HEADLINE NEWS

Loading...

Thursday, April 23, 2015

GOP Problem With Gays: Hey, Just Erase Them; Easy Peasy

Praise the Lord and Pass the Eraser


Interesting story here about the 2016 GOP field and their problem with gays from Think Progress:

This field is truly Christian, right; hell, they say they are; they profess it in every speech and sound byte, even as some waited for the Lord to give them campaign advice and approval to run.

So, if you want crazy and insane then this is it big time and on a grand scale. 

Just imagine the U.S. as a leader in speaking out against discrimination around the globe all the while preaching and advocating it here at home from the Oval office should one of those GOPers win. 

If there ever was a time to be ashamed of potential “leaders” in our country, this would be that time ... if this field of GOP candidates have a gay problem and need solution, say like 1938 in Germany, well, hell, just erase them (I guess erase is a nicer label for other actions)?  

Surely the GOP has reached the edge of total insanity. Who can believe that view and way of thinking in the 21st Century?  Sadly, and apparently, a lot of their base does. And, that is the scariest part.

Do Weasels Commit Suicide? RED ALERT: This May Be a First

                    (AP Photo/Mark J. Terrill)
    Nancy Reagan, Mrs. Gipper

UPDATE SOME SAY:



Photo and story from The National Report here.  

Last week, during a promotional press conference for The History Channel’s upcoming series “First Ladies in Their Own Words,” series’ host Ron Reagan shared clips of his interviews with all living former First Ladies of the United States. In a brief video clip with his mother Nancy Reagan, she offered her endorsement of Hillary Clinton as President saying:

The time for a woman to serve as our President has come – really, now is the time – and I think the idea of having a former First Lady as the leader of the free world is really quite a marvelous notion. I want Hillary to win. Even though I admire two of the current potential Republican nominees, I have no interest in seeing either of them lead this country.”  

Whew boy ... now watch the righties go all batshit crazy for a week or so ... what will be their counter responses? I wonder, Um...

1.  Well, that's her view.
2.  Nancy Reagan is a strong-willed woman, she speaks her own mind.
3.  See, Republicans don't lock stop as the Libs try to paint us as.
4.  How soon can we get her on FOX to state in her own words, not what her Lib son says?  

Too good to be any funnier than that, isn't it?

Tuesday, April 21, 2015

How to Undermine America With Straight Face: Watch FOX

(Kudos to Angelo Carusone

Yes, from his actual broadcast. It's it's not hard to believe when measured against all the cumulative data thus far in history. This might very well go down as the #1 rated lie of the 21st Century, hands down.

The worse part? FOX viewers, that is their brain dead GOP, Conservative, and TEA sipping fans buy into that crap.

Thought you'd like to know in case you missed the broadcast ... shame on FOX and Murdoch.

Sunday, April 19, 2015

Emerging Face of Ugly and Nasty Along Side Other Hypocrites

Former Gov. Mike Huckabee, FOX Regular, and Spreader of BS


To kick things off, a few of the others along Huckabee (there are plenty of others out there in la-la land, too): 


Huckabee claimed in an interview (his words here, not mine) with Iowa talk radio host Jan Mickelson that the Obama administration has “an open hostility toward the Christian faith,” and he urged prospective military recruits to wait until the end of President Obama’s term to enlist.

So, say we were attacked in all-out war by someone. The CINC was still Mr.Obama,  Would Huckabee still tell young American men and women to "Stay home. Don't enlist. Wait for this guy to leave office. Don't serve under him." Sure seems like it.

I cannot come close to imaging anyone of Huckabee's so-called stature let alone possibly someone running for president to say such a thing, although that belief and stance does kinda remind me of this from history: 

“I believe today that my conduct is in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator.” [Author: Adolph Hitler, in Mein Kampf, pp. 46]
Sounds harsh, I know, but the parallels are too close not to compare or mention them. No one likes Hitler references, but in this case of the interjection of God in both quotes by those two experts, well... I think it is apropos.

Wednesday, April 15, 2015

Name of Place for 100 Weasels to Gather: Easy — U.S. Senate

Logo snatched from THE DAILY show ... 
(watch video segment below)


Jon Stewart, in his usual delivery style of a serious topic with humor that makes you think, on the DAILY SHOW nailed the Senate and a handful of hypocritical senators about their rabid stance over the Iranian “nuclear deal” which BTW is not yet a done deal. It again shows the raw hypocrisy of the GOPers and even joined by a few DEMS. 

Watch the segment here especially the first 9 minutes. At the conclusion Stewart talks about only needing 50 votes (a simple majority) to go to war, yet requiring 67 votes to override a presidential veto aimed at ensuring peace (the Iranian forthcoming deal – hopefully). How pathetic is that Senate rule? Surely it is something to think about isn't it? 

