted that the evidence shows hate, asked if I could "point to any statement made by Ayn Rand that she hated the poor". Because Rand never SPECIFICALLY said "I hate poor people"... if I look at other things she said or wrote and conclude that these writings show she hated poor people... that's just my opinion.

Perhaps, but I still contend that the evidence is pretty solid. And I will continue to assert that Rand did indeed hate poor people. The facts I presented in my prior commentary back that up. But those writings I pointed to do not represent the totality of words from Rand that show (IMO) how much she hated poor people. Which is reason for this commentary... to present additional proof of Rand's hate for the less fortunate.

The following concerns Rand's take on money and those who don't have a lot of it.

Rand called the United States a "nation of money", and she meant it as a compliment. "The words to make money hold the essence of human morality", she wrote in a famous passage in her 1957 novel, Atlas Shrugged. In Rand's hierarchy of virtue the American industrialist is "the highest type of human being" and the needy are rabble. "Parasites, moochers, looters, brutes and thugs can be of no value to a human being", Rand wrote in 1963. "Nor can he gain any benefit from living in a society geared to their needs, demands and protection, a society that treats him as a sacrificial animal and penalizes him for his virtues in order to reward them for their vices, which means: a society based on the ethics of altruism". (Ayn Rand - Paul Ryan's Moral Heroine - Instructs Johnny Carson on the Virtue of Selfishness, 1967 by Mike Springer. Open Cluture 8/14/2012) .

Obviously, given that poor people have less money, they must be less moral (according to Rand). If an individual is less moral as well as a parasite, a moocher, a looter, a brute or a thug; and if they are of "no value"... well, it's clear that Rand's opinion of such people (the poor) was exceedingly low. Heck, sounds like she thought the poor aren't even human, as they are of "no value to a human being". My guess is that the "human being" she refers to would be a rich person.

So, rich people are the only real humans beings, while the poor are nothing but parasites. Of course parasites are creatures that, if they afflict humans, are exterminated. Rand's idea for how the extermination should be accomplished? Eliminate all socialist safety net type programs. Society should not be "geared to their needs", after all. Obviously such a policy would obviously result in some, if not many deaths. Or, as Rand said (in regards to a hypothetical poor man) "if he does not choose to live [by having enough money to do so], nature will take its course [and he will die]".

In other words, "die you evil parasitical scum!". Or, I will sit by and watch you die. And call it "immoral" if anyone suggests help should be provided. Is this hate? You can judge for yourself, but I think more people will say YES than NO. In my opinion. Although it is possible that Rand simply wrote the poor off as trash and did not give them any further thought. However, given how many moochers she killed off in Atlas Shrugged, I doubt it. I mean, she was pretty clear (in AS) that she thought the world would be better off with significantly fewer looters. And fantasized about how to off large numbers of the hated parasitical moochers.

Video: Ayn Rand appears on the Tonight Show, 10/22/1967. According to Rand, a mixed economy (such as we have here in the US) leads to war. Social safety net programs designed to help the less fortunate are "immoral", as are the moochers who utilize them. Given these facts I ask... how could Rand NOT hate the poor, given the evil they represent? (26:37).

SWTD #310, ARHP #2.

Jared Fogel Pleading Guilty Will Get Him 5 Or More Years. He Will Be Raped In Prison Says Expert

We get caught laundering money, we're not going to a white-collar resort prison. No, no, no, we're going to federal pound-me-in-the-ass prison! ~ Michael Bolton (character played by David Herman) in the 1999 film, Office Space.

15-year Subway Spokesman Jared Fogle has agreed to plead guilty to "distribution and receipt of child pornography and unlawful sex acts with minors" according to TheWrap. Not only will he serve at least 5 years in prison, be out 1.4 million dollars, get divorced by his wife and be branded a sex offender for life, but, apparently the consensus is that another punishment awaits him once he finds himself behind bars.

