Category Archives: politics

Even worse than Conservapedia!

Posted on by

Wikipedia has become so immensely successful and useful that it has caused others to create competition to it. Some delusional people with extreme political views have even created alternatives to it, in the interest of countering Wikipedia’s supposed “left-wing bias”. Thus we have things like the laughingstock known as Conservapedia, founded and run by Andrew Schlafly, son of Phyllis Schlafly.

That is bad. But this is WORSE!

http://www.climatewiki.org/wiki/Main_Page

Welcome to ClimateWiki
The Definitive Climate Change Encyclopedia

Global warming is a complicated issue. It’s easy to get confused by all the scientific arguments and conflicting claims. We created this site to help everyone from high school students to scientists working in the field to quickly find the latest and most reliable information on this important topic.

ClimateWiki is an encyclopedia of climate change research organized by topic. If you are new to the issue, consider reading the Introduction to Global Warming. If you are already well versed in the issue, search the Featured Categories in the search box to the right or use some of the other navigation tools on this page.

ClimateWiki is moderated and edited by The Heartland Institute, a free-market think tank with offices in Chicago and Washington, DC. Interested in becoming a contributor? Contact John Monaghan at jmonaghan@heartland.org

What kind of an idiot would take such an openly biased source at face value?

Look at this:

http://www.climatewiki.org/wiki/Category:Economics

“There is ample evidence that a warmer world is also a safer and healthier world, yet this fact is seldom mentioned in the debate over climate change. Economists can measure the impact of climate change on various measures of economic wellbeing and calculate, for example, the effect of warmer temperatures per-capita income, the price of food and other essentials, and even on life expectancy. They can also measure the loss of income and jobs that result from restricting access to inexpensive fossil fuels. “

Yeah, because the increasing spread of tropical diseases like malaria are very safe and healthy! NOT! Also, if this new web encyclopedia is really about climate, why mention economics at all? Need I also mention that since fossil fuels are non-renewable, the jobs they provide will eventually disappear anyway and as those resources become increasingly scarce, their price will skyrocket? We must break our dependence on fossil fuels before our world economies are broken in the next few centuries, whether or not we have to worry about climate change.

To show how worthless ClimateWiki really is, just look at this:

http://www.climatewiki.org/wiki/Vincent_Gray
Vincent Gray has had a long career in research laboratories in the United Kingdom, France, Canada, New Zealand, and China. He has specialized in climate science for the past 17 years. He has been an expert reviewer for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Reports from the beginning and submitted 1,878 comments (16 percent of the total) on the 2007 report.

Gray has published widely on a variety of topics. His work on the climate includes The Greenhouse Delusion: A Critique of ‘Climate Change 2001.’ He was a visiting scholar at the Beijing Climate Center in 2006 and attended the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Bali.

I wrote about that bastard here:
https://dalehusband.wordpress.com/2008/05/31/a-fake-expert-vs-real-ones-on-global-warming/

But ClimateWiki goes even further than Conservapedia in making sure its claims are not challenged by anyone, at least not on site. When you click on what appears to be the discussion page on any entry and try to edit it, you get:

http://www.climatewiki.org/index.php?title=ClimateWiki%3AUsers&action=edit
You do not have permission to edit this page, for the following reason:
The action you have requested is limited to users in the group: Users.

In other words, the Heartland Institute, which is supposed to champion a free market, censors this site by not allowing any critics to post anything on it! HYPOCRITES!!!

The “Tea Party” is destroying the Republicans!

Posted on by
Citizens registered as an Independent, Democra...

Image via Wikipedia

As much as I dislike the limits of the two-party system in the USA, it does have its benefits; it can grind extremist movements, both within the two major parties and outside them, to a halt, preventing them from gaining any power. We see clear evidence for that here [emphasis in these two articles below is mine]:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/pl_nm/us_usa_campaign_newyork

Democrat Kathy Hochul wins upstate New York race

By Neale Gulley Neale Gulley – Wed May 25, 10:49 am ET

BUFFALO, New York (Reuters) – Democrat Kathy Hochul drew on voter discontent over Republican plans to revamp Medicare to score an upset win on Tuesday in a special election to represent a conservative upstate New York congressional district.

Hochul defeated Republican Jane Corwin in a three-way race that also included self-described Tea Party candidate Jack Davis. The outcome did not affect Republican control of the House of Representatives.

“Tonight the voters were willing to look beyond the political labels and vote for a person, and vote for message that they believe in,” Hochul told cheering supporters minutes after taking a phone call from Corwin, a state assemblywoman.

“We can balance the budget the right way, and not on the backs of our seniors,” said Hochul, the Erie County clerk. “We had the issues on our side.”

Once expected to be a Republican landslide, the special congressional election tightened in the final days, with a spotlight trained on the national debate over the budget deficit, spending and Medicare — the government-run healthcare program for the elderly.

<snip>

Corwin came under heavy attack from Hochul for backing a divisive budget plan put forth by Republicans in the House, and also saw Davis siphon away support.

National parties and outside groups poured money into the district, hoping to claim victory in the battle over cuts in spending and Medicare first proposed by House Republican Paul Ryan.

“Kathy Hochul’s victory tonight is a tribute to Democrats’ commitment to preserve and strengthen Medicare, create jobs, and grow our economy,” Democratic House leader Nancy Pelosi said in a statement.

“It sends a clear message that will echo nationwide: Republicans will be held accountable for their vote to end Medicare.”

Only two Democrats since World War Two have represented the heavily Republican 26th Congressional District, which covers a big area of western New York near Buffalo.

National Republican Congressional Committee Chairman Pete Sessions said in a statement that Corwin had to battle “two well-funded Democrats, including one masquerading under the Tea Party name.” The Tea Party is a conservative activist movement.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/2011/05/democrat-wins-upset-victory-in-new-york-house-race.html

In a decisive victory Tuesday, Democrat Kathy Hochul defeated Republican Assemblywoman Jane Corwin, 47 percent to 43 percent, in a heavily GOP congressional district.

The House Republican budget plan authored by Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wis., became a focal point in the election as Corwin defended her support for it and Hochul, the Erie County clerk, played up her opposition to the plan’s unpopular restructuring of Medicare for those 55 and younger.

