FORGET LIMBAUGH! Work to Restore The Fairness Doctrine/Communications Act of 1934

By Len Hart, The Existentialist Cowboy

FORGET LIMBAUGH Limbaugh is just a symptom. He's the ugly pimple that refuses 'off-the-shelf' remedies. It's time to drain the boil, pop the pimple. The REMEDY --the only remedy that will work and had worked until the election of Ronald Reagan. That is --RESTORE THE FAIRNESS DOCTRINE.

The Fairness Doctrine dates to the Communications Act of 1934. The 'Act' limited the concentration of media into very few hands. Radio and TV station owners were required to provide equal time to opposing views. Individual broadcasters who operated electronic equipment or were required to monitor a 'transmitter' were required to have an engineer's licences. An expert in electronics could obtain a 'First Class' license which allowed those having the certification to repair and/or maintain radio or TV transmitters. The Communications Act also prohibited the concentration of outlets in very few hands.

To be sure, there were nut jobs exploiting the air waves but they were opposed while Limbaugh is all but unopposed but for his vigilant critics on the internet. Otherwise --he is un-accountable, irresponsible. He is obnoxious and contemptuous to any and all who oppose him. He is a megalomaniac to be sure but --worse --he is a product and symptom of GOP disease, a disease the symptoms of which include intolerance, bigotry and psychopathic behavior.

In other words, the GOP would repeal the First Amendment by decree if given opportunity and power. The Remedy: ORGANIZE block-by-block, house-by-house, precinct by precinct, district by district to RESTORE THE COMMUNICATIONS ACT OF 1934 with amendments to include cable and satellite. Demand the rights that were DENIED to you by Ronald Reagan and the GOP.

---

How the NRA Helped Create a Culture of Guns, Death and Violence

by Len Hart, The Existentialist Cowboy

A culture of guns and violence may be traced to the many myths and lies told about the Second Amendment by one lobby organization specifically: the NRA. The NRA has worked assiduously to create a culture of guns, lies and violence in the United States. Sadly for our country, they have largely succeeded. Their efforts have borne fruit. Almost anyone can get a gun; lies about the Second Amendment are unquestioned by intimidated politicians who should know better; fatal shooting rampages will eventually cease to shock an inured public.

The BBC was on the right track but, themselves, went wrong. Consider the following from their recent broadcast in the wake of the latest campus shooting:

The United States has the largest number of guns in private hands of any country in the world with 60 million people owning a combined arsenal of over 200 million firearms.The US constitution, which was written in 1787, enshrines the people's right to keep and bear arms in its Second Amendment.

--BBC World Service

The BBC is most probably correct about the number of firearms inside the US. That the United States has nurtured and thus become a culture of both guns and violence is true on its face. The BBC is correct as far it goes. Indeed, fatal shootings in recent years, many involving teenagers, are troubling.

But is it accurate to say that those shootings, as horrible as they are, have made the issue of gun control a key debate in US politics? No. There is no real debate about that in America. The NRA has been extraordinarily successful in perpetrating a gestalt of myths about the Second Amendment and, in doing so, it has re-framed the issue. It is no longer a debate about needless death, carnage and violence but about mythical rights under the Constitution, rights never intended by the framers, rights never intended by James Madison, the man who wrote the Second Amendment. The NRA has hoodwinked a gullible nation.

Sadly, the NRA has no opposition. The Democrats are split down the middle on the gun violence issue. The GOP sold out long ago. This 'impasse' is due to many cultural factors that may be impossible to address. The best hope for rational debate is a concerted effort to disseminate the many truths about the Second Amendment in opposition to the NRA's many lies about it.

The NRA, for example, lies about 'U.S. v Miller'! The NRA lies about U.S. v Miller because that decision is in opposition to NRA lies about the Second Amendment. The NRA leaves out an entire phrase --the part about a 'well-regulated militia'. In U.S. v Miller, the Supremes recognized the obvious: the 'right' to keep and bear arms occurs only within the context of a well-regulated militia.

'Miller' outlines the "collective" duties and responsibilities of militias, the historical context in which the word is defined. It considers, in turn, the role of states in regulating militias. The NRA is therefore wrong, and the decision of the Supreme Court in US v Miller is the law, whether the NRA likes it or not. Incidentally, one of the best "histories" of the role of the militias during the so-called "revolution" is to be found in the body of U.S. v Miller itself. Because this history is not written by the NRA it is a breath of fresh air.

Another absurd theory often favored by NRA types would have you believe that what the founders meant by "militia" were un-regulated bands of well armed citizenry beyond the control and the regulation of states or national government. The proponents of this theory will tell you that the term "regulated" in the Second Amendment does not mean regulated "...by the government". Regulated, we are expected to believe, means self-regulated and equipped. In other words, armed to the teeth and unaccountable to anyone. That's absurd, of course.

Believing the militias had been neglected, Madison, if he were alive today, would denounce the NRA position. It was the opinion of both Alexander Hamilton and James Madison that the states had neglected the regulation of their militias. Madison wrote the second amendment concurrent with his oft-stated criticism of the states. He sought to redress his grievance in that famous single sentence:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Second Amendment, Bill of Rights, U.S. Constitution

---

---

The 2nd Amendment Does Not Mean What the NRA Says it Means

by Len Hart, The Existentialist Cowboy

The best case for birth control is the alarming rate at which morons proliferate! An alarming number of them grow up to join the NRA! An example is Wayne LaPierre the NRA's Liar and Chief about whom it is said on the internet:

"Wayne Lapierre of the NRA says that President Obama may have planned the events in Newtown to dismantle our 2nd Amendment."

This is absurd on every level. Obama does not have to dismantle the 2nd --as some have proposed! The 2nd has never meant what the NRA has said it meant anyway. Secondly, the NRA never quotes the whole article. The NRA quotes only the part they like. They are CROOKS!

Following is the 2nd as passed by the Congress:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Here is the 2nd as it was ratified by the states and authenticated by Thomas Jefferson who was at the time Secretary of State:

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

In every draft the 'right' of gun ownership is recognized but only within the context of a 'well-regulated' militia. That fact was affirmed in very nearly those words by the only SCOTUS decision that directly addresses the 'interpretation' of the 2nd Amendment. That case is U.S. v Miller:

In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a "shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length" at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument.

--307 U.S. 174, United States v. Miller, APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS, No. 696 Argued: March 30, 1939 --- Decided: May 15, 1939

A final observation: we know that the NRA, perhaps to a person, are liars as well as gun obsessed psychopaths; the many ad hominem attacks that various NRA psychopaths have leveled at me only proves what I have said about them. Those inarticulate, odious and inflammatory attacks prove that the NRA cannot be TRUSTED with a gun of any type. Furthermore, those fallacious and inflammatory attacks, often threatening, are not protected free speech and will be deleted! Comprende?

---

NRA Lies Exposed

by Len Hart, The Existentialist Cowboy

The NRA wants you to believe that the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution gives them an unqualified, blank check right to 'keep and bear' arms as they choose. That's not so! The Second Amendment --from which the right to 'own and bear' arms is derived --is a single sentence':

 A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

U. S. v Miller is the only U.S. Supreme Court decision that directly "interprets" the Second Amendment. U.S. v Miller clearly states that the right to keep and bear arms occurs ONLY within the context of a "...well-regulated militia."
All other Federal decisions and state decisions having anything to do with the Second Amendment reference U.S. v Miller to the extent that they address that issue specifically. It is, at last, the only opinion regarding an interpretation of the Second Amendment that is, in fact, law.

The GPO report is an exhaustive source of original, official sources having to do with the Second Amendment. ONE of the original sources is U.S. v Miller (1939), the decision that is considered by scholars to be the most important. U. S. v Miller is the only U.S. Supreme Court decision that directly "interprets" the Second Amendment.

U.S. v Miller states clearly states that the right to keep and bear arms occurs only within the context of a "...well-regulated militia." All other Federal decisions and state decisions having anything to do with the Second Amendment reference U.S. v Miller to the extent that they address that issue specifically.

Before getting to the sources themselves, consider the following quote from R. William Ide III, former President of the American Bar Association, who stated bluntly in 1994:

"There is NO Second Amendment guarantee. There is NO confusion on this issue."

R. W. Ide [emphases mine, LH].

Further --the House of Delegates of the American Bar Association on firearms Violence stated that the Second Amendment "...relates to a well-regulated militia and that there are NO federal constitutional decisions which preclude the regulation of firearms in private hands." To sum it up, Erwin Griswold, the late Solicitor General put it this way:

Never in history has a federal court invalidated a law regulating the private ownership of firearms on Second Amendment grounds. That the Second Amendment poses no barrier to strong gun laws is perhaps the most well-settled proposition in American Constitutional law.