"Everybody is gonna know that Jared the chomo is here and he's gonna get his footlong every day", Levine explained in raw prison parlance. (Jared Fogle Will Be Marked Man in Prison, Expert Says by Anita Bennett and Tim Kenneally. The Wrap 8/20/2015).

"Chomo" is prison slang for a child molester. So the word is that Jared will be raped in prison. An expert says so. And there are "jokes" about it all over the internet. Seems even one prominent newspaper got in on the yuk yuks.

Former Subway spokesperson Jared Fogle should "enjoy a foot long in jail", according to the New York Post's Thursday cover, which features a photograph of Fogle leaving the courthouse... The controversial cover comes a day after Fogle said he will plead guilty... but it did not sit well with all of the paper's readers. Joking about the sex scandal turned the Post into a top Twitter trend, sparking outrage from some users of the social media platform who thought it was insensitive to joke about the sensitive subject. (NY Post Sparks Outrage With Jared Fogle 'Enjoy a Foot Long' Prison Rape Cover by dude. pub date).

So, rape "jokes" are "insensitive"? Yeah, the dude (statutorily) raped a 16 year old girl (by paying her $100 for sex), but it will not be a part of his sentence to be raped in prison. The judge won't be telling him that, because he raped, he's going to get raped. That's not going to happen. Still, it seems he will be raped.

So, while I have no sympathy for Jared in regards to all the other negative consequences he will suffer, I am disgusted that people are (apparently) accepting of prison rape. Even though (I would say) it constitutes cruel and unusual punishment. There is a law on the books called the Prison Rape Elimination Act of 2003 - which was signed by preznit George W bush in 2003. However, according to Mike Farrell, "the National Prison Rape Elimination Commission meets periodically to study the impact of prisoner rape. While they study, rape continues".

Not good enough. Not by a long shot, IMO. Jared's life is going to be destroyed, but YES, he did it to himself and he has earned his punishment. But that punishment should not include a violation of his 8th amendment rights. Prison rape, is cruel and unusual and I don't think enough is being done about it. Perhaps you disagree, but the Constitution applies to everyone. There are no exemptions for people who commit crimes who we might think deserve to be raped in prison.

Shame on the NY Post for their prison rape cover. That a prominent national newspaper thinks this is OK is part of the reason why this problem still exists. By the way, if Jared were a woman, would people still be anyone would be making such jokes? Maybe. BTW, according to a date Daily Mail article more men are are raped in the US than women - when the figures include prison assaults.

In 2008, it was estimated 216,000 inmates were sexually assaulted while serving time, according to the Department of Justice figures. That is compared to 90,479 rape cases outside of prison. (More men are raped in the US than women, figures on prison assaults reveal by Daily Mail Reporter. The Daily Mail 10/16/2013).

I'm assuming, that since the title of the article is "more men are raped in the US than women", that the 216k figure is men raped? Although, later on the article says "according to official statistics on rape conviction rates... 91 per cent of the victims were women and 99 per cent of the perpetrators were men". Maybe I'm missing something, but that doesn't seem to compute.

Regardless, whether the victim is a male or female inmate, I believe prison rape is totally unacceptable and we should be doing more to stop it from happening. According to Human Rights Watch 2001 report "No Escape: Male Rape in U.S. Prisons" the blame for widespread existence of male inmate on inmate sexual violence in American prison lies with indifference and feigned ignorance by prison officials.

As for Jared Fogle... what an idiot! He had a fantastic life, what with his 15 million dollars in net worth for doing a fairly easy job... which enabled him to buy a lot of good will via the charitable organizations he set up. Public opinion of him before this revelation was probably quite good. Now, even after he gets out of prison... he may have a sizeable chunk of his wealth left, but the dude is going to be a pariah.

He not only destroyed his marriage, but his relationship with his two children! With whom he will only be allowed (after getting out of prison) "supervised visits... only with pre-approval of their mother". Yet (at least until he gets out of prison) I think that the "foot longs" will be what he "enjoys" least of all.

Image: Thursday August 20 2015 cover of the New York Post.