Jack Davis, a wealthy businessman who poured more than $2 million into his campaign, ran as a third party candidate on the Tea Party label and emerged with 9 percent of the vote. He had run as a Democrat in previous attempts at this House seat, and his presence in this special election certainly helped what should have been a slam dunk for Republicans become a competitive contest in the closing weeks of the campaign.

After spending the last two years on the defensive over the stimulus, health care and cap and trade, Democrats seem to have found an opening to play some offense using the Ryan budget, specifically its proposal to shift Medicare from a system where the government directly reimburses doctors to one where subsidies are provided to seniors and payments are made through private insurance companies.

To give you a sense of this Republican slice of New York: John McCain defeated President Obama in this district, 52 percent to 46 percent, in 2008. And despite Andrew Cuomo’s 63-33 statewide trouncing of Carl Paladino in the governor’s race last year, Paladino won here with more than 60 percent of the vote. Former Rep. Chris Lee won the district with 73 percent of the vote in 2010, just a couple of months before his infamous shirtless photo emerged, which led to his resignation and Tuesday’s special election.

Appearantly in New York, candidates can win elections with just a plurality of the vote, rather than an outright majority. It is most likely that Corwin would have won a majority in a runoff election. I wouldn’t be surprized if Republicans in New York try to change the election procedures later.

It should be noted that even if Davis was a Democrat years ago, he would have had to run with a lot of conservative positions to be competitive in such a conservative district. MANY Democrats are indeed like that, unfortunately. Therefore, I doubt that Hochul is a Progressive. Pete Sessions’ remarks are an insult to the general political climate in that area.

In any case, it is clear that the “Tea Party” has become a laughingstock that is ruining the power and credibility of the Republican Party. The biggest mistake Republicans like Sarah Palin, Michelle Bachmann, and others made was to try to draw these dissenters into the Republican camp. Likewise, the Tea Party leaders should have rejected the Republicans and instead drew millions of people into the membership of the Libertarian Party, which would then overthrow the Republican Party to become the Democrats’ main opposition. Because that didn’t happen, there will be no real change in government over the next decade or so. A great opportunity for long-term reform was destroyed by the desire for short term political convinience.

Related articles

Lying outright in a prayer to God!

Posted on by

I sometimes wonder why more and more people in the USA don’t convert to atheism, seeing what religious bigots do when allowed to run riot. If I were God, I would have struck down this one, Bradlee Dean, immediately for his opening prayer at the Minnesota State legislature. He said:

“I know this is a non-denominational prayer in this Chamber and it’s not about the Baptists and it’s not about the Catholics alone or the Lutherans or the Wesleyans. Or the Presbyterians the evangelicals or any other denomination but rather the head of the denomination and his name is Jesus. As every President up until 2008 has acknowledged. And we pray it. In Jesus’ name.” [Emphasis mine]

See for yourself!

In short, this was a swipe at Barack Obama, implying that he isn’t a Christian. Since it is common knowledge that Obama is a member of the United Church of Christ, that preacher just told a bald-faced lie while saying a prayer to God. And in my judgement, that makes him a blasphemer.

Even the Republican Speaker of the Minnesota House of Representatives, Kurt Zellers, was offended, and he stated that Dean would be banned from ever appearing there again.

The Stupidity of Ayn Rand, round 2

Posted on by

First, read this, if you haven’t yet done so:

https://dalehusband.wordpress.com/2010/11/05/a-bitter-rant-about-ayn-rand/

Gee, I wish I’d written this brilliant comment!

http://readersupportednews.org/opinion2/277-75/5729-the-tea-party-and-ayn-rand

#futhark 2011-04-24 16:46

Kudos to Ayn Rand for “objectively” choosing to receive Social Security benefits and Medicare in her old age. To not do so would have been contrary to her best interests.

Shame on her for jeopardizing her health through a life-long nicotine addiction, causing her to require assistance from socialistic institutions supported by a collectivist state. But even more shame on her for her arrogant, social-Darwinist values that the sick, hungry, ill-clad, and ill-housed are only reaping the rewards of their personal lack of industry and creativity. Her compassion rating is a big, obese ZERO!

Indeed! (Clap, clap clap, clap!)

Rachel Maddow vs Politifact

Posted on by
The Rachel Maddow Show (TV series)

Image via Wikipedia

As an Honorable Skeptic, I never assume that anyone or anything is infallible, not individuals like Keith Olbermann or Rachel Maddow nor websites like Politifact. So when there is an actual conflict between them, one must look at the actual facts to judge who or what is right. Facts, not ideology. FACTS, not personal preferences.

Look at this claim:

http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/statements/2011/feb/18/rachel-maddow/rachel-maddow-says-wisconsin-track-have-budget-sur/

“Despite what you may have heard about Wisconsin’s finances, the state is on track to have a budget surplus this year.”

Rachel Maddow on Thursday, February 17th, 2011 in a segment on her television talk show

False

Here’s the bottom line:

There is fierce debate over the approach Walker took to address the short-term budget deficit. But there should be no debate on whether or not there is a shortfall. While not historically large, the shortfall in the current budget needed to be addressed in some fashion. Walker’s tax cuts will boost the size of the projected deficit in the next budget, but they’re not part of this problem and did not create it.

We rate Maddow’s take False.

The quote attributed to Maddow is indeed hers. But it was taken out of context.

Continue reading →

We MUST reduce American military spending!

Posted on by

Imagine my absolute shock when I saw this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures

The United States spends over six times more on its military than China, which is the second largest military spender.

Meanwhile:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_debt_of_the_US

Scroll down to the chart titled Leading Foreign Holders of US Treasury Securities (November 2010). See which country holds more of our debt than any other? CHINA!

Why the hell are we spending so much on our military instead of paying down our debt??? This is a clear case of us doing something we don’t need to do, which actually puts us in greater danger. If China decides to force us to pay most of our debt immediately to it, all of our overbuilt military won’t amount to much. Our independence will be threatened anyway, due to the vast economic ties we have to China.

Which is why we should have listened to President Eisenhower, himself an army general and war hero, who warned us about the “military/industrial complex” before leaving office.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eisenhower%27s_farewell_address

Eisenhower was, in my opinion, the last honorable Republican to hold the Presidency. All the others who came after him were IDIOTS AND HYPOCRITES!!!