– Erwin Griswold, Solicitor General

In 1934, Congress reacted to gangster related violence by enacting the National Firearms Act which prohibited the interstate transportation of silencers, automatic weapons, and sawed-off shotguns. Jack Miller appealed his conviction under that law. He claimed that Congress had violated his Second Amendment rights. The court gave consideration to "...the dependent clause" of the Second Amendment --the first part which establishes the context of the Amendment as a whole: "A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state..." The following is an excerpt from the court's opinion:

In the absence of any evidence tending to show that the possession or use of a "shot gun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length" at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such instrument Certainly it is not within Judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense.

–United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939) (USSC+)

The Supreme Court decisions continued, saying that the obvious purpose of the Second Amendment was "...to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of the state militia". The court concluded that the Second Amendment must be interpreted and applied with that end in view." The views are to be found in United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939) (USSC+)

Our most recent treatment of the Second Amendment occurred in United States v. Miller, in which we reversed the District Court's invalidation of the National Firearms Act, enacted in 1934. In Miller, we determined that the Second Amendment did not guarantee a citizen's right to possess a sawed-off shotgun because that weapon had not been shown to be "ordinary military equipment" that could "contribute to the common defense."

--Printz v. United States, 117 S.Ct. 2365, 2385-86 (1997) (Thomas, J., concurring)

The conclusions drawn by the court address the possession and use of guns within the context of a "militia". By the definition given in any dictionary, the U.S. Army is a militia. However the courts define "militia", the Second Amendment clearly addresses "well-regulated militias". Common-sense, law, English common law, and tradition would dictate that only a sovereign government of duly elected and ordained elected representatives of the people may regulate militias. If not, then who? Unregulated bands operating outside the law is unacceptable in any civilized society. The self-appointed "militia" groups clearly do NOT meet the requirement established in the Second Amendment and in U.S. v Miller which recounts the legitimate purposes that a "well-regulated militia" may pursue under law.

To sum up: U. S. v Miller is the only U.S. Supreme Court decision that directly "interprets" the Second Amendment. U.S. v Miller clearly states that the right to keep and bear arms occurs only within the context of a "...well-regulated militia."

All other Federal decisions and state decisions having anything to do with the Second Amendment reference U.S. v Miller to the extent that they address that issue specifically. It is, at last, the only opinion regarding an interpretation of the Second Amendment that is in fact, law --your experts and mine notwithstanding.

A thousand experts are either right or wrong on merit; the number of experts on either side is irrelevant. There are such things as "honest" disagreements. However, the official positions of the NRA re: the Second Amendment are NOT of this class. They are, rather, a pack of malicious lies, propaganda, distortions, and half truths.

Almost ten years ago, my article with the same title was published on 'The Opinion', a pioneering 'opinion' site presaging the onset of 'blogs'. To be expected, I was attacked by a legion of brainwashed NRA ditto-heads who called me names, called me 'stupid', and presumed to 'instruct me' with respect to the opinions of the 'founders'. Naturally, I refuted every NRA attacker not with my own logic or perspectives but with the writings of the 'founders' themselves, U.S. v Miller and every other decision that SCOTUS and Federal courts have handed down, as well as the writings of founders that gun nuts had said would have opposed me. They didn't! In fact, my argument is that of the founders themselves.

As a result of that experience, I concluded that the NRA is an organization of liars, dumbshits, ignoramouses, intolerant ideologues, obnoxious would-be thugs and a legion of Wayne LaPierre wannabes. In other words: fucking liars! Their lies and propaganda are not welcome on this site. The NRA has enough money to buy time on the corporate media! The NRA can fuck off!

---

---

The GOP's 'Blame Game' Exposed

"There is a collective responsibility in an authoritarian regime."

--Albert Speer, testinony at Nuremberg War Crimes Trials

I am fed up with the right wing blame game! And you should be as well. The U.S. right wing has more scapegoats than A. Hitler's wet dreams! Jean-Paul Sartre said:

"A man is nothing else but what he makes of himself!"

And it was Bertolt Brecht who summed up right wing crookery:

"A man who does not know the truth is just an idiot but a man who knows the truth and calls it a lie is a CROOK!"

The GOP has made of themselves CROOKS and MORONS and MORON CROOKS. Conan Doyle provided some bullet-proof logic:

"When you have eliminated the impossible whatever remains, however implausible, MUST be the truth!"

--Sir Arthur Conan Doyle

Doyle has never been more relevant. The GOP is defined by the utter BS that they espouse. That would be bad enough but, in fact, they expect you to buy into their ideology, propaganda, nonsense. The GOP is often threatening but that's typical of their psychopathic ilk. Don't buy it.

The only option is that people must think for themselves and demand proof of the lies and mythology that makes up the GOP's 'alternate reality'. The best and most obvious examples are the many ways in which the party favors the ruling elite and helps to enrich them even further. The most egregious example is 'supply-side' economics, often called 'trickle down theory'. It's all ---or worse! Wealth has never, ever 'trickled down' (at any speed or manner) as a result of GOP tax cuts which are designed to enrich those already filthy rich, those already amogn the RULING ONE PERCENT. This tiny (and shrinking) segment of the population owns more than the rest of us combined. GOP 'economics' creates a very, very steep curve.

Think for yourself. GOP ideology with respect to the economy is most easilly debunked with OFFICIAL STATS from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the U. S. Census Bureau, and the U.S. Commerce Dept -B.E.A. among many university and various 'think tank' studies. The GOP is dead wrong about almost EVERYTHING. Secondly, don't buy GOP platitudes that simply cannot be proven one way or the other. That's a Nazi tactic that was exposed by Hitler's confidant: Herr Albert Speer.

Food for though; wealth has never, ever trickled down nor has GOP policiy ever enriched or benefited any person who is NOT among the very wealthiest people in America if not the world. If you are not a billionaire, you are nuts to vote GOP.

---

---

A Vote for the GOP is a Vote Against the Middle Class

by Len Hart, The Existentialist Cowboy

There is --unfortunately --NO middle ground in a two-party system. There is no compromising with evil. The fact is the GOP is the enemy of the middle class; it is, in fact, the party of 'make war and share the booty with the cult of the ruling elites".

Put another way: the GOP is the party of 1) WARS FOR BOOTY 2) WARS which benefit ONLY the ruling elites.

The Romney-Ryan-Republican plan in a nutshell:

1. It would, in effect, end Medicare, defund Planned Parenthood, repeal Obamacare
2. It would slash student aid;
3. it would GUT Social Security.

FACE THE FACT

The United State is not nor has it been for some time a NET EXPORTING NATION. The U.S. no longer markets its products abroad; the United States no longer makes a living.

Rather --the U.S. makes a KILLING by waging wars of naked aggression which benefit ONLY the Military-Industrial Complex and a ruling elite class to whom our nation is economically enslaved.

Tax cuts benefting ONLY the ruling elite has very nearly wiped out the middle class. The millions who still believe in the middle class and/or 'fair play' MUST organize at the grassroots now. Otherwise, the GOP will BUY ITS way into power with a flood of million-dollar checks from the Koch brothers.

Also see: U.S. workers stand against Mitt Romney model of outsourced jobs

REPUBLICAN'S WAR AGAINST THE MIDDLE CLASS AMERICAN

---

---

How Citizens United Subverted the Rights of Real People

by Len Hart, The Existentialist Cowboy

I've often written about the detailed and vivid account of A. Htler's meeting with top German industrialists --Krupp, Thyseen, I.G. Farben et al. It was in that meeting that the German fascism was made real in terms of an agreement between the Reich and its 'fascist' sponsors, the huge corporations who would benefit from aggression, death and destruction. The meeting may not have defined the word 'fascism' but it most certainly birthed a Nazi regime in which corporations were given and promised not only privileges but, most importanly, big juicy contracts.

From a lesser known source is another detailed description of the nature of Hitler's fascist partnership with big business:

"From now on, the government in Berlin will allocate large sums to industrialists so that each can establish a secure post-war foundatin in foreign countries. Existing financial reserves in foreign countries must be placed at the disposal of the party in order that a strong German empire can be created after defeat. It is almost immediately required," he continued, "that the large factories in Germany establish small technical offices or research bureaus which will be absolutely independ and have no connection with the factory. The bureaus will receive plans and drawings of new weapons, as well as document which they will need to cotninue their researh. These special offices are to be established in large cities where security is better, although some might be formed in small villagtes nears sources of hyrdropeletric power, where these party member can pretend to be studying the development of water resources for benefit of Allied investigators."

