Comments by "silat13" (@silat13) on "The Majority Report w/ Sam Seder"
channel.
-
181
-
179
-
104
-
72
-
69
-
57
-
51
-
47
-
41
-
34
-
34
-
Ayn L Rand Smith will not change his deluded beliefs one bit after the education Sam just gave him.
Why Libertarianism is BS
1. It's impossible. Libertarianism is impossible except for survivalist nutters and hermits. Humans need a social structure because we're a social species. Trusting that humans can moderate their own behavior on their own is just a fantasy. If we were as sparsely distributed as wolf packs, we could get along in our small groups without intervention from a higher authority in theory.... but the matriarch or patriarch would be the higher authority so even that isn't strictly libertarian. Anyway, we're long past the point in evolution where we could manage our behavior without a formal structure. Michael Shermer theorizes the optimal size for a human community to manage without any oversight is about 150. Those days are gone.
2. It's naive. It assumes people are basically good. This is a nice thought, and a refreshing break from the Christian belief that all people are sinners who need to be saved, but it's just plain wrong. Just as we differ in our DNA we differ in our personalities. Some of us will go through life making very few decisions that negatively impact others, and some of us are sociopaths. At its best, government protects the truly good from the sociopaths. Without a government, we would be reduced to lynch mobs which can only avenge bad deeds, not prevent them. And we certainly wouldn't have something like the FBI, which can trace the path of a serial killer from one area to the next based on DNA evidence, etc. I think the people who believe that "survival of the fittest ergo libertarianism" probably assume they are the fittest themselves. They don't think that they would be the victims of a sociopath. Bernie Madoff counted on this kind of hubris to make his illegal millions.
3. It's cold-hearted. For example, regulations about safety in cars aren't needed because over time car companies would be forced to make safer cars or they'd go out of business. So the people who died in fires caused by exploding gas tanks in Ford Pintos, or in wrecks caused by the design of their Corvair were just collateral damage in the evolution of better cars. People who died because of unregulated businesses did nothing to deserve that fate, except perhaps not be able to afford better cars. And the pseudo-Darwinism of libertarianism really doesn't care what the strong do to the weak. Rich and powerful people are good and deserve to be rich and powerful. The poor and powerless deserve what they get.
4. It ignores history. We haven't always had a U.S. government. It's only a little more than 200 years old. But we do know earlier forms of society. We've had monarchies. We've had theocracies. We had the ancient Roman & Greek systems that privileged people with money. Modern democracy certainly has its failings, but we really be better off returning to "less" government considering what our previous systems gave us?
5. It's not natural. The underlying assumption of libertarianism is that government is an artificial construct that interferes with natural behavior, which they believe works just fine on its own. There's no evidence that humanity could have survived without some form of social organization. The instinct for survival that causes some to climb to the top of the heap and others to hide from the climbers just doesn't result in a society that works for large numbers. It probably won't work for small numbers, either.
6. It ignores human failings. We no longer live in family groups in tiny villages, and if Libertarianism became the "law" of the land, we would pretty much have to go back to that. In our distant past, we helped each other within our own group and competed against other groups for resources. Surviving without a government would require all of us to gather into small groups for protection and predation. Child abuse and spousal abuse would again be perpetrated with no recourse. Victims of alcoholism or mental illness would have no access to services, and their families would suffer. A small group's only hope of survival when "infected" with a defective member would be to ostracize that member.
7. It ignores human compassion. Libertarianism denies the instinct to help others, which has been shown in other species as well. Government taking a role in "lifting up" the poor is an extension of the instinct we would follow individually in a smaller group. By blaming the victim, libertarians can imagine themselves the agents of their own good luck. There's no place in their worldview for helping the blind, the deaf, the physically impaired, or the children of these people. The mentally ill who are incapable of working for a living due to their illness? *shrug* At least religions have charities that make a dent in these issues. Secular libertarians leave the powerless to their own devices as if blindness or mental illness were somehow the victim's own fault. There have been hundreds if not thousands of examples of other animals helping each other or even other species, so compassion seems to be instinctual. I have yet to meet a libertarian who has a relative that needs help to survive. If I had the power to curse people, I'd curse libertarians with multiple sclerosis. Let's see how many ways they make use of the ADA law's provisions.
8. It ignores Somalia. Somalia is the perfect example of libertarianism in action. There's basically no government in Somalia so we can see what would happen. Without a government, pirates and tribal groups terrorize others. Women and children are mistreated. Disease is rampant. There's no viable business other than crime. It's a chaotic mess. Why would anyone want to copy that model?
9. It's selfish. On the surface, a libertarian saying that he doesn't know what's best for someone else seems humble and charitable. But really, sometimes he would know what's best. He would know that a woman being beaten on a daily basis by an abusive husband would be better off if she could get out of that situation. He would know that someone with asthma would be better off in a world with less air pollution. His pseudo-humility covers up a basic unwillingness to get involved. Or, he's got his head in the sand when it comes to the problems of society and of individuals that are just too big or complicated for a family or small group to help with.
10. It's provincial. It ignores the fact that the economies and societies of all the world's nations are now interconnected. If someone lives in the country with well water, septic tank and a burn pit for their garbage, they can fantasize they are not relying on the government. But then when their four-year-old comes down with cancer, they're only too happy to take him to the big city hospital for chemo that was studied using federal funding.
So... I call BS on libertarianism. It's a stupid position to take. Even if it could be implemented it couldn't succeed. Its thinly veiled social "Darwinism" but without any of the nuance of true evolutionary theory.
33
-
32
-
32
-
32
-
30
-
28
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
25
-
24
-
22
-
21
-
20
-
20
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
18
-
18
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
13
-
13
-
Dom Trussardi FEDERAL COURT BARS MICHIGAN AUTHOR OF TAX BOOK FROM FILING FALSE TAX RETURNS AND FORMS
Commerce Township Couple Must Repay More Than $20,000 in Erroneous Tax Refunds
WASHINGTON, D.C. - A federal court in Detroit has permanently barred Peter and Doreen Hendrickson of Commerce Township, Mich., from filing tax returns and forms on which they falsely report their income as zero, the Justice Department announced today. The injunction order, signed by U.S. District Judge Nancy G. Edmunds, also requires the couple to repay more than $20,000 in federal income, Social Security and Medicare taxes that they had obtained by filing false tax returns with the IRS.
The order notes that the couple based their improper conduct on a book Peter Hendrickson wrote called Cracking the Code. The book states that federal tax withholding and income taxes on wages are applicable only for a limited class of people, primarily government employees. The court found that position to be “false and frivolous,” and cited an earlier court decision holding the position to be “preposterous.”
Based on advice in Hendrickson’s book, individuals have unlawfully filed tax returns with false substitute W-2 wage statements they prepare reporting little or no wage income. They also fail to submit the correct W-2 wage statement they receive from their employers. Hendrickson’s scheme is number five on the IRS’s 2007 list of the “Dirty Dozen” tax scams, posted at http://apps.irs.gov/newsroom/article/0,,id=167983,00.html.
The Justice Department sued the Hendricksons and seven others last year in suits filed in California, Nevada, Michigan, Alabama, Kansas and Florida, seeking to recover erroneous tax refunds that the nine defendants had received as a result of acting on the advice in Hendrickson’s book. The government has now prevailed against all nine defendants. Information on those suits is available at http://www.usdoj.gov/tax/txdv06219.htm.
Peter Hendrickson was convicted in 1992 on federal criminal charges for failing to file a federal income tax return and for a conspiracy involving a firebomb placed in a bin at a U.S. Post Office in Royal Oak, Mich. on April 16, 1990, the last day on which tax returns could be postmarked that year. Hendrickson testified at a co-conspirator’s trial that he wrapped a tea bag around the bomb’s tubing as a reference to the Boston Tea Party tax protest.
Since 2001, the Justice Department has obtained injunctions against more than 235 tax fraud promoters and fraudulent return preparers. More information about the Justice Department’s efforts to stop tax scams can be found at http://www.usdoj.gov/tax/taxpress2007.htm. Information about the Justice Department’s Tax Division can be found at http://www.usdoj.gov/tax/index.html.
Related Documents:
United States v.
Peter Hendrickson, et al.
Order Denying (1) Defendants’ Motion for Relief from Judgment, [26] and (2) Defendants’ Motion for Reconsideration [27]
Amended Judgment and Order of Permanent Injunction [23, 24]
13
-
13
-
13
-
12
-
Dom Trussardi
"The case against Pete was about a civil fraud promoted by Pete Hendrickson who encourages one to file false and fraudulent returns.
Pete has never won anything, only got refunds which everyone who uses his “information” will have to pay back, plus be sued for fraudulently filing false statements.
Read what happened below wherein he testified AGAINST his own friends, in 1992, in his federal criminal trial. Written here http://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F3/30/30.F3d.135.93-2527.html (copied below) and in order to save his own butt, he turned on his friends and cut a deal. The gal Doreen, who is now Pete’s wife, secretly worked with Pete and the government to save themselves, and the two of them secretly taped phone conversations of their friends, and turned them over to the government. Nice folks.
IF Pete’s book had any lawful substance to support his legal claims, he would not have lost his civil litigation, that requires him to pay back in excess of $20,000.
The Golson’s have to pay back $69,760.85 PLUS interest. You can read about them and the rest in the links."
http://www.usdoj.gov/tax/Hendrickson_AmendedJudgPermInj.pdf
http://www.usdoj.gov/tax/Dowling_Complaint.pdf
http://www.usdoj.gov/tax/Golson_Complaint.pdf
http://www.usdoj.gov/tax/Gerstenkorn_Complaint.pdf
http://www.usdoj.gov/tax/Spitzer_Complaint.pdf
http://www.usdoj.gov/tax/Artman_Complaint.pdf
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
9
-
Dom Trussardi UNITED STATES SUES NINE IN NATIONWIDE CRACKDOWN ON TAX-REFUND SCAM
WASHINGTON, D.C. - The Justice Department announced today that, in a nationwide crackdown against a tax-fraud scheme promoted by Peter Eric Hendrickson of Commerce Township, Mich., it has brought suit against nine people this week. According to the government complaints, filed in seven lawsuits across the country, the nine people—including Hendrickson and his wife Doreen M. Hendrickson—have received a total of nearly $150,000 in erroneous tax refunds by submitting false forms with their federal tax returns to replace W-2 and 1099 forms that correctly reported their income.
In seven suits filed in U.S. district courts in California, Nevada, Michigan, Alabama, Florida and Kansas, the Justice Department seeks to recover the erroneous refunds. In addition, the suit against Hendrickson, filed in the Eastern District of Michigan, asks the court to enjoin him from filing false tax forms and returns. A violation of the injunction would be punishable as contempt of court.
According to the complaint, Hendrickson claims that only government workers are subject to income taxes. Hendrickson tells people to not submit their W-2 and 1099 forms with their tax returns, and in their place submit substitute or corrected W-2 and 1099 forms that they create on which they change their reported income to zero. Under the scheme, people then submit the falsified forms with a tax return falsely reporting no income and request a refund of all taxes withheld from wages. This scheme is number one on the IRS’s 2006 list of the “Dirty Dozen” tax scams, posted at http://www.irs.gov/newsroom/article/0,,id=154293,00.html.
“Federal law provides serious penalties for filing false tax forms,” said Eileen J. O’Connor, Assistant Attorney General for the Justice Department’s Tax Division. “People who engage in tax fraud schemes can expect to pay back taxes, plus interest and penalties, and may face criminal prosecution for evading taxes.”
The suit against Hendrickson alleges that he was convicted in 1992 on federal criminal charges for failing to file a federal income tax return and for a conspiracy involving a firebomb placed in a bin at a U.S. Post Office in Royal Oak, Mich. on April 16, 1990, the last day on which tax returns could be postmarked that year. Hendrickson testified at a co-conspirator’s trial that he wrapped a tea bag around the bomb’s tubing as a reference to the Boston Tea Party tax protest.
The seven people sued in addition to the Hendricksons are Sharon K. Artman of Largo, Fla.; Michael J. Dowling of San Diego; Joy M. Ferguson of Henderson, Nev.; Melvin L. Gerstenkorn of Topeka, Kan.; Larry B. Golson and Debra G. Golson of Montgomery, Ala.; and James A. Spitzer of Winter Park, Fla. Copies of all seven complaints will be posted with this press release today at http://www.usdoj.gov/tax/taxpress2006.htm.
This week’s suits are part of the IRS’s and Justice Department’s efforts against tax-fraud schemes. More information about these efforts can be found at www.usdoj.gov/tax/taxpress2006.htm. Information about the Tax Division can be found at www.usdoj.gov/tax/index.html.
« back
30 F.3d 135
NOTICE: Sixth Circuit Rule 24(c) states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Sixth Circuit.
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
Karen SCARBOROUGH, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 93-2527.
United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.
July 28, 1994.
Before: MARTIN, SUHRHEINRICH, and DAUGHTREY, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
1
Defendant Karen Scarborough appeals her conviction on one count of conspiracy to obstruct justice and several counts of making false statements before the grand jury. Defendant challenges her jury conviction on four grounds: (1) that the district court erred in concluding that defendant's false statements to the grand jury were material; (2) that the district court abused its discretion in refusing to allow defendant to cross examine a witness about his polygraph; (3) that the district court abused its discretion in allowing the jury to review transcripts of tapes during deliberation; and (4) that the government failed to introduce sufficient evidence to support defendant's conviction.
2
These arguments lack merit, and we AFFIRM defendant's conviction.
I.
3
This case arises out of a grand jury investigation into a "firebombing" at the Royal Oak Post Office on April 16, 1990, which occurred when an incendiary device, placed among a number of tax returns, erupted into flames. The fire injured Thomas Berlucci, a postal employee, who had collected the smoking package from the mail receptacle.
4
The ensuing investigation focused on the Libertarian Party, members of which were protesting at the post office when the incident occurred. Eventually the investigation focused on two members, Pete Hendrickson and his girlfriend at the time, Doreen Wright.
5
During the grand jury investigation, witnesses testified that prior to April 16, 1990, several members of the party met to discuss the possibility of placing an incendiary device in the mail on income tax day to protest the tax system. Witnesses testified that defendant had attended that meeting.
6
The grand jury subpoenaed defendant, who received immunity prior to testifying.1 Defendant testified that she had attended the meeting described by other witnesses but had no recollection of a discussion about putting a bomb in the mail; that she had no prior knowledge or involvement in the scheme; and that she was with Pete Hendrickson at the post office on April 16, and that he could not have planted the device.
7
After Hendrickson and Wright were charged with conspiracy, Hendrickson entered into a plea agreement and agreed to cooperate with the government. Hendrickson and Wright then surreptitiously taped conversations between Karen Scarborough and her husband. The tapes corroborated Hendrickson's version of the incident: that defendant, her husband and Hendrickson assembled the device; that the three went to the post office on April 16, and that Scott Scarborough planted the device at the post office. Defendant and her husband were indicted and charged with conspiracy to obstruct justice by presenting false testimony before the grand jury and also with several counts of perjury.
II. Materiality
8
Defendant contends that the evidence did not establish that her testimony to the grand jury was material to any matter that the grand jury was investigating at the time she gave the testimony. The issue of materiality is a legal question "not a question of fact." United States v. Giacalone, 587 F.2d 5, 6 (6th Cir.1978), cert denied, 442 U.S. 940 (1979). False testimony is material "if it has the natural effect or tendency to impede, influence or dissuade the grand jury from pursuing its investigation. Merely potential interference with a line of inquiry is sufficient to establish materiality, regardless of whether the perjured testimony actually serves to impede the investigation." United States v. Richardson, 596 F.2d 157, 165 (6th Cir.1979) (quoting United States v. Howard, 560 F.2d 281, 284 (7th Cir.1977)).
9
Defendant argues that the district court incorrectly concluded that false statements made by defendant to the grand jury were material because: (1) no grand jury members were called to testify as to whether defendant's testimony impeded their investigation of Hendrickson; and (2) the grand jury had sufficient evidence from other witnesses to proceed against Hendrickson.
10
These arguments are unpersuasive. First, the test is not concerned with actual interference, only with whether the false testimony could have interfered. Consequently, no member of the grand jury needed to testify that defendant's testimony interfered with their investigation. United States v. Swift, 809 F.2d 320, 324 (6th Cir.1987). Secondly, although the investigation had already targeted Hendrickson and Wright at the time defendant testified, defendant denied all knowledge of the crime and provided a false alibi for Hendrickson. Her statements were intended to persuade the grand jury that Hendrickson was not involved. Truthful answers by defendant probably would have aided the grand jury in its investigation and broadened the scope of the investigation. Accordingly, we hold that the defendant made false statement concerning matters "material" to the investigation.
III. Polygraph
11
Defendant contends that the district court abused its discretion in precluding reference to the fact that Pete Hendrickson had taken a polygraph examination or to the results of that examination on the ground that these matters lacked probative value on the issue of Hendrickson's credibility. The Sixth Circuit has never imposed a per se prohibition on the admission of polygraph evidence. United States v. Betancourt, 838 F.2d 168 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 486 U.S. 1013 (1988). Admissibility is decided after a two-step analysis. "First, the trial court must determine if the proffered evidence is relevant. Second, if the court concludes that the proffered evidence is relevant, it must balance the probative value of the evidence against the hazard of unfair prejudice and/or confusion which could mislead the jury." Wolfel v. Holbrook, 823 F.2d 970, 972 (6th Cir.1987), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 1069 (1988).