Egyptians should be wary of the Muslim Brotherhood

Posted on by

Look at this article:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110131/ap_on_re_mi_ea/ml_egypt_protest

Egyptian reform leader calls for Mubarak to resign

CAIRO – Egypt’s most prominent democracy advocate took up a bullhorn Sunday and called for President Hosni Mubarak to resign, speaking to thousands of protesters who defied a curfew for a third night. Fighter jets streaked low overhead and police returned to the capital’s streets — high-profile displays of authority over a situation spiraling out of control.

Nobel Peace laureate Mohamed ElBaradei’s appearance in Tahrir, or Liberation, Square underscored the jockeying for leadership of the mass protest movement that erupted seemingly out of nowhere in the past week to shake the Arab world’s most populous nation.

<snip>

Asked if Washington supports Mubarak as Egypt’s leader, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton avoided a direct answer, telling Fox News: “We have been very clear that we want to see a transition to democracy, and we want to see the kind of steps taken that will bring that about.”

<snip>

The outlawed Muslim Brotherhood, which wants to establish an Islamist state in Egypt, has made some statements that it was willing to let ElBaradei act as point man for the movement. But it also appeared to be moving for a more prominent role after lying low when the protests first erupted.

On Sunday evening, the presence of overtly pious Muslims in the square was conspicuous, suggesting a significant Brotherhood representation. Hundreds performed the sunset prayers. Veiled women prayed separately.

A senior Brotherhood leader, Essam el-Erian, told The Associated Press he was heading to Tahrir Square to meet with other opposition leaders. El-Erian told an Egyptian TV station that the Brotherhood is ready to contact the army for a dialogue, calling the military “the protector of the nation.”

Clinton suggested there were U.S. concerns over the possibility of the Brotherhood seizing direction of the movement. She warned against a takeover resembling the one in Iran, with a “small group that doesn’t represent the full diversity of Egyptian society” seizing control and imposing its ideological beliefs.

Indeed, if the Muslim Brotherhood does seize control of Egypt, it could easily become just as destructive to Egypt as the Taliban was to Afghanistan before it was overthrown in 2001.

The protesters should be supporting freedom, justice and peace. Any ideology that is based  on religious bigotry is the antithesis of these ideals. The people of Iran replaced one tyrant, the Shah, with another, the Ayatollah Khomeini, in 1979, and now Iran’s government is a fraud, supported by rigged and phony elections.

We must also remember that Mubarak’s predecessor, Anwar El Sadat, was assassinated by army members opposed to peace with Israel. Most likely they were similar to the Muslim Brotherhood members in their political views.

I don’t care if one chooses to follow Islam as a personal religion, but I urge Muslims to stop trying to make it the basis of a government!

Keith Olbermann responds to a stupid “tweet”.

Posted on by
christine espinosa
aller3 christine espinosa
@KeithOlbermann Tell you idiot friend O’Donnell that we will fight socialism. Nothing in life is free. Social programs have failed dumb dumb
Keith Olbermann
KeithOlbermann Keith Olbermann
@aller3 Kindly send the government the tolls you didn’t pay on all free highways. Also all of your relatives’ social security, Medicare etc
Make of that what you will.

The Democrats lost, but the Republicans did not win

Posted on by

Yesterday, the Republicans were able to gain seats in both the House and the Senate. Next year they will control the House outright, but their power may not last. The limited patience of the American people may not allow them to do much damage.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_upshot/20101103/el_yblog_upshot/boehner-now-has-the-toughest-job-in-washington

Continue reading →

Attacking homophobia and bullying in the Fort Worth City Council

Posted on by

Having lived in the Fort Worth area all my life, I was never prouder of that than I was when I saw this video on YouTube. For the people of Texas, there is hope for greater enlightenment as long as people like Joel Burns and myself are around!

Such courage may cause him to be voted out of office, but it may also lead to a revolution. Let us keep up the pressure to stop the hate, the violence and the ignorance.

I’ll add this much older voice to Mr Burns’ as well:

Because bigotry is evil no matter where it comes from, and even if religion or social standards support it.

Obama bashing, Libertarian style

Posted on by

Take a look at this op-ed piece by Wayne Allyn Root, who ran for Vice-President in 2008 under the Libertarian ticket. It might explain the Tea Party and its anti-Obama madness that has possessed so much of the American population. I will post parts of it and respond directly to it here (the numbers refer to my answers).

http://www.lvrj.com/opinion/obama-s-agenda–overwhelm-the-system-95716764.html

Continue reading →

Stop America’s political see-saw!

Posted on by

There was a time when the American people were not so blindly loyal to their political parties as they are now. During the American Revolution itself, the two opposing factions were the Loyalists who favored the American colonies remaining part of the British Empire, and the Patriots who wanted American independence. The Patriots won and most of those who remained Loyalists fled to Britain or Canada. Then there was another conflict between Federalists, who favored the new U S Constitution, and the anti-Federalists who opposed it. The anti-Federalists lost. The next conflict was between the Federalists and the Democratic-Republicans. Eventually, the Federalists lost and faded away. Then the Whigs rose to challenge the Democratic-Republicans (later, the Democratic Party), but they too failed before the Civil War, to be replaced by the Republicans.

So we had three political factions which died out due to being rejected by the American people: the Loyalists, the Federalists and the Whigs. But ever since the Civil War, the people have been stuck on a see-saw. Whenever they become dissatisfied with Democratic policies, they turn to vote Republican. Then when they are unhappy with Republican policies, they turn back towards the Democrats. Then when they are disappointed with Democratic policies, they go right back to the Republicans. Does this make ANY sense? I think not.

The Republicans led us into war in Iraq in 2003, based on claims regarding that country that turned out to be false. Any party that does that should have been thrown out of power the very next year, but it didn’t happen until 2006 and 2008 and the Democrats took over. Now there is a sizable movement to vote the Democrats out of power in 2010 and 2012……so the Republicans may take over again? No, there are other options for conservative voters to consider! Such as:

The Libertarian Party:  http://www.lp.org/

The Constitution Party: http://www.constitutionparty.com/

The Reform Party: http://www.rpusa.info/

The America First Party: http://www.americafirstparty.org/

Any one of these should rise to take the place of the Republican Party, which I feel has long outlived its usefulness, and likewise if the Democratic Party fails liberals in the future, they should look at:

The Green Party: http://www.gp.org/

The Libertarian Party: http://www.lp.org/ (It strongly appeals to both conservatives and liberals for various reasons)

The Socialist Party: http://socialistparty-usa.org/

And it should be an unwritten rule in American politics from now on that whenever a party is voted out of power, it should NEVER be voted back in! If we took such a stand, maybe we would truly have a government of the people, by the people, and for the people. Because right now that seems to not be the case!