--Martin Bormann, Nazi in Exile, Paul Manning, [http://spitfirelist.com/books/manning.pdf]

Some have said that the 'brand' of fascism now emerging in Western democracies, the U.S. in particular is a completely new phenomenon. I disagree! The odious 'Citizen-United' decision, in which SCOTUS decreed that corporations were 'persons', is an open and odious declaration that a corporation may utilize its wealth, riches and privileges to enslave a population of 'real people' whose humanity is as self-evident as Thomas Jefferson had declared of 'real' persons in our own 'Declaration of Independence":

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed...

Earlier, John Adams had written of the same concepts in somewhat different words:

All men are born free and equal, and have certain natural, essential, and unalienable rights; among which may be reckoned the right of enjoying and defending their lives and liberties; that of acquiring, possessing, and protecting property; in fine, that of seeking and obtaining their safety and happiness.

Now, of course, we know that these rights extend to women as well. Surely --even our crooked court must understand that. Even so, the Roberts court cannot be trusted to defend the rights of persons of any color, creed or sex. Our court cannot be trusted to recognize an even older and more venerable position: that governments derive their power power, right and right of power from the peole who are ---alone --sovereign!

We must not be surprised to find among GOPPERS an obsessive fascination with all things 'German' --inclinations, interests, political philsophies. Paul Ryan, Mitt's desperate choice for running mate, now says that Ayn Rand is not his only idol; he says that in his offices, NIETZCHE is required reading, though he is accurately described with just two words: "moral Platonist". It was Neitzche who described the world as nasty and brutish and life as short.

---

---

Mitt is Either WRONG or LYING; Corporations are NOT People and SCOTUS Cannot 'Create' Them People!

by Len Hart, The Existentialist Cowboy

Mitt Romney seemed very precise: "Of course, corporations are people, my friend!" His argument is as follows: corporations are made up of people; ergo: they ARE persons themselves.

That's not only fallacious (of course), a BAD RE-WRITE of Thomas Hobbes who described a Leviathan --a state comprised of the people in it. Not even Hobbes would have dared to say that the state IS a person! Being comprised of people is not the same thing as being a person. The philosophical literature with respect to class theory, symbolic logic, logical positivism, et al, et al is venerable. It consists of great and classical works from Plato to Russell, from Aristotle to Wittgenstein, Hobbes to Ayer. None of them confused a "class" with its members. None of them confused the passengers with the bus that carries them!

As a person, I am made up of millions of cells, each of which replicate my DNA to some degree. But to say that EACH cell IS "ME" is absurd, if not insane! What if I should prick my finger and I lose some blood? Have several hundred thousand people died? Of course not!

Romney defends his implications because money "...gets into people's pockets" by way of companies. So what? That does not make them people! But more importantly, his argument is the crude inverse of the "labor theory of value" which is espoused by most (if not all) legitimate economists. The issue is ultimately: who creates value?

What about those people not employed by the corporations about which Romney spoke? Are they NOT people? In Romney's view, taken to its logical conclusions, one must work or indenture him/herself to a corporation in order to be a person! Absurd!

If Romney's logic were valid, LABOR UNIONS would be people because "people" belong to it! Wager: Romney will make a convenient exception. He will deny that LABOR UNIONS are people though the case on behalf of labor unions is a much better than than Mitt's case for "corporations". [See: If Corporations are people, then, perhaps Labor Should Become a 'Person'] I know of no law that would prohibit any organization from "incorporating". I suggest that labor unions "incorporate". If that is done, then corporations would have no choice but to recognize the union.

Let's consider Mitt's analogy in this way: if it were true that every cell in my body is a 'person', anyone cutting off my finger is not only guilty of assault and battery but the COLD BLOODED murder of millions of little, micropscopic 'ME's".

Being a 'person' occurs by virtue of being born of two members of the species: homo sapien! That is not the case with a corporation, any corporation, a corporation of any type! Simply, real persons are, by definition, born of other 'persons'!

By contrast, a corporation is, by definition, a charter, filed with a Secretary of State (most often Delaware); the charter outlines the corporate structure, lists the major officers and describes the 'type' of 'incorporation in legal terms. It is a NOT a person but simply a contract listing the major stockholders, summarizing the management and delegating various responsibilities.

When a corporation is given birth to by a woman as a result of her doing what human beings (persons) have done for thousands of years, then I might concur that corporations are persons. That will happn when pigs fly. And pigs WILL fly when I vote for a moron like Mitt Romney.

In the meantime, I suggest Mitt...

• go back to school
• take a biology course
• take two semesters of philosophy
• take two semesters of symbolic logic and one INTRO to the "Philosophy of Logical Analysis".

Meanwhile --corporations are NOT and never will be "people'!

---

---

Rick Santorum Attacks the Separation of Church and State

by Len Hart, The Existentialist Cowboy

The ignorant (if not moronic) right wing is stirring up fears and spreading distortions about the First Amendment again. Rick Santorum, for example, has said that the separation of church and state is NOT absolute. I beg to differ and so would have Thomas Jefferson who described a WALL OF SEPERATION between Chruch and State. And I will venture that Jefferson was in a better position to know what he was talking about and that Jeffeson was infinitely more intelligent than Rick Santorum.

The following is the text of the letter that Thomas Jefferson wrote to the Danbury Baptist Association in the State of Connecticut, assembled October 7, 1801.

To messers. Nehemiah Dodge, Ephraim Robbins, & Stephen S. Nelson, a committee of the Danbury Baptist association in the state of Connecticut.
Gentlemen

The affectionate sentiments of esteem and approbation which you are so good as to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist association, give me the highest satisfaction. my duties dictate a faithful and zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, & in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more and more pleasing.

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.

I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection & blessing of the common father and creator of man, and tender you for yourselves & your religious association, assurances of my high respect & esteem.
Th Jefferson Jan. 1. 1802.

Rick Santorum is of an authoritarian mentality that asserts a "right" to believe claptrap i.e, "intelligent design" but at the same time DENY you the right to believe modern theories of evolution. These ignoramuses label their opposition with the word Darwinian --as if 'Darwinian' were a bad word. It's NOT! Of course, Darwin's theory is "Darwinian". It also happens to be, in the man, true and verifiable. It is not theory; it's fact!

Tragically --the right wing has a mental blind spot. They are utterly INCAPABLE of applying to themselves objective rules of logic and evidence. While most intelligent people today are comfortable with the fact that the laws of physics apply equally everywhere in the universe; they are discovered, described ONLY by observation and empirical methods. The "right wing" inclined have, obviously, never considered for a moment that their thinking processes are, in fact, reversed. Intelligent people will follow a premise logically to a conclusion. The right wing --rather --ASSUMES the truth of an ideology and work backward. Forcing everything into the mold. As a result of prejudice and mentally impaired rationalizations, the right wing will accept ONLY those conclusions conforming to their prejudices. An "pen mind" is anathema to them if not completely unheard of. By any definition, the American right wing is a "kooky cult"!

---

---

Illegal Immigrants Pay More Taxes Than Many Top U.S. Corporations

by Len Hart, The Existentialist Cowboy

If 'corporations' are people, then why are they NOT paying their fair share of taxes? Some pay very little! Some pay no taxes at all! The tax burden has, in fact, fallen upon REAL people and that --in itself --proves the LIE to the SCOTUS decision known, simply, as "Citizens United" in which five robed liars decreed that 'corporations' were 'people'. Citizens United was not a 'decision; it was a bald-faced lie! If it had been the truth 'Corporations' --being 'real' people --would be paying their fair share of taxes just like hard working and often hard pressed American REAL 'real people' are doing and have been doing since this nation's founding. And, when caught breaking the law, they would be imprisoned as are 'real' real people! If the letter of law applies to people and not to corporations, then corporation are NOT and will never be 'people'! SCOTUS has become crooked!

According to the Institute for Taxation and Economic Policy (itepnet.org), undocumented workers paid billions in state organization that works on federal, state and local tax policy issues." GE, remember, paid NOTHING. Though conservatives will likely put ITEP alonside FactCheck and PolitiFact as liberal propaganda machines, ITEP is, as the NY Daily News reports, "a prestigious, nonprofit, nonpartisan research

--Illegal Immigrants Pay More Taxes Than Many Top U.S. Corporations

Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders has put out “A Guide to Corporate Freeloaders.”