This is how I rate the current senate and their harsh stance on this issue and GOP insistence to block and shame and insult Mr. Obama anyway possible. Especially those like Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AR), whom I consider extremely bloodthirsty and anxious for more war – this time with Iran. I don't dislike the possible positive outcome, but the Senate's method of getting there sucks.


Saturday, April 11, 2015

NY Lawmakers IQ Test: One Simple Question — Easy, No Tricks

Albany Lawmakers: Pick and ID Pictures; No Cheating; No Peeking at Neighbor
(take your time - all day if you need it)

Pop Quiz: Which one are you? Why don't you know the difference? 

That wasn't so hard, was it? So, why was this test developed especially for you? The background follows below (psst: I'll be honest, I had some professional help drawn from Bufflalo News here –the highlights are my editing to fit this post): 

State law set up a panel who will say yes or no to a pay raise. It impanels six people who will vote on recommended pay hikes for lawmakers, statewide officials such as Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo, and agency commissioners.

Q:  Who will sit on the 6-person panel?

A:  Anyone the governor and lawmakers want. The will specifically say: “No panel member shall be disqualified from holding any other public office or employment.”

Q:  What does that mean exactly?

A:  Well, it means aides to Gov. Cuomo, people with business before the state, and even lawmakers, or their staff could serve on the panel that will recommend a pay hike and how much the raise would be.

Q:  What is the time frame for the pay plan to be in place?

A:  November 15, 2016. And, that is just in time for those in office to run for re-election which happens to be two weeks before the pay panel’s report reports out.

Q: Is all this legal? (well yes, but some might say it's also "sneaky and underhanded").

A:  The implementing bill will say that the panel and their ruling “shall” – or must – “have the force of law.”

Ergo: If the panel recommends a pay hike, then the raise automatically becomes law on January. 1, 2017 – unless “abrogated” (which means: not voted on; or if voted on, does not pass; or, if passed, is cancelled or repealed) by the lawmakers themselves, which the new law will stipulate.

In plain English that means: (1) only an act of the Legislature can stop the pay hike recommendations for their pay raise, and (2) lawmakers constituents will never know how their representatives stood on the issue of raising their own pay before the election.

Negotiators for the panel and rules, etc., also tossed in another word – “modified” – into the bill’s wording. Okay, what does that mean? Well again in simple English it means: that if the lawmakers don’t like the panel’s pay level recommendations, they can modify, or increase, the salary levels to whatever level they can negotiate with the governor and then it becomes law.

Then we see this handy provision. 

The panel’s recommendations are effective on “the first of January after the general election in November wherein members of the state Legislature are elected following the year in which the commission is established, and on the first of January following the next such election.” 

Translation: The raise can come on January 1, 2017, and then again on January 1, 2019. Neat trick, isn’t it? Call it representative government, right? My aching ass!!!

Thursday, April 9, 2015

Baker Behind Another Bush: Hang on Tight; Might Get Bumpy

Out of the shadows — but which one

Dark deals in the wings


Former secretary of state and longtime Republican Party fixer James Baker, speaking on CNN’s Fareed Zakaria GPS on Sunday, alleged that the Iran nuclear deal being struck by the five permanent members of the UN Security Council plus Germany is "going to alienate all of our allies in the region."

Baker is known for his strong ties to Arab Gulf oil monarchies such as Saudi Arabia. But was he really speaking for them? A review of reactions from the Middle East itself does not support Baker’s assertion. Also, it’s a major GOP-Rightwing, Talk Radio, and FOX-promoted talking point we have heard nearly 24/7.

Baker is an old oilman and was really talking about the six Arab Gulf monarchies that belong to the Gulf Cooperation Council, of which Saudi Arabia is loosely speaking the leader, but within which Qatar and Oman are often mavericks. Still, even there, Baker’s cautions need some qualifications.

After the basic political framework of the deal was read out in Lausanne last week, President Obama called King Salman of Saudi Arabia to brief him on the state of the negotiations. Soon thereafter, the Saudi cabinet issued a communique in which it welcomed the negotiations. It expressed its hope that a binding final agreement will be reached that augments security and stability in the region. The cabinet reaffirmed Saudi Arabia’s support for peaceful solutions that allow the countries of the Middle East to deploy nuclear energy for civilian energy generation, under the inspection regime of the International Atomic Energy Agency. The cabinet drew attention again to the Arab League call for a Middle East free of weapons of mass destruction, including nuclear warheads. Peace and security in the area, it said, depend on good-faith dialogue and non-interference in the internal affairs of Arab states.

So, which Arab states is Baker trying to speak for?