White Americans need to grow up!

Posted on by

Note: the writer of this blog is a white guy.

From the very beginning of the United States of America’s existence as an independent nation, it was totally white dominated. Not just the union as a whole, but every single state within that union, was white dominated. Not a single state was ever allowed to be ruled by non-whites, not Native American tribes, not blacks, nor Asian-Americans. Even states that you would expect to be ruled by non-whites were taken over by whites before they could become states.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oklahoma#History

During the 19th century, thousands of Native Americans were expelled from their ancestral homelands from across North America and transported to the area including and surrounding present-day Oklahoma. The “Five Civilized Tribes” in the South were the most prominent nations displaced by American expulsion policy, an atrocity that came to be known as the Trail of Tears during the Cherokee Nation’s removals starting in 1831. The area, already occupied by Osage and Quapaw tribes, was called for the Cherokee Nation until revised American policy redefined the boundaries to include other Native Americans. By 1890, more than 30 Native American nations and tribes had been concentrated on land within Indian Territory or “Indian Country.”[45] In the period between 1866 and 1899,[43] cattle ranches in Texas strove to meet the demands for food in eastern cities and railroads in Kansas promised to deliver in a timely manner. Cattle trails and cattle ranches developed as cowboys either drove their product north or settled illegally in Indian Territory.[43] In 1881, four of five major cattle trails on the western frontier traveled through Indian Territory.[46] Increased presence of white settlers in Indian Territory prompted the United States Government to establish the Dawes Act in 1887, which divided the lands of individual tribes into allotments for individual families, encouraging farming and private land ownership among native Americans but expropriating land to the federal government. In the process, nearly half of Indian-held land within the territory was taken for outside settlers and for purchase by railroad companies.[47]

Major land runs, including the Land Run of 1889, were held for settlers on the hour that certain territories were opened to settlement. Usually, land was open to settlers on a first come first served basis.[48] Those who broke the rules by crossing the border into the territory before it was allowed were said to have been crossing the border sooner, leading to the term sooners, which eventually became the state’s official nickname.[49]

Delegations to make the territory into a state began near the turn of the 20th century, when the Curtis Act furthered the theft of Indian tribal lands in Indian Territory. Attempts to create an all-Indian state named Oklahoma and a later attempt to create an all-Indian state named Sequoyah failed but the Sequoyah Statehood Convention of 1905 eventually laid the groundwork for the Oklahoma Statehood Convention, which took place two years later.[50] On November 16, 1907, Oklahoma was established as the 46th state in the Union.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawaii#History

In 1887, Kalākaua was forced to sign the 1887 Constitution of the Kingdom of Hawaii, which stripped the king of much of his authority. There was a property qualification for voting, which disenfranchised many poorer Hawaiians and favored the wealthier white community. Resident whites were allowed to vote, but resident Asians were excluded. Because the 1887 Constitution was signed under threat of violence, it is known as the “Bayonet Constitution”. King Kalākaua, reduced to a figurehead, reigned until his death in 1891. His sister, Liliʻuokalani, succeeded him on the throne.

In 1893, Queen Liliʻuokalani announced plans for a new constitution. On January 14, 1893, a group of mostly Euro-American business leaders and residents formed a Committee of Safety to overthrow the Kingdom and seek annexation by the United States. United States Government Minister John L. Stevens, responding to a request from the Committee of Safety, summoned a company of U.S. Marines. As one historian noted, the presence of these troops effectively made it impossible for the monarchy to protect itself.[36]

In January 1893, Queen Liliʻuokalani was overthrown and replaced by a Provisional Government composed of members of the Committee of Safety. Controversy filled the following years as the queen tried to re-establish her throne. The administration of President Grover Cleveland commissioned the Blount Report, which concluded that the removal of Liliʻuokalani was illegal. The U.S. government first demanded that Queen Liliʻuokalani be reinstated, but the Provisional Government refused. Congress followed with another investigation, and submitted the Morgan Report on February 26, 1894, which found all parties (including Minister Stevens) with the exception of the queen “not guilty” from any responsibility for the overthrow.[37] The accuracy and impartiality of both the Blount and Morgan reports has been questioned by partisans on both sides of the debate over the events of 1893.[36][38][39][40]

Then, of course, there is the Mexican War of 1846-1848, in which nearly half of Mexico’s territory was taken over by the United States, along with Texas that had been annexed prior to the war’s beginning. All those territories and later states were later, you guessed it, WHITE dominated, not Hispanic dominated. Of course, it is understandable that allowing  Hispanics to rule those territories or states might eventually result in the secession of some of those states from the USA either to seek independence or to rejoin Mexico.

Also, Puerto Rico has never been allowed to become a state, even though it has been a protectorate of the USA for over a century!

Could that be what fuels anti-illegal immigrant agitation in the United States today? Fear of states that were once part of Mexico being returned to Mexico by the mostly Hispanic people wouldn’t be such a problem if the territories that made up those states had not been TAKEN BY FORCE FROM MEXICO IN THE FIRST PLACE! And liberalizing immigration laws would be a positive step to someday allow non-whites to rule at least one state in the USA, finally! Ironically, illegal immigrants are profitable for American businesses that employ them, since the businesses don’t have to pay the illegals according to minimum wage laws. But they would lose those profits if the illegals were able to gain American citizenship. And the 14th Amendment grants American citizenship to the children of illegal immigrants born in the United States, so the proportion of Hispanic American citizens will rise dramatically a generation from now. OH, NO!

So to white politicians like Tom Tancredo who have made a career out of bashing illegal immigrants from Mexico and elsewhere, I have but one thing to say:

FUCK YOU!

Goodbye, Arlen Specter!