1. Exxon Mobil’s 2009 profits totaled $19 billion, yet according to its SEC filings, the company received a $156 million rebate from the IRS plus it didn’t pay any federal taxes.
2. Bank of America made $4.4 billion in profits last year. This was after it received a $1 trillion bailout from the Federal Reserve and the Treasury Department, and a $1.9 billion tax refund from the IRS.
3. General Electric has made $26 billion in profits in the United States over the past five years. It’s also received a $4.1 billion tax refund from the IRS. GE has cut a fifth of its American jobs in the past nine years, and is boosting jobs overseas – where tax rates are lower. And where it can continue evading U.S. taxes.
4. Chevron’s IRS refund last year totaled $19 million but it’s 2009 profits came to a whopping $10 billion.
5. Boeing received a $30 billion contract from the Pentagon to build 179 airborne tankers. It also received a $124 million refund from the IRS.
6. Valero Energy made $68 billion in sales and received a $157 million tax refund check from the IRS. Over the past three years, it has received a $134 million tax break thanks to the oil and gas manufacturing tax reduction
7. Goldman Sachs paid 1.1% of its 2009 income in taxes. Yet it made a profit of $2.3 billion. And guess how much it received from the Federal Reserve and U.S. Treasury Department? $800 billion.
8. Citigroup profits last year totaled more than $4 billion. But it paid zero dollars in federal income tax, and received a $2.5 trillion bailout from the Federal Reserve and U.S. Treasury.
9. ConocoPhillips profits from 2007 through 2009 totaled $16 billion. But it was still awarded $461 million in tax arrears because of the oil and gas manufacturing deduction.
10. Carnival Cruise Lines is apparently getting pretty good business. Its profits over the past five years totaled more than $1.1 billion. It’s federal income tax rate, however, came to just 1.1%.

Experience had led me to believe that most of the so-called 'illegal immigrants' who live and work in the U.S. are honest, hard-working folk. They work, raise children, shop, spend money! In fact, they represent a far greater infusion of 'monies' into the economy than do corporate leeches.

These so-called 'illegal aliens' are, in fact, paying their fair share and more! Corporate crooks often pay NOTHING whatsoever even as they export jobs, possibly your job! They leave it to real 'real' people to take up the slack!

Unlike corporate leeches upon the economy, so-called 'illegal aliens' do not export jobs. Jobs stay right here in the U.S. That is in stark contrast to GOP policies in general which have always resulted in the decline of U.S. jobs, in effect, a net export to those nation's with whom we have a negative trade balance --significantly: China. [See: CIA World Fact Book, Current Account Balance]

It has been asked: when did America, a country whose narrative and history was built on the sweat of immigrants, turn against immigration and immigrants? That's easy! That result came about with the rise of the GOP --a party of lies, scapegoats and excuses!

It has been said that there has always been a strong anti-immigration element in America! But I believe that that was not always the case. In fact, the Native Americans were here thousands of years before Europeans showed up and, in many if not most or all cases, Native Americans welcomed the new arrivals. They paid dearly for it. There are myriads of stories of genocide and atrocities. I refer the interested reader to Howard Zinn's A People's History of the United States, specifically, his description of the fate of the Arawaks.

In the meantime, all Americans of every ancestry and origin must begin to think clearly about transperant, bald-faced lies that are invariably told and sold by the U.S. GOP --not a political party but an evil kooky cult.

The GOP is Not a Political Party; It's a Crime Syndicate and Kooky Cult

by Len Hart, The Existentialist Cowboy

The International Cultic Studies Association lists the defining characteristics of a 'cult'. I fully agree with the 'list' and also the assertion that the GOP meets most of several atttributes, perhaps all characteristics that define the word 'cult'.

Here is the list as 'published':

1. The group displays excessively zealous and unquestioning commitment to its leader and (whether he is alive or dead) regards his belief system, ideology, and practices as the Truth, as law.
2. The leadership dictates, sometimes in great detail, how members should think, act, and feel (for example, members must get permission to date, change jobs, marry—or leaders prescribe what types of clothes to wear, where to live, whether or not to have children, how to discipline children, and so forth).
3. The group is elitist, claiming a special, exalted status for itself, its leader(s) and members (for example, the leader is considered the Messiah, a special being, an avatar—or the group and/or the leader is on a special mission to save humanity).
4. The group has a polarized us-versus-them mentality, which may cause conflict with the wider society.

5. The group teaches or implies that its supposedly exalted ends justify whatever means it deems necessary. This may result in members’ participating in behaviors or activities they would have considered reprehensible or unethical before joining the group (for example, [torture,] lying to family or friends, or collecting money for bogus charities).
6. The most loyal members (the “true believers”) feel there can be no life outside the context of the group. They believe there is no other way to be, and often fear reprisals to themselves or others if they leave (or even consider leaving) the group.

It has always been my belief --stated often on this blog, FB, 'The Opinion', NPR, and various other forums on the internet --that the GOP is not a political party. Rather, it has characteristics of kooky cults and an organized crime syndicates.

Someone posted recently that the two parties (Dems and Gops) are indistinguisable from one another. That's just not true and, if the media had done its job, that pernicious meme might not have taken root as it most certainly has! Clearly --it was the GOP which planted it and only the GOP has benefited from it.

The occupation movement has targeted the 'ruling elite' of just one percent! That they are a 'ruling elite' and that they amount to no more than one percent of the total population is the obvious result of GOP policies favoring their base and their base is, in fact, the increasingly tiny but powerful ruling elite.

I have many issues with the Democratic party but being GOP-lite is not one of them. For all their faults, 'being as bad as the GOP' is NOT among them. I can cite three essential and defining characteristics that distinguish Democrats from the cult of GOPism:

• EVERY Dem has presided over greater GDP and JOB GROWTH than has ANY Republican Prez since 1900;
• EVERY GOP 'tax cut' has been followed by a recession/depression.
• EVERY GOP TAX CUT has resulted in the transfer of wealth UPWARD to a 'ruling elite' which is now just ONE PERCENT of the total population.

Those fact are at the core of the Occupation Movement! A corollary is this: EVERY recession/depression since 1900 has occurred during a GOP administration and as a result of GOP policy.

---

---

Subscribe

---

How the Ruling Elite of 1 percent Became the 'Ruling' Elite and What to do About it!

by Len Hart, The Existentialist Cowboy

The Obama admin should re-read Keynes! The GOP has practiced a policy that is 180 degrees out of phase with Keynes and, as a result, an increasingly tiny elite of just 1 percent owns it all! Millionaires, BILLIONAIRES who invest their 'tax cut windfalls' have never, ever stimulated the economy; NO GOP tax cut has ever created a single job let alone stimulated an economy.

The fact is: in every instance, every GOP tax cut has been followed by a recession/depression and higher unemployment accompanied, most often, by negative job growth and negative GDP growth. In numerous previous articles, I have posted the official stats, the government's own stats that prove that! The Keynesian solution is NOT the GOP solution. And the GOP 'solution' is NOT a solution but may be a calculated lie!

The Keynesian solution would put monies into the hands of those will will use it, spend in ways that stimulate the economy. That this outcome has never followed a GOP tax cut tells me that the ruling 1 percent --which alone benefit from GOP tax cuts --are not investing in the U.S. Rather, they are squirreling away their riches in offshore bank accounts, tax dodges, i.e, 'instruments' which do not and have never created jobs in the U.S. In fact, the opposite has occurred.

An individual who repeats a failed strategy is correctly called a moron! What is to be said of an entire nation which is repeatedly duped by the GOP again and again and again? The GOP record is both a fraud and a tragedy and the American people have paid dearly for it.

The Occupy Wall Street protests are shining a national spotlight on the most powerful, dangerous, and secretive economic and political force in America.

If this country is to break out of the horrendous recession and create the millions of jobs we desperately need, if we are going to create a modicum of financial stability for the future, there is no question but that the American people are going to have to take a very hard look at Wall Street and demand fundamental reforms. I hope these protests are the beginning of that process.

Let us never forget that as a result of the greed, recklessness, and illegal behavior on Wall Street, this country was plunged into the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression. Millions of Americans lost their jobs, homes, and life savings as the middle class underwent an unprecedented collapse. Sadly, despite all the suffering caused by Wall Street, there is no reason to believe that the major financial institutions have changed their ways, or that future financial disasters and bailouts will not happen again.

--Senator Bernie Sanders: Six Proposals for Helping the 99%, Buzzflash

I tire of the line that reads: 'there are no differences' between the parties'! That's simply not true. The GOP would love for you to fall for it! There are many differences but the economic differences are most easily identified and graphed. Whatever your differences with the Democratic party, not voting is simply not an option given the rapacious and destructive policies of the GOP. Not voting concedes the nation to right wing ideologues, i.,e the ruling elite of just 1 percent of the total population.