1.  It is not all of the Arab League 22-member states.
2.  It is not Syria, an Arab nationalist state where al-Assad is beleaguered and depends on Iranian support (they have greeted the Lausanne agreement with enthusiasm).
3.  It is not Iraq, largely an Arab state, where the government of PM Haydar al-Abadi warmly welcomed the announcement of the framework agreement. Keep in mind that Iraq had its own small nuclear weapons program in the 1980s, but they were rolled up by UN inspectors in 1991. Iraq hopes for this agreement is especially important since Iraq, like Syria, also has a military alliance with Iran.
4.  It is not Algeria, another Arab state with a storied role in modern Arab nationalism, congratulated the negotiating partners on their achievement and praised their “positive intentions and that that any solution that allows us to avoid war in the region is welcome.”
5.  It is not the Oman foreign ministry who welcomed the Lausanne announcement as opening a new stage in increased security and stability in the region and worldwide. Foreign Ministry Secretary-General Sayyid Badr Al-Busaidi tweeted that “The international agreement between Iran and the P5+1 must be considered an accomplishment for the international community and a victory for peace.”
6.  It is not Qatar, their foreign minister made a statement on the Lausanne framework agreement that differed in no particular from the Saudi response, which is rare occurrence, except that Qatar did not bring up Iran’s interventions in Arab politics.

Of course, the public Saudi statements in general support of the Lausanne framework but conceal a great deal of private anxiety about Iran. In 2008, King Abdullah’s government spoke of the need to “cut off the head of the snake.” But while some Saudi leaders no doubt continue to hold such views, the cabinet of King Salman is now publicly supporting Obama’s initiative.

Still, the notion that “the Arabs” in general oppose Lausanne, or even that the GCC unanimously condemns it, cannot be supported from the public record as Baker asserts.

But then we have the strident efforts of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his pal apparently in the Senate, Sen. Chuck Schumer – both determined it seems, to derail the negotiations even before they are in ink and on paper. Rather, the member states of the Arab League are divided among allies of Iran, independent nationalists who view the accord positively, and the conservative Gulf oil monarchies. The spectrum runs from enthusiasm to cautious acceptance, with even one of the GCC states, Oman, showing enthusiasm.

PM Netanyahu is an outlier in the Middle East on this issue and so is hard line Republicans (the 47 Senators and their letter to Iran) and now apparently a few DEMS like Schumer who have joined them … that is most unfortunate.

So, what how does Baker feel about PM Netanyahu?? It’s not just Democrats and White House officials who’ve got problems with Benjamin Netanyahu, but Baker blast “diplomatic missteps and political gamesmanship” by Netanyahu. He is criticizing him for an insufficient commitment to peace and an absolutist opposition to the Iran nuclear talks.

Baker recently told a gala dinner crowd of left-leaning Israeli advocacy groups on J Street that he supported efforts to get a deal with Tehran — but he called for President Obama to bring any agreement before Congress (as noted: Mr. Obama is not legally required to do that).  

Baker was the chief diplomat for President George H.W. Bush, and prior to that Secretary of State under Reagan II. Now, is he advising JEB Bush on his presidential campaign. All we need now is Dark Dick (Cheney) to come back as DOD adviser.

Wednesday, April 8, 2015

GOP New Middle Name: "Absent Minded by Choice on Purpose"

Their Bible, too, kept under their pillow


But, leave it to king of the "hold them accountable:" Jon Stewart on the "Daily Show."




Watch both segments on the same screen (next screen is on home screen) Both are keepers.

Tuesday, April 7, 2015

Is the Country Ready This Kind GOP Platform and Agenda

         
All Basically Sing from the Same Sheet of Music
(flat and sour notes included)
(Jindal, Perry, Cruz, Paul, Santorum, Christie, Rubio, Carson, Bush III, Walker, 
and a ton more in the wings)


1.  Repeal the ACA (Obama-care).
2.  Partially privatize Social Security (let Wall Street investors run the whole shebang).
3.  Move Medicare to a premium support (read: vouchers and hope the money is there when needed).
4.  Block-grant Medicaid and SNAP (food stamp program) to the states (so, when the money is gone, people are not allowed to get sick and must eat only two meals a day).
5.  Cuts of 20 percent or more to NASA, the National Institutes of Health, the FDA, and the EPA.
*  6.  Cuts of 60 percent or more to the National Science Foundation, the State Department, and the Interior Department, 
*  7.  Totally eliminate the Departments of Energy and Education (now that's real forward looking isn't it??).

* Think hard and deep about #6 and #7, and the serious impact across the whole country for everyone!!

Paul announces with a weak joke – one surely for the history books, saying, in part that he is running as “a different kind of Republican, and a different kind of Paul.”

Ha. I still can't stop laughing. He will be a money-raising machine just like his old man to be used to grow his base and have all the funds needed to stay in the senate as long as wishes while running for the biggie every 4 years, too. 

Worth remembering: “The die is cast” (L. Alea est jacta) ….Julius Caesar: 49 B.C. announcing his march on Rome.

Monday, April 6, 2015

"Nø Shït Shërlöck" More Guns Equal More Gun Deaths

Thank you, Captain Obvious

Astonishing, Truly Astonishing

We can all play that silly game


Now to the point from Vox.com - good read interesting data. 