Posted on by

I’m so pleased to see that two-faced turncoat ousted at last from his Senate seat. He wasn’t very loyal to the Republican Party and he then switched to the Democratic Party once he realised he would lose a Republican primary. But now he has also lost a Democratic primary, despite recieving support from President Obama.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_primary_rdp

Specter loses in Pennsylvania, Paul wins in Ky.

By DAVID ESPO, AP Special Correspondent – 7 mins ago

WASHINGTON – Veteran Sen. Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, who switched parties hoping to prolong his career, lost his bid for a sixth term Tuesday night at the hands of impatient Democratic primary voters rejecting his plea to reward experience. Political novice Rand Paul rode support from tea party activists to a rout in Kentucky’s Republican Senate primary.

In another race with national significance, Democrat Max Critz won a special House election to fill out the term of the late Democratic Rep. John Murtha in southwestern Pennsylvania. Both political parties spent roughly $1 million to sway the outcome, and highlighted the contest as a possible bellwether for the fall.

On the busiest night of the primary season to date, Arkansas Democratic Sen. Blanche Lincoln led in her bid for nomination to a third term, but she was forced into a potentially debilitating runoff on June 8 against Lt. Gov. Bill Halter.

Taken together, the results were indisputably unkind to the political establishments of both parties. But any attempt to read into the results a probable trend for the fall campaign was hazardous — particularly given Critz’s victory over Republican Tim Burns to succeed Murtha in Congress.

Now, what if Specter pulls the same stunt Sen. Joe Lieberman did and runs later as an Independent? Well, he can do that, and I myself favor independence in politics and would like to see both major parties in the United States brought down. But I can’t stand Lieberman either because, despite being a former Democrat, he  sells out to the right every chance he gets.  He might as well become a Republican. REAL independents run as such from the very beginning and that’s what America really needs. Not people like Lieberman or Specter!

No more responses to the State of the Union Addresses, please!

Posted on by

Every time the President of the United States gives his State of the Union Address, a representative of the other dominant political party gives a response to it that is broadcast immediatly afterwards. If the President is a Democrat, the one responding will be a Republican, and vice versa.

I beleive this tradition must be brought to an end. While the President is required by the federal Constitution to give such an address, there is NO requirement that any member of an opposing party give any rebuttal that is given equal standing before the media or the American people. For this reason, this practice should be abolished. It perpetrates the two-party system that I consider to be the root of America’s excessive conservatism. Also, it encourages disrespect for the office of the Presidency.

Seriously, if the Democrats get to respond to a Republican President, and vice versa, why not allow responses from the Libertarians or the Greens as well? Why should only one opposing party have such an unfair advantage?

The U S Supreme Court has murdered democracy in America!

Posted on by

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20100121/ts_nm/us_usa_court_politics

By James Vicini  – Thu Jan 21, 2:42 pm ET

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – Corporations can spend freely to support or oppose candidates for president and Congress, the Supreme Court ruled on Thursday, a landmark decision denounced by President Barack Obama for giving special interests more power.

“The Supreme Court has given a green light to a new stampede of special interest money in our politics,” Obama said after the 5-4 ruling that divided the nation’s high court along conservative and liberal lines.

Continue reading →

An open letter to President Obama

Posted on by

Dear President Barack Obama,

You have failed us, on both the overseas war situation and on domestic issues like health care reform and the failing economy. And no, you do NOT deserve the Nobel Peace Prize. You should have refused it and nominated someone else.

When I voted for you, I expected you to live up to your stated promise to make changes in Washington, changes I could beleive in. Instead, you have broken many of your own promises and flipped-flopped on several issues important to me. You have also made too many concessions to the Republican opposition, the very people who were put out of power last year. That makes you look weak and unprincipled. You have also lied to us several times.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/rulings/promise-broken/

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/rulings/compromise/

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/rulings/stalled/

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/personalities/barack-obama/statements/byruling/half-true/

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/personalities/barack-obama/statements/byruling/barely-true/

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/personalities/barack-obama/statements/byruling/false/

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/personalities/barack-obama/statements/byruling/pants-fire/

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/rulings/full-flop/

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/rulings/half-flip/

So much for the hope you once offered us! Do not expect me to support you in 2012. We need a more progressive and honest person than you in the White House!

Dale Husband, the Honorable Skeptic

How (I think) the corporate dominated media shaped last year’s Presidental election

Posted on by

At the risk of sounding like a crackpot conspiracy theorist , here is how I think the mainstream media manipulated the election process to make a candidate as much to their liking as possible:

OK, Democrats, the best possible candidates for you are Hilary Clinton and Barack Obama. Ignore all the others, ESPECIALLY Dennis Kucinich. He is too extreme!

Republicans, we want John McCain to be the next President. The others are too weak and we especially don’t want RON PAUL in charge!

Great! The Democrats are fighting, fighting FIGHTING over Obama and Clinton! YAY! Let’s play that up for all it’s worth, to make the Republicans look stronger.

Finally, Obama has won the Democratic nomination. And McCain has won on the Republican side. Maybe we can get a WOMAN on the Republican ticket to attract some of the Hilary supporters and ensure McCain’s victory. Here’s Sarah Palin! Obama has picked a white guy to be HIS running mate. Ho hum….

Damn! Obama WON. No matter, once he takes office, we can whip up the opposition to him as much as possible to give him a hard time. Then he will NEVER threaten our interests.

The damning truth about Republicans

Posted on by

This was written by a user known as Prophet 451. And everything seems to be totally truthful and makes sense, so I will adopt it for myself:

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/Prophet%20451/147

Dear Republicans,

Fuck you. No, I’m not joking. I’m sick of this bullshit.

I’m sick of the way you’ve corrupted the public discourse. The way you’ve made it acceptable to hurl any insult you like at public officials. The way you blame us for the current atmosphere of hatred by accusing us of starting it with hating Bush. Like Bush didn’t come on the heels of eight years of your tireless efforts to destroy Clinton by any means necessary, like Bush didn’t give us good reason to complain. A couple of posters on a website compared Bush to Hitler and you’ve used it as free license to compare Obama to Hitler 24/7 and I’m sick of your hypocrisy, where it’s acceptable to say shit about Obama that you would have had an apopletic fit (and did) if anythign remotely similar had been said about your guys. Keith Olbermann calls Cheney a fascist when he was actually using fascist tactics and you think that gives you the freedom to call Obama a fascist, socialist, Marxist constantly for no reason at all. Fuck you and your bullshit false equivelancy.