12
Here, defendant wanted the polygraph results admitted to attack Hendrickson's credibility. Credibility, however, is a matter for the jury to decide based on the testimony and demeanor of the witness as he testifies. Admitting the results of a polygraph could unduly influence this credibility determination. Consequently, admission of polygraph results is the exception, not the rule. United States v. Blakeney, 942 F.2d 1001, 1014 (6th Cir.1991), cert. denied, 112 S.Ct. 881 (1992). The district court decided that the facts in this case did not present circumstances so unusual as to warrant an exception to the general rule. There is no basis to find that the district court abused its discretion in prohibiting the admission of the results.
IV. Transcripts
13
Defendant contends that the trial court erred in allowing the jury to have the transcript of taped conversations during deliberations. We review for abuse of discretion. United States v. Larson, 722 F.2d 139 (5th Cir.1983) (holding no prejudicial error in allowing jury to have transcript not formally admitted as evidence during deliberation where jury read transcript during trial and was instructed to resolve inconsistencies in favor of the tape), cert. denied, 466 U.S. 907 (1984). See also United States v. Puerta Restrepo, 814 F.2d 1236, 1242 (7th Cir.1987) (allowing jury to have transcripts even though identity of one of the speakers named on the transcript was disputed where court instructed jury that tapes, not transcripts, were evidence); United States v. Williford, 764 F.2d 1493, 1503 (11th Cir.1985) (absent showing that transcripts were inaccurate or that specific prejudice occurred, no error in allowing transcripts to go to jury during deliberations).
14
Defendant claims that the transcript omitted exculpatory passages contained on the original tape and concludes that she was prejudiced beca
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
Keith Peters
still one of the top brainwashed right wing ideologues on the tube. He has no thoughts of his own. He recycles the talking points that the K0CH funded media sells him. He has not the brain capacity to actually research issues so he just uses his bigotry and hatred to fire himself up. And let us not forget that Keith like so many of his fellow right wing empty heads is one of the moochers that Robme was actually talking about.
So you say the ACA took your healthcare away
http://occupyamerica.crooksandliars.com/diane-sweet/obamacare-horror-story-debunked#sthash.3Flcr67w.dpbs
Deborah Cavallaro got a letter from Anthem Blue Cross which stated, “Because of the requirements of the new laws, we can no longer offer your current Anthem policy.”
Deborah Cavallaro was all over the news on Wednesday as an example of someone who lost her existing health insurance thanks to Obamacare. Except one problem -- the plan she qualifies for is better. Under her current plan, she is limited to two doctor visits a year, pays $293 a month with a yearly deductible of $5,000. Cavallaro says she was told by her insurance broker she would be paying $478 a month -- but she didn’t check the website herself. There, she would have found a better plan, with only a $2,000 deductible and all doctor visits covered by a copay...for only $40 more a month.
Cavallaro told CBS Los Angeles that she received a letter from Anthem Blue Cross which stated, “Because of the requirements of the new laws, we can no longer offer your current Anthem policy.”
“I was infuriated, totally infuriated,” she said. “It’s sort of forcing you to walk the plank.”
CBS:
"The letter also said that Cavallaro is being offered a new policy and her monthly payment will increase from $292 to $484.
“The president kept saying, you know, ‘If you like your plan, you can keep your plan. Your premiums will be going down.’ But, in fact, the letter is completely contradictory to that,” said Cavallaro.
Jamie Court, the president of Consumer Watchdog, said major health insurance companies are simply taking advantage of the confusion surrounding the new health care law to engage in price gouging.
“This is not the fault of the Affordable Care Act or President Obama. This is the fault of the insurance company. This is a handful of insurance companies that have convinced a very gullible state agency, Covered California, to allow them to drop plans that could very easily…with a few little tweaks… be compliant under the Affordable Care Act, and people wouldn’t have to leave their plans,” said Court."
Michael Hiltzik at the LA Times talked with Cavallaro, 60, after her CNBC appearance:
"Her current plan, from Anthem Blue Cross, is a catastrophic coverage plan for which she pays $293 a month as an individual policyholder. It requires her to pay a deductible of $5,000 a year and limits her out-of-pocket costs to $8,500 a year. Her plan also limits her to two doctor visits a year, for which she shoulders a copay of $40 each. After that, she pays the whole cost of subsequent visits.
This fits the very definition of a nonconforming plan under Obamacare. The deductible and out-of-pocket maximums are too high, the provisions for doctor visits too skimpy.
As for a replacement plan, she says she was quoted $478 a month by her insurance broker, but that's a lot more than she'll really be paying. Cavallaro told me she hasn't checked the website of Covered California, the state's health plan exchange, herself. I did so while we talked.
Here's what I found. I won't divulge her current income, which is personal, but this year it qualifies her for a hefty federal premium subsidy.
At her age, she's eligible for a good "silver" plan for $333 a month after the subsidy -- $40 a month more than she's paying now. But the plan is much better than her current plan -- the deductible is $2,000, not $5,000. The maximum out-of-pocket expense is $6,350, not $8,500. Her co-pays would be $45 for a primary care visit and $65 for a specialty visit -- but all visits would be covered, not just two.
Is that better than her current plan? Yes, by a mile.
If she wanted to pay less, Cavallaro could opt for lesser coverage in a "bronze" plan. She could buy one from the California exchange for as little as $194 a month. From Anthem, it's $256, or $444 a year less than she's paying now. That buys her a $5,000 deductible (the same as she's paying today) but the out-of-pocket limit is lower, $6,350. Office visits would be $60 for primary care and $70 for specialties, but again with no limit on the number of visits. Factor in the premium savings, and it's hard to deny that she's still ahead."
Hiltzik notes that "The sad truth is that Cavallaro has been very poorly served by the health insurance industry and the news media. It seems that Anthem didn't adequately explain her options for 2014 when it disclosed that her current plan is being canceled. If her insurance brokers told her what she says they did, they failed her. And the reporters who interviewed her without getting all the facts produced inexcusably shoddy work -- from Maria Bartiromo on down. They not only did her a disservice, but failed the rest of us too."
Excellent journalism, Mr. Hiltzik.
7
-
7
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
DEBT lesson for Armando the Dim...
Unfortunately, Republicans never learn from history. We've had three decades to determine whether or not tax cuts for the rich help our economy. They don't. Even tax cuts for the rest of us only help it marginally. And Republicans think spending cuts help in a recession and will do something for the deficit. This is new for them since Republican administration have always promoted more spending during recessions, especially government hiring. But this is only when there's a Republican in the White House. When there's a Democrat in the White House, all of a sudden deficits are terrible and the debt that they built up during their term is a disaster that's all the Democrats' fault. It's a scam! I just wish their millions of followers could see this.
If tax cuts for the rich helped our economy and created jobs, we would be at full employment by now. In fact, there would be so many jobs, we'd be begging the retired people to come out of retirement and fill them. We'd be begging for more immigration so we could get more people filling all those jobs. Companies would be desperate to get enough workers, and wages would have skyrocketed, not stagnated and even declined as they have on average for the past 33 years.
What does it take for these people to face reality? They just keep marching in lockstep with this strange and selfish ideology without ever seeming to consider that the results of their actions actually hurt people, kicking them off the rolls of the employed and causing them to descend into poverty. This is not promoting the general welfare or insuring domestic tranquility, which "conservatives" tend to ignore even though they're right there at the beginning of the Constitution among the purposes for having a government. Are we a caring government or not? And which party seems to care more than the other about what actually happens to those in need? I think these are important questions to ask. Republican policies are geared towards helping only the rich. To pretend otherwise is to ignore reality.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
What is your point? Do you have one? Please tell me.
NOW is funded by many organizations that believe in women's equality.
The short list of funders:
NOW has received funding from the American Express Foundation, the Baker Street Foundation, the California Endowment, the ChevronTexaco Foundation, the Community Foundation of Greater Memphis, the Fannie Mae Foundation, the Ford Foundation, the Hilton Foundation, the Jessie Smith Noyes Foundation, the Philadelphia Foundation, the New World Foundation, the New York Community Trust, the New York Times Company Foundation, George Soros's Open Society Institute, the Rockefeller Family Fund, the Shefa Fund, the Target Foundation, and the Vanguard Public Foundation.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
skedaddleMLS
No one said just sit back. Are you just making that up? Yep.
How about we get after all those reichwing christian extremists on the right? FuX news incites hatred and violent 24/7 and the K0CH party buries the government assessments as to how dangerous rightwing terror is in the USA.
RIGHT WING EXTREMISTS
A report published by the Combating Terrorism Center at West Point Military Academy on Jan. 15 discusses the potential dangers of “violent far-right” organizations, which has angered some conservatives that believe the military should focus on international threats.
The executive summary of the paper, “Challengers from the Sidelines: Understanding America’s Violent Far-Right,” claims that “since 2007, there has been a dramatic rise in the number of attacks and violent plots originating from individuals and groups who self- identify with the far-right of American politics.”
Written by Arie Perliger, Director of Terrorism Studies at the Combating Terrorism Center and an Assistant Professor at the Department of Social Sciences at West Point, the paper asserts that three distinct ideologies exist in the “American violent far right.” Those are “a racist/white supremacy movement, an anti-federalist movement and a fundamentalist movement,” the last of which “includes mainly Christian Identity groins such as the Aryan Nations.”
“Findings indicate that…it is not only feelings of deprivation that motivate those involved in far right violence, but also the sense of empowerment that emerges when the political system is perceived to be increasingly permissive to far right ideas,” it later reads.
The rise in attacks in the 21st century were significant, as “Although in the 1990s the average number of attacks per year was 70.1, the average number of attacks per year in the first 11 years of the twenty-first century was 307.5, a rise of more than 400%.”
The study also found that “presidential election years and the preceding year are characterized by an increase of far-right violence,” leading the author to conclude that “in general, far-right groups and individuals are more inclined to engage in violence in a contentious political climate.”
Furthermore, it found that the number of Republicans in the House was positively correlated with an increase in far-right violence, although the causes were not immediately clear. The study posits that it could mean those groups believed those legislators might be “more tolerant of their activities” or possibly that “the high expectations of far-right activists during a conservative legislature” were not “fulfilled.”
Some conservatives object to the report. The Washington Times, The National Review, and World Net Daily all report on critical reactions from the right, according to the Atlantic Wire, with blogger Pamela Geller calling it an “appalling attempt to demonize loyal Americans and whitewash the Islamic threat.”
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
Culturebreach MYTH
“Israel discriminates against its Arab citizens.”
FACT
Arabs in Israel have equal voting rights; in fact, it is one of the few places in the Middle East where Arab women may vote. Arabs in 2011 held 14 seats in the 120-seat Knesset. Israeli Arabs have also held various government posts, including one who served as Israel’s ambassador to Finland and the deputy mayor of Tel Aviv. Oscar Abu Razaq was appointed Director General of the Ministry of Interior, the first Arab citizen to become chief executive of a key government ministry. Ariel Sharon’s original cabinet included the first Arab minister, Salah Tarif, a Druze who served as a minister without portfolio. An Arab is also a Supreme Court justice. In October 2005, an Arab professor was named Vice President of Haifa University.
Arabic, like Hebrew, is an official language in Israel. More than 300,000 Arab children attend Israeli schools. At the time of Israel’s founding, there was one Arab high school in the country. Today, there are hundreds of Arab schools. 29
The sole legal distinction between Jewish and Arab citizens of Israel is that the latter are not required to serve in the Israeli army. This is to spare Arab citizens the need to take up arms against their brethren. Nevertheless, Bedouins have served in paratroop units and other Arabs have volunteered for military duty. Compulsory military service is applied to the Druze and Circassian communities at their own request.
Some economic and social gaps between Israeli Jews and Arabs result from the latter not serving in the military. Veterans qualify for many benefits not available to non-veterans. Moreover, the army aids in the socialization process.
On the other hand, Arabs do have an advantage in obtaining some jobs during the years Israelis are in the military. In addition, industries like construction and trucking have come to be dominated by Israeli Arabs.
Although Israeli Arabs have occasionally been involved in terrorist activities, they have generally behaved as loyal citizens. During the 1967, 1973 and 1982 wars, none engaged in any acts of sabotage or disloyalty. Sometimes, in fact, Arabs volunteered to take over civilian functions for reservists. During the Palestinian War that began in September 2000, Israeli Arabs for the first time engaged in widespread protests.
The United States has been independent for 235 years and still has not integrated all of its diverse communities. Even today, nearly half a century after civil rights legislation was adopted, discrimination has not been eradicated. It should not be surprising that Israel has not solved all of its social problems in only 63 years.
MYTH
“Israeli Arabs are barred from buying land in Israel.”
FACT
In the early part of the century, the Jewish National Fund was established by the World Zionist Congress to purchase land in Palestine for Jewish settlement. This land, and that acquired after Israel’s War of Independence, was taken over by the government. Of the total area of Israel, 92 percent belongs to the State and is managed by the Land Management Authority. It is not for sale to anyone, Jew or Arab. The remaining 8 percent of the territory is privately owned. The Arab Waqf (the Muslim charitable endowment), for example, owns land that is for the express use and benefit of Muslim Arabs. Government land can be leased by anyone, regardless of race, religion or sex. All Arab citizens of Israel are eligible to lease government land.
In 2002, the Israeli Supreme Court also ruled that the government cannot allocate land based on religion or ethnicity, and may not prevent Arab citizens from living wherever they choose. 30
Meanwhile, in 1996, the Palestinian Authority (PA) Mufti, Ikremah Sabri, issued a fatwa (religious decree), banning the sale of Arab and Muslim property to Jews. Anyone who violated the order was to be killed. At least seven land dealers were killed that year. 31
On May 5, 1997, Palestinian Authority Justice Minister Freih Abu Middein announced that the death penalty would be imposed on anyone convicted of ceding “one inch” to Israel. Later that month, two Arab land dealers were killed. A year later, another Palestinian suspected of selling land to Jews was murdered. The PA has also arrested suspected land dealers for violating the Jordanian law (in force in the West Bank), which prohibits the sale of land to foreigners. 32 An Islamic judge renewed the fatwa barring Palestinians from selling property to Jews in 2008 and, as recently as June 2010, a Palestinian was imprisoned for 10 years on charges of selling land to Israel. 33
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
whyamimrpink78 That was some doublespeak bubba.
Hanging your hat on Rudy 911 Grifter is a loser.
FactCheck: NYC crime did drop, but others deserve credit too
Giuliani made a grandiose boast that he “brought down crime more than anyone in this country--maybe in the history of this country--while I was mayor of NYC.”
Crime certainly dropped dramatically during Giuliani’s tenure from 1993 to 2002. In fact, the city is still in the midst of a record-setting trend for consecutive years of declining violent crimes. However, it is a trend that actually started under Giuliani’s predecessor, David Dinkins, in 1990, when a high of 174,542 violent crimes were reported according to the FBI, and has continued under his successor, Mike Bloomberg. In 2006, a new low of 52,086 such crimes were reported.
The FBI itself warns against drawing broad conclusions (one might even say claiming undue credit) based on these statistics. The FBI website warns: “These rough rankings provide no insight into the numerous variables that mold crime in a particular city. Consequently they lead to simplistic and/or incomplete analyses that often create misleading perceptions.”
Source: FactCheck.org on 2007 GOP primary debate in Orlando , Oct 21, 2007
FactCheck: Hired 3,660 new cops, but took credit for 12,000
On his campaign Web site, Giuliani claims to have increased NYC’s police force by 12,000 officers--from 28,000 to 40,000--between 1/1/1994 & 2000.
The number Giuliani uses as his starting point in 1994 includes only NYPD officers. He doesn’t count transit police or housing police. But Giuliani DOES add the housing and transit police to his later tally--that added close to 7,100 officers to the NYPD’s rolls. It’s misleading for Giuliani to leave the transit and housing cops out of the starting count.
Even the figure Giuliani uses for the number of NYPD officers when he took office--28,000--is inaccurate. The NYPD numbered 29,450 when Giuliani took office. So we’re left with an increase of 3,660, or about 10%. That’s perfectly respectable, bu it’s not 12,000. Under the auspices of the Bill Clinton’s COPS program, NYC was given enough money to cover the first $25,000 of the salaries of about 3,500 new officers from 1997 to 2000 [i.e. almost all of the new NYPD hires were paid for federally].
Source: FactCheck.org: AdWatch of 2007 campaign websites , Oct 9, 2007
and
http://www.nber.org/digest/jan03/w9061.html
and
http://www.salon.com/2011/11/19/what_really_cleaned_up_new_york/
Do not you get tired of being the resident dipshit on YouTube?
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
Bullshit. Talk about factless false equivalencies.
Drumpf has no healthcare plan other than the one the reich wants.
And that is NO HEALTH CARE UNLESS YOU CAN AFFORD PRIVATE INSURANCE.
Geezus bub.Paul Ryan just announced that as part of repealing Obamacare he plans to phase out Medicare and replace it with private insurance for retirees.
Hope? I "hope" my guillotine is sharp.
The plan in their own words:
RYAN PLAN FOR AMERICA
Ryan, the GOP, the K0CHs and the other libertarian neoconfederate states rights taliban traitors have the same platform.
NO ABORTION EVER
• We urge the repeal of federal campaign finance laws, and the immediate abolition of the despotic Federal Election Commission.”
• “We favor the abolition of Medicare and Medicaid programs.”
• “We oppose any compulsory insurance or tax-supported plan to provide health services, including those which finance abortion services.”