NOT VOTING --is what 'they' want you to do!

NOT VOTING ensures that the ever powerful and well-heeled GOP machine will finish the job of making the United States a Fascist nation.

NOT VOTING is surrendering!

NOT VOTING is 'giving up' or bending over!

NOT VOTING is the GOP's best friend! If they ever gain absolute power, they may decide to do away with VOTING entirely thus you will have been robbed of one of the few options you have left. Welcome to the Brave New World! Now --what can one do?

GET INVOLVED IN PARTY POLITICS!

If you don't like the Democratic party --INFILTRATE IT and urge everyone you know to infiltrate it. We don't have a lot of time and the Democrats already have an infrastructure in place. Eventually, when it is successful, the 'occupation movement' will be absorbed and, hopefully, it's ideals will be affirmed by an established mainstream party and, eventually, made the policy of the nation. At that point, we will have won!

ORGANIZE!

Read SAUL ALINSKY, a 'left leaning, liberal' and organizer who scared the pants off the GOP! They were so frightened of him that they adopted his policies and used them against us! Now --who is to blame for that but the 'sunshine liberal' who decides to just sit on his ass and gripe because the world does not measure up to his unrealistic expectations?

Alinsky urged that REAL activists organize block by block, precinct by precinct, county by county, state by state!

FIRST --you take back the Democratic party by taking back the neighborhoods

SECONDLY --you organize the neighborhoods to take back the party machines for progressives and/or liberals

THIRD --having taken back the DEMOCRATIC PARTY, you organize at the state level to get out the fucking vote.

Now --if liberals/progressives are not willing to read Alinsky (the GOP has) or if liberals/progressives are not willing to work to reform the ONLY FUCKING PARTY you're gonna get given the corrupt system we have inherited, then there is really nothing else I can tell them; there is really little else as I can advise save: LEARN TO LOVE getting it up the ass because from here on out the GOP is going to stick it to you but prefers you bend over first!

---

Media Conglomerates, Mergers, Concentration of Ownership, Global Issues, Updated: January 02, 2009

Subscribe

Add to Google

Add Cowboy Videos to Google

How the GOP Will Bring About the End of Capitalism

by Len Hart, The Existentialist Cowboy

The GOP gets away with a big lie! The GOP has convinced millions that the GOP is the party of smaller government coupled with smaller debts and deficits. The fact is: EVERY Democratic regime at least since World War II has presided over smaller debts and deficits than any GOP regime and --at the same time --has created more jobs and greater growth in GDP.

These are facts that can be confirmed at the U.S. Commerce Department B.E.A. and the Bureau of Labor Statistics to name just two. There is a table [Wikipedia] that lists the gross U.S. federal debt as a percentage of GDP by Presidential term since World War II. As the detailed version of the graphic above, it PROVES my point with detailed and verified numbers.

Now if you happen to believe that creating fewer jobs and --worse --exporting them to China is a good thing, then, by all means, vote GOP! Like clockwork, jobs will migrate and GDP will, naturally as a result, take a dive. And, by voting GOP, you will have helped bring about that outcome. Live with yourself! The GOP, in the meantime, will routinely lie to you about this issue if they cannot avoid it. I often wonder why it seems never to come up in debates.

At present, the gross federal debt as a percentage of GDP (83.4% at the end of 2009) is higher than it has ever been since the late 1940s. This is the Bush Jr legacy. By way of background, the debt briefly reached over 100% of GDP in the aftermath of World War II.

Debt of any type increases when money is borrowed. The Federal debt, likewise, increases whenever the government borrows money, whenever the Treasury or other agencies issue 'securities', very literally a 'promissory note'.

The public debt increases or decreases as a result of annual unified budget deficit or surplus. The federal government budget deficit or surplus is defined as the the cash difference between government receipts and government spending; it ignores intra-governmental transfers.

Some recent history

That outcome is clearly by design and by definition it is not Marxism. Nor ---as the 'brown suit' says --is wealth created by so-called 'free market capitalism'. Rather --it is unrestrained, free market capitalism that has, in fact, created every depression since the Great Depression which began with the stock market crash of 1929.

At the same time, the GDP, i.e, the annual gross domestic product, to the end of June 2011 was $15.003 trillion. That means that the 'gross debt' is about 98% of GDP; debt held by the public is about 67% of GDP.Elsewhere, one can expect the 'libertarian' CATO institute to shill for the upper, upper classes, i.e, the ruling elite of just 1 percent of the population.

The disaster Bush left Obama

The facts are clear enough and available to anyone who will bother to access the U.S. Commerce Department-B.E.A., the Bureau of Labor Statistics, and non-partisan think tanks. That rules out Brookings! In the video below, the CATO spokesman ignores the lessons of history and the stats I've posted above. The right wing would rather not mention these numbers. The right wing would rather you had never read or accessed them; the right wing would rather you remain uninformed, in the dark, ignorant! The right wing cannot sell its bullshit to informed and intelligent people.

With respect to the following video specifically, the 'battle ground' is imprecisely chosen. Progressives must take the higher ground while forcing the enemy into a boxed canyon. Liberals err by giving liars the benefit of doubt and letting spin doctors and their liar clients 'off the hook'. The GOP, rather, should be reminded of how wrong they are every day if not every hour. Perhaps --eventually --in the face of mountains of verifiable data, they will surrender or be buried.

With respect to the video, someone should include among their talking points that the transfer of wealth upward to just 1 percent is just as destructive to the economy as would be the utter destruction of all that wealth in a nuke, just as destructive as loading up dollars and assets on a ocean liner and shipping it abroad. It matters not where. That's true because the very, very wealthy invest their moneys offshore. The do not put the money back into a local economy as the Building and Loan had done in the classic film with Jimmy Stewart: "It's a Wonderful Life".

Wealth transferred to the elite --by way of unfair GOP tax cuts benefiting only the upper 1 percent --is, in effect, a transfer of wealth outside the economy. In other words, it is, by definition, a contraction of the economy.

The transfer of wealth occurs in numerous ways. Offshore bank accounts are typical and most often exploited by the elites. It is unfortunate that is is CAPITAL ---not labor --which controls U.S. wealth though it is labor that creates it. Every economist knows the truth of that. It's called the 'labor theory of value'.

That capital has acquired a de facto ownership of the 'state' does not support any defense of 'capital', NOR does it disprove Marx whose views with regard to the 'labor theory of value' are mainstream despite the radical reputation that right wing morons have ascribed to Marx. The empirical evidence, meanwhile, proves that Marx was absolutely correct and is repeatedly confirmed --ironically --by GOP regimes.

The End of Capitalism? [video h/t Vera Narishkin]

---

Of Method and Madness

by Len Hart, The Existentialist Cowboy

So what difference does it make if Republicans –as a class –espouse a pack of malicious lies? So what?

The sane and insane alike act upon what they believe to be true and those actions invariably affect us all. What good can come of actions premised upon lies? Arguably, this is history's greatest lesson: that mankind's greatest atrocities, crimes, and inhumanities invariably followed from ignorance, bigotry, and superstition i.e., the irrational belief in lies.

Some people are merely ignorant and act upon beliefs that can easily be shown to be misinformed, misunderstood, or just plain wrong. More disturbing, however, are those people who simply refuse to confront evidence contrary to their beliefs and prejudices and even worse-- continue to act upon them though they know them to be false. What, for example, is to be said of Southern bigots who gleefully hanged, burned, and "barbecued" innocent black people throughout the South?

Charitably, there are, perhaps, some poor ignorant folk just don't know any better, But this cannot be said of all them. Many know better and many more are in a position to educate themselves. There are few increasingly fewer excuses for ignorance. It is important to keep in mind that this did not happen deep in the Teutoborg Forest of the Sixth Century A.D. –but in the American South in the 20th.

Crimes of similar magnitude and effect have taken place even more recently. What is to be said of Jaspar, Texas bigots who dragged a black man at high speeds over back country roads until very nearly nothing was left of his body? What is to be said of Saudi terrorists who think that Allah will reward them with virgins for killing Americans?

Polonius, in Shakespeare's Hamlet, said: "Though this be madness, yet there is method in it." There is an inexorable logic in madness, murder, and malice; would-be killers justify their crimes transparently after the fact: black people, it will be said, are inferior; homosexuals, it will be maintained, are an 'abomination to God'. Perhaps every crime is similarly justified after the fact. This is the "brave new world" of our own absurd making.