I’m sick of the way you’ve made the populace stupid. Around a fifth of your populace thinks the sun orbits the earth, over half think evolution never happened. Your populace actually believe the media has a liberal bias. Not because it has, you have the most conservative media in the free world, but because you’ve shouted it so loud and so often that you’ve brainwashed the public into believing it, like the battered wife who parrots her husband’s insults. You’ve got a whole segment of the populace shouting about socialism and fascism and none of them know what the fucking words mean. You’ve convinced them that fascism is a left-wing thing. You’ve got them so turned around that some of them actually believe global warming isn’t happening. Fuck you.

I’m sick of the way you try to destroy the whole concept of government. You’ve tricked the people into believing that government can’t do anything right, always being careful to exclude the army because you love your bullets and bombs but you’ve so destroyed the public’s ability to reason that they don’t even think of interstate highways, the space program, the national parks program, etc. Government is always great when it’s doing what you tell it and inevitibly corrupt when it isn’t. Fuck you.

I’m sick of your rewriting of history. You’ve bleated so loud and long that Reagan was a great president, that the New Deal didn’t work, that cutting taxes increases revenues, that you actually have the people believing this bullshit. And these are the same people who will go on to become teachers and fill their student’s heads with this self-same bullshit. Reagan was a mediocre president at best who had teh good fortune to be in power when the USSR collapsed under it’s own weight and you bastards have turned him into teh Second Coming. You’ve rewritten history so that everything foul and hateful and wrong can be attributed to a Democrat while everything worthwhile is a Republican’s glory. Fuck you.

I’m sick of your dragging the centre ever further to the right. How many whackjob fringe ideas have you dragged into the mainstream? The aforementioned idea that tax cuts increase revenues, the Laffer Curve, the idea that Welfare harms the poor, the idea that there’s rampant fraud in Welfare, the idea that whatever is good for corporations is good for the country. And you push these ideas through your corporate media and you do it so long and loud that they become part of the accepted political landscape and because it is easier to tell a lie than to debunk one, we never get away from this rancid shit. Fuck you.

I’m sick of your casual criminality. Teddy Kennedy, a man who’s boots you were not worthy to lick, was just buried and all I’ve heard from my rightist friends for days is Chappaquidick, Chappaquiddick, Chappaquidick. Your fucking golden boy raped the Constitution, mainly because he wanted to; tortured random people (and waterboarding is torture, fuck you too) essentially because he wanted to; spent like a drunken sailor, essentially because he wanted to; invaded a soverign nation, essentially for the loot and destroyed people’s lives, essentially for the evilulz and you bastards are obsessed with a fucking accident a Democrat had decades ago? You don’t go on about Laura Bush killing some guy decades ago. Fuck you.

I’m sick of you praising pure evil. You’re letting Dick Cheney be the standard-bearer for Republicanism. Dick Cheney, a man so nakedly evil that even his friends call him “Darth”; a man so callous that Lex Luthor would recoil in terror; a man who probably has dismembered hitchhikers in those man-sized safes and kills plants by his mere proximity. Fuck you.

I’m sick of your attempts to tilt the playing field permanently in your favour. Democrats filibustered a few of Bush’s most hateful judicial picks and you pricks started screaming about doing away with the filibuster but now you’re in the minority, you’re filibustering absolutely everything you can and whining when you don’t get the chance. You ignored everything the Democrats had to say when you had power and now that you don’t, you scream that everyone must be bipartisan. You don’t budge a fucking inch on anything but you insist that everyone must compromise to meet you. That’s your idea of politics: Don’t move an inch, force the other guy to come to the right to meet you and call the result a “compromise”. Fuck you.

I’m sick of your corporatism. You dress it up in false populism but anyone with half a brain can see that you’re the brought and paid for subsidiary of big business. You keep pushing tax cuts as the answer for absolutely everything, you keep sabotaging every attempt to control the excesses of big business. You geuinely think the world would be a better place if it was a combination of Bill Gibson’s dystopian vision of a corporate dominated world and Ayn Rand’s bullshit Objectivism, yet another entry in mankind’s endless attempts to find a moral justification for naked greed. You’ve taken the clinically insane spewings of a woman literally to the right of Hitler (pardon my Godwins) and the 1984-like vision of a dystopian author and convinced yourselves that would be a good place to live. Big business is the enemy of the people, always has been. The ideal for the corporate class is to have a small pool of people rich enough to buy their fucking crap and a much larger pool of people so poor and with so few options that they can be used and abused at the corporation’s whim. A corporation’s objective is not to look after you, it is to make ever-larger profits by any means necessary. You bastards want to reinstate fucking slavery to the corporate class and you’ve made the public so fucking stupid that they actually swallow the bullshit you’re serving up, they actually want to enslave themselves to the corporations that abuse them at every turn. They actually care more about the corporations right to make obscene profits than they care about their child’s right to live on a habitable planet. Fuck you.

Fuck you, you scumridden shitehawks, you make me sick. Just fuck off and die.

Why Libertarians are wrong about economics

Posted on by

One of the founders of the Libertarian Party, David F. Nolan, is credited with creating the Nolan Chart, which has been used ever since as a guide to understanding various political positions. Here is a version of it: 

The higher you are on the chart, the more freedom you beleive in. If you beleive in more economic freedom and less personal freedom, you will be on the right (Conservative) side of the chart. If you beleive in less economic freedom and more personal freedom, you will be on the left (Liberal) side of the chart. Libertarians beleive in more freedom for both and Statists beleive in less freedom for both, while centrists have a mix of all positions.

The real problem with the chart is that it is misleading. I beleive in maximum freedom for individuals, both in their personal dealings and as small business owners. Sole proprietorships and partnerships should be as free from government interference as possible, the only exception being that anyone wanting to start a small business should be able to apply for a loan from the government, which they can pay back five or ten years later with interest (thus enabling the government to make a profit from helping establish the businesses).