SWTD #309

Josh Duggar Christian Hypocrite Subscribed To Ashley Madison, Cheated On Mother Of His 4 Kids (I Presume) While Lecturing On Morality as Executive Director Of The Family Research Council

Marriage is honourable in all, and the bed undefiled: but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge ~ Christian Bible, King James Version. The Duggars primarily use the KJV, according to the Duggar Family Blog FAQ.

According to a 18/19/2015 The Wrap story by Tony Maglio "disgraced 19 Kids star Josh Duggar named in Ashley Madison leak".

In July 2015, a group hacked the user data of Ashley Madison, a commercial website for people looking to have extramarital affairs. The hackers, calling themselves "The Impact Team", claimed to have stolen personal information about the site's user base, and threatened to release users' names and personally identifying information if Ashley Madison was not immediately shut down. Because of the site's policy of not deleting users' personal information including real names, addresses, search history and credit card details, many users feared being publicly shamed. (Wikipedia/Ashley Madison data breach).

The article goes on to note that Josh, the LGBT bigot who admitted to duggaring several of his sisters, "paid a total of $986.76 for two different monthly Ashley Madison subscriptions from February of 2013 until May of 2015" and that he paid an extra $250 for an "affair guarantee", which promises the customer's money back "if they don't have an affair within three months". Perhaps Josh was not attracted to his continually pregnant wife and that explains why he sinned?

The wife broodmare that got cheated on is 27 year old Anna Renee Duggar (nee Keller), mother of Mackynzie, Michael, Marcus and Meredith. Anna has 7 siblings herself and was obviously aware that Josh has 18, so clearly serving as a Duggar broodmare is something she must be OK with.

Heck, I would not be surprised that she was aware of her husband's Ashley Madison account, given the fact that she has continued to stand by him and knew when she married him what he'd done. Although OK! says Anna was "completely and utterly devastated". Devastated not in regards to the molesting, "but she never thought any of this stuff would come out". Now MORE "stuff" has come out. It's not stuff that has him molesting his own kids... so that's a plus.

Will Anna be further devastated due to the fact that she and Josh did not even kiss until their wedding day, while her husband's Ashley Madison account info reveals that he was looking for "someone I can teach", "likes to give oral sex" and "likes to receive oral sex"?

The sect the Duggars belong to, the Quiverfull movement, eschews all forms of birth control" and Josh's parents "say they have decided to allow God to determine the number of children they have" because God said to "be fruitful and multiply". But Josh might have thought God should butt out and not decide that he should father a child with a woman he was cheating on his wife with. Evidently he wasn't concerned enough to not cheat re the Bible's preaching against infidelity.

Josh was a subscriber for over 2 years, so I'm assuming that he did find someone willing to cheat with him. Some (married?) woman actually thought that an affair with a religious fundamentalist with a growing brood of rugrats was a good idea? Even though this was before the duggaring scandal broke, I'm thinking... why?

Although I do not know why any woman would chose to be continuously pregnant either... so I did a Google search and found that psychiatrists say "the constant need to get pregnant is a mental disorder" and such women "are oftentimes extremely lonely and believe that being perpetually pregnant fills this loneliness and void in their lives".

A likely explanation as to why a woman would have an affair as well. Still, who would want an affair with Josh Duggar? Some women find men with a lot of money attractive, I've heard. Josh was (at the time) the "executive director of FRC Action, the non-profit political action and lobbying arm of the Family Research Council". Advocating Right-wing bigotry probably pays quite well (I'm confidently guessing). And his parents pulled in 25 million large a year (according to the 19 kids Wikipedia page).

May of 2015 is when Josh both stepped down from his FRC position and discontinued his Ashley Madison account, BTW. Priorities change when you find yourself unemployed. But I doubt any woman would be interested in cheating with an unemployed man who duggared 4 of his sisters. I suppose I could be wrong and he only discontinued his account for financial reasons. Or perhaps his wife (if she didn't already know) found out. Now the world knows. Will Anna be MORE completely and MORE utterly devastated? Probably.