• “We also favor the deregulation of the medical insurance industry.”
• “We favor the repeal of the fraudulent, virtually bankrupt, and increasingly oppressive Social Security system. Pending that repeal, participation in Social Security should be made voluntary.”
• “We propose the abolition of the governmental Postal Service. The present system, in addition to being inefficient, encourages governmental surveillance of private correspondence. Pending abolition, we call for an end to the monopoly system and for allowing free competition in all aspects of postal service.”
• “We oppose all personal and corporate income taxation, including capital gains taxes.”
• “We support the eventual repeal of all taxation.”
• “As an interim measure, all criminal and civil sanctions against tax evasion should be terminated immediately.”
• “We support repeal of all law which impede the ability of any person to find employment, such as minimum wage laws.”
• “We advocate the complete separation of education and State. Government schools lead to the indoctrination of children and interfere with the free choice of individuals. Government ownership, operation, regulation, and subsidy of schools and colleges should be ended.”
• “We condemn compulsory education laws … and we call for the immediate repeal of such laws.”
• “We support the repeal of all taxes on the income or property of private schools, whether profit or non-profit.”
• “We support the abolition of the Environmental Protection Agency.”
• “We support abolition of the Department of Energy.”
• “We call for the dissolution of all government agencies concerned with transportation, including the Department of Transportation.”
• “We demand the return of America's railroad system to private ownership. We call for the privatization of the public roads and national highway system.”
• “We specifically oppose laws requiring an individual to buy or use so-called "self-protection" equipment such as safety belts, air bags, or crash helmets.”
• “We advocate the abolition of the Federal Aviation Administration.”
• “We advocate the abolition of the Food and Drug Administration.”
• “We support an end to all subsidies for child-bearing built into our present laws, including all welfare plans and the provision of tax-supported services for children.”
• “We oppose all government welfare, relief projects, and ‘aid to the poor’ programs. All these government programs are privacy-invading, paternalistic, demeaning, and inefficient. The proper source of help for such persons is the voluntary efforts of private groups and individuals.”
• “We call for the privatization of the inland waterways, and of the distribution system that brings water to industry, agriculture and households.”
• “We call for the repeal of the Occupational Safety and Health Act.”
• “We call for the abolition of the Consumer Product Safety Commission.”
• “We support the repeal of all state usury laws.”
Every single one of these ideas is rooted in Ayn L Rand John Birch Society dogma. Paul Ryan is as extremist as any of them.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
capucchan8 LOL talk about uninformed. How did Hillary support every war when she was not in office during every war.
Ill just deal with one of your misinformed mentions.
She did not vote for the Iraq war.
HIllary's Vote On Presidential Authority for Bush
Hillary "voted to invade" is a very simplistic description of her vote.
The things she said on the floor of the Senate matter:
Hillary:"Even though the resolution before the Senate is not as strong as I would like in requiring the diplomatic route first, and placing highest priority on a simple, clear requirement for unlimited inspections, I will take the President as his word that he will try hard to pass a U.N. resolution and will seek to avoid war if at all possible.
Because bi-partisan support for this resolution makes success in the United Nations more likely, and therefore war less likely, and because a good-faith effort by the United States, even if it fails, will bring more allies and legitimacy to our cause.
If we were to defeat this resolution or pass with only a few Democrats, I am concerned that those that want to pretend that this problem will go away with delay, will oppose any U.N. resolution calling for unrestricted inspections.
This is a very difficult vote. This is probably the hardest decision I've ever had to make. Any vote that might lead to war should be hard. But I cast it with conviction.
My vote is not, however, a vote for any new doctrine of preemption or for unilateralism or for the arrogance of American power or purpose, all of which carry grave dangers for our nation, for the rule of international law, and for the peace and security of people throughout the world.
A vote for it is not a vote to rush to war, it is a vote that puts awesome responsibility in the hands of our President. And we say to him, use these powers wisely and as a last resort."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/hillary-clintons-greatest-political-regret-iraq_us_5718ccf0e4b0c9244a7aed6a
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
The media is sadly quiet when it comes to what the K0CHs have planned for America.
Why do we not see their families in the news cycle?
KOCH GAME PLAN not from Bernie
When David Koch ran as the Vice Presidential candidate on the Libertarian ticket in 1980 this was their platform for that year. It is a manifesto of what David and Charles Koch expect to receive in return for their large investment in American politics.
• We urge the repeal of federal campaign finance laws, and the immediate abolition of the despotic Federal Election Commission.”
• “We favor the abolition of Medicare and Medicaid programs.”
• “We oppose any compulsory insurance or tax-supported plan to provide health services, including those which finance abortion services.”
• “We also favor the deregulation of the medical insurance industry.”
• “We favor the repeal of the fraudulent, virtually bankrupt, and increasingly oppressive Social Security system. Pending that repeal, participation in Social Security should be made voluntary.”
• “We propose the abolition of the governmental Postal Service. The present system, in addition to being inefficient, encourages governmental surveillance of private correspondence. Pending abolition, we call for an end to the monopoly system and for allowing free competition in all aspects of postal service.”
• “We oppose all personal and corporate income taxation, including capital gains taxes.”
• “We support the eventual repeal of all taxation.”
• “As an interim measure, all criminal and civil sanctions against tax evasion should be terminated immediately.”
• “We support repeal of all law which impede the ability of any person to find employment, such as minimum wage laws.”
• “We advocate the complete separation of education and State. Government schools lead to the indoctrination of children and interfere with the free choice of individuals. Government ownership, operation, regulation, and subsidy of schools and colleges should be ended.”
• “We condemn compulsory education laws … and we call for the immediate repeal of such laws.”
• “We support the repeal of all taxes on the income or property of private schools, whether profit or non-profit.”
• “We support the abolition of the Environmental Protection Agency.”
• “We support abolition of the Department of Energy.”
• “We call for the dissolution of all government agencies concerned with transportation, including the Department of Transportation.”
• “We demand the return of America's railroad system to private ownership. We call for the privatization of the public roads and national highway system.”
• “We specifically oppose laws requiring an individual to buy or use so-called "self-protection" equipment such as safety belts, air bags, or crash helmets.”
• “We advocate the abolition of the Federal Aviation Administration.”
• “We advocate the abolition of the Food and Drug Administration.”
• “We support an end to all subsidies for child-bearing built into our present laws, including all welfare plans and the provision of tax-supported services for children.”
• “We oppose all government welfare, relief projects, and ‘aid to the poor’ programs. All these government programs are privacy-invading, paternalistic, demeaning, and inefficient. The proper source of help for such persons is the voluntary efforts of private groups and individuals.”
• “We call for the privatization of the inland waterways, and of the distribution system that brings water to industry, agriculture and households.”
• “We call for the repeal of the Occupational Safety and Health Act.”
• “We call for the abolition of the Consumer Product Safety Commission.”
• “We support the repeal of all state usury laws.”
Every single one of these ideas is rooted in John Birch Society dogma. His sons are just expanding capacity for them now, not abandoning their principles.
Keep this list handy. You're going to need it in the days to come.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
This is the Paul Ayn L Rand and K0CH plan for America.
• We urge the repeal of federal campaign finance laws, and the immediate abolition of the despotic Federal Election Commission.”
• “We favor the abolition of Medicare and Medicaid programs.”
• “We oppose any compulsory insurance or tax-supported plan to provide health services, including those which finance abortion services.”
• “We also favor the deregulation of the medical insurance industry.”
• “We favor the repeal of the fraudulent, virtually bankrupt, and increasingly oppressive Social Security system. Pending that repeal, participation in Social Security should be made voluntary.”
• “We propose the abolition of the governmental Postal Service. The present system, in addition to being inefficient, encourages governmental surveillance of private correspondence. Pending abolition, we call for an end to the monopoly system and for allowing free competition in all aspects of postal service.”
• “We oppose all personal and corporate income taxation, including capital gains taxes.”
• “We support the eventual repeal of all taxation.”
• “As an interim measure, all criminal and civil sanctions against tax evasion should be terminated immediately.”
• “We support repeal of all law which impede the ability of any person to find employment, such as minimum wage laws.”
• “We advocate the complete separation of education and State. Government schools lead to the indoctrination of children and interfere with the free choice of individuals. Government ownership, operation, regulation, and subsidy of schools and colleges should be ended.”
• “We condemn compulsory education laws … and we call for the immediate repeal of such laws.”
• “We support the repeal of all taxes on the income or property of private schools, whether profit or non-profit.”
• “We support the abolition of the Environmental Protection Agency.”
• “We support abolition of the Department of Energy.”
• “We call for the dissolution of all government agencies concerned with transportation, including the Department of Transportation.”
• “We demand the return of America's railroad system to private ownership. We call for the privatization of the public roads and national highway system.”
• “We specifically oppose laws requiring an individual to buy or use so-called "self-protection" equipment such as safety belts, air bags, or crash helmets.”
• “We advocate the abolition of the Federal Aviation Administration.”
• “We advocate the abolition of the Food and Drug Administration.”
• “We support an end to all subsidies for child-bearing built into our present laws, including all welfare plans and the provision of tax-supported services for children.”
• “We oppose all government welfare, relief projects, and ‘aid to the poor’ programs. All these government programs are privacy-invading, paternalistic, demeaning, and inefficient. The proper source of help for such persons is the voluntary efforts of private groups and individuals.”
• “We call for the privatization of the inland waterways, and of the distribution system that brings water to industry, agriculture and households.”
• “We call for the repeal of the Occupational Safety and Health Act.”
• “We call for the abolition of the Consumer Product Safety Commission.”
• “We support the repeal of all state usury laws.”
Every single one of these ideas is rooted in Ayn L RandJohn Birch Society dogma.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Global Warming Skeptic by the way you remember when you claimed that NASA spent 22 billion on climate change studies? Please do not lie and deny you said it. It is in your laughable phone call to Seder.
Here is the proof that you are a liar:
May 19, 2015 House Republicans unveiled the details of a spending bill on Tuesday that would cut the amount of money NASA spends on earth science and climate-change research.
The push arrives on the heels of a concerted effort by congressional Republicans, including Sen. Ted Cruz, a 2016 presidential hopeful, to steer NASA away from the study of climate change and towards space exploration. It takes place against the backdrop a broader GOP effort to sink President Obama's ambitious agenda to tackle rising greenhouse gases and stave off the worst impacts of global warming.
The House Appropriations Committee is expected to pass the bill Wednesday.
NASA's earth-science program oversees a wide array of research that scientists say is critical to understanding climate change. It includes initiatives to study rising sea levels, melting Arctic ice, and the ways human activity is impacting the planet.
The spending bill currently sets aside $1.68 billion for NASA to spend on earth science. That's a cut from the $1.77 billion the agency currently spends on the program. (It's also less than the $1.95 billion requested by President Obama for 2016.)
For space exploration, the spending bill doles out $4.76 billion, an increase from the current level of $4.36 billion and also above $4.5 billion that Obama requested for next year.
Sen. Barbara Mikulski, the top Democrat on the Senate Appropriations Committee, promised a fight on Monday over the proposed cuts.
"Climate change is damaging MD's shores and the Chesapeake Bay, costing billions billions in tourism and causing farmers heavy losses," the senator from Maryland tweeted, adding: "That's why I'm fighting to put funds in the fed checkbook for NASA's Earth Science program and climate research at NOAA and NSF."
Now do your K0CHspin and explain your lie.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
*****
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2013/10/29/poll-22-percent-of-americans-lean-libertarian/
This is part of the platform of the OFFICIAL LIBERTARIAN PARTY:
Platform
"The preamble outlines the party's goal: "As Libertarians, we seek a world of liberty; a world in which all individuals are sovereign over their own lives and no one is forced to sacrifice his or her values for the benefit of others." Its Statement of Principles begins: "We, the members of the Libertarian Party, challenge the cult of the omnipotent state and defend the rights of the individual." The platform emphasizes individual liberty in personal and economic affairs, avoidance of "foreign entanglements" and military and economic intervention in other nations' affairs, and free trade and migration. It calls for Constitutional limitations on government as well as the elimination of most state functions."
What I said they are they say they are. I use nothing but their won words to prove my point. The KOCKS are at the top of the libertarian food chain. It is a common excuse for a liebertarian to claim that the other liebertarians are not really true cult members.
"There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs."
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
You are not joking when you ask that?
Call them liars
Stay on point and point out the reich wing plan
Pull no punches
Be on the offensive at all times
Use their own plan against them.
Put as much gusto into fighting them as they put into selling the country to the K0CHS and the other reich wing billionaires.
Koch G.O.P. Ayn L. Rand Paul Ryan Plan for America
From the seventies on, the right and the Koch's have told us what they have planned for America and Dems have appeased and helped them.
The following was the libertarian platform from 1980 when David Koch ran for VP. This platform is nearly identical to current GOP thought as the Koch owned politicians are the current leaders of the party.
Every conservative needs to be asked if they repudiate the platform and every Dem needs to say that they are against the right wing agenda:
No Abortion and no birth control
• We urge the repeal of federal campaign finance laws, and the immediate abolition of the despotic Federal Election Commission.”
• “We favor the abolition of Medicare and Medicaid programs.”
• “We oppose any compulsory insurance or tax-supported plan to provide health services, including those which finance abortion services.”
• “We also favor the deregulation of the medical insurance industry.”
• “We favor the repeal of the fraudulent, virtually bankrupt, and increasingly oppressive Social Security system. Pending that repeal, participation in Social Security should be made voluntary.”
• “We propose the abolition of the governmental Postal Service. The present system, in addition to being inefficient, encourages governmental surveillance of private correspondence. Pending abolition, we call for an end to the monopoly system and for allowing free competition in all aspects of postal service.”
• “We oppose all personal and corporate income taxation, including capital gains taxes.”
• “We support the eventual repeal of all taxation.”
• “As an interim measure, all criminal and civil sanctions against tax evasion should be terminated immediately.”
• “We support repeal of all law which impede the ability of any person to find employment, such as minimum wage laws.”
• “We advocate the complete separation of education and State. Government schools lead to the indoctrination of children and interfere with the free choice of individuals. Government ownership, operation, regulation, and subsidy of schools and colleges should be ended.”
• “We condemn compulsory education laws … and we call for the immediate repeal of such laws.”
• “We support the repeal of all taxes on the income or property of private schools, whether profit or non-profit.”
• “We support the abolition of the Environmental Protection Agency.”
• “We support abolition of the Department of Energy.”
• “We call for the dissolution of all government agencies concerned with transportation, including the Department of Transportation.”
• “We demand the return of America's railroad system to private ownership. We call for the privatization of the public roads and national highway system.”
• “We specifically oppose laws requiring an individual to buy or use so-called "self-protection" equipment such as safety belts, air bags, or crash helmets.”
• “We advocate the abolition of the Federal Aviation Administration.”
• “We advocate the abolition of the Food and Drug Administration.”
• “We support an end to all subsidies for child-bearing built into our present laws, including all welfare plans and the provision of tax-supported services for children.”
• “We oppose all government welfare, relief projects, and ‘aid to the poor’ programs. All these government programs are privacy-invading, paternalistic, demeaning, and inefficient. The proper source of help for such persons is the voluntary efforts of private groups and individuals.”
• “We call for the privatization of the inland waterways, and of the distribution system that brings water to industry, agriculture and households.”
• “We call for the repeal of the Occupational Safety and Health Act.”
• “We call for the abolition of the Consumer Product Safety Commission.”
• “We support the repeal of all state usury laws.”
They want to destroy our government.
Every single one of these ideas is rooted in Christo Fascist, Ayn L Rand, John Birch Society dogma. Paul Ryan is as extremist as any of them.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/4/10/1291095/-Astounding-Charles-Koch-s-1980-VP-Run-Kill-Medicare-Soc-Sec-Min-Wage-Public-Ed
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
The Libertarians and the GOP are virtually one and the same.
K0CHs, Ryan, Pauls and numerous other GOP leaders are deluded LIBERTARIANS.
This is what they want:
This is just part of their platform to destroy the country.
• We urge the repeal of federal campaign finance laws, and the immediate abolition of the despotic Federal Election Commission.”
• “We favor the abolition of Medicare and Medicaid programs.”
• “We oppose any compulsory insurance or tax-supported plan to provide health services, including those which finance abortion services.”
• “We also favor the deregulation of the medical insurance industry.”
• “We favor the repeal of the fraudulent, virtually bankrupt, and increasingly oppressive Social Security system. Pending that repeal, participation in Social Security should be made voluntary.”
• “We propose the abolition of the governmental Postal Service. The present system, in addition to being inefficient, encourages governmental surveillance of private correspondence. Pending abolition, we call for an end to the monopoly system and for allowing free competition in all aspects of postal service.”
• “We oppose all personal and corporate income taxation, including capital gains taxes.”
• “We support the eventual repeal of all taxation.”
• “As an interim measure, all criminal and civil sanctions against tax evasion should be terminated immediately.”
• “We support repeal of all law which impede the ability of any person to find employment, such as minimum wage laws.”
• “We advocate the complete separation of education and State. Government schools lead to the indoctrination of children and interfere with the free choice of individuals. Government ownership, operation, regulation, and subsidy of schools and colleges should be ended.”
• “We condemn compulsory education laws … and we call for the immediate repeal of such laws.”
• “We support the repeal of all taxes on the income or property of private schools, whether profit or non-profit.”
• “We support the abolition of the Environmental Protection Agency.”