So I beleive that governments should be severely restricted in how they can treat individuals. But for some reason, Libertarians insist on corporations having the same rights of free speech and property rights as individuals. This is unacceptable to me, since I see corporations as being more like governments than individuals. Corporations can have an infinite lifespan and can acquire an infinite amount of property and money. In a “free market”, small businesses with individual owners cannot withstand competition with giant corporations;  it’s like a mouse trying to compete with an elephant. And when corporations become powerful enough, they are able to bribe or threaten the officials in the government to do their bidding by bailing them out when they face bankruptcy.

Bailouts and corporate mergers should be forbidden. Corporations, I beleive, should be treated the OPPOSITE of small business owners. They should be regulated and taxed heavily and never bailed out, but BOUGHT OUT by the government, which then may break up the corporation’s properties and sell to individuals who want to establish their own small businesses. Indeed, I would make it so that new corporations couldn’t even be established at all!

An industry with thousands of small business and no corporations would result in a far healthier economy than one dominated by a half dozen giant corporations, due to their being far more competition and less risk of massive economic damage from businesses failing. The thousands of small business owners would value their freedom and would translate that value into a classically liberal democratic government. But an economy dominated by giant corporations would consist mostly of people used to taking orders from a few powerful executives, the very essence of an authoritarian society.

And that is why Libertarianism is doomed to fail. It is absurd to put giant corporations and small businesses on the same playing field, for the corporations will inevitably crush them, just as giant empires tend to crush smaller nations. Quite simply, there is really no such things as a “free market”, nor will there ever be. The only true path to freedom and social justice is a Liberal or Centrist path. Not Libertarian. The very existence of giant corporations and their corrupting power makes Libertarianism a dream that will never become reality.

Can libertarians overthrow the Neo-Conservatives?

Posted on by

I first became interested in the Libertarian Party because of its strong anti-war stance. In my opinion, it’s the one thing that definitely makes libertarians better than the Republicans or even many Democrats:

http://www.lp.org/news/press-releases/time-to-cut-off-iraq

For Immediate Release
Wednesday, August 6, 2008

Time to Cut Off Iraq

Iraq should be footing their own bill 

“It is time for Iraq to take responsibility for the costs and burdens of rebuilding their country,” says Libertarian Party National Chairman William Redpath, following a new report from the Government Accountability Office stating that Iraq may have a budget surplus of up to $79 billion dollars. 

“Using US taxpayer money to pay for the rebuilding of the infrastructure of another nation is bad enough,” says Redpath, “but it is reprehensible and unforgivable when that nation is running a budget surplus while we have a substantial and growing federal budget deficit and a crumbling infrastructure.”

The Libertarian Party has been opposed to the U.S. invasion and occupation of Iraq from the beginning.  The Party, which stands adamantly opposed to the use of taxpayer money to support functions of the government not defined in the Constitution, has taken special exception to the use of tax revenues to pay for rebuilding foreign nations.

The Party calls for an end to the Iraq war and a withdrawal of U.S. troops in Iraq without undue delay. 

“It’s a case of tragic irony,” says Libertarian Party spokesperson Andrew Davis. “The American public was told reconstruction efforts in Iraq would be paid for by oil revenues from that country.  Now, more than five years later, Americans are shouldering the responsibility of rebuilding Iraq while facing decaying bridges and skyrocketing gas prices.”

“Something is very, very wrong with this picture,” says Davis. 

The Libertarian Party is America’s third largest political party, founded in 1971 as an alternative to the two main political parties.  You can find more information on the Libertarian Party by visiting www.LP.org. The Libertarian Party proudly stands for smaller government, lower taxes and more freedom.
 
For more information on this issue, or to arrange a media interview, please call Andrew Davis at (202) 731-0002.

But most of their positions against governmental intervention seem too extreme and unrealistic. If they would moderate their platform to support smaller government in general instead of taking any absolute positions, then they could gain a larger and more diverse membership and start winning elections at the federal level, which they never have before. Their reluctance to be more moderate is their first mistake. As the Nolan Chart shows, the Libertarian Party needs to be open to all those that would score as “Libertarians”, not just those purists who would be at the uppermost tip of the chart, and perhaps even Liberals, Centrists, and Conservatives well away from the lower (Statist) part of the chart.

nolan_chart

Their second mistake is to ally themselves with the Republicans against the Democrats. If the Republicans ever regain power, what’s to stop them from throwing the Libertarians under the bus later to persue power for themselves once more?

A group that is ideologically pure can never take power in a pluralistic democracy. It can only do so by force, which libertarianism does not allow. Therefore, the Libertarians may never take power, though they should. Fortunately, there are some who see this and are working to make the Libertarian Party a more diverse one:

http://www.reformthelp.org/

Assuming that they ultimately fail, however, there is another possibility. It would involve libertarians taking over the Republican Party and getting rid of the most hard-core Conservative elements in it. The best example of a libertarian who is also a Republican is Rep. Ron Paul of Texas, who ran for President last year.

http://www.rlc.org/

Either possibility will be fine with me. The status quo of a weak Libertarian Party, a stronger Republican Party still dominated by neo-Conservatism, and a Democratic Party with total power and no accountablity is not!

The feud between Keith Olbermann and Bill O’Reilly

Posted on by

I first took notice of Keith Olbermann when I happened to see a video on YouTube of him condemning President Bush for his conduct during the Iraq War.

I thought that was quite amazing, but then I saw these special reports on Bill O’Reilly, which totally blew me away!

You can’t get more damning than that! There are only two possibilities: Either Olbermann slandered Bill O’Reilly (in which case Bill O and FOX News should have sued Keith O and MSNBC as a matter of honor), or he told the truth (in which case FOX News should have fired Bill O). There is no third option. The fact that no slander lawsuit was ever filed and that O’Reilly works at FOX News to this day shows beyond all reasonable doubt that FOX News is a channel with no integrity whatsoever.

Here’s another example of Olbermann busting  O’Reilly for falsehoods relating to World War II:

And unlike Bill O, who never makes an apology for his mistaken statements, Keith O does! One evening, he slammed New York Times managing editor Bill Keller for not firing a reporter who had not only printed a false story, but had committed plagerism to boot!

But the very next night, Keith O apologized for his condemnation of Keller. Appearantly, Olbermann had never worked at that newspaper before and knew nothing beforehand about how it was run. So he practiced what he preached!