Still I predict no divorce, given the fact that "the Quiverfull movement preaches that women must be subservient to all of men's needs". One of Anna's husband's needs being the need to cheat on his wife. Which is why I said I wouldn't be surprised if she knew about the Ashely Madison account... and "submitted" to Josh's need to teach other women how to play hoop snake.

SWTD #308

Is There Evidence Supporting The Allegation That Ed Schultz Is A Wife Beater?

Upon my tongues continual slanders ride; The which in every language I pronounce; Stuffing the ears of men with false reports ~ William Shakespeare, Henry IV, Part 2 (aprox 1599).

This is an allegation that came up in the comment thread attached to a recent commentary (SWTD #305) in which I wrote about msnbc canceling the Ed Show.

The allegation was made by a miscreant who calls himself Rusty Shackelford. This Conservative blogger has made the allegation many times before and will likely make it many times in the future [1]. The fact is, whenever the name "Ed Schultz" comes up in a discussion on a blog he comments on, he throws the allegation out. Although he doesn't frame it as an allegation. Instead he states it as if it is a proven fact. Even though there is zero evidence that Ed Schultz ever beat his first wife, Maureen Zimmerman, whom he divorced in 1993. The truth is that Ed Schultz is a happily married man who has been with his current wife Wendy for 17 years.

These spurious allegations stem from a temporary order of protection or restraining order that was granted because the situation "involved alleged domestic violence, harassment, stalking or sexual assault". Apparently Schultz's ex-wife requested one - and it was granted temporarily, pending a hearing.

The following hitpiece from The Daily Caller, a politically conservative news and opinion website based in Washington DC, discusses it.

Daily Caller: In 2004, Schultz got all the records from his divorce [from his first wife, Maureen Zimmerman] sealed - which [Schultz's lawyer] claims was for "financial reasons". The only documents that remain accessible to the public are the dates and subject of motions and hearings. Nearly three years after filing for divorce, Zimmerman obtained an "ex-parte temporary protection order", prohibiting Schultz from contacting her. North Dakota family law attorney Mike Gjesdahl cautions that ex-parte orders are not findings of fact. "It is just a way to say freeze", he explained. Temporary protection orders in North Dakota expire after 14 days, when the accused is entitled to a hearing. On Nov. 16, 1995, a hearing was held at Zimmerman's request for a regular domestic violence protection order, which a judge can issue for one month, one year or indefinitely. There is no indication on the public docket on how the judge ruled. The tape of the hearing was sealed on Dec. 13, 1995. Zimmerman could not be reached for comment. Her divorce lawyer is deceased. (That Time A Woman Obtained A Protection Order From Ed Schultz by Betsy Rothstein. 2/20/2015).

All that is known is that a temporary restraining order was requested, it was granted temporarily until a hearing could be held, and (thirdly) a hearing was held. Was a regular domestic violence protection order granted as a result of that hearing? The article says "there is no indication on the public docket on how the judge ruled" [2].

Nobody (except those directly involved) knows why the temporary order was requested (and Maureen Zimmerman has not commented). Or if the judge determined during the hearing whether or not the temporary order should be extended, Or for what reason the order was granted or denied.

Another pertinent fact would be if the police were ever called to investigate any "wife beating". Surely the Daily Caller would have dug that up if they had been, right? But they did not, so this likely never happened. I therefore conclude that anyone saying Ed Schultz is a "wife beater" is engaging in some heavy-duty speculating. There is no proof that Ed Schultz ever laid a hand on his ex-wife, let alone "beat" her.

That Ed Schultz's ex-wife got a temporary restraining order against him might simply indicate there was an angry exchange and his ex-wife FELT threatened (and there was no physical altercation at all).

Or she could have filed for it for another reason, as this excerpt from Wikipedia notes.