• “We support abolition of the Department of Energy.”
• “We call for the dissolution of all government agencies concerned with transportation, including the Department of Transportation.”
• “We demand the return of America's railroad system to private ownership. We call for the privatization of the public roads and national highway system.”
• “We specifically oppose laws requiring an individual to buy or use so-called "self-protection" equipment such as safety belts, air bags, or crash helmets.”
• “We advocate the abolition of the Federal Aviation Administration.”
• “We advocate the abolition of the Food and Drug Administration.”
• “We support an end to all subsidies for child-bearing built into our present laws, including all welfare plans and the provision of tax-supported services for children.”
• “We oppose all government welfare, relief projects, and ‘aid to the poor’ programs. All these government programs are privacy-invading, paternalistic, demeaning, and inefficient. The proper source of help for such persons is the voluntary efforts of private groups and individuals.”
• “We call for the privatization of the inland waterways, and of the distribution system that brings water to industry, agriculture and households.”
• “We call for the repeal of the Occupational Safety and Health Act.”
• “We call for the abolition of the Consumer Product Safety Commission.”
• “We support the repeal of all state usury laws.”
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
***** Here is what Ryan, k0chs and the libertarians want for us (shortlist):
• We urge the repeal of federal campaign finance laws, and the immediate abolition of the despotic Federal Election Commission.”
• “We favor the abolition of Medicare and Medicaid programs.”
• “We oppose any compulsory insurance or tax-supported plan to provide health services, including those which finance abortion services.”
• “We also favor the deregulation of the medical insurance industry.”
• “We favor the repeal of the fraudulent, virtually bankrupt, and increasingly oppressive Social Security system. Pending that repeal, participation in Social Security should be made voluntary.”
• “We propose the abolition of the governmental Postal Service. The present system, in addition to being inefficient, encourages governmental surveillance of private correspondence. Pending abolition, we call for an end to the monopoly system and for allowing free competition in all aspects of postal service.”
• “We oppose all personal and corporate income taxation, including capital gains taxes.”
• “We support the eventual repeal of all taxation.”
• “As an interim measure, all criminal and civil sanctions against tax evasion should be terminated immediately.”
• “We support repeal of all law which impede the ability of any person to find employment, such as minimum wage laws.”
• “We advocate the complete separation of education and State. Government schools lead to the indoctrination of children and interfere with the free choice of individuals. Government ownership, operation, regulation, and subsidy of schools and colleges should be ended.”
• “We condemn compulsory education laws … and we call for the immediate repeal of such laws.”
• “We support the repeal of all taxes on the income or property of private schools, whether profit or non-profit.”
• “We support the abolition of the Environmental Protection Agency.”
• “We support abolition of the Department of Energy.”
• “We call for the dissolution of all government agencies concerned with transportation, including the Department of Transportation.”
• “We demand the return of America's railroad system to private ownership. We call for the privatization of the public roads and national highway system.”
• “We specifically oppose laws requiring an individual to buy or use so-called "self-protection" equipment such as safety belts, air bags, or crash helmets.”
• “We advocate the abolition of the Federal Aviation Administration.”
• “We advocate the abolition of the Food and Drug Administration.”
• “We support an end to all subsidies for child-bearing built into our present laws, including all welfare plans and the provision of tax-supported services for children.”
• “We oppose all government welfare, relief projects, and ‘aid to the poor’ programs. All these government programs are privacy-invading, paternalistic, demeaning, and inefficient. The proper source of help for such persons is the voluntary efforts of private groups and individuals.”
• “We call for the privatization of the inland waterways, and of the distribution system that brings water to industry, agriculture and households.”
• “We call for the repeal of the Occupational Safety and Health Act.”
• “We call for the abolition of the Consumer Product Safety Commission.”
• “We support the repeal of all state usury laws.”
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
TexastalibanistaKoch boy you haven't clue.
First of all, there are no "Palestinians" (Where is the "Palestinian" nation?) -- The identity is just a construct leftover from British imperialism, and the UN in perpetuating that nonsense.
It accordingly also follows that Israel, like any other nation, should be free to exercise the regulation of the people within its borders as it sees fit.
The objective of both the PLO and especially Hamas is still one prohibited under international law, and a crime, i.e. genocide. Until those Charters have changed, that still stands. It does not help the Palestinian people one bit. International Aid can not continue to prop up such government. It is nice of Qatar to come to the aid of the Muslim family members, and set up a fund to pay Hamas government salaries. That does not create a Palestinian State, an economy, jobs for people, a national conscience as a people. On the contrary. Other aid props up others, such as UNWRA, which has incentives to keep Palestinians in Lebanon, Syria and Jordan in the camps, with no way up and out. Allowing integration, assimilation, citizenship where they reside, ownership of property, would but UNWRA - that is a 30000 person payroll, out of business. People who are being held captive s so that others may enrich themselves, do not work, are not educated, are not part of the fabric of society and the economy, lose whatever skills and abilities they have, forever., Adding to that a reputation of terrorism and criminality is not helpful.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
spark300c OK dipshit. Provide a link to your assertion that the founders were liEbertarians. Do it or shut the fuck up.
This is the American liEbertarian platform. It is a delusional philosophy that does not see a society for the common good but a selfish, greedy, self centered landscape that is good for the few at the top only. And NO GOVERNMENT INTERFERENCE.
• We urge the repeal of federal campaign finance laws, and the immediate abolition of the despotic Federal Election Commission.”
• “We favor the abolition of Medicare and Medicaid programs.”
• “We oppose any compulsory insurance or tax-supported plan to provide health services, including those which finance abortion services.”
• “We also favor the deregulation of the medical insurance industry.”
• “We favor the repeal of the fraudulent, virtually bankrupt, and increasingly oppressive Social Security system. Pending that repeal, participation in Social Security should be made voluntary.”
• “We propose the abolition of the governmental Postal Service. The present system, in addition to being inefficient, encourages governmental surveillance of private correspondence. Pending abolition, we call for an end to the monopoly system and for allowing free competition in all aspects of postal service.”
• “We oppose all personal and corporate income taxation, including capital gains taxes.”
• “We support the eventual repeal of all taxation.”
• “As an interim measure, all criminal and civil sanctions against tax evasion should be terminated immediately.”
• “We support repeal of all law which impede the ability of any person to find employment, such as minimum wage laws.”
• “We advocate the complete separation of education and State. Government schools lead to the indoctrination of children and interfere with the free choice of individuals. Government ownership, operation, regulation, and subsidy of schools and colleges should be ended.”
• “We condemn compulsory education laws … and we call for the immediate repeal of such laws.”
• “We support the repeal of all taxes on the income or property of private schools, whether profit or non-profit.”
• “We support the abolition of the Environmental Protection Agency.”
• “We support abolition of the Department of Energy.”
• “We call for the dissolution of all government agencies concerned with transportation, including the Department of Transportation.”
• “We demand the return of America's railroad system to private ownership. We call for the privatization of the public roads and national highway system.”
• “We specifically oppose laws requiring an individual to buy or use so-called "self-protection" equipment such as safety belts, air bags, or crash helmets.”
• “We advocate the abolition of the Federal Aviation Administration.”
• “We advocate the abolition of the Food and Drug Administration.”
• “We support an end to all subsidies for child-bearing built into our present laws, including all welfare plans and the provision of tax-supported services for children.”
• “We oppose all government welfare, relief projects, and ‘aid to the poor’ programs. All these government programs are privacy-invading, paternalistic, demeaning, and inefficient. The proper source of help for such persons is the voluntary efforts of private groups and individuals.”
• “We call for the privatization of the inland waterways, and of the distribution system that brings water to industry, agriculture and households.”
• “We call for the repeal of the Occupational Safety and Health Act.”
• “We call for the abolition of the Consumer Product Safety Commission.”
• “We support the repeal of all state usury laws.”
Every single one of these ideas is rooted in John Birch Society dogma that is anti American government.
And this is the K0CH turds agenda for the USA.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
***** SATAN AS HERO
"God is clearly a tyrant. He has committed many acts of evil, and somehow managed to amass an incredible following. That means God must be the ultimate deceiver. He has painted Satan as the deceiver to disguise his own faults and gain worshipers in a classic manner.
If the tyrannical dictator can condemn the good guy and convince enough people, he can get away with much evil. This is a ploy commonly used by skillful politicians and anyone who seeks personal gain at the expense of others.
Furthermore, Satan purportedly rebelled against this evil tyrant, even though he was greatly outnumbered and faced an omnipotent being. That, according to our common beliefs, (as we praise military heroes who sacrifice themselves for the good of their nation) is not only admirable, but makes Satan a martyr.
Satan is the only deity who truly stands for free will. God threatens us with punishments for not adhering to his wishes. But Satan tells us that we should enjoy our lives and be happy and free to do what we think is right.
Satan stands for justice, according to the biblical story, if you read it objectively. If only the story were true, he would be one of the greatest heroes in history, fighting what he surely knew would be a losing battle, but doing so for the sake of the greater good and to provide an example to the rest of us.
Just as the United States rebelled against British rule and gained their own freedom, Satan fought for freedom for all angels. Unfortunately, he lost the battle, which is a real tragedy.
If I believed in any kind of deity, I would most certainly worship Satan, become his devout follower and take up his noble fight against tyranny.
I do not look favourably upon cruel dictators.
All hail Satan! The true savior."
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
kathy kelly Mises Fanboys Irony
Ever notice how many on the extreme right have started to claim the title Classical Liberal? Von Mises is their hero, in spite of their rabid support for just the positions he theorized caused the collapse of the Roman Empire.
They love to invoke the "dramatic fall of the Roman Empire," these anti-woman, anti-gay, anti-choice, anti-freedom "conservatives." Oddest thing is that their economic heroes, like Ludwig von Mises, theorized the Empire collapsed because its quasi-free-market-based economy couldn't cope with inflation, growing income inequality, and the costs of maintaining a huge army to enforce control. Slippery slope, these little details.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
***** Did you know that CONGRESS was responsible for NAFTA?
Take a civics course.
Did you know that Hillary voted to give the president powers to protect the US with the knowledge that the REICH WING president would not lie to congress?
He lied us into war.
And she is not going to jail. She broke no laws in the email bullshit.
HIllarys Vote On Presidential Authority for Bush
Hillary "voted to invade" is a very simplistic description of her vote.
The things she said on the floor of the Senate matter:
Hillary:"Even though the resolution before the Senate is not as strong as I would like in requiring the diplomatic route first, and placing highest priority on a simple, clear requirement for unlimited inspections, I will take the President as his word that he will try hard to pass a U.N. resolution and will seek to avoid war if at all possible.
Because bi-partisan support for this resolution makes success in the United Nations more likely, and therefore war less likely, and because a good-faith effort by the United States, even if it fails, will bring more allies and legitimacy to our cause.
If we were to defeat this resolution or pass with only a few Democrats, I am concerned that those that want to pretend that this problem will go away with delay, will oppose any U.N. resolution calling for unrestricted inspections.
This is a very difficult vote. This is probably the hardest decision I've ever had to make. Any vote that might lead to war should be hard. But I cast it with conviction.
My vote is not, however, a vote for any new doctrine of pre-emption or for unilateralism or for the arrogance of American power or purpose, all of which carry grave dangers for our nation, for the rule of international law, and for the peace and security of people throughout the world.
A vote for it is not a vote to rush to war, it is a vote that puts awesome responsibility in the hands of our President. And we say to him, use these powers wisely and as a last resort."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/hillary-clintons-greatest-political-regret-iraq_us_5718ccf0e4b0c9244a7aed6a
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Adam Selene LOL you really are reichwing piece of work. First you accuse me of using term I never used towards you then you just keep posting nonsense.
And sonnyboy you are missing out on critical thinking abilities.
Nazi fascist K0CHsucker Taliban Party bubba. You too stupid to understand the reference? You are 0 for 3 with your assumptions and accusations so far.
And the parties are not the same dipshit denier.
Another MYTH.. Both parties are the same... Never have they been more different in my 60+ years nor have they been the same historically, from support for unions, safe working conditions, min wage, overtime, equal pay, child labor laws, weekends, civil rights, anti-monopoly/trust laws, Medicare, Soc. Sec., progressive taxes favored by DEMs/founding fathers, zero tax rates for the rich favored by repubs=>permanent aristocracy, unemployment compensation, education, voter suppression vs. voting rights laws, infrastructure, HS rail, green energy, clean air and water acts, regulating Wall street or fixing our failed healthcare system..
Repubs are clearly for 1/3 of one percent, that are sociopaths with their SERF wantabe's.
DEMs may not make big enough changes, but then they like the rest of the country have an anchor around their neck..Republicans and the 59% who dont bother to vote.
DEMs were against the "corporations are people" ruling, for gay rights, NOT REPUBS.
DEMs Pro Choice, not repubs.
Repubs are against facts, science and history!
Heck, Repubs are now for a theocracy!
REPUBES are for Scalia, Roberts, Alito, Thomas
DEMS are not.
Can you imagine a Supreme court packed with more Repub judges?
Anyone saying that they are the same, speaks in complete ignorance.
THEY are NOT THE SAME!
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
kathy kelly
IRS and CONSERVATIVE GROUPS
OK- so lets look at exactly what's being said. "These groups claim tax-exempt status under section 501 (c) (4) of the federal tax code, which is for social welfare groups. Unlike other charitable groups, these organizations are allowed to participate in political activities, but their primary activity must be social welfare."
Would anyone deny that tea party groups are not primarily political? In which case, groups applying for 501 c3 status would and should be subject to scrutiny.
"As part of the review, staffers look for signs that groups are participating in political activity. If so, IRS agents take a closer look to make sure that politics isn't the group's primary activity. As part of this process, agents in Cincinnati came up with a list of things to look for in an application. As part of the list, they included the words "tea party" and "patriot," Lerner said.
And again- why is this a big deal? We know such groups are primarily political groups. How many of them have actually engaged in actual social welfare programs? Calling it "targeting" is hyperbole. And out of 300 groups, 25% were tea party of conservative. Liberal groups were also scrutinized. 75% of the groups that applied were not con or TP- 75%.
You know what's political? That anyone made an issue of it. The the IRS (although it may have been overzealous in its questioning) is actually being taken to taks for doing its job- in this case. Because when it comes to religious organizations, they have been giving them a pass on their political activity. But now we'll have months of faux outrage, and clamoring for Obama's head because, of course, he will be blamed. And of all those groups, how many were actually denied that status? To date, according to the article- none.
2
-
2
-
2
-
kathy kelly
IRS Lerner emails
http://crooksandliars.com/2014/06/louis-lerners-emails-were-lost-due
Republicans will seize on anything at all to perpetrate a faux scandal against the Obama administration and the facts of the Lois Lerner/IRS email scandal backs that up. If you haven't been in Antarctica for the last few months you'll know that Republicans have been going ballistic on the IRS and Lois Lerner, claiming a government conspiracy directed at poor misunderstood conservatives. What has their undies in a bunch at this time is a batch of lost emails from 2011, that the IRS said they lost.
What Republicans aren't really telling you is that Lerner herself reported the computer crash and tried to recover them all.
Over the past week, there have been many headlines about "lost emails" from a key IRS figure. This has fed some fears of a possible cover-up in the scandal over the IRS's treatment of conservative groups.References have been made to Watergate and the infamous gap of 18 and a half minutes in one of President Nixon's tapes.
But right now, this doesn't look like much of a cover-up. Lerner reported the emails lost, and tried to have them recovered, in mid-2011 — two years before the IRS scandal broke. So while the IRS's technical proficiency doesn't come off looking particularly good, the timeline we have suggests that the lost e-mails have little to do with the scandal.
I guess she must have used her lucky eight ball that whispered sweet nothings into her ear.
Last week, the IRS told Congress of its findings — Lerner's computer crashed in mid-2011, and many of her emails appear to be gone. The agency did manage to reconstruct and supply some of them by pulling them from other employees' accounts — and 67,000 emails that Lerner wrote or received were handed over. But Congressional Republicans were unsatisfied, to say the least, as you can see in this angry statement from Rep. Paul Ryan:
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
*****
Geezus man do you not even know the libertarians who are in charge right now? The K0CKS and their ilk are the leaders of the libertarian movement.
Here is their manifesto:
KOCH GAME PLAN
Senator Bernie Sanders went back in time to 1980, when David Koch ran as the Vice Presidential candidate on the Libertarian ticket. He found their platform for that year, and published it again. It is a manifesto of what David and Charles Koch expect to receive in return for their large investment in American politics.
• We urge the repeal of federal campaign finance laws, and the immediate abolition of the despotic Federal Election Commission.”
• “We favor the abolition of Medicare and Medicaid programs.”
• “We oppose any compulsory insurance or tax-supported plan to provide health services, including those which finance abortion services.”
• “We also favor the deregulation of the medical insurance industry.”
• “We favor the repeal of the fraudulent, virtually bankrupt, and increasingly oppressive Social Security system. Pending that repeal, participation in Social Security should be made voluntary.”
• “We propose the abolition of the governmental Postal Service. The present system, in addition to being inefficient, encourages governmental surveillance of private correspondence. Pending abolition, we call for an end to the monopoly system and for allowing free competition in all aspects of postal service.”
• “We oppose all personal and corporate income taxation, including capital gains taxes.”
• “We support the eventual repeal of all taxation.”
• “As an interim measure, all criminal and civil sanctions against tax evasion should be terminated immediately.”
• “We support repeal of all law which impede the ability of any person to find employment, such as minimum wage laws.”