There is no question that MSNBC is slanted towards the Liberal perspective. I suspect that was done because of FOX News appealing so much to right-wingers, so MSNBC had to balance it out. FOX News certainly has no business calling itself “fair and balanced”, nor does Bill O’Reilly have any business calling his show a “no spin zone”. Look at how arrogantly he dealt with Richard Dawkins:

….and then with Kirk Cameron, treating him with kid gloves while continuing to bash Dawkins:

And he even got into a shouting match with Geraldo Rivera over illegal immigration and drunk driving! How unprofessional!

Meanwhile, Olbermann took on Wal-Mart for several days to expose its terrible wrongdoing towards a disabled former employee:

Until Wal-Mart was forced to back down:

Now, those blind and moronic FOX News fans who call Olbermann a liar, without specifying what he lied about, are YOU going to file a slander lawsuit against him? Is anyone? If not, SHUT UP! In matters of credibility and honor, Keith Olbermann beats anyone at FOX News hands down! The only reason you distrust Olbermann is political prejudice, the irrational assumption that somehow Conservatives have a monopoly on truth and virtues and therefore anyone non-Conservative must be misguided, dishonest, even evil. WRONG! Grow up and deal with real life and not the nationalistic crap you’ve been spoon fed since you were babies!

When I was a child, I had absolute faith in God, in my parents and my country, like most children tend to have. In 1979, I would watch the news and see reports about American hostages being taken in Iran, about the Shah being deposed, and about Iranians chanting “Death to America!”, and I couldn’t understand why. What had we Americans ever done to Iran? I got the impression that the Iranians were evil people who hated us just because we were different.

But years later, I attended college and it wasn’t until then that I finally learned the truth: that in 1953, we Americans, through the CIA, had helped overthrow a democratically elected Prime Minister of Iran and allowed the Shah to take absolute power there. Why? Because that Prime Minister had attempted to nationalize the oil fields owned and operated by British and American oil companies, in HIS OWN COUNTRY! WHAT ARROGANCE AND HYPOCRISY WE DISPLAYED BACK THEN! NO WONDER THE IRANIANS WERE SO ANGRY! But in 1979, these disgraceful facts were never revealed by the mainstream media. The implication was that the Islamic Revolution of Iran had occured for no logical reason. But that was a lie of omission.

If someone like Keith Olbermann had been around in 1979 reporting the political news and slamming reporters of other networks for screwing with the truth, perhaps we would have learned the truth about the Iranian situation much sooner and we the people would not have been stupid enough to elect Ronald Reagan as the next President of the United States.

In any case, it was me learning the truth about Iran and what we did to it that made me reject forever the Conservative Republican politics of my parents and most of my other relatives. I wised up, and it’s about time millions of Americans did also and stopped acting like SHEEP being led to their slaughter by the pied pipers of FOX News and the Republican leaders.

Keep up the good work, Keith Olbermann. This Honorable Skeptic salutes you and hopes to see you on the air for many years to come!

Bobby Jindal is an IDIOT!

Posted on by

Jindal is the governor of Louisiana, and is a supporter of Intelligent Design. He also completely sold out his Indian heritage. But that’s not the worst thing about him. What really bothers me is that he SUX at dealing with issues and speaking to the people. UGH!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bobby_Jindal

On February 24, 2009 Jindal delivered the official Republican response to President Obama’s address to a joint session of Congress. Jindal called the president’s economic stimulus plan “irresponsible” and argued against government intervention.[42] He used Hurricane Katrina to warn against government solutions to the economic crisis. “Today in Washington, some are promising that government will rescue us from the economic storms raging all around us,” Jindal said. “Those of us who lived through Hurricane Katrina, we have our doubts.” He praised the late sheriff Harry Lee for standing up to the government during Katrina.[43][44] David Johnson, a Republican political strategist criticized Jindal’s mention of Hurrican Katrina stating ““The one thing Republicans want to forget is Katrina.”[45] Jindal’s speech was poorly received even among some Republicans,[46][47] conservative commentators were among his harshest critics, calling his speech “a disaster for the Republican Party”.[45][48]

Jindal’s story of meeting Lee in the immediate aftermath of Hurricane Katrina was questioned following the speech, as Jindal was not in New Orleans at the time.[49] On February 27, 2009, a spokesman for Jindal clarified the timing of the meeting, stating that the story took place days after the storm.[50]

So lame it gave me a headache! Is Louisiana really a state of morons?

Republicans, you are in serious trouble! Ditch Jindal and find someone like Dwight Eisenhower to revive your party, or it will die out like the dinosaurs did!

Unless, of course, you beleive the spin of FOX News:

Phony jackasses!

The Great Depression debate

Posted on by

This is my third blog entry in a row about economics.

If you have never lived through the Great Depression, it’s possible that you either don’t know what you are talking about, or are lying outright to promote some form of ideological extremism.

First look at this:

This is a video by Shane Killian, a Libertarian activist. While I admire the man for his work on defending evolution and attacking pseudoscience, he seems to be out of his league when it comes to economics, as the next video clearly shows:

Killian then proceeds to rewrite history regarding the Great Depression:

What bull$#it! Quite simply, if the New Deal was such a failure, then why did FDR not become a one term President?. Why, indeed, was he elected no less than FOUR TIMES!?

Because the Great Depression was the worst economic crisis ever in American history, it may be considered uncharted territory. Our government had to experiment to find a solution. Some things attempted during the Great Depression worked better than others, but it was hardly true that the New Deal was a total failure and that World War II finally got us out of the Depression! Indeed, if our economy had not recovered to a reasonable degree by 1941, we would never have been able to wage World War II so well! The right-wing extremists got the issue EXACTLY backwards! War is more likely to destroy a struggling economy than to strengthen it!

So why did Killain make the claims he did? Two reasons.

  1. He is a Libertarian. While the ideals of free market economics promoted by that party are indeed admirable, they are also purely a theroetical concept. In the real world, a completely free market CANNOT EXIST FOREVER! If you allow a capitalist economy to run on its own without any government intervention, we will only fall into a depression eventually and stay there PERMENANTLY! Killian’s faith in the “free market” is no better than religious fanaticism.
  2. He is brilliant on some subjects, therefore he assumes that he must be right on ALL subjects. But that is simply not true of anyone. No one knows or understands everything equally well. Myself included.