Misuse of restraining orders is claimed to be widespread. Elaine Epstein, former president of the Massachusetts Bar Association, has remarked, "Everyone knows that restraining orders and orders to vacate are granted to virtually all who apply... In many cases, allegations of abuse are now used for tactical advantage". A 1995 study conducted by the Massachusetts Trial Court that reviewed domestic restraining orders issued in the state found that less than half of the orders involved even an allegation of violence. Similarly a West Virginia study found eight out of 10 orders were unnecessary or false. The low burden of proof for restraining orders has led to some high-profile cases involving stalkers of celebrities obtaining restraining orders against their targets.

My suspicion is that the Maureen Zimmerman restraining order falls into the "8 out of 10 orders were unnecessary or false" category. Most likely (I think) she FELT threatened but wasn't really in any danger of Ed Schultz laying a hand on her *at all* (the order was unnecessary).

I will, however, concede that I too am speculating. The fact is nobody knows what happened. We do know, however, that 8 out of 10 orders are unnecessary or false. Which means that it is 80 percent likely the order Maureen Zimmerman requested was unnecessary or false.

And there is the fact that Ed Schultz has been happily married to his current wife for 17 years with zero evidence that he has ever "beat" her. Which there likely would be, if he were a "wife beater". Someone with an "anger problem" who "needs anger management" (another spurious allegation) who "beat" his wife wouldn't do it just once.

I therefore declare that the allegation is almost certainly false. In any case, the evidence supporting it is worse than flimsy. Anyone determined to continue referring to Mr. Schultz as a "wife beater" should at least add a qualifier to their allegation. I suggest "suspected", in that the person making them suspects Ed Schultz "beat" his wife... despite the available evidence not coming close to proving anything of the sort ever happened.

My suspicion is that anyone sticking to this virtually unfounded suspicion is doing so because they are a Conservative who hates Ed Schultz (for being a strong Progressive), and not due to the facts.

In regards to "wife beating", however, there is another individual who has had the same charge levied against him. This person is a pundit on a channel that Rusty Shackelford frequently touts the ratings of. And the evidence against this person is significantly stronger. According to a 5/18/2015 Gawker story "a court-appointed forensic examiner testified at a closed hearing that Bill O'Reilly's daughter claimed to have witnessed her father dragging [his ex-wife Maureen McPhilmy] down a staircase by her neck".

The case against O'Reilly isn't solely based on a restraining order being issued (which does not necessarily mean domestic abuse occurred). With O'Reilly we have court transcripts that support an allegation that a "beating" occurred. Allegations that say "Bill O'Reilly's [16yo] daughter saw him choking her mom".

Does this mean that Rusty Shackelford will henceforth refer to O'Reilly as a "wife choker"? Will he bring up these allegations (which are VERY likely true) whenever he is involved in a conversation and the name O'Reilly comes up? I doubt it.

Footnotes & See Also
[1] In a 6/23/2012 Rusty Shackelford comment from the blog of Willis Hart the idiot says, "Please prove to us that Ed Shultz's exwife did'nt accuse him of domestic violence. Prove that she did'nt have a restraining order issued against him because of his liquor filled rages. I'm here saying Ed Shultz was charged with domestic violence by his ex-wife... I'm here saying his ex-wife went to court and had a restraining order issued against him because she feared his alcohol fueled rages". Obviously Rusty lies, as he has ZERO personal knowledge of what happened (he wasn't there), nor could he have any 2nd hand knowledge of what happened, given the FACT that the court records are sealed.
[2] In regards to the temporary restraining order that Maureen Zimmerman requested, a 2/26/2015 Daily Caller article says "Schultz filed a sworn statement that the 1995 restraining order was issued without any allegations of domestic violence...". (Ed Schultz Convinces Judge To Hold Emergency Hearing Because MSNBC Host Thinks He Needs To Protect His Career by Betsy Rothstein).
[3] See also "WD An Apologist And Supporter of Domestic Violence" for many lies from the moron dmarks concerning the proprietor of this blog "lying about and defending Schultz' domestic violence". dmarks also, in regards to me saying "you have no idea if Ed Schultz beat his wife or not", replied "I know he did". This despite the court record being sealed.