Though she is a somewhat more sympathetic figure than ignorant, malicious bigots, fanatics, and fundamentalists –both Islamic and Christian –Andrea Yates' delusion came to no good. Five innocent children are dead because Andrea believed a lie! Perhaps Andrea is not responsible or perhaps she is –but what is to be said of the jury, which found her guilty, based upon a belief that insanity means not knowing right from wrong. That, of course, is the "legal" standard in Texas. Like Dickens' Mr. McCawber of David Copperfield, I submit to you that if that is the law, then, "...the law is a [sic] ass!" The standard should be whether the offender is responsible not whether the offender knows right from wrong. If history is any guide, then NO one knows right from wrong. Certainly not the churches of any religion who have committed innumerable crimes against humanity in the name of God, Allah, and ÆÖwëmathúooh! Certainly not nations, states, or governments that have kept apace of the various churches and religions in the number and magnitude of their crimes and sins. Are entire nations and entire religions to be judged "insane" by the Texas legal standard?

I make a distinction between a purposeful Hitler and those who merely make mistakes. Unless he was incredibly stupid, Adolph Hitler must have known that the racial myth upon which he justified the genocide of some six or seven million Jews in Europe was a lie –a black-hearted lie. Yet, he acted upon it. Ronald Reagan, a dimwit by any reckoning, may not have known that "supply side economics" was a bogus rationalization that would throw millions of people out of work, but his clever scheming cabinet and Machiavellian manipulators certainly did. If I should hear another disingenuous Republican swoon about how "Reagan made us feel good about ourselves," I may puke. Some people ought not to feel good about themselves. Some people ought to lose sleep at night. Some people ought to have bad dreams and night terrors –a phenomenon that recent studies have shown is commonplace among Republicans.

In medieval times, the European Continent was an unlikely birth place for an enlightenment that would not come for another 1,000 years. A trial, for example, was based less upon evidence or witnesses than upon the outcome of an ordeal in which it was believed God would assert his powers. Disputes were resolved by combat; it was believed that God would favor whoever was in the right. Suspected witches were often subject to trial by water in which those found innocent were no better off than those judged guilty. Those who survived did so because the "pure" water had rejected them. Found guilty, they were later burned; those who sank and drown were, thus, found innocent but eventually just as dead.

The purpose of the trial may have served but one purpose: that of assuaging an inquisitors' guilt and that of a delusional community. It doubtless made them feel better about themselves! Shared guilt seems to be better tolerated. The insane logic behind this may be forgiven a primitive culture, but can the same perverted logic be forgiven modern demagogues who smear innocents with the incredibly insane and medieval assertions that no evidence is, in fact, evidence of guilt? Perhaps Republican malice and ill-will might have been satisfied if Gary Condit and Bill Clinton had been subjected to trial by fire, water, or joust where only by death is innocence proved!

The standard defense will be: but Democrats do it, too! By that logic I should kill a Jew! Nazis did so! I should drag a black man to his death because Jaspar rednecks did; I should hijack an airliner and use it as a weapon because a fundamentalist Saudi did so; I should disrupt elections because Bush minions did so in Florida. I could justify a panoply of crimes and horrors.

Perhaps, if I believed that tax cuts for wealthy people would not aggravate the growing disparity between rich and poor which, in fact, began under Reagan and has continued, might sell out, compromise the last vestige of integrity and then get in line for my share. Perhaps, if I believed that people could depend on Enron-like retirement plans and the stock market, I would support raiding the Social Security trust fund to pay for a Star Wars defense shield rendered moot by the events of 9/11.

The Nuremberg War Crimes Trials were significant for several reasons. They affirmed a standard of personal responsibility –not knowledge of right and wrong; the trials discredited the defense: but we were only following orders. Shared guilt is still guilt.

Secondly, it was a study of the very face of evil. Dr. Gustav Gilbert, the psychologist assigned the thankless job of counseling the rogues' gallery of Nazi criminals, thugs, and perverts, said that as a result of his interviews, he arrived at what he thought was the very source of evil: a complete and utter lack of empathy. I can only add that it is only empathy that prevents us acting upon our worst motives and impulses, and upon the lies we cite to make us feel better about ourselves when we have done so.

War Crimes Debate

---

Subscribe

Add to Google

Add Cowboy Videos to Google

Tell Rick Perry that there was NO 'Texas Miracle'

by Len Hart, The Existentialist Cowboy

As a fourth generation Texan, a descendant of Texas pioneers, I deny a favorite myth among the GOP inclined. There was no 'Texas Miracle' --a term cooked up in a GOP focus group, fly-by-night political consultants (perhaps from Chicago). Fact is --not only has education dropped off the radar, Texas has run out of oil that can be pumped profitably; real jobs are as scarce as hen's teeth.

Frankly, I am surprised to learn that --as economist Paul Krugman points out -- in June 2011 the Texas unemployment rate was ONLY 8.2 percent. I had expected that it would have been higher. About that, economist Paul Krugman asks: "...what does population growth have to do with job growth?" Krugman is right to ask! The point is made as only Krugman can make it! Indeed, if the 'Texas Miracle' had been real, Texas should not be boasting of unemployment rates as high as 8.2 percent.

But I am disappointed that Krugman has not mentioned the BUSH-PERRY scam about which I have screamed bloody murder! I believe that unemployment figures for TX would be much, much higher if those millions left behind by Bush-Perry neglect/subversion of public education were showing up in the stats. But --they are not! They are not showing up because those "left behind" are finding the only long-term employment that is available to them in the corporate-owned prisons, what I call the Bush-Perry Gulag!

This is not the result of GOP incompetence. It is, rather, the result of deliberate GOP crookery at the party-leadership level. This is the result of the GOP's deliberate neglect of education. It is one of several reasons the GOP is not a poltiical party; it is a crime syndicate, a kooky cult!

The only pockets lined by GOP largesse (pork) are the pockets of an increasingly tiny ruling elite now just 1 percent of the total US population. Official stats prove my assertions; those numbers can be found at the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the U.S. Census Bureau and the U.S. Commerce Dept-B.E.A. Be prepared to see proof that the GOP, Mitt Romney, Rick Perry et al are lying, distorting the effects of every GOP tax cut in U.S. history.

In each case, the cuts --enriching only the upper, upper classes and the corporate owners of prisons --are followed by recessions, depressions. ERGO: GOP tax cuts do not and have never stimulated the economy, have never created a single job! In fact, job growth has either declined or gone negative (net job loss) after every GOP tax cut. In fact, every recession/depression since 1900 has been the result of either GOP incompetence or crookedness or both.

It is for this reason primarily that BUSH-PERRY neglected education. A state that will not educate new generations deserves to pay for the privilege of neglect with much higher crime rates. But even that is not the point ---the point is that the GOP and the CORPORATE OWNED PRISONS benefit from the whole package: 1) LOWER HIGH SCHOOL GRADUATIONS 2) HIGHER CRIME RATES 3) HIGHER PROFITS FOR CORPORATE-OWNED PRISONS. It's the GOP formula.

Given what we know about the GOP record in Texas, we should not be surprised to learn that a failed governor from a 'gulag' state, a failed governor with more hair than brains, an inarticulate governor challenged to spell 'ed-joo-ka-shun' should wish to occupy the White House, a 'perch' from which he might prey upon the future of an entire nation and the futures of all the people who live in it.

So when Mr. Perry presents himself as the candidate who knows how to create jobs, don’t believe him. His prescriptions for job creation would work about as well in practice as his prayer-based attempt to end Texas’s crippling drought.

--Paul Krugman, The Texas Unmiracle

There was NO 'Texas Miracle'!

Unless you consider the rise of the prison system to be a 'miracle'! I don't! Nor am I impressed with pimples on the much larger curve. I grew up with the boom and bust 'oil industry' and consider it an utterly failed strategy akin to playing Blackjack or Roulette in the expection of, one day, hitting a jackpot! I cannot count the number of 'busts' that I witnessed growing up. And from each 'bust' only the very, very rich benefited. In any case, when it is deemed more profitable to attack and invade another Middle Eastern country, temporary 'bubbles' will always burst. But crime --as a result of the GOP/right wing sabotage of education --will ensure that the corporate run prisons are full. What a racket!!

GOP policy is anti-education! It was the evil axis of Bush-Perry that made of Texas the GULAG STATE!

---

---

It's Time for Rush Limbaugh to Go!

by Len Hart, The Existentialist Cowboy

Free speech is not free! It is paid for with responsibility! Rush Limbaugh, however, has made a career of "...yelling fire in a crowded theater" when, in fact, there is NO fire! Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.'s decision re: Eugene Debs means that Rush has routinely exceeded the limits of free speech. But the Holmes decision was fallaciously applied to Debs; Rush, by contrast, is defined by shrill cries of 'fire' when --in fact --there is no fire!