Introduction: Kansas Gov. Sam Brownback (R) last week approved a law that will eliminate license and training requirements for carrying a concealed firearm starting on July 1, the Associated Press reported. "Responsible gun ownership — for protection and sport — is a right inherent in our Constitution," Brownback, a Republican, said in a statement. "It is a right that Kansans hold dear and have repeatedly and overwhelmingly reaffirmed a commitment to protecting."

Yeah, that same Brownback - the man who wrecked KS education and tax systems. (Just keep your gun handy in case there is a backlash)!!


Protestations of gun rights supporters aside, public health researchers who study firearms generally agree that increased firearm ownership rates are associated with higher rates of homicide. The Harvard School of Public Health's Injury Control Research Center is a great resource here.

It notes that a wide variety of methodologies show guns as a risk factor for homicide in the US and other high income countries. Developed countries with more guns generally have more homicide; states within the US with more guns have more homicide; people with access to guns — particularly women — are likelier to be victims of homicide than those without access.

It's important to note, however, that all these studies show an association, rather than causation. It could be that areas with more guns are more prone to murder for other reasons.

But the fact that the finding holds up no matter how you approach it is suggestive, and most experts think the relationship is at least partially causal.

"Within the United States, a wide array of empirical evidence indicates that more guns in a community leads to more homicide," says David Hemenway, the Harvard Injury Control Research Center's director, wrote in his book Private Guns, Public Health.

An old expression says: "Don't bring a knife to a gun fight." In this day and age of craziness about guns everywhere (e.g., open carry laws; concealed guns without a permit, and such), well it's probably better to now say: "Forget the knife or gun, bring a cannon."

Sunday, April 5, 2015

Another "Holier than Thou" GOPer: Can't Make this Stuff Up

LA State Senator Bill Cassidy (R)


This kind of story just breaks your heart, right, or cracks you up ... take a pick: Cassidy, a state Senator from Louisiana released a statement to NOLA.com announcing that he was to be a grandfather and expressing his support for his daughter (unmarried, student, age 17) during this “challenging” time, saying:

“Earlier this year, Laura and I learned we will become grandparents this summer. Our children have been the greatest blessing of our lives and we welcome our grandchild as a joyous addition to our family. Our daughter now faces a more challenging future than her peers. She has our unconditional love and support.”
Cassidy has made a name for himself as somewhat of a “abstinence-only” crusader. Last year, he co-sponsored the Abstinence-Only Reallocation Act, which would award grants and special funding to public and private schools which stuck to teaching only abstinence instead of a more comprehensive lesson plan on sexual behavior. The bill, authored by perennial bad ideas machine Sen. Lindsay Graham (R-SC), has been tabled in Congress, but Louisiana teens aren’t in the clear.

Despite efforts by some legislators to address this problem, Louisiana is one of the leading abstinence-only promoters in the country.

In roughly one-third of all schools in the state, students are taught exclusively abstinence. No safe sex. No birth control. Nothing but “Don’t do it.” And you know how good kids are at listening to adults when they tell them not to do something…

It might explain why Louisiana currently has the 6th highest teen pregnancy rate in the nation. And while most of the country has been seeing major declines in teen births, Louisiana’s has hardly changed.

B/L: Hey, GOPers can't legislate sex drive, especially with teens .. ouch!!

Saturday, April 4, 2015

2016 GOP Field: Vying to be Dumbest, Stupidest, Craziest

Don't ask me about my brother. Wait, go ahead ask. 
(Okay, but I know nothing ...)

(So, is your check in the mail, David)

"I will repeal every single word in Obama-care"
(oops)

From Talking Point Memo – a fine article in part:

It is fascinating how, the (47 GOP senators and Boehner) genuflect to PM Benjamin Netanyahu about breaking off any nuclear agreement with Iran, has now quickly become some sort of a litmus test for GOP presidential candidates in 2016.

Virtually everyone who doesn't oppose any agreement or has strong ideological commitments that preclude support, is surprised at how tight the restrictions the U.S. negotiated ended up being. 

(I call it fear of Obama diplomatic success and the GOPers sure can't have any that, now can they)???

There are real questions about how much latitude the next president would have to tear up an agreement within the bounds of international law. But JEB has already signed on: He'll try to ditch it. And now Scott Walker says he will, too.

One way to look at this is that they will simply commit the country to war. That's not the most likely option. More likely, they will copy the policy most associated with George W. Bush's first term, and “stand tough while Iran does whatever it wants.” 

(Even so today that is not fully explained).

More striking though is just how little grasp of world issues that Gov. Scott Walker (and I'd argue the the others) really have of any of the details about what's involved, and how little his advisers have prepped him.

If elected president, Walker says that he'll pull back on any nuclear agreement on day one.

He further said he doesn't care if our trading partners aren't willing to go along with us. He'll have America go it alone.

So, the envelop please - and the dumb shit award goes to …. [fill in the blank __________]. Perhaps we have three-way tie (or more)? Sure seems like it.