Video: Evidence of Bill O'Reilly's anger problem for which he needs anger management. O'Reilly's profanity-laced outburst occurred at the conclusion of an episode of Inside Edition when O'Reilly gets confused by the phrase "to play us out". According to Wikiquote this meltdown was an "offhand remark to cameraman... late 1980s - early 1990s" (1:32).

SWTD #307

You Can't Appeal To A Republican Using Either A Religious Or Economic Argument (Re States Accepting The Medicaid Expansion) Because These "Christians" Hate The Poors So Much

There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what...who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims. ...These are people who pay no income tax. ...and so my job is not to worry about those people. I'll never convince them that they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives ~ Willard Mittens Romney (dob 3/12/1947) The failed Repub 2012 potus nominee. Remarks at private fundraiser (re why he would not get the vote of the takers) in Boca Raton FL 5/17/2012.

Remember when Rep Alan Grayson said "if you get sick, America, the Republican healthcare plan is this: Die quickly". He was only referring to people who can't afford health insurance, of course. Rich people do not have this problem. Only the Poors should "die quickly" because people complaining about Poors suffering in order for Health Care Insurance companies to continue making tremendous profits are annoying. Better they die quickly so nobody has to be confronted with that unpleasantness and whining about it.

Republicans feigned outrage and demanded an apology. But Alan Grayson was correct. Proof of this is the Republican desire to repeal the ACA. Failing that, they believe Republican governors should reject the Medicaid expansion. Even though they are losing billions in federal funds by doing so. Even though the ACA gives tens of thousands of new customers to the for-profit health insurers. Punishing poor "takers" takes a higher priority.

Although some Republican governors accepted the money. Jan Brewer is one example. John Kasich of Ohio is another. Although in both cases their respective state legislatures are fighting back [1+2].

Because he is running for preznit, Kasich was confronted on this issue during the recent Fox Nooz potus interview. Megyn Kelly (basically) expressed the Republican outrage re Kasich attempting to help the Poors. How DARE he! Surely this is proof he is unfit to be preznit. Which is why Kelly brought it up. Voters needed to know of this and reject him for his un-Republican actions. This specific un-Republican action (he does pass the anti-choice litmus test). But even passing this very important litmus test is not good enough.

Megyn Kelly: Governor Kasich, you chose to expand Medicaid in your state, unlike several other governors on this stage tonight, and it is already over budget by some estimates costing taxpayers an additional $1.4 billion in just the first 18 months. You defended your Medicaid expansion by invoking God, saying to skeptics that when they arrive in heaven, Saint Peter isn't going to ask them how small they've kept government, but what they have done for the poor. Why should Republican voters, who generally want to shrink government, believe that you won't use your Saint Peter rationale to expand every government program? *Audience applauds* Gov. John Kasich: Well, first of all, Megyn, you should know that President Reagan expanded Medicaid three or four times. Secondly, I had an opportunity to bring resources back to Ohio to do what? To treat the mentally ill. Ten thousand of them sit in our prisons. It costs $22,500 a year to keep them in prison. I'd rather get them their medication so they could lead a decent life. Secondly, we are rehabbing the drug-addicted. Eighty percent of the people in our prisons have addictions or problems. We now treat them in the prisons, release them in the community and the recidivism rate is 10 percent and everybody across this country knows that the tsunami of drugs is threatening their very families. So we're treating them and getting them on their feet. And finally, the working poor, instead of them having come into the emergency rooms where it costs more, where they're sicker and we end up paying, we brought a program in here to make sure that people could get on their feet. And do you know what? Everybody has a right to their God-given purpose. ...our Medicaid is growing at one of the lowest rates in the country. ...we went from $8 billion in the hole to $2 billion in the black. We've cut $5 billion in taxes and we've grown 350,000 jobs. *Audience applauds* (Excerpt from the 8/6/2016 Fox Nooz potus interview).