• “We advocate the complete separation of education and State. Government schools lead to the indoctrination of children and interfere with the free choice of individuals. Government ownership, operation, regulation, and subsidy of schools and colleges should be ended.”
• “We condemn compulsory education laws … and we call for the immediate repeal of such laws.”
• “We support the repeal of all taxes on the income or property of private schools, whether profit or non-profit.”
• “We support the abolition of the Environmental Protection Agency.”
• “We support abolition of the Department of Energy.”
• “We call for the dissolution of all government agencies concerned with transportation, including the Department of Transportation.”
• “We demand the return of America's railroad system to private ownership. We call for the privatization of the public roads and national highway system.”
• “We specifically oppose laws requiring an individual to buy or use so-called "self-protection" equipment such as safety belts, air bags, or crash helmets.”
• “We advocate the abolition of the Federal Aviation Administration.”
• “We advocate the abolition of the Food and Drug Administration.”
• “We support an end to all subsidies for child-bearing built into our present laws, including all welfare plans and the provision of tax-supported services for children.”
• “We oppose all government welfare, relief projects, and ‘aid to the poor’ programs. All these government programs are privacy-invading, paternalistic, demeaning, and inefficient. The proper source of help for such persons is the voluntary efforts of private groups and individuals.”
• “We call for the privatization of the inland waterways, and of the distribution system that brings water to industry, agriculture and households.”
• “We call for the repeal of the Occupational Safety and Health Act.”
• “We call for the abolition of the Consumer Product Safety Commission.”
• “We support the repeal of all state usury laws.”
Every single one of these ideas is rooted in John Birch Society/Libertarian dogma. His sons are just expanding capacity for them now, not abandoning their principles.
Keep this list handy. You're going to need it in the days to come.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Here is an explanation that even a 5 year old can understand. But libertarian neoconfederate seditious traitors may have trouble comprehending.
"Republicanist attorney John Hinderaker of the silly, hyper-partisan, rightwing PowerLine blog has always been more than happy to offer "legal" arguments to support whatever Rightwing nonsense his tribe would like to hear. When he's unable to come up with an actual legal argument, he's also happy to just type words to let the tribe know he's still on their side...even when the law isn't.
Commenting Monday night on the weekend's Bundy Ranch idiocy --- in which a scofflaw Nevada rancher who says he doesn't "recognize [the] United States government as even existing", has refused for the last twenty years to pay grazing fees for the use of public lands, as all other ranchers do --- Hinderaker admits that, "legally, Bundy doesn't have a leg to stand on."
Nonetheless, the Republican lawyer/blogger twists and turns to argue, "you should be sympathetic toward" ranch owner Cliven Bundy anyway. The reason for that sympathy takes some explaining, and some pretty impressive gymnastics to result in Hinderaker's final, rather laughable, argument for it.
Hinderaker must be desperate to get himself onto the non-RINO right flank of the Rightwing "FakeTriots" who rode in to southern NV last week with big manly guns a-blazin', but who, notably, did not ride in to the rescue when actual Big Government tyranny was actually cracking down on the public's right to occupy public spaces --- when the government actually used extraordinary violence to crush peaceful First Amendment-protected protests all around the country.
Neither does he, nor they, seem to give a damn when Big Government intrudes on the Constitutionally protected rights of women to privately take care of their own bodies; nor for the rights of millions of legal voters to freely cast their votes; nor for the rights of homeowners who've gone bankrupt and/or lost their homes thanks to Big Government-abetted crimes of gigantic, lawless, Wall Street corporations.
But what's most amusing about Hinderaker's article, in which he desperately (and transparently) attempts to get on the right side of folks he knows are wrong, but who are on his own political team, is that by the end of his article, he's finally figured out how to blame Big Bad Barack Obama and Harry Reid and, I guess, Liberalism or something for all the woes that Bundy is facing brought on himself. That, instead of calling out the rancher for his lack of personal responsibility in disobeying long-settled law, all while enjoying the Big Government welfare of "free" cattle grazing lands.
To do this, Hinderaker offers a pretend argument that the federal government isn't necessarily against development on public lands --- only certain types of development...
"It is obvious that some activities are favored by the Obama administration's BLM [Bureau of Land Management], and others are disfavored. The favored developments include solar and wind projects," Hinderaker charges with pretty much zero evidence to support his claim.
(The tortured tie to "solar and wind projects" refers to a failed Chinese-backed solar project, supported by Reid, over a 100 miles to the north of Bundy's property and offered up by partisans as a reason for the federal "land grab" that isn't a land grab at all. It's a creation of Alex Jones Productions, of course, and one helped along big time over the weekend with an above-the-fold goose from Matt Drudge.)
Hinderaker is smart enough to reject the alleged federal "land grab" plot out of hand, though he nonetheless works hard to place it back at the center of a nefarious Big Government scheme --- by hook or by crook if he has to.
"Wind and solar energy survive only by virtue of federal subsidies," Hinderaker continues with a straight face, while failing to mention the massive mining and drilling operations allowed by the federal government on the very same public lands in exchange for little or no royalties to the American people, from whom such private corporations take those valuable, finite, publicly-owned resources.
Ranchers, on the other hand, ask nothing of the federal government, he claims, while forgetting to mention the cut-rate government prices that ranchers enjoy for the use of thousands of square miles of grazing land.
Bundy, of course, doesn't think he should have to pay anything to use federal public lands. Yet he, unlike those welfare queens relying on the federal government to avoid things like death and starvation and stuff, should be the recipient of great sympathy, says the twisting Hinderaker at PowerLine.
"So let's have some sympathy for Cliven Bundy and his family," he writes in happy conclusion. "Their way of life is one that, frankly, is on the outs. They don't develop apps. They don't ask for food stamps. It probably has never occurred to them to bribe a politician. They don't subsist by virtue of government subsidies..."
Um, wait. Full stop. What?! They "don't subsist by virtue of government subsidies"?! Other than free access to grazing lands for Bundy's herd that Hinderaker feels we should have sympathy for?! (And which doesn't even take into account the hundreds of thousands of dollars of damage to people and property that his cattle are said to have caused over the years --- all for free?!)
Look. People should be free to carry out whatever legal business they like --- even if its on land stolen centuries ago from Native Americans, as is the case with "Bundy's" land. But to pretend that the millions of dollars of use of federal land (at either the discounted federal rate or for free, as in this instance) is not a government subsidy, is just as disingenuous as, well, pretty much everything I've ever seen written at PowerLine over the past decade. So, I guess, nothing new. Just newly stupid. And newly reaching as far as possible to the Rightward-lurching Rightwing fringe of his own party, in hopes of courting their good favor.
This is only gonna get stupider, I'm afraid, and bloodier, thanks to the tacit encouragement by wingnut tools like Hinderaker who don't have the courage to call out his own fellow wingnuts when they are blatantly wrong."
Brad F.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
KOCH CHRISTIE
http://www.bradblog.com/?p=10335
Five reasons Christie is not a moderate:
1. He Has Moved To Crush Unions: If one thing marks Christie’s tenure, it is his hostility to organized labor. In 2011, Christie “signed landmark legislation that increases pension and health contributions paid by a half-million teachers, police and other public workers and removes the issue from collective bargaining for four years” — undermining labor rights. During his speech at the Republican National Convention, he derided teachers unions: “[Democrats] believe in pitting unions against teachers, educators against parents, and lobbyists against children. They believe in teachers’ unions. We believe in teachers.”
2. He Killed Marriage Equality: Remember that Christie vetoed a bill that would’ve given gays and lesbians full marriage rights.
3. He Has Rapidly Advanced Education Privatization In The State: In 2010, Chris Christie (R) slashed $820 million in school spending, a cut so extreme that a judge ruled it unconstitutional. At the same time, he has pushed for hundreds of millions of dollars in school vouchers which would transfer taxpayer dollars to private schools.
4. He Ended New Jersey’s Involvement In Battling Global Warming: Despite his strong leadership in the wake of Sandy, Christie undermined the movement to stop these extreme weather events by pulling New Jersey out of the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, which was designed to combat global warming.
5. He Has Bailed Out Irresponsible Corporations: While slashing school spending, Christie bailed out a massive super-mall boondoggle with $400 million. He has also diverted funding to privately run half-way houses where violent inmates have escaped and non-violent inmates have been killed.
Chris Christie’s close cooperation with the federal government to aid the victims of Sandy is certainly laudable. But especially in light of his possible presidential aspirations, Americans should not forget that he is a hardcore right-winger who had undermined the middle class, equal rights, and basic fairness in New Jersey.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
*****
You know I explained it perfectly. No need to argue with a deluded FREE MARKET advocate. What could I possible say?
Ok here you go bubba.
We shall start with what is wrong with libertarianism:
A Manifesto for Psychopaths
March 5, 2012
http://www.monbiot.com/2012/03/05/a-manifesto-for-psychopaths/
Ayn Rand’s ideas have become the Marxism of the new right.
By George Monbiot, published in the Guardian 6th March 2012.
It has a fair claim to be the ugliest philosophy the post-war world has produced. Selfishness, it contends, is good, altruism evil, empathy and compassion are irrational and destructive. The poor deserve to die; the rich deserve unmediated power. It has already been tested, and has failed spectacularly and catastrophically. Yet the belief system constructed by Ayn Rand, who died 30 years ago today, has never been more popular or influential.
Rand was a Russian from a prosperous family who emigrated to the United States. Through her novels (such as Atlas Shrugged) and her non-fiction (such as The Virtue of Selfishness(1)) she explained a philosophy she called Objectivism. This holds that the only moral course is pure self-interest. We owe nothing, she insists, to anyone, even to members of our own families. She described the poor and weak as “refuse” and “parasites”, and excoriated anyone seeking to assist them. Apart from the police, the courts and the armed forces, there should be no role for government: no social security, no public health or education, no public infrastructure or transport, no fire service, no regulations, no income tax.
Atlas Shrugged, published in 1957, depicts a United States crippled by government intervention, in which heroic millionaires struggle against a nation of spongers. The millionaires, whom she portrays as Atlas holding the world aloft, withdraw their labour, with the result that the nation collapses. It is rescued, through unregulated greed and selfishness, by one of the heroic plutocrats, John Galt.
The poor die like flies as a result of government programmes and their own sloth and fecklessness. Those who try to help them are gassed. In a notorious passage, she argues that all the passengers in a train filled with poisoned fumes deserved their fate. One, for example, was a teacher who taught children to be team players; one was a mother married to a civil servant, who cared for her children; one was a housewife “who believed that she had the right to elect politicians, of whom she knew nothing”.
Rand’s is the philosophy of the psychopath, a misanthropic fantasy of cruelty, revenge and greed. Yet, as Gary Weiss shows in his new book Ayn Rand Nation, she has become to the new right what Karl Marx once was to the left: a demi-god at the head of a chiliastic cult. Almost one-third of Americans, according to a recent poll, have read Atlas Shrugged, and it now sells hundreds of thousands of copies every year.
Ignoring Rand’s evangelical atheism, the Tea Party movement has taken her to its heart. No rally of theirs is complete without placards reading “Who is John Galt?” and “Rand was right”. Ayn Rand, Weiss argues, provides the unifying ideology which has “distilled vague anger and unhappiness into a sense of purpose.” She is energetically promoted by the broadcasters Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh and Rick Santelli. She is the guiding spirit of the Republicans in Congress.
Like all philosophies, Objectivism is absorbed second-hand by people who have never read it. I believe it is making itself felt on this side of the Atlantic: in the clamorous new demands to remove the 50p tax band for the very rich, for example, or among the sneering, jeering bloggers who write for the Telegraph and the Spectator, mocking compassion and empathy, attacking efforts to make the world a kinder place.
It is not hard to see why Rand appeals to billionaires. She offers them something that is crucial to every successful political movement: a sense of victimhood. She tells them that they are parasitised by the ungrateful poor and oppressed by intrusive, controlling governments.
It is harder to see what it gives the ordinary teabaggers, who would suffer grievously from a withdrawal of government. But such is the degree of misinformation which saturates this movement and so prevalent in the US is Willy Loman Syndrome (the gulf between reality and expectations) that millions blithely volunteer themselves as billionaires’ doormats. I wonder how many would continue to worship at the shrine of Ayn Rand if they knew that towards the end of her life she signed on for both Medicare and Social Security. She had railed furiously against both programmes, as they represented everything she despised about the intrusive state. Her belief system was no match for the realities of age and ill-health.
But they have a still more powerful reason to reject her philosophy: as Adam Curtis’s documentary showed last year, the most devoted member of her inner circle was Alan Greenspan. Among the essays he wrote for Ayn Rand were those published in a book he co-edited with her called Capitalism: the Unknown Ideal. Here, starkly explained, you’ll find the philosophy he brought into government. There is no need for the regulation of business – even builders or Big Pharma – he argued, as “the ‘greed’ of the businessman or, more appropriately, his profit-seeking … is the unexcelled protector of the consumer.”As for bankers, their need to win the trust of their clients guarantees that they will act with honour and integrity. Unregulated capitalism, he maintains, is a “superlatively moral system”.
Once in government, Greenspan applied his guru’s philosophy to the letter, lobbying to cut taxes for the rich and repeal the laws constraining the banks, refusing to regulate the predatory lending and the derivatives trading which eventually brought the system down. Much of this is already documented, but Weiss shows that in the US Greenspan has successfully airbrushed this history.
Despite the many years he spent at her side, despite his previous admission that it was Rand who persuaded him that “capitalism is not only efficient and practical but also moral,”he mentioned her in his memoirs only to suggest that it was a youthful indiscretion, and this, it seems, is now the official version. Weiss presents powerful evidence that even today Greenspan remains her loyal disciple, having renounced his partial admission of failure to Congress.
Saturated in her philosophy, the new right on both sides of the Atlantic continues to demand the rollback of the state, even as the wreckage of that policy lies all around. The poor go down, the ultra-rich survive and prosper. Ayn Rand would have approved.
www.monbiot.com
References:
1. In the spirit of Rand, I suggest you don’t pay for it, but download it here: http://tfasinternational.org/ila/Ayn_Rand-The_Virtue_of_Selfishness.pdf
2. The just desserts are detailed on page 605 of the 2007 Penguin edition.
3. The gassing and subsequent explosion are explained on page 621.
4. Gary Weiss, 2012. Ayn Rand Nation: The Hidden Struggle
for America’s Soul. St. Martin’s Press, New York.
5. This was a Zogby poll, conducted at the end of 2010, cited by Gary Weiss.
6. To give one of many examples, Paul Ryan, chairman of the House Budget Committee, says that “the reason I got involved in public service,
by and large, if I had to credit one thinker, one person, it would be
Ayn Rand.” This is a little ironic, in view of the fact that Rand abhorred the idea of public service. Quoted by Gary Weiss.
7. http://www.monbiot.com/2006/07/07/willy-loman-syndrome/
8. Gary Weiss, pp61-63.
9. http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b011lvb9
10. Ayn Rand, Nathaniel Branden, Alan Greenspan and Robert Hessen (Eds), 1967. Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal. Signet, New York.
11. Alan Greenspan, August 1963. The Assault on Integrity. First published in
The Objectivist Newsletter, later in Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal.
12. As above.
13. From an article by Soma Golden in the New York Times, July 1974, quoted by Gary Weiss.
Hows that? Think I made any inroads? LOL
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Keith Peters Read it again you fool.
5 Myths About Canada’s Health Care System
The truth may surprise you about international health care
By Aaron E. Carroll, M.D., M.S.
AARP Newsletter, April 16, 2012
Myth #1: Canadians are flocking to the United States to get medical care.
How many times have you heard that Canadians, frustrated by long wait times and rationing where they live, come to the United States for medical care?
I don’t deny that some well-off people might come to the United States for medical care. If I needed a heart or lung transplant, there’s no place I’d rather have it done. But for the vast, vast majority of people, that’s not happening.
The most comprehensive study I’ve seen on this topic — it employed three different methodologies, all with solid rationales behind them — was published in the peer-reviewed journal Health Affairs.
Source: “Phantoms in the Snow: Canadians’ Use of Health Care Services in the United States,” Health Affairs, May 2002.
The authors of the study started by surveying 136 ambulatory care facilities near the U.S.-Canada border in Michigan, New York and Washington. It makes sense that Canadians crossing the border for care would favor places close by, right? It turns out, however, that about 80 percent of such facilities saw, on average, fewer than one Canadian per month; about 40 percent had seen none in the preceding year.
Then, the researchers looked at how many Canadians were discharged over a five-year period from acute-care hospitals in the same three states. They found that more than 80 percent of these hospital visits were for emergency or urgent care (that is, tourists who had to go to the emergency room). Only about 20 percent of the visits were for elective procedures or care.
Next, the authors of the study surveyed America’s 20 “best” hospitals — as identified by U.S. News & World Report — on the assumption that if Canadians were going to travel for health care, they would be more likely to go to the best-known and highest-quality facilities. Only one of the 11 hospitals that responded saw more than 60 Canadians in a year. And, again, that included both emergencies and elective care.
Finally, the study’s authors examined data from the 18,000 Canadians who participated in the National Population Health Survey. In the previous year, 90 of those 18,000 Canadians had received care in the United States; only 20 of them, however, reported going to the United States expressively for the purpose of obtaining care.
Myth #2: Doctors in Canada are flocking to the United States to practice.