Thursday, April 2, 2015

Nuclear Framework Reached: Now Set GOP Suicide Watch

Iranian PM & Kerry Got the Framework for an Historic Deal

More GOP String Pulling by PM Netanyahu, Boehner & Cotton

Sean "Shameful" Hannity vs. Pat "Peasants are coming with pitchforks" Buchanan
(One shouts wolf  and one kinda sounds level-headed)

First, let’s dispense with one “Wolf” shall we with this exchange between Sean Hannity and Pat Buchanan, and I can’t believe that I am taking Buchanan’s side, but on this he is correct – Hannity as usual is flat out wrong.

Sean Hannity in Heated Argument with Pat Buchanan Over Iran, saying: “You Should Like Obama!” (click here for that).  

Now the real story… a framework for a final deal reached and that is fully implemented, will be good for world peace and fewer nuclear bombs ... short President Obama clip here from NBC News:


Key parts: World leaders reached a framework on Thursday for a historic deal meant to block Iran from developing a nuclear weapon.

Iran, which insists that its nuclear ambitions are peaceful, agreed to limits on its program to enrich uranium, and it agreed not to make weapons-grade plutonium — two means of building a bomb.

Iran also agreed to international inspections that President Obama said would be the toughest on any country in the world. If Iran makes good on its pledges, world powers agreed that they would lift punishing economic sanctions.

Obama called it a good deal that would make the world safer and “cut off every pathway” to an Iranian nuclear weapon. He also said that it was vastly better than bombing Iranian nuclear facilities and starting another war in the Middle East.

“If Iran cheats, the world will know it. If we see something suspicious, we will inspect it,” said Mr. Obama from the Rose Garden.

Now, we can watch the GOP chest-beating and hand-wringing, and woe-is-me speeches. So yes, set the suicide watch. These guys never learn do they? Once again, Mr. Obama scores another victory. Good for him and Kerry. Shame on the GOPers.

Tuesday, March 31, 2015

Top 10 GOP 2016 Weasels: All Supporting Anti-Gay Laws

Image result for Top GOP support anti-gay law in IN
Gov. Mike Pence (R-IN)
(What was that question again about IN being an anti-gay state)


Where the GOP's 2016 Contenders Stand on Indiana's New Anti-Gay Law


And, yes, the IN law is anti-gay ... by any standard ... people can discriminate all they want for any reason, except not while serving the public with public benefits of being part of the public. To do so is disgusting and in some circles patently racist and folks, this is not the 18 or 1960’s, either!! So get over that.

So, where do to the 2016 GOP hopefuls stand. Based on what they said, or didn’t, I’d have to say not very firm ground. Read the article and see for yourself. All they are doing is pandering to the Bible thumping crowd. There is nothing wrong with that crowd, per se right? You know, “Love thy neighbor” and the other hypocritical horseshit … the only question for those IN law supporters is “How do they get the shit back in the horse?” (just like the line from that very funny movie: “The Distinguished Gentleman” (1992): Character Olaf Andersen says about the horseshit his side generated: “Now the question is, can we get the shit back into the horse?”).

Here is the scoreboard of the top 10 GOP contenders:

  1. Former Gov. Jeb Bush (R-FL): Argued that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act was not discriminatory and simply protected Indiana residents' religious beliefs.
  2. Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL): Said that punishing a business owner who religiously objects to gay marriage would violate that person's religious liberty.
  3. Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX): The only declared candidate in the Republican field for 2016, released a statement urging supporters to stand behind Pence and the legislation he signed.
  4. Gov. Bobby (only his reel name) Jindal (R-LA): Strongly backed the new law, arguing that the backlash from businesses and celebrities proves that "religious liberty is indeed under attack" in America.
  5. Gov. Scott Walker (R-WI): Wouldn't tell a reporter from WISPolitics whether business owners who object to serving certain customers on religious grounds should have the right to do so. (he needs to check with his benefactors: the Koch’s first).
  6. Former Gov. Rick Perry (R-TX: His spokesman said the former governor supports the Indiana law.
  7. Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY): One of his advisers did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
  8. Former Gov. Mike Huckabee (R-AR): Said that Indiana's law doesn't allow for discrimination and instead protects against discrimination based on religion.
  9. Gov. Chris Christie (R-NJ): His spokesman did not immediately respond to a request for a comment.
  10. Billionaire Real Estate Mogul Donald Trump (R-NY): Did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
Further, I guess, no GOP-Rightwinger or staunch Bible believer is or ever has been gay, right? Well, alrighty then.



Monday, March 30, 2015

Bibi's GOP Pollster Blasts DEMS — Surprise, Surprise, Surprise

Some Say Growing Icy Relationship 
(mostly GOPers say that - a few DEMS, too, but why???)

GOP National Pollster and GOP Strategist
(John McLaughlin - no, this one, not the older one)


The 47 GOP senators letter warning Iran about Obama being ineffective, etc., vis-à-vis any nuclear deal plus the reports on icy relationship now between the United States and Israel are troubling news on kinds of levels. Then plug in this one. Call it the standard GOP dirty tricks playbook special one only a Karl Rove would cling to and milk for all it's worth ... 