We might tolerate Rush if the Fairness Doctrine were restored. His opponents would at least be heard. They are sure to be more intelligent, articulate and even entertaining; the nation would be better for it!

How long would Rush last if he had to compete in truly free market, if he were compelled by law to be responsible as I was compelled as a working broadcast journalist in major U.S. markets? I was expected to be responsible and professional; but Rush lives down to lower expectations, lower standards. He is expected, even encouraged to be irresponsible, outrageous, dishonest and boorish!

We might tolerate Rush had he ever made a good faith effort to inform his audiences with respect to real issues as opposed to his constant demoguoguery, his fussilade of lies and ad hominem attacks, propaganda, strawmen, distortions, outright lies and --most egregiously --bigotry and/or racial slurs most notably those about black athletes and, specifically, the great quarterback Warren Moon et al.

If an intelligent man like Eugene Debs --whose only crime was that of exercising his conscience i.e, opposing the U.S. entry into WWI --could be imprisoned, then Rush, who has exhorted treason and bigotry in response to phony threats and strawmen, should be held responsible for having abused 'privileges' that the rest of us had --at one time --enjoyed responsibly as 'rights'. Why is Rush given 'license' when, in fct, the rest of us are DENIED the benefits of 'free speech' by having been denied access to what had publically owned airwaves. Rush is prescisely what the GOP had in minded when, under Ronald Reagan, the Fairness Doctrine and the Communications Act of 1934 were rescinded, media 'de-regulated', a GOP code-word for consoidating the ownership of media into very few and very corporate hands.

Debs was courageous and smart --a man of integrity! Rush is slimy and stupid --a charlatan! Debs spoke truth to power! Rush misleads the poor and gullible for profit! He is a corporate kiss-up, a coward, a stooge who peddles propaganda for profit! Debs accepted responsibility for what he had made of himself and was prepared to accept the consequences. Rush is a coward who blames all on 'niggers', poor people and 'liberals, LIBERALS, LIBERALS!!!

“When we are in partnership and have stopped clutching each other's throats, when we have stopped enslaving each other, we will stand together, hands clasped, and be friends. we will be comrades, we will be brothers, and we will begin the march to the grandest civilization the human race has ever known.”

--Eugene Debs, American Activist

It is time for Rush Limbaugh to GO!

---

---

Truth to Power: A Blunt Assessment of US Crimes in Iraq

by Len Hart, The Existentialist Cowboy

I have not merely blogged. I would like to think that I spoke 'truth to power'. I literally petitioned, perhaps harassed, my congressman --John Culberson, representing the 7th District. To his credit, Culberson responded though nothing he said was true, accurate or relevant. Most of the time he (or his staffers) just rewrote the official Bush 'line'. It requires K-street size money to get real and/or effective access to your elected representatives.

Having put into place numerous Draconian measures, George W. Bush, it was feared, would not leave the White House. He had, after all, declared the Constitution to be 'just a worthless piece of paper'; he had already begun a war against Iraq upon a pack of bald-faced lies!

§ 2441. War crimes(a) Offense.— Whoever, whether inside or outside the United States, commits a war crime, in any of the circumstances described in subsection (b), shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for life or any term of years, or both, and if death results to the victim, shall also be subject to the penalty of death.

--U.S. Codes, Title 18, Section 2441">TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 118 > § 2441

Not only Americans but much of the world were suckered by 911 cited by Bush as justification to attack and invade Iraq! An attack on Iraq might have been justified if Iraq had attacked the United States or, if it had posed a clear and present danger. Iraq had posed no threat! In fact, during the administration of George H.W. Bush, Saddam consulted with American diplomats before lowering the price of oil! For his efforts, he was misled --perhaps deliberately ---by U.S. Ambassador April Glaspie. Upon a nod, Saddam lowered the price of oil but later paid the price for having done so: Persian Gulf War I.

911 was not nearly so subtle! In fact, George W. Bush committed heinous crimes for which U.S. Codes prescribe the penalty of death! It remains beyond logic, commonsense, fact or psychotic delusion to consider for a moment that Iraq had anything to do with the attacks of911! Yet --Bush would puke up 911 to umbrella a panoply of capital crimes, atrocities, and heinous crimes against humanity not seen since A. Hitler or Pol Pot! As long as the rich and powerful remain above those laws applying to everyone else, then justice does not exist! As long a elites are exempted, the phrase 'rule of law' is hollow. As long as Bush is 'free' no one else is!

Not even Bush or his corrupt administration dared to claim that Saddam had anything whatsoever to do with 911!

Stiglitz received renewed attention for a paper [PDF], co-written with Harvard professor of public finance Linda Bilmes that projected that the total economic costs of the Iraq War would exceed a trillion dollars. The hundreds of billions Congress has already approved for the war, they argued, tells only half the story. It doesn't account for, among other things, increases in defense spending, the long-term costs for veterans' health care and disabilities, the lost earning potential of the Americans killed and wounded, and increases in the price of oil.

Once considered provocatively high, Stiglitz's estimates now appear conservative in light of escalating sectarian violence and the American troop surge in Iraq. The president's latest budget proposal, while calling for deep cuts to Medicare and other domestic programs, dramatically ramps up funding for fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan. It also adds another $44 billion to the Pentagon's budget, which has already expanded nearly 50 percent since Bush took office. On the same day the administration sent its latest budget proposal to Congress, Mother Jones spoke with the iconoclastic economist about myopic Iraq War accounting, the need for a military draft, and the task of putting a price tag on human life.

--Koshlan Mayer-Blackwell, MotherJones, Iraq War Sticker Shock: The Trillion Dollar War that Will Bankrupt America?

Bush had been warned ---but, upon a pack of lies, he marched this nation off to war and ruin! After repudiating the very sovereignty of the people by way of our Constitution, after abrogating the guarantees of Due Process of Law, having repudiated habeas corpus, and arrogating unto himself the powers of a dictator --why did Bush leave willingly?

It is not as if the disaster had not or could not have been predicted. Following (everything below the line) is the text of my letter to my congressman. For 'readability' issues, I have not 'blockquoted' it. I was remiss not to record the date of the letter.

---

John Culberson
Member of Congress
7th District

Honorable Member of Congress:

Thank you for your reply to my concerns about the Bush administration's case for War in Iraq. I have considered your points --in block-quotes --followed by my reply:

I believe that the Bush administration made the correct decision to remove Saddam Hussein from power and liberate Iraq after Saddam continue to disobey numerous United Nations resolutions and refuse diplomatic offers.

No one disagrees that Saddam was a "bad man". With all due respect, that is not the issue. The world is full of "bad men" and, in most cases, the United States does not invade and occupy their countries. One wonders: what is the compelling difference in Iraq? That it has oil?

Secondly, it is unclear and most certainly not proven by anything available in the public record that Saddam was not in compliance with United Nations resolutions when he was attacked and invaded. U.N. inspectors had, in fact, asked for a reasonable amount of time in which to complete their tasks.

Only if they had been allowed to complete their responsibilities could it have been known conclusively whether or not Saddam was or was not in compliance with specific U.N. Resolutions. Moreover, U.N. resolution 1441 orders Iraq to comply with said resolutions – but does not sanction the use of force by the United States --specifically invasion of a sovereign nation and occupation of same by U.S. Forces.

Lacking the "cover" of International law or sanction, the U.S. invasion and occupation of Iraq is a violation of the Nuremberg Principles. [Principles of the Nuremberg Tribunal]

Saddam used chemical weapons on his own people many times, and since the end of hostilities dozens of mass graves and torture rooms have been discovered.

Saddam's use of chemical weapons "...on his own people" is a reference to a well-publicized gassing of Kurds in 1988 – some 15 years ago. If this were a pressing issue, why has it taken the US so long to go to war. Obviously --Saddam was not a priority and most certainly not a 'clear and present danger'.

Persian Gulf I was fought since that time and the U.N.'s Hans Blix raised the credible possibility that Hussein's weapons were destroyed either by the Persian Gulf War itself or voluntarily by Saddam in its wake --or both! In any case, no weapons have been found since U.S. troops have occupied Iraq.

Moreover, former CIA analyst Stephen Pelletiere argued persuasively that Saddam's alleged gassing of Kurds in the waning months of the Iran-Iraq war may have been perpetrated by Iran --not Iraq! If that is the case, then none of the arguments with regard to Saddam's alleged gassing of the Kurds is relevant.