Every time I talk about health care policy with physicians, one inevitably tells me of the doctor he or she knows who ran away from Canada to practice in the United States. Evidently, there’s a general perception that practicing medicine in the United States is much more satisfying than in Canada.
Problem is, it’s just not so. Consider this chart:
Source: “2009 International Health Policy Survey of Primary Care Physicians in Eleven Countries,” The Commonwealth Fund, November 2009.
The Canadian Institute for Health Information has been tracking doctors’ destinations since 1992. Since then, 60 percent to 70 percent of the physicians who emigrate have headed south of the border. In the mid-1990s, the number of Canadian doctors leaving for the United States spiked at about 400 to 500 a year. But in recent years this number has declined, with only 169 physicians leaving for the States in 2003, 138 in 2004 and 122 both in 2005 and 2006. These numbers represent less than 0.5 percent of all doctors working in Canada.
So when emigration “spiked,” 400 to 500 doctors were leaving Canada for the United States. There are more than 800,000 physicians in the United States right now, so I’m skeptical that every doctor knows one of those émigrés. But look closely at the tan line in the following chart, which represents the net loss of doctors to Canada.
Source: Canadian Institute for Health Information
In 2004, net emigration became net immigration. Let me say that again. More doctors were moving into Canada than were moving out.
Myth #3: Canada rations health care; that’s why hip replacements and cataract surgeries happen faster in the United States.
When people want to demonize Canada’s health care system — and other single-payer systems, for that matter — they always end up going after rationing, and often hip replacements in particular.
Take Republican Rep. Todd Akin of Missouri, for example. A couple of years ago he took to the House floor to tell his colleagues:
“I just hit 62, and I was just reading that in Canada [if] I got a bad hip I wouldn’t be able to get that hip replacement that [Rep. Dan Lungren] got, because I’m too old! I’m an old geezer now and it’s not worth a government bureaucrat to pay me to get my hip fixed.”
Sigh.
This has been debunked so often, it’s tiring. The St. Louis Post-Dispatch, for example, concluded: “At least 63 percent of hip replacements performed in Canada last year [2008] ... were on patients age 65 or older.” And more than 1,500 of those, it turned out, were on patients over 85.
The bottom line: Canada doesn’t deny hip replacements to older people.
But there’s more.
Know who gets most of the hip replacements in the United States? Older people.
Know who pays for care for older people in the United States? Medicare.
Know what Medicare is? A single-payer system.
Myth #4: Canada has long wait times because it has a single-payer system.
The wait times that Canada might experience are not caused by its being a single-payer system.
Wait times aren’t like cancer. We know what causes wait times; we know how to fix them. Spend more money.
Our single-payer system, which is called Medicare (see above), manages not to have the “wait times” issue that Canada’s does. There must, therefore, be some other reason for the wait times. There is, of course. It’s this:
Source: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD)
In 1966, Canada implemented a single-payer health care system, which is also known as Medicare. Since then, as a country, Canadians have made a conscious decision to hold down costs. One of the ways they do that is by limiting supply, mostly for elective things, which can create wait times. Their outcomes are otherwise comparable to ours.
Please understand, the wait times could be overcome. Canadians could spend more. They don’t want to. We can choose to dislike wait times in principle, but they are a byproduct of Canada’s choice to be fiscally conservative.
Yes, they chose this. In a rational world, those who are concerned about health care costs and what they mean to the economy might respect that course of action. But instead, they attack the system.
Myth #5: Canada rations health care; the United States doesn’t.
This one’s a little bit tricky. The truth is, Canada may “ration” by making people wait for some things, but here in the United States we also “ration” — by cost.
An 11-country survey carried out in 2010 by the Commonwealth Fund, a Washington-based health policy foundation, found that adults in the United States are by far the most likely to go without care because of cost. In fact, 42 percent of the Americans surveyed did not express confidence that they would be able to afford health care if seriously ill.
Source: “How Health Insurance Design Affects Access to Care and Costs, by Income, in Eleven Countries,” Health Affairs, November 2010.
Further, about a third of the Americans surveyed reported that, in the preceding year, they didn’t go to the doctor when sick, didn’t get recommended care when needed, didn’t fill a prescription or skipped doses of medications because of cost.
Finally, about one in five of the Americans surveyed had struggled to pay or were unable to pay their medical bills in the preceding year. That was more than twice the percentage found in any of the other 10 countries.
And remember: We’re spending way more on health care than any other country, and for all that money we’re getting at best middling results.
So feel free to have a discussion about the relative merits of the U.S. and Canadian health care systems. Just stick to the facts.
Aaron E. Carroll frequently blogs about this topic for The Incidental Economist and is the coauthor of Don’t Swallow Your Gum: Myths, Half-Truths, and Outright Lies About Your Body and Health.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
*****
Libertarian: Pot smoking ok
Translation: Except when the overlord of your area says no. And then you have no recourse as Libertarianland wants no federal intervention in civil rights issues unless it is on federal land. Oh and all federal lands will be privatized, so there is that little problem.
Now I will post once again the libertarian agenda per their own platform:
KOCH GAME PLAN
Senator Bernie Sanders went back in time to 1980, when David Koch ran as the Vice Presidential candidate on the Libertarian ticket. He found their platform for that year, and published it again. It is a manifesto of what David and Charles Koch expect to receive in return for their large investment in American politics.
• We urge the repeal of federal campaign finance laws, and the immediate abolition of the despotic Federal Election Commission.”
• “We favor the abolition of Medicare and Medicaid programs.”
• “We oppose any compulsory insurance or tax-supported plan to provide health services, including those which finance abortion services.”
• “We also favor the deregulation of the medical insurance industry.”
• “We favor the repeal of the fraudulent, virtually bankrupt, and increasingly oppressive Social Security system. Pending that repeal, participation in Social Security should be made voluntary.”
• “We propose the abolition of the governmental Postal Service. The present system, in addition to being inefficient, encourages governmental surveillance of private correspondence. Pending abolition, we call for an end to the monopoly system and for allowing free competition in all aspects of postal service.”
• “We oppose all personal and corporate income taxation, including capital gains taxes.”
• “We support the eventual repeal of all taxation.”
• “As an interim measure, all criminal and civil sanctions against tax evasion should be terminated immediately.”
• “We support repeal of all law which impede the ability of any person to find employment, such as minimum wage laws.”
• “We advocate the complete separation of education and State. Government schools lead to the indoctrination of children and interfere with the free choice of individuals. Government ownership, operation, regulation, and subsidy of schools and colleges should be ended.”
• “We condemn compulsory education laws … and we call for the immediate repeal of such laws.”
• “We support the repeal of all taxes on the income or property of private schools, whether profit or non-profit.”
• “We support the abolition of the Environmental Protection Agency.”
• “We support abolition of the Department of Energy.”
• “We call for the dissolution of all government agencies concerned with transportation, including the Department of Transportation.”
• “We demand the return of America's railroad system to private ownership. We call for the privatization of the public roads and national highway system.”
• “We specifically oppose laws requiring an individual to buy or use so-called "self-protection" equipment such as safety belts, air bags, or crash helmets.”
• “We advocate the abolition of the Federal Aviation Administration.”
• “We advocate the abolition of the Food and Drug Administration.”
• “We support an end to all subsidies for child-bearing built into our present laws, including all welfare plans and the provision of tax-supported services for children.”
• “We oppose all government welfare, relief projects, and ‘aid to the poor’ programs. All these government programs are privacy-invading, paternalistic, demeaning, and inefficient. The proper source of help for such persons is the voluntary efforts of private groups and individuals.”
• “We call for the privatization of the inland waterways, and of the distribution system that brings water to industry, agriculture and households.”
• “We call for the repeal of the Occupational Safety and Health Act.”
• “We call for the abolition of the Consumer Product Safety Commission.”
• “We support the repeal of all state usury laws.”
Every single one of these ideas is rooted in John Birch Society dogma. His sons are just expanding capacity for them now, not abandoning their principles.
Keep this list handy. You're going to need it in the days to come.
1
-
1
-
1
-
TedThomas12 LOL one of us is an idiot and it is not me.
Glyphosate is the active ingredient of some of the most common herbicides used in farming and gardening. These products have been promoted as quickly biodegradable and non toxic. People believe that they are so safe that you can drink a cup of these herbicides without any ill effect.
Consequently, it is sprayed on roadsides while people are driving, on footpaths when people are shopping and in schoolyards and sports fields, exposing children to drift and residues. People buy it from supermarkets or garden shops and use it without any protective clothing because it is deemed 'safe'. It is sprayed in national parks and other environmentally sensitive areas in the belief that it is not toxic and or residual.
I continuously hear Primary Industries officers and other agricultural specialists telling farmers that it is not necessary to wear any protective clothing because it is harmless.
Unfortunately, the facts show that this is not the case. While pure Glyphosate has a low acute toxicity (the amount needed to cause death), when it is sold as a commercial herbicide it is combined with surfactants and other ingredients to make it more effective at killing plants. Studies show that the commercial products, such as Round Up, can be three times more toxic than pure glyphosate.
Health Problems - so safe that you can drink it.
Japanese researchers analysing suicides have found that drinking 3/4 of a cup (200 millilitres) of commercial glyphosate products is fatal.
Survivors (those who consumed less than 3/4 of a cup) suffered a range of severe health problems. These problems included intestinal pain, vomiting, erosion of the gastrointestinal tract, excess fluid in the lungs, pneumonia, lung dysfunction, clouding of consciousness, destruction of red blood cells, abnormal electrocardiograms, low blood pressure, kidney damage and damage to the larynx. It is important to note that damage to the kidneys and the lungs is usually permanent. These body tissues do not repair themselves, instead forming scar tissue that does not function to help filter toxins from the blood or breathe oxygen.
In California, where there is a mandatory system of reporting pesticide poisoning, Glyphosate is the third most common cause of pesticide illness in farm workers. It is the most common form of reported pesticide poisoning in landscape gardeners.
Two separate studies in Sweden have linked exposure to Glyphosate to Hairy Cell Leukemia and Non Hodgkins Lymphoma. These types of cancers were extremely rare, however non-Hodgkins lymphoma is the most rapidly increasing cancer in the Western world. It has risen by 73% in the USA since 1973. Another study has found a higher incidence of Parkinson disease amongst farmers who used herbicides, including glyphosate.
Other studies show that Glyphosate and commercial herbicides containing Glyphosate cause a range of cell mutations and damage to cell DNA. These types of changes are usually regarded as precursors to cancer and birth defects.
Reproductive Effects
Studies show that exposure to Glyphosate is associated with a range of reproductive effects in humans and other species. Research from Ontario, Canada found that a father's exposure to Glyphosate was linked to an increase in miscarriages and premature births in farm families.
Glyphosate caused a decrease in the sperm count of rats and an increase in abnormal and dead sperms in rabbits. Pregnant rabbits exposed to Glyphosate had a decrease in the weight of their babies.
Residual
The proponents of Glyphosate herbicides promote them as environment friendly or benign. They say that they breakdown very quickly in the environment.
The facts show otherwise. A report from The United States Environmental Protection Agency states that Glyphosate is 'extremely persistent under typical application conditions'. It is one of the most residual herbicides, with studies in Sweden showing that one application can last up to 3 years.
In warmer climates, it can take less than a year per application for Glyphosate to degrade. However, when it breaks down it does not disappear into harmless basic elements. It degrades into an even more residual compound called aminomethylphosphonic acid (AMPA). While AMPA has a low acute toxicity, the studies conducted on this compound show that it damages the livers and bladders of rats. Unfortunately, very few long-term health and environmental studies are conducted on the breakdown products of synthetic chemicals.
Residues of Glyphosate have been found in a variety of fruits and vegetables. This is because it readily moves into all parts of a plant. As it is inside the plant tissues, it cannot be washed off.
Residues can be detected long after glyphosate treatments have been made. One study showed that lettuces contained residues five months after the field was treated with glyphosate. The disturbing thing about this research is that the lettuce seedlings were planted four months after the field was sprayed for weeds. The seedlings absorbed the glyphosate from the soil residues.
A World Health Organisation study revealed significant Glyphosate residues in wheat after harvest. Milling did not remove it, as it moves into the plant and the wheat seed. The study showed that cooking does not break down Glyphosate.
Environmental Effects
Glyphosate based herbicides have been shown to cause a significant decline of beneficial insect species in farms. Studies by the International Organization for Biological Control and other researchers have found that between 50 to 80 percent of beneficial insects are killed from exposure to residues of a Glyphosate herbicide.
Glyphosate is very toxic to fish and other aquatic organisms. Concentrations as low as 10 parts per million can kill fish. Daphnia, a very important part of the aquatic food chain, especially for fish, can be killed by as little as three parts per million. This is an important reason why it should not be used near waterways or in drains.
Glyphosate is extremely toxic to the soil life. One application can cause a dramatic plunge in the number of beneficial soil micro-organisms and arthropods. Studies show a reduction in the species that build humus, thus it contributes to the decline in soil organic matter.
Glyphosate significantly reduces the activity of nitrogen-fixing bacteria. These bacteria transform soil nitrogen into forms that plants can use. Studies of Soybeans grown for nitrogen fixation showed a reduction in the number of rhizobium bacteria and the nitrogen they produce when Glyphosate was used for weed control.
Other studies show that Glyphosate herbicides increase the susceptibility of plants to diseases. This is partly because it reduces the growth of mycorrhizal fungi and other beneficial fungi that help plants absorb nutrients and help fight disease. However, plants suffer more disease, as there is an increase in the soil pathogens and a decrease beneficial species that control diseases after an application of Glyphosate.
Glyphosate exposure damages or reduces the populations of earthworms. A New Zealand study showed that 5% of the usual application rate caused delayed development and increased death in earthworms.
Glyphosate reduces populations of small mammals and birds by damaging the vegetation that provides food and shelter for these animals. The populations of all of these living organisms can take years to recover due to Glyphosate's persistence in the soil.
Spray Drift
Glyphosate spray drift from both ground and aerial applications has been measured from 400 to 800 meters from the target site. Studies have shown that Glyphosate drift will cause more severe and extensive damage than many other herbicides. This is because it is a broad spectrum, non-selective herbicide and it is transported throughout the plant causing damage to the unexposed parts. This damage, when it does not kill the plants, can last for many years.
Drift that is one thousand times less than the usual application rates has been shown to damage surrounding vegetation, including the killing of wild plants. This is an important reason why it should not be used in national parks and environmentally sensitive areas for weed control.
Genetic Engineering
The use of glyphosate is expected to increase substantially in the next few years because several genetically engineered crops are "Roundup Ready" and will be grown by many farmers.
This expected increase in use has resulted in an application for the MRL (residue level) for glyphosate to be increased by 200 percent. This need to increase the permitted residue levels is due to genetically engineered herbicide tolerant crops using more chemicals, not less as the proponents of GMO's claim. These crops cannot be legally sold in Australia under the present residue levels, as the increased number of sprays will mean higher residue levels.
This need for a dramatic increase in residues demonstrates that this herbicide is residual. If it is rapidly degraded and leaves no residues as is commonly claimed, why is there a need for such a large increase on residues on the crop?
The persistent nature of these residues in genetically engineered food crops such as Soybeans, Corn and Canola is another reason why we need mandatory labelling of all GMO's. We need to have the freedom of choice to avoid foods that we believe will contain residues of toxic chemicals.
This is a very good reason for eating organic foods.
Conclusion
Glyphosate is widely used in the mistaken belief that it is harmless, safe and readily breaks down leaving no residues. Consequently, it is sprayed in public areas while people are present and by operators without protective clothing. These people are exposed to the drift of this herbicide. The facts show that Glyphosate causes a range of health problems to humans, plants and animals, it causes environmental problems and that it is highly persistent. It is time that the widespread use of this toxic chemical on roadsides, footpaths, parks, gardens, schools, farms, forestry, national parks etc was stopped or highly restricted.
Acknowledgments and References
Most of the information for this article came from an excellent paper authored by Caroline Cox in the JOURNAL OF PESTICIDE REFORM, Fall 1998, Vol.18, No. 3.
Updated 01-02, Northwest Coalition Against Pesticides, Eugene, Oregon.
Lehmann V. and Pengue W. (2000), Herbicide Tolerant Soybean: Just another step in a technology treadmill? Biotechnology and Development Monitor. September 2000.
Nordstrom M. et al, (1998), "Occupational exposures, animal exposure, and smoking as risk factors for hairy cell leukaemia evaluated in a case-control study," BRITISH JOURNAL OF CANCER Vol. 77 (1998), pp 2048-2052.
Hardell L. and Eriksson M. (1999), "A Case-Control Study of Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma and exposure to Pesticides," CANCER Vol.85, No. 6 (March 15, 1999).
Organic Producers Association of Queensland
https://www.organicconsumers.org/news/monsantos-toxic-herbicide-glyphosate-review-its-health-and-environmental-effects
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Shan Oakley I like Bernie but lets be factual.
Bernie is far from perfect on guns
Sanders’ vote for a different kind of pro-gun bill is more puzzling—and profoundly disturbing. In 2005, a Republican-dominated Congress passed the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA). This law doesn’t protect gun owners; it protects gun manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and importers. The PLCAA was the No. 1 legislative priority of the National Rifle Association for years, because it shields gun makers and dealers from most liability when their firearms are used criminally. It is one of the most noxious pieces of pro-gun legislation ever passed. And Bernie Sanders voted for it. (Sanders’ campaign has not replied to a request for comment.)