From the NY Post (Fred Dicker article) about the Netanyahu-McLaughlin ties. 

A top GOP strategist and pollster for newly re-elected Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is warning that New York Democrats, including Hillary Clinton, “will pay a heavy price” at the polls next year if they don’t break with President Obama’s policies on Israel and reject any deal he makes with Iran.

A bit more here on that Republican pollster John McLaughlin from various sources. 

McLaughlin also worked as a pollster for Netanyahu in the Likud primaries in 2005, and later as a Likud campaign adviser in 2009.

McLaughlin’s recent clients have also included former GOP congressman Eric Cantor (R-VA) during in his devastating defeat in a republican primary, and for the unsuccessful NYC mayoral campaign of supermarket mogul John Catsimatidis.  

Apparently Netanyahu likes working with American Republican strategists and pollsters ... and it's legal (I surmise). But the dirty tricks like now - we outta to know the sources and links - and with this story, now you do.

As for me, it stinks. Too bad a lot more people didn't see the links to figure out why all this hype from the PM about this yet-to-be-agreement with Iran has American GOP ties; maybe not directly, but by extension with that nasty 47 senators' letter. In total, it smacks of the worst kind of nasty political propaganda and at that level.... very very dangerous too.

Wednesday, March 25, 2015

Come Out, Come Out Wherever You are: We Shadows Know

Can't Hide, Even the Shadow Knows

One in the Shadows, One More to Go


This post is a topic worth following, and one I have a big interest in, and also like millions of others who feel helpless in a losing battle about the what concerns me: (1) truly representative government, (2) less big money corrupting the system (and yes it is corrupt), and (3) what “we the people” is supposed to really mean. I don’t intend to sound to sound like a TEA type, 'cause I am not, but I am concerned about those three topics and be as honest and realistic as possible on those topics, so here goes.

The Koch brother’s latest push is to reform the criminal justice system. It is both an effort that has made allies out of former enemies and softened the billionaire Koch’s image as their lead man, Mark Holden, their top lawyer and a close adviser, who also happens to be a former jail guard with a decades-long interest in criminal justice issues, shuttles back and forth between Wichita and Washington to champion legislation to reduce the prison population and to give ex-felons second chances. (Note: I presume job offers will also be made the Koch’s to help that transition from prison to work?).

So, Lawyer Holden spends most of his time highlighting one of the few political beliefs of the Koch’s that some liberals find palatable (i.e., prison reform and second chances), thereby tempering the blowback that their enormous political spending has generated in other areas found unpalatable.

That blowback (Holden’s description) can be traced back (he says) the hateful article against the brothers back to 2010 written by Jane Mayer of The New Yorker, who published a 10,000-word piece about the Koch brothers’ under-the-radar conservative political network, labeled: “Covert Operations,” and no, before you look, it’s not an article about SEAL Team 6 running a “covert Op” to knock off another bin-Laden terrorist in some mountain stronghold someplace, either.

The Mayer article, which is pretty darn good, shows how the Koch’s have given hundreds of millions of dollars to Republican candidates and rightwing/and their stanch libertarian causes.

Even now this early, for 2016, they have already pledged to raise and spend a cool $900 million (report from NPR) and here from the NY Times and here from the Washington Post. Yeah – yeah, that much – and all to buy the President they want.

So, no wonder they are no longer under the radar and rightly so. They are now in plain sight with one goal for the country to see: to fund, buy, and own most, if not, every aspect of government and thus, the country. That is harsh reality and the power of massive money that the Supreme Court unleashed on the country in the name of money is speech.”  So, based on that alone, hide your dictionaries and not as they say: “the DEMS are coming for your guns” – ha – the Koch’s are coming for your Scrabble set, Thesaurus, Macmillan, Merriam-Webster, and Cambridge word sources.

Related article here from SlateMoney Isn't Speech and Corporations Aren't People

On top of that and all over the political map, a small handful of billionaires are up to the same old technique: dump billions and buy the kind of government they want for their own greedy ways. Some may say that is good – but, how can it be?  

Representative government is supposed to mean from the people up; not from the money down. It appears that in their eyes that whoever has and spends the most money ends up with the most representative government for them and their interests and not yours or mine, and they have a good number of representatives tucked neatly in their pocket, or if you choose, firmly in their wallet to prove it.

Words worth remembering from the Citizens United (5-4) ruling from Justice John Paul Stevens dissent: “This ruling threatens to undermine the integrity of elected institutions across the Nation. The path the Court has taken to reach its outcome will, I fear, do damage to this institution.” 

Thanks for stopping by ... as I said, a serious topic that impacts us in the end!!