Getting mentally ill people in prison the treatment they need and getting them out of prison sooner saves money. And, a 10% recidivism is a lot lower than the average, which, according to Wikipedia, is 43.3%.

Treating people in emergency rooms, where they can't be turned away (due to the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act, or EMTALA) is significantly more expensive than scheduling appointments and getting treatment before a medical condition becomes an emergency. People with chronic diseases can't show up in emergency rooms and ask for ongoing treatment (which is needed to combat chronic conditions). These people can only show up and ask for help after their disease has progressed to the point where their lives are in immediate danger. Obviously treating these people earlier would be a lot cheaper.

Lastly, poor people who can't afford to see a doctor missing days of work (due to them being sidelined by treatable ailments) costs the economy money. So the Medicaid expansion in Ohio is "over budget", but it does not factor in these savings. At all. It simply ignores them, in addition to ignoring the inhumanity of locking up treatable mentally ill people. As well as the inhumanity of allowing poor people with treatable diseases to progress to a point where their lives are in danger (and at which point it is sometimes too late... meaning they die).

But Republicans revel in inhumanity toward those they deem lesser because their Christianity is fake. I mean, because in addition to ignoring the religious argument (Kelly mocked him?) they only look at the raw numbers. And totally ignore the (somewhat hard to quantify?) savings of accepting the Medicaid expansion and going "over budget". Frankly, it sickens me.

For many Republicans, that their Christianity is not sincere is proven by Kasich's attempt to appeal to it and failing. Proof, in my mind, of how much these fake Christian Republican hypocrites hate poor people. They refuse to do the right thing (those other governors on the stage that rejected the expansion) when you make an argument that appeals to their supposed religious sensibilities. Obviously these sensibilities are non-existent except when it comes to controlling women's bodies.

And they also refuse to do the right thing when an economic argument is presented (money is saved by accepting the Medicaid expansion). Un-believable callousness and indifference that (for some) crosses the line into outright hate, IMO. Think I'm being hyperbolic? Ayn Rand hated the poor, and Mitten's VP choice Paul Ryan talked her up a lot (until it was pointed out to him that she was an atheist) [3].

Which explains why Mittens wanted Ryan (they had a shared hatred). Ryan's budget, the path to (increased) prosperity (for the rich on the backs of the poor), being proof of his hate for the less fortunate [4].

Footnotes
[1] Court Okays Republican Challenge To Arizona Medicaid Expansion (excerpt from a 12/31/2014 Daily Caller article by Sarah Hurtubise) 36 Republican state lawmakers are suing outgoing Republican Gov. Brewer over the legality of a hospital assessment which will fund Brewer's plan to expand Medicaid.
[2] Republican Lawmakers File Lawsuit Against Ohio Medicaid Expansion (excerpt from a HuffPo 10/23/2013 article by Mollie Reilly) The suit, filed with the Ohio Supreme Court... claims the Controlling Board acted in violation of the state legislature by approving the $2.56 billion appropriation of federal funds to expand Medicaid in the state. Governor John Kasich... turned to the board for approval after the GOP-controlled state legislature balked on the issue.
[3] See SWTD #303 (8/10/2015) Ayn Rand Took Great Delight In Killing Large Numbers of Fictional Moochers In Atlas Shrugged.
[4] Regarding my correct usage of the word hate in this commentary... many Republican politicians, if they are not simply indifferent to the plight of the poor, actively despise them and want to punish them for being poor. Republican voters, a not insignificant number of them being poor Southern Whites, are oblivious to this hate, instead voting R because the GOP panders to their hate for minorities and their misguided belief that the Bible says abortion is murder, which it does not. Although Repub politicos and their pluto masters have other reasons for wanting to control women.

Video: Kasich defends his Medicaid expansion and gets some applause, but the very fact that Megyn Kelly demanded an explanation from him in the first place? Helping poor people while citing God? No, many "Christian" Republicans don't find that acceptable.

SWTD #306