Because the PLCAA deals with tort law—not a topic of great interest for most Americans—it didn’t stir much outrage when first passed. But the act’s primary purpose is as simple as it is cold-blooded. Every state imposes liability on manufacturers who are negligent in their production and sale of products. If I crash my Prius because its accelerator malfunctions, I can sue Toyota for negligently manufacturing a faulty pedal. If my child dismembers himself with a blender at Sears, I can sue Sears for negligently leaving that blender within a child’s reach. If I get stabbed by a teenager with a switchblade, I might be able to sue the pawn shop owner who illegally sold a knife to a minor.
Before the PLCAA, most states imposed some form of tort liability on gun makers and sellers. If a gun manufacturer made an assault rifle that could slaughter dozens of people in a few seconds, for instance, one of its victims might sue the company for negligently making a gun that could foreseeably be used for mass murder. If a gun seller sold a gun to a customer without performing any kind of background check—and then the buyer opened fire on the subway—his victims might sue that seller for negligently providing a gun to a mentally unstable person. The standards in each state differed, but the bottom line remained the same: Victims of gun violence and their families could recover financially from the people and companies who negligently enabled gun violence.
The PLCAA changed all that. Remarkably, the act wiped out gun liability laws in all 50 states, rendering them invalid except for a handful of narrow exceptions. (So much for states’ rights.) Thanks to the law, victims of mass shootings are barred from suing the companies that produced a wartime weapon that no civilian could ever need. With few exceptions, victims cannot sue a gun seller for negligently providing a semiautomatic weapon to a lunatic who shoots them in a movie theater. Even if a jury decides a gun maker or seller should be liable, the PLCAA invalidates its verdict. The law tramples upon states’ rights, juries’ rights, and fundamental precepts of America’s civil justice system. And it received Bernie Sanders’ support—in both 2003 (when it was first introduced) and 2005 (when it finally passed).
Every few years, the families of mass shooting victims take gun makers to court for creating a weapon seemingly designed to kill as many people as possible in as short a time as possible. Every time, they run headfirst into the PLCAA. Right now, the families of Sandy Hook victims are searching for a loophole in the law, so they can sue Bushmaster for making the gun that sent 154 bullets through 20 children and six adults in 264 seconds. They will probably fail.
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2015/05/bernie_sanders_on_guns_vermont_independent_voted_against_gun_control_for.html
1
-
1
-
***** There is no exaggeration. He voted for a bill that gave the gun manufacturers immunity. Those are the facts.
GUNS and BERNIE
Bernie is far from perfect on guns
Sanders’ vote for a different kind of pro-gun bill is more puzzling—and profoundly disturbing. In 2005, a Republican-dominated Congress passed the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA). This law doesn’t protect gun owners; it protects gun manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and importers. The PLCAA was the No. 1 legislative priority of the National Rifle Association for years, because it shields gun makers and dealers from most liability when their firearms are used criminally. It is one of the most noxious pieces of pro-gun legislation ever passed. And Bernie Sanders voted for it. (Sanders’ campaign has not replied to a request for comment.)
Because the PLCAA deals with tort law—not a topic of great interest for most Americans—it didn’t stir much outrage when first passed. But the act’s primary purpose is as simple as it is cold-blooded. Every state imposes liability on manufacturers who are negligent in their production and sale of products. If I crash my Prius because its accelerator malfunctions, I can sue Toyota for negligently manufacturing a faulty pedal. If my child dismembers himself with a blender at Sears, I can sue Sears for negligently leaving that blender within a child’s reach. If I get stabbed by a teenager with a switchblade, I might be able to sue the pawn shop owner who illegally sold a knife to a minor.
Before the PLCAA, most states imposed some form of tort liability on gun makers and sellers. If a gun manufacturer made an assault rifle that could slaughter dozens of people in a few seconds, for instance, one of its victims might sue the company for negligently making a gun that could foreseeably be used for mass murder. If a gun seller sold a gun to a customer without performing any kind of background check—and then the buyer opened fire on the subway—his victims might sue that seller for negligently providing a gun to a mentally unstable person. The standards in each state differed, but the bottom line remained the same: Victims of gun violence and their families could recover financially from the people and companies who negligently enabled gun violence.
The PLCAA changed all that. Remarkably, the act wiped out gun liability laws in all 50 states, rendering them invalid except for a handful of narrow exceptions. (So much for states’ rights.) Thanks to the law, victims of mass shootings are barred from suing the companies that produced a wartime weapon that no civilian could ever need. With few exceptions, victims cannot sue a gun seller for negligently providing a semiautomatic weapon to a lunatic who shoots them in a movie theater. Even if a jury decides a gun maker or seller should be liable, the PLCAA invalidates its verdict. The law tramples upon states’ rights, juries’ rights, and fundamental precepts of America’s civil justice system. And it received Bernie Sanders’ support—in both 2003 (when it was first introduced) and 2005 (when it finally passed).
Every few years, the families of mass shooting victims take gun makers to court for creating a weapon seemingly designed to kill as many people as possible in as short a time as possible. Every time, they run headfirst into the PLCAA. Right now, the families of Sandy Hook victims are searching for a loophole in the law, so they can sue Bushmaster for making the gun that sent 154 bullets through 20 children and six adults in 264 seconds. They will probably fail.
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2015/05/bernie_sanders_on_guns_vermont_independent_voted_against_gun_control_for.html
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Shan Oakley Mullah Dung does not like it when he is shown that his cult handbook is full of the same things that are in the Islamic cult handbook.
DEATH TO NON-CHRISTIANS
Facts that come from Mullah Dungs cult handbook.
Death to Followers of Other Religions
Whoever sacrifices to any god, except the Lord alone, shall be doomed. (Exodus 22:19 NAB)
Kill Nonbelievers
They entered into a covenant to seek the Lord, the God of their fathers, with all their heart and soul; and everyone who would not seek the Lord, the God of Israel, was to be put to death, whether small or great, whether man or woman. (2 Chronicles 15:12-13 NAB)
Kill False Prophets
If a man still prophesies, his parents, father and mother, shall say to him, "You shall not live, because you have spoken a lie in the name of the Lord." When he prophesies, his parents, father and mother, shall thrust him through. (Zechariah 13:3 NAB)
Kill the Entire Town if One Person Worships Another God
Suppose you hear in one of the towns the LORD your God is giving you that some worthless rabble among you have led their fellow citizens astray by encouraging them to worship foreign gods. In such cases, you must examine the facts carefully. If you find it is true and can prove that such a detestable act has occurred among you, you must attack that town and completely destroy all its inhabitants, as well as all the livestock. Then you must pile all the plunder in the middle of the street and burn it. Put the entire town to the torch as a burnt offering to the LORD your God. That town must remain a ruin forever; it may never be rebuilt. Keep none of the plunder that has been set apart for destruction. Then the LORD will turn from his fierce anger and be merciful to you. He will have compassion on you and make you a great nation, just as he solemnly promised your ancestors. "The LORD your God will be merciful only if you obey him and keep all the commands I am giving you today, doing what is pleasing to him." (Deuteronomy 13:13-19 NLT)
Kill Women Who Are Not Virgins On Their Wedding Night
But if this charge is true (that she wasn't a virgin on her wedding night), and evidence of the girls virginity is not found, they shall bring the girl to the entrance of her fathers house and there her townsman shall stone her to death, because she committed a crime against Israel by her unchasteness in her father's house. Thus shall you purge the evil from your midst. (Deuteronomy 22:20-21 NAB)
Kill Followers of Other Religions.
1) If your own full brother, or your son or daughter, or your beloved wife, or you intimate friend, entices you secretly to serve other gods, whom you and your fathers have not known, gods of any other nations, near at hand or far away, from one end of the earth to the other: do not yield to him or listen to him, nor look with pity upon him, to spare or shield him, but kill him. Your hand shall be the first raised to slay him; the rest of the people shall join in with you. You shall stone him to death, because he sought to lead you astray from the Lord, your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, that place of slavery. And all Israel, hearing of this, shall fear and never do such evil as this in your midst. (Deuteronomy 13:7-12 NAB)
2) Suppose a man or woman among you, in one of your towns that the LORD your God is giving you, has done evil in the sight of the LORD your God and has violated the covenant by serving other gods or by worshiping the sun, the moon, or any of the forces of heaven, which I have strictly forbidden. When you hear about it, investigate the matter thoroughly. If it is true that this detestable thing has been done in Israel, then that man or woman must be taken to the gates of the town and stoned to death. (Deuteronomy 17:2-5 NLT)
Death for Blasphemy
One day a man who had an Israelite mother and an Egyptian father got into a fight with one of the Israelite men. During the fight, this son of an Israelite woman blasphemed the LORD's name. So the man was brought to Moses for judgment. His mother's name was Shelomith. She was the daughter of Dibri of the tribe of Dan. They put the man in custody until the LORD's will in the matter should become clear. Then the LORD said to Moses, "Take the blasphemer outside the camp, and tell all those who heard him to lay their hands on his head. Then let the entire community stone him to death. Say to the people of Israel: Those who blaspheme God will suffer the consequences of their guilt and be punished. Anyone who blasphemes the LORD's name must be stoned to death by the whole community of Israel. Any Israelite or foreigner among you who blasphemes the LORD's name will surely die. (Leviticus 24:10-16 NLT)
Kill False Prophets
1) Suppose there are prophets among you, or those who have dreams about the future, and they promise you signs or miracles, and the predicted signs or miracles take place. If the prophets then say, 'Come, let us worship the gods of foreign nations,' do not listen to them. The LORD your God is testing you to see if you love him with all your heart and soul. Serve only the LORD your God and fear him alone. Obey his commands, listen to his voice, and cling to him. The false prophets or dreamers who try to lead you astray must be put to death, for they encourage rebellion against the LORD your God, who brought you out of slavery in the land of Egypt. Since they try to keep you from following the LORD your God, you must execute them to remove the evil from among you. (Deuteronomy 13:1-5 NLT)
2) But any prophet who claims to give a message from another god or who falsely claims to speak for me must die.' You may wonder, 'How will we know whether the prophecy is from the LORD or not?' If the prophet predicts something in the LORD's name and it does not happen, the LORD did not give the message. That prophet has spoken on his own and need not be feared. (Deuteronomy 18:20-22 NLT)
Infidels and Gays Should Die
So God let them go ahead and do whatever shameful things their hearts desired. As a result, they did vile and degrading things with each other's bodies. Instead of believing what they knew was the truth about God, they deliberately chose to believe lies. So they worshiped the things God made but not the Creator himself, who is to be praised forever. Amen. That is why God abandoned them to their shameful desires. Even the women turned against the natural way to have sex and instead indulged in sex with each other. And the men, instead of having normal sexual relationships with women, burned with lust for each other. Men did shameful things with other men and, as a result, suffered within themselves the penalty they so richly deserved. When they refused to acknowledge God, he abandoned them to their evil minds and let them do things that should never be done. Their lives became full of every kind of wickedness, sin, greed, hate, envy, murder, fighting, deception, malicious behavior, and gossip. They are backstabbers, haters of God, insolent, proud, and boastful. They are forever inventing new ways of sinning and are disobedient to their parents. They refuse to understand, break their promises, and are heartless and unforgiving. They are fully aware of God's death penalty for those who do these things, yet they go right ahead and do them anyway. And, worse yet, they encourage others to do them, too. (Romans 1:24-32 NLT)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
“We Are Wisconsin New Jersey?”
By now you’re probably wondering whether it’s time to grab your picket signs, pack a sleeping bag and get on the next bus to Trenton to start occupying the New Jersey State Capitol. The answer is: It’s complicated.
Christie is up for reelection this November. It will be tough to defeat him, even as he richly deserves to go down. The media like him, and some Democrats in the state Legislature have on occasion made it too easy for him to look effective and far-sighted. If we tell the truth to ourselves, the truth is, right now, Christie is popular. The latest polling has him ahead of his likely Democratic opponent by 35 points. And he has a huge financial advantage.
Still more alarmingly, Christie has somehow secured support from some segments of organized labor, notably the laborers and plumbers unions. No doubt the leaders of these unions see themselves faced with a difficult choice. With Christie so far ahead in polls, it’s tempting to play the percentages and bet on the likely winner in the hopes of securing some small advantage for your members. Pragmatism has its place in politics. We get it.
But in this case, it’s deeply troubling.
Sometimes, even when the odds are bad, you have to fight. The alternative is simply making an enemy stronger.
This isn’t the first time labor has made this mistake. There are many famous examples of letting short-term pragmatism blind you to a longer-term reality. The Air Traffic Controllers backed Ronald Reagan for president in 1980, and he turned around and crushed them. Richard Nixon was backed by many construction unions in 1968 and 1972, and he then worked to undermine them. And of course in Wisconsin, the police and firefighters unions endorsed Walker in his first campaign, and have to know what a gigantic mistake that was.
Christie’s record speaks for itself, and his kind words for Scott Walker should erase any doubt: Christie is no moderate. His worldview should be anathema to progressives everywhere. He’s also dangerous, because he’s popular and is a strong contender for the Republican nomination in 2016.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
David Wood Yes I use facts as I posted your chance to see them. You have posted nothing to dispute the FACTS.
This is my last post on this subject.
Obama supports the following.
More facts:
His charter school support and vouchers are detrimental tot he public system, That is just fact.
Charter School Power Broker Turns Public Education Into Private Profits
http://crooksandliars.com/2014/10/charter-school-power-broker-turns-public
Charter School Evil NYC
Success Academy
http://crooksandliars.com/2014/12/evil-we-must-fight-0
CHARTERS
Federal Half-a-Billion Handout
http://drip.www.alternet.org/education/web-secrecy-surrounding-federal-half-billion-handout-charter-schools
Because the federal charter schools program is designed to foster charter school growth, which in turn means that money will be diverted from traditional public schools to an industry that resists government enforcement of basic standards for financial controls, accountability, and democratic oversight, the public has a big stake in this and a right to know more, before their money disappears down black holes.
Rightwing Destruction of the Public Education System
"In the USA, Jeb Bush and George W. Bush led the privatization of public schools (K-12). They did this by (a) enabling "charter" (private) schools (including church schools) and sending them taxpayer monies which used to support public schools, (b) imposing extra tests on public schools, and (c) not imposing such tests on "charter" schools.
Many parents moved their kids to "charter" schools because (1) they already wanted to get their kids away from "dangerous" dark-skinned kids, and "charter" schools provided a way to do it, (2) their kids preferred to go to "charter" schools anyway, to avoid the burdensome and insulting testing.
At the same time, testing imposed a huge paperwork burden on public school teachers. The burden is so large that public schools drafted school counselors to spend most of their time on testing paperwork, leaving them little time to actually counsel children. This MAY BE a contributing factor in the outbreak of school shootings, as there Is no one left to counsel troubled children.
Many elected Republicans went to private school anyway, and therefore care not about the public schools. But they do care about the public school budgets, which, in many USA counties, are 3 times as large as the budgets of the counties (utilities, etc.) proper. That's a lot of money which Republicans could, by further privatizing public schools, redirect toward their golf club and yacht club buddies.
Follow the money."
"I hope to live to see the day when, as in the early days of our
country, we won't have any public schools. The churches will have taken
them over again and Christians will be running them. What a happy day
that will be!" --Jerry Falwell
1
-
1
-
***** Mullah Dung "IF" I were not an atheist then most certainly Satan would be my hero.
Comprendo dipshit?
IF I WERE A TRUE BELIEVER LIKE YOU:
God is clearly a tyrant. He has committed many acts of evil, and somehow managed to amass an incredible following. That means God must be the ultimate deceiver. He has painted Satan as the deceiver to disguise his own faults and gain worshipers in a classic manner.
If the tyrannical dictator can condemn the good guy and convince enough people, he can get away with much evil. This is a ploy commonly used by skillful politicians and anyone who seeks personal gain at the expense of others.
Furthermore, Satan purportedly rebelled against this evil tyrant, even though he was greatly outnumbered and faced an omnipotent being. That, according to our common beliefs, (as we praise military heroes who sacrifice themselves for the good of their nation) is not only admirable, but makes Satan a martyr.
Satan is the only deity who truly stands for free will. God threatens us with punishments for not adhering to his wishes. But Satan tells us that we should enjoy our lives and be happy and free to do what we think is right.
Satan stands for justice, according to the biblical story, if you read it objectively. If only the story were true, he would be one of the greatest heroes in history, fighting what he surely knew would be a losing battle, but doing so for the sake of the greater good and to provide an example to the rest of us.
Just as the United States rebelled against British rule and gained their own freedom, Satan fought for freedom for all angels. Unfortunately, he lost the battle, which is a real tragedy.
If I believed in any kind of deity, I would most certainly worship Satan, become his devout follower and take up his noble fight against tyranny.
I do not look favourably upon cruel dictators.
All hail Satan! The true savior."
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Me The People Perspectives Nope that is not the reason. The K0CH plan is the reason. The K0CHservatives hate government. They do not believe that gov should be involved in anything except security forces and the military.
They believe all of America should be sold to the highest bidder.
KOCH GAME PLAN
When David Koch ran as the Vice Presidential candidate on the Libertarian ticket this was their platform for that year. It is a manifesto of what David and Charles Koch expect to receive in return for their large investment in American politics. It is a manifesto on privatization.
• We urge the repeal of federal campaign finance laws, and the immediate abolition of the despotic Federal Election Commission.”
• “We favor the abolition of Medicare and Medicaid programs.”
• “We oppose any compulsory insurance or tax-supported plan to provide health services, including those which finance abortion services.”