Tuesday, March 24, 2015

New Def: for Word "Dark" and Gov. Scott Walker (R-WI)

Gov. Scott Walker (R-WI) - in More Hot Water (maybe)
(Certainly in the Dark Shadows)


The Dark Money story to the Dark Candidate in WI, Gov. Scott Walker (R) from here, edited in part to fit this Blog – a good read and report – needs follow-up, too.

Background: John Menard Jr. is the richest man in Wisconsin  who is a tough-minded, staunchly conservative 75-year-old billionaire who owns a highly profitable chain of hardware stores throughout the Midwest. He  is famously publicity-shy — rarely speaking in public or giving interviews.

Three years ago, when he wanted to back Gov. Scott Walker — and help advance his pro-business agenda — he found the perfect way to do so without attracting any attention: He wrote more than $1.5 million in checks to a pro-Walker political advocacy group that pledged to keep its donors secret, three sources directly familiar with the transactions have said. Menard’s previously unreported six-figure contributions to the Wisconsin Club for Growth — a group that spent heavily to defend Walker during a bitter 2012 recall election — seem to have paid off for the businessman and his company in two key ways:

1.  In the past two years, Menard’s company has been awarded up to $1.8 million in special tax credits from a state economic development corporation that Walker chairs, according to state records.

2.  In his five years in office, Walker’s appointees have sharply scaled back enforcement actions by the state Department of National Resources — a top Menard priority. The agency had repeatedly clashed with Menard and his company under previous governors over citations for violating state environmental laws and had levied a $1.7 million fine against Menard personally, as well as his company, for illegally dumping hazardous wastes.

Laurel Patrick, Walker’s press secretary, strongly denied that the governor had provided any special favors for Menard and said Walker was “not involved” in the decision to award his firm tax credits, which were approved by the Wisconsin Economic Development Corporation for expansions of existing facilities in order to create jobs. 

David Rivkin, a lawyer for the Wisconsin Club for Growth, said he could not discuss any contributors to the group but added in an email: “Wisconsin Club for Growth has never advocated on behalf of any specific individuals or corporations. Rather, it has vigorously advocated on behalf of issues and causes that are consistent with its philosophy of limited government, free markets and individual liberty.”

Some court records that have been made public about the new fundraising probe, known as “John Doe 2,” show that, when he first faced a potential recall election in 2011, Walker had personally solicited donations to the Wisconsin Club for Growth in order “to ensure correct messaging” in ads that were supporting his policies, according to an email sent by one of his fundraisers. His aides referred to the group as “your 501c 4,” a reference to the provision of the tax code under which non-disclosing advocacy groups are organized. (Um... maybe quid pro quo after all)...

One federal judge, concluding that the investigation was a violation of the free-speech rights of the advocacy groups, ordered last year that the probe be shut down and directed prosecutors “to permanently destroy” all the evidence they had obtained.

That order was later reversed, and next month the Wisconsin Supreme Court will hear arguments on whether the investigation should proceed. The outcome could well determine whether Walker will be confronted with questions about the secret donations — and any benefits the contributors might have received — while he runs for president.

Gerald C. Nichol, a retired judge who chairs the Wisconsin Government Accountability Board, the state agency that enforces state election laws, strongly disputed that there were any political motives behind the investigation. “I have seen nothing in terms of political bias. This is not a witch hunt,” he said (Note: Nichol is former Republican district attorney originally appointed to his post by DEM Gov. James Doyle and then reappointed by Walker in 2012). 

Nichol also said: “This is a way of giving money to a campaign and not having it identified, and the amount involved. I find this disturbing to the system generally. I don’t care if it’s on the Republican or Democratic side. Both of them are now using this.” 

Still, the funds from Menard — and other hefty secret donations to nonprofit groups closely aligned with Walker — could loom larger as the Wisconsin governor emerges as a top-tier candidate for the Republican presidential nomination.

Stay tuned .. this ain't over yet, especially with Walker's ties the Koch billions, too.

Monday, March 23, 2015

First Official Conservative: "God-Told-Me-To-Run" in 2016

God Sent Me to Ruin the Country, I Mean "Run" the Country

Another Rick Perry "Oops" Moment 
(Where is Donald Trump Demands)


Some are calling Cruz the male version of Sarah Palin ... it’s a great comparison and with this headline grabber, and some of things he said.

"I am the Conservative  candidate for president"


He also said:I want to talk to you this morning about reigniting the promise of America.” (I like his choice of the word "ignite")!!

“Amen” was heard in the audience.

Then the crowd broke out in chants of “Ted! Ted! Ted!” when Cruz finally got to the point of the speech: “Today, I am announcing that I'm running for president of the United States.”

Cruz was treated to a hero’s welcome at that evangelical location, Liberty University, when he became the first major candidate to officially jump into the 2016 presidential race. The GOP firebrand from Texas delivered a speech in a packed auditorium.  

All I can say is Praise the Lord, and I pray he gets the GOP-Conservative general election ballot slot ... please, oh pretty please.  

I have to wonder, though: did God actually hear and send him there with his “conservative" message – you know the one I mean. The message he and those like him claim is “truly conservative.” Yeah the one. The one that's harsh and nasty, but still “conservative.” Like “sticking it to the poor, the hungry, the homeless; and screwing over low-income workers and the downtrodden, and of course the sick ...” WWJD????  

Now might be a good time for that infamous Rick Perry “oops” moment. “Conservative message, conservative candidate, conservative policy would be forthcoming?” 

Okee dokee. Well, at least it outta be fun if nothing else. One helluva ride for sure.

Sunday, March 22, 2015

Mandatory Voting Yes, Transformative — but FOX Lies About It




What Mr. Obama really said... watch and read the script ... is own words (about 2-minutes):

“We shouldn’t be making it harder to vote. We should be making it easier to vote. … So my Justice Department is going to be vigorous in terms of trying to enforce voting rights. I gave a speech down in Selma at the 50th anniversary; that was incredibly moving for me and my daughters. And the notion that in this day and age we would be deliberately trying to restrict the franchise makes no sense. And at the state and local levels you can push back against that, and make sure we’re expanding the franchise, not restricting it. In Australia and some other countries, there’s mandatory voting. It would be transformative if everybody voted. That would counteract money more than anything. If everybody voted, then it would completely change the political map in this country. Because the people who tend not to vote are young, they’re lower-income, they’re skewed more heavily toward immigrant groups and minority groups. They’re often the folks who are scratching and climbing to get into the middle class, and they’re working hard. And there’s a reason why some folks try to keep them away from the polls; we should want to get them into the polls. So that may end up being a better strategy in the short-term. In the long-term, I think it would be fun to have a constitutional amendment process about how our financial system works. But realistically, given the requirements of that process, it would be a long-term proposition.”

Now what FOX said - the LIE part, which we've grown to expect from FOX HERE - one of their several clips at that site.

FOX: Unfair, Unbalanced and again Unhinged.

Tuesday, March 17, 2015

Sen. Cruz "End campaign money limits" — Rep. Schock Agreed

We Don't Need Any Limits on Campaign Money ... 

Sen. John McCain Called Cruz a "Wacko Bird"


Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) (on March 8, 2013 here) criticized his fellow Republicans for their filibuster of incoming CIA Director John O. Brennan over drone policy. In an interview with the Huffington Post, McCain referred to Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY), Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX), and Rep. Justin Amash (R-MI) as “wackos,” then adding they were elected, nobody believes that there was a corrupt election, anything else. But I also think that when, you know, it's always the wacko birds on right and left that get the media megaphone.”  When asked to clarify, McCain said he was referencing “Rand Paul, Ted Cruz, and Justin Amash, whoever.”  McCain then 8 days later issued an apology.

Um… actually I think McCain was premature about his apology based on this story. Ted Cruz really is a wacko bird based on this from him recently while in New Hampshire, he advocated “no limits on political cash – none at all.”

Cruz advocates the “no limits in exchange for instant disclosure” further saying that deep-pocketed donors should have the same rights to write giant campaign checks as voters have to put signs in their front yards calling them both “free speech.” When he was asked about the outsized role of money in politics Cruz said he understands voters' frustration but that cannot trump the constitutional rights to free speech, the answer is not to muzzle citizens. It is to empower citizens he said.  After the session, one activist gave Cruz a blank check and told him to write it for whatever amount he needed. 

Accepting that check would trigger an official entrance into a Republican primary, so he declined but told an aide to follow up with the man after his campaign is made official, if it is.

My views are consistent and have been for years. Yes, it does take money to run an effective campaign, no doubt about that, but the amounts, sources, and ties are the issue.

When one person can give (Sheldon Adelson in 2012 for example and not to pick on him, but an excellent example) can give $100 million and not blink an eye … questions arise. Is that his free speech vs. my $1,000 free speech (example)?

Koch brothers are not pledging to raise and spend nearly $1 billion in 2016 – what do they expect in return? They only have one vote just like you and I but deep pockets – um… does not seem very representative to me?

Having all the money in the world and pouring it into a campaign does not always equal a win (cite: Adelson and Koch both in 2012), but the ability to give that much sure hampers lesser amounts of money – that competition thing.

  
Thus if the unlimited amounts money issue prevails along with let ‘er rip attitude, then it seems to follow that billionaires will own all the vocabulary in the world and every dictionary in sight.

Sure seems like that to me especially as people like Cruz cling to the “money equals free speech” nonsense – yes, it may be rightly called speech – but are millionaires and billionaires entitled to more speech than anyone else in America? I Hardly think so.

Now sprinkle in GOP Rep. Aaron Schock resigning from Congress due string of ethics charges ...

Add Aaron Schock to the Wacko Bird Nest

And, here, step into his DC Congressional Office ... wow ... yeah, wow... so, it's not the money and power, right - BS.

This Is What Rep. Aaron Schock’s Decadent Office Actually Looks Like?!