• “We also favor the deregulation of the medical insurance industry.”
• “We favor the repeal of the fraudulent, virtually bankrupt, and increasingly oppressive Social Security system. Pending that repeal, participation in Social Security should be made voluntary.”
• “We propose the abolition of the governmental Postal Service. The present system, in addition to being inefficient, encourages governmental surveillance of private correspondence. Pending abolition, we call for an end to the monopoly system and for allowing free competition in all aspects of postal service.”
• “We oppose all personal and corporate income taxation, including capital gains taxes.”
• “We support the eventual repeal of all taxation.”
• “As an interim measure, all criminal and civil sanctions against tax evasion should be terminated immediately.”
• “We support repeal of all law which impede the ability of any person to find employment, such as minimum wage laws.”
• “We advocate the complete separation of education and State. Government schools lead to the indoctrination of children and interfere with the free choice of individuals. Government ownership, operation, regulation, and subsidy of schools and colleges should be ended.”
• “We condemn compulsory education laws … and we call for the immediate repeal of such laws.”
• “We support the repeal of all taxes on the income or property of private schools, whether profit or non-profit.”
• “We support the abolition of the Environmental Protection Agency.”
• “We support abolition of the Department of Energy.”
• “We call for the dissolution of all government agencies concerned with transportation, including the Department of Transportation.”
• “We demand the return of America's railroad system to private ownership. We call for the privatization of the public roads and national highway system.”
• “We specifically oppose laws requiring an individual to buy or use so-called "self-protection" equipment such as safety belts, air bags, or crash helmets.”
• “We advocate the abolition of the Federal Aviation Administration.”
• “We advocate the abolition of the Food and Drug Administration.”
• “We support an end to all subsidies for child-bearing built into our present laws, including all welfare plans and the provision of tax-supported services for children.”
• “We oppose all government welfare, relief projects, and ‘aid to the poor’ programs. All these government programs are privacy-invading, paternalistic, demeaning, and inefficient. The proper source of help for such persons is the voluntary efforts of private groups and individuals.”
• “We call for the privatization of the inland waterways, and of the distribution system that brings water to industry, agriculture and households.”
• “We call for the repeal of the Occupational Safety and Health Act.”
• “We call for the abolition of the Consumer Product Safety Commission.”
• “We support the repeal of all state usury laws.”
Every single one of these ideas is rooted in John Birch Society dogma. His sons are just expanding capacity for them now, not abandoning their principles.
Keep this list handy. You're going to need it in the days to come.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
MultiFisherofmen your god is the number 1 abortionist of all time.
Your God Is Not Pro Life
You might find that statement surprising, but I know this from your own holy book. Despite what you may have been told, the Bible is not a pro-life document. It is, in many parts, pro-death. In one of the first stories in the Bible, God murders millions of people through a global flood — including born and unborn children. Unborn children — the ones you fight for. God only wanted to get rid of them.
Later in your holy book God commands the death of nation after nation because they happen to inhabit the land he plans to give the Israelites
(Josh 7-9). He commands Israel to kill women and children (1 Sam 15).
When he wanted to make a point to the Egyptians, he murdered all the firstborn sons of Egypt. Innocent children. And when King David killed a man and slept with his wife, God punished him by killing his unborn child.
This same God does nothing while billions of people throughout
history have been starved, drowned, raped and murdered. He sits on the sidelines and watches.
That is not a God who is pro-life!
On top of all that, at least 25% of all pregnancies end in “natural” abortion — which you believe your God either designed or actively performed — an act you consider murder.
No, your God is not pro-life. By your own standards, he is a murderer — the most prolific abortionist of all time.
So don’t tell us you base your morality on the Bible or on the character of God. Don’t tell us you’re sent from your God to protect the lives of the innocent. Despite what your pastor says, your God is not pro-life. He has been killing, maiming, and letting people suffer for ages. You’re pro-life because, like most humans, you value human life.
1
-
1
-
cooper wilcox SATAN AS HERO
"Well, it's all fiction. But I do enjoy good fiction, (although the bible is not anywhere close to what I'd consider quality reading) so I'll answer this question in the way I review all such fictional characters.
God is clearly a tyrant. He has committed many acts of evil, and somehow managed to amass an incredible following. That means God must be the ultimate deceiver. He has painted Satan as the deceiver to disguise his own faults and gain worshipers in a classic manner.
If the tyrannical dictator can condemn the good guy and convince enough people, he can get away with much evil. This is a ploy commonly used by skillful politicians and anyone who seeks personal gain at the expense of others.
Furthermore, Satan purportedly rebelled against this evil tyrant, even though he was greatly outnumbered and faced an omnipotent being. That, according to our common beliefs, (as we praise military heroes who sacrifice themselves for the good of their nation) is not only admirable, but makes Satan a martyr.
Satan is the only deity who truly stands for free will. God threatens us with punishments for not adhering to his wishes. But Satan tells us that we should enjoy our lives and be happy and free to do what we think is right.
Satan stands for justice, according to the biblical story, if you read it objectively. If only the story were true, he would be one of the greatest heroes in history, fighting what he surely knew would be a losing battle, but doing so for the sake of the greater good and to provide an example to the rest of us.
Just as the United States rebelled against British rule and gained their own freedom, Satan fought for freedom for all angels. Unfortunately, he lost the battle, which is a real tragedy.
If I believed in any kind of deity, I would most certainly worship Satan, become his devout follower and take up his noble fight against tyranny.
In the country I live in (Canada) we do not look favourably upon cruel dictators.
All hail Satan! The true savior."
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
modelmajorpita I disagree.
Try this instead of sending people to a site that promotes giving money to the private schools and sucking public education dry.
I have to wonder if that is your intent since you are still calling it a useful link.
This:
Taxpayers Funding Creationism In Schools Across The Country
Politico has found that taxpayers in 14 states are paying a billion dollars this year in school tuition's and hundreds of them are religious which teach that evolution is a fraud while science is a form of hocus-pocus nonsense.
Taxpayers in 14 states will bankroll nearly $1 billion this year in tuition for private schools, including hundreds of religious schools that teach Earth is less than 10,000 years old, Adam and Eve strolled the garden with dinosaurs, and much of modern biology, geology and cosmology is a web of lies.
Now a major push to expand these voucher programs is under way from Alaska to New York, a development that seems certain to sharply increase the investment.
Public debate about science education tends to center on bills like one in Missouri, which would allow public school parents to pull their kids from science class whenever the topic of evolution comes up. But the more striking shift in public policy has flown largely under the radar, as a well-funded political campaign has pushed to open the spigot for tax dollars to flow to private schools. Among them are Bible-based schools that train students to reject and rebut the cornerstones of modern science.
When you're dealing with the religious right, no matter how many times the courts shut them down, they always come back with something new to circumvent the rules. And as much as they attack the government for overreaching, they certainly squeeze out oodles of cash for their own causes.
Decades of litigation have established that public schools cannot teach creationism or intelligent design. But private schools receiving public subsidies can — and do. A POLITICO review of hundreds of pages of course outlines, textbooks and school websites found that many of these faith-based schools go beyond teaching the biblical story of the six days of creation as literal fact.
Their course materials nurture disdain of the secular world, distrust of momentous discoveries and hostility toward mainstream scientists. They often distort basic facts about the scientific method — teaching, for instance, that theories such as evolution are by definition highly speculative because they haven’t been elevated to the status of “scientific law.”And this approach isn’t confined to high school biology class; it is typically threaded through all grades and all subjects.
One set of books popular in Christian schools calls evolution “a wicked and vain philosophy.” Another derides “modern math theorists” who fail to view mathematics as absolute laws ordained by God. The publisher notes that its textbooks shun “modern” breakthroughs — even those, like set theory, developed back in the 19th century. Math teachers often set aside time each week — even in geometry and algebra — to explore numbers in the Bible. Students learn vocabulary with sentences like, “Many scientists today are Creationists."
The lies they tell their children is mind boggling.
If only these people worked half as hard to try and fix the real problems of our country and stop buying into Conservative economic principles that only support the phony "job creators" meme, we'd be so much better off.
http://crooksandliars.com/2014/03/us-taxpayers-funding-creationism-schools
1
-
modelmajorpita
Or this:
Privatization Voucher ripoff for Taliban
Taxpayers are helping to pay for courses and textbooks that encourage students to mistrust science, mathematics, and the secular world itself – and those efforts seem likely to expand into other states.
Currently, taxpayers in 14 states funnel nearly $1 billion in private school tuition through voucher programs, paying those schools to teach children that Adam and Eve lived alongside dinosaurs less than 10,000 years ago in the Garden of Eden.
Politico reviewed hundreds of pages of course outlines, textbooks, and school website and reported Monday that many of these taxpayer-funded, faith-based schools portray science and mathematics as a web of lies.
Textbooks popular in Christian schools describe evolution as “a wicked and vain philosophy,” while students practice vocabulary lessons that claim “many scientists today are creationists.”
According to the report, schools often distort basic facts about the scientific method, set aside time during math lessons to explore numbers in the Bible, or teach that mathematics laws were ordained by God.
The schools make clear that religious instruction is a higher priority than academic learning, which students are taught to mistrust.
“Our understanding is not complete until we filter it through God’s Word,” one school assures parents.
Lawmakers in 26 states are considering new voucher programs or expanding existing ones, and eight states are looking at establishing individual bank accounts funded by taxpayers that parents could spend on tuition, tutors, and textbooks.
About 250,000 students use vouchers and tax-credit scholarships, up about 30 percent since 2010.
Voucher proponents see a tipping point approaching, when so many students receive publicly financed private education that all states will demand that option.
But critics say the growth of anti-science education, especially as scientists have made recent advances in our understanding of the universe and its origins, is preparing students “for the turn of the 19th Century.”
Not all religious schools teach creationism, but science education activists have identified 300 such schools that also receive public subsidies.
But that’s likely a significant undercount, because the database does not include Pennsylvania or Iowa, and many church-based schools don’t have websites that advertise their curriculum.
Voucher programs also undermine the bipartisan push for uniformly high academic standards through Common Core, which has been the target of Tea Party ire in states across the country, and Next Generation Science Standards, opponents say.
Voucher supporters have knocked out anti-voucher candidates from primary races and funded local advocacy groups, often with backing from the Koch-funded Americans for Prosperity.
The conservative advocacy group promoted private school subsidies in 10 states – including Maine, Tennessee, Virginia, and Wisconsin – in the last year alone and has spent $18 million on such campaigns since 2007.
With sympathetic lawmakers in place, school voucher funding looks to expand in states such as Arizona, Florida, and New York – and at the federal level.
Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-TN) proposed the consolidation of dozens of federal education programs into one $24 billion fund that states could allocate as vouchers for low-income students, and House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-VA) has promoted vouchers and other so-called school choice measures.
The U.S. Supreme Court has upheld voucher programs, even when they subsidize religious education, as long as parents who accept vouchers can choose where to spend them.
But some state constitutions are more restrictive, and the American Civil Liberties Union is suing to block them in New Hampshire and Colorado, and litigation is also under way in Alabama.
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/03/24/report-1-billion-in-taxpayer-money-went-to-anti-science-private-schools-last-year/
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Utter bullshit. We progressives are only 30% of the Dem party. We never had the votes.
Bernie lost for many reasons.
1/ started campaign late
2/ LOST THE PRIMARY DUE TO LACK OF VOTES
Donald Drumpf a man who opened his presidential campaign by calling Mexicans “rapists” bested Mitt Romney’s share of the Latino vote by 8 percentage points. He performed better among black voters than his 2012 predecessor, and he swept four Rust Belt states that President Barack Obama carried twice ? Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan and Wisconsin under a harsher economy than we face today. Hillary Clinton won the popular vote, which should matter, but does not.
FACTS MIGHT MAKE YOU MAD:
The exit polls provide some clarity: A significant chunk of Obama voters flipped to Drumpf. Drumpf won 10 percent of voters who approve of Obama’s presidency and 23 percent of voters who think the next president should “be more liberal,” according to CNN data. Drumpf significantly outperformed Romney among union households. He did 14 points better than Romney among whites without a college degree, according to The New York Times, and 16 points better among households with less than $30,000 in income. The Drumpf Democrat turns out not to be a myth, but a meaningful constituency that just cost Clinton the presidency.
THANKS BERNIE WHINERS, white women, white men, THE FAILED 4TH ESTATE, reagan type Dems, voter suppression and the lack of a 50 state strategy for the Dems.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Because it did change the election.
Bernie whiners etc., have a played a big part in the loss.
Donald Drumpf a man who opened his presidential campaign by calling Mexicans “rapists” bested Mitt Romney’s share of the Latino vote by 8 percentage points. He performed better among black voters than his 2012 predecessor, and he swept four Rust Belt states that President Barack Obama carried twice Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan and Wisconsin under a harsher economy than we face today. Hillary Clinton won the popular vote, which should matter, but does not.
The exit polls provide some clarity: A significant chunk of Obama voters flipped to Drumpf. Drumpf won 10 percent of voters who approve of Obama’s presidency and 23 percent of voters who think the next president should “be more liberal,” according to CNN data. Drumpf significantly outperformed Romney among union households. He did 14 points better than Romney among whites without a college degree, according to The New York Times, and 16 points better among households with less than $30,000 in income. The Drumpf Democrat turns out not to be a myth, but a meaningful constituency that just cost Clinton the presidency.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
modelmajorpita No it is not the only way to get the money. It is part of the plan.
Privatize SS and Medicare.
Spending billions on Homeland Security then telling the rubes that we need to kill all of FDR's programs in order to pay for security.
Defunding the IRS and other agencies in order to stop enforcement and regulation.
Did you notice how many trillions the middle east has cost us so far? 3 trillion and counting and that is just the tip of the iceberg. Did you notice that they started cutting everything else?
When David Koch ran as the Vice Presidential candidate on the Libertarian ticket in 1980 this was their platform for that year. It is a manifesto of what David and Charles Koch expect to receive in return for their large investment in American politics.
• We urge the repeal of federal campaign finance laws, and the immediate abolition of the despotic Federal Election Commission.”
• “We favor the abolition of Medicare and Medicaid programs.”
• “We oppose any compulsory insurance or tax-supported plan to provide health services, including those which finance abortion services.”
• “We also favor the deregulation of the medical insurance industry.”
• “We favor the repeal of the fraudulent, virtually bankrupt, and increasingly oppressive Social Security system. Pending that repeal, participation in Social Security should be made voluntary.”
• “We propose the abolition of the governmental Postal Service. The present system, in addition to being inefficient, encourages governmental surveillance of private correspondence. Pending abolition, we call for an end to the monopoly system and for allowing free competition in all aspects of postal service.”
• “We oppose all personal and corporate income taxation, including capital gains taxes.”
• “We support the eventual repeal of all taxation.”
• “As an interim measure, all criminal and civil sanctions against tax evasion should be terminated immediately.”
• “We support repeal of all law which impede the ability of any person to find employment, such as minimum wage laws.”
• “We advocate the complete separation of education and State. Government schools lead to the indoctrination of children and interfere with the free choice of individuals. Government ownership, operation, regulation, and subsidy of schools and colleges should be ended.”
• “We condemn compulsory education laws … and we call for the immediate repeal of such laws.”
• “We support the repeal of all taxes on the income or property of private schools, whether profit or non-profit.”
• “We support the abolition of the Environmental Protection Agency.”
• “We support abolition of the Department of Energy.”
• “We call for the dissolution of all government agencies concerned with transportation, including the Department of Transportation.”
• “We demand the return of America's railroad system to private ownership. We call for the privatization of the public roads and national highway system.”
• “We specifically oppose laws requiring an individual to buy or use so-called "self-protection" equipment such as safety belts, air bags, or crash helmets.”
• “We advocate the abolition of the Federal Aviation Administration.”
• “We advocate the abolition of the Food and Drug Administration.”
• “We support an end to all subsidies for child-bearing built into our present laws, including all welfare plans and the provision of tax-supported services for children.”
• “We oppose all government welfare, relief projects, and ‘aid to the poor’ programs. All these government programs are privacy-invading, paternalistic, demeaning, and inefficient. The proper source of help for such persons is the voluntary efforts of private groups and individuals.”
• “We call for the privatization of the inland waterways, and of the distribution system that brings water to industry, agriculture and households.”
• “We call for the repeal of the Occupational Safety and Health Act.”
• “We call for the abolition of the Consumer Product Safety Commission.”
• “We support the repeal of all state usury laws.”
Every single one of these ideas is rooted in John Birch Society dogma. His sons are just expanding capacity for them now, not abandoning their principles.
Keep this list handy. You're going to need it in the days to come.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Dismal: a Republican specialty. They don’t “turn” a dismal state of affairs to their political advantage—they create dismal. The Republican agenda is entirely Dismal. A sampling:
Deficit panic, dismantle social programs, fake budgets, fraud, drown government in a bathtub, trickle-down economics, disinform voters with Orwellian, load the Supreme Court with right-wing appointees, deregulation policies that can ruin our economy, blame unemployment on lazy moochers, support Wall Street criminals,
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
, global warming is a hoax, block President Obama’s common sense agenda, devolve our republic to a plutarchy,…
Republicans could amplify dismal, too. They already control the U.S. House, and they're perilously close to controlling the U.S. Senate. They control most state congresses, and Wisconsin is a dismal example. Plus, right-wing Republicans need only gain control in 15 more marginally Democrat states, and they’ll be able,
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1