Let us assume for the sake of argument that Saddam indeed used gas some 15 years ago! At that time, the Saddam regime was nothing more than a U.S. puppet regime. What was the source of his weapons if not the United States? That question has not been answered by either our elected officials or the mass media.

References to the "gassing" incident in the Bush case for war is really this subtle argument: because Saddam used gas on his own people, if he should obtain nuclear weapons, he will use them. In fact, Saddam had many opportunities to use poison gas and biological agents on the Coalition forces and Israel during the Persian Gulf I. But not even Bush partisans have alleged that he did so. UN arms inspectors later found warheads capable of delivering these weapons that could have been used by Iraq -- but were not!

More recently, it was widely reported and speculated in the Bush administration's run up to war that in the event, Saddam Hussein would be most likely to use biochemical weapons if he felt under mortal threat. He was most certainly under mortal threat --yet there is no evidence that he used such weapons --either on his own people who were expected to rise in up revolt against Saddam or against the invading U.S. army or against U.S. troops.

Most speculation [and 'speculation' is, in fact, all that it is] about why he did not involves complex violations of Occam's Razor and other logical legerdemain. The simplest explanation for Hussein's failure to use such weapons is that he, in fact, did not have any.

He never offered any evidence that he had ceased his chemical, biological, and nuclear programs.

That such weapons were never found confirms Hussein's version. It does not support Bush. By that time, the burden of proof was on Bush to prove his assertions. Those who assert must prove. This is true in any legitimate courtroom; it is true in 'debate'; it should be true of propaganda! That is it not is a defining characteristic of propaganda! Negatives cannot be proven.

Nevertheless – U.N. inspectors had been and were doing their jobs in Iraq! This was true even as Colin Powell made his presentation to the United Nations. The mechanism by which Saddam's claims could have been proven or disproved was in place. Clearly – the Bush administration had nothing to gain by allowing the truth to be discovered and heard! The truth would have undermined the plans that were already in place, perhaps, even before Bush v Gore would award the election to Bush.

But the search for WMD continues as it had before the invasion. But now the American people are picking up a huge tab. The cost of the war and the occupation must be added to the cost of a weapons search. U.N. inspectors could have been allowed to complete their jobs at much less cost. It is increasingly difficult to see what has been gained. Yet --the American people are expected to pick up the tab.

We have learnt from September 11 that we cannot afford to ignore those who hate us and are willing to use weapons of mass destruction.

Our current policies --if continued --are guaranteed to multiply the number of people who hate us. We are --in fact --less safe!

The search team led by Dr. David Kay has already discovered troubling evidence about Saddam's intentions.

Here is the thesis sentence from Dr. David Kay's report which I have read in its entirety:

"We have discovered dozens of WMD-related programme activities and significant amounts of equipment that Iraq concealed from the United Nations."

David Kay also cautioned: "It is far too early to reach any definitive conclusions and, in some areas, we may never reach that goal." It his this sentence which you failed to mention in your reply.

George Bush and Colin Powell, however, have most certainly reached definite and firm conclusions --conclusions which together made up their case for war and Colin Powell's presentation of ten year old, black and white satellite photos to the United Nations.

Again --with all due respect: the American people were not "sold" war with Iraq on the basis of Saddam's intentions; we were told repeatedly that Saddam HAD weapons of mass destruction --not that he was merely --and not surprisingly intending --to develop them or that he had merely a "programme". This focus on "intent" is new to administration rhetoric and nothing less than an ex post facto case for war! It is the Bush administration (and GOP) attempt to re-write the record, to 'spin' history.

What is said about Bush's case now was not the case that Bush and Colin Powell had, in fact, made in the run up to war nor is it the case that Colin Powell had made to the United Nations. The GOP rewrite of history is 'Orwellian'.

It has uncovered papers showing Saddam recently attempted to purchase missile parts from North Korea.

That's hardly surprising! It does, however, point up the hypocritical differences in the way Bush treats North Korea and Iraq. North Korea is a nation which openly pursues the development of Nuclear Weaponry. Your letter raises the question of whether or not U.S. rhetoric has motivated other nations to seek not only missile parts but also "yellow cake".

Besides --Iraq was cheated. According to the Washington Post, North Korea never made good on the deal and refused to refund some $10 million to Iraq.

Investigators have also discovered new research on biological agents and unmanned aerial vehicles that could disperse chemical or biological weapons. The team has repeatedly found evidence of deception, from burned computers to recently scrubbed missiles trailers.

Intentions! If Bush and Powell had made only this case, how deep would have been the support for war?

Two Iraqi weapons scientists cooperating with Dr. Kay were shot to prevent them from telling what they know.

Every media report that I have read concerning this incident attributed it to solely to Dr. Kay. There is, so far, no independent corroboration of the motive to which you refer. What is your source? Secondly, the fact that two scientists who were most probably involved in a weapons program of some sort does not prove that Saddam had stockpiled weapons of mass destruction at the time of the U.S. invasion and occupation. Nor does it change the fact that there is no authorization under International Law for the U.S. attack.

Iraqi roughly the size of California, and Dr. Kay noted that the yet unaccounted for weapons of mass destruction could be stored in a space the size of a two car garage.

We are paying a high price in lives and dollars if the U.S. case for war has been reduced to a search for a two-car garage --a search that might have been conducted less expensively and more efficiently under the cover of International Law by U.N. inspectors.

Additionally, it does not follow that because WMD were "unaccounted" for that they, in fact, existed. The term "unaccounted for" implies that there is a mysterious "inventory" somewhere against which existing reports are measured. Where is that inventory, who compiled it --and how?

Until those questions are answered, any statement about "unaccounted for" weapons is meaningless. Furthermore --Kay's report made no claim that Hussein had actual weapons of mass destruction although, selectively, Bush read a passage from the report that indicated that Saddam was determined to get them. That was to be expected but it hardly justifies a war of aggression.

Significantly, a different tact is taken in the case of North Korea, and perhaps in the cases of other nations that have escaped the glare of administration assisted publicity. I am not sure what this proves --other than an uneven, inconsistent, and impractical policy of pre-emption cannot possibly form the cornerstone of a viable foreign policy in a civilized and rational nation.

Finally, there is no compelling reason to believe that Dr. Kay, however professional he may be, will find weapons when in fact there is dubious probable cause that they existed during the run up to war. Good money --billions --after bad. No one can find that which does not exist!

In my opinion, there is absolutely nothing in the Kay report that supports Bush's original case for war. The Kay report, however, was expertly used to divert attention from Bush's original case --best summed up by Sen. Robert Byrd:

We were told that we were threatened by weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, but they have not been seen.

We were told that the throngs of Iraqi's would welcome our troops with flowers, but no throngs or flowers appeared.

We were led to believe that Saddam Hussein was connected to the attack on the Twin Towers and the Pentagon, but no evidence has ever been produced.

We were told in 16 words that Saddam Hussein tried to buy "yellow cake" from Africa for production of nuclear weapons, but the story has turned into empty air.
We were frightened with visions of mushroom clouds, but they turned out to be only vapors of the mind.

We were told that major combat was over but 101 [as of October 17] Americans have died in combat since that proclamation from the deck of an aircraft carrier by our very own Emperor in his new clothes.

--Sen Robert Byrd

Bush himself had stated that Saddam had tried to buy "yellow cake" in Niger. That this statement may have lead to "leaks" which imperiled the CIA's search for WMD world wide is reason enough in and of itself for Congress to investigate the entire case for war, how the case was presented, how intelligence and evidence contrary to the Bush case were handled.

America is safer now that Saddam does not have weapons of mass destruction, and I support building a stable and prosperous Iraqi democracy that can lead by example in the Middle East.

Everyone supports a stable and prosperous Iraq. The question is: is invading and occupying a sovereign nation in violation of the Nuremberg principles a prudent way to accomplish that aim?

It is easy enough to assert that America is safer --but unless and until WMD are found in Iraq, it is simply fallacious to ascribe that "safety" to Bush administration policies in Iraq. My neighbor may sprinkle salt on his lawn to keep elephants out of his front yard; but the fact that there is not an elephant within 5,000 miles of his house is hardly proof that it works.

A more compelling case can be made, however, that the world as a whole is less safe as a direct result of the Bush "doctrine" of pre-emption.

Clearly, Bush has made no "aggressive" attempts to disarm nuclear powers Pakistan and India. North Korea, meanwhile, clearly seems to have accelerated its nuclear program as a direct result of the perceived "Bush" threat.

Furthermore, there is documentary evidence from the FBI (published by the Brookings Institution) that as Ronald Reagan waged a similar "war on terrorism" with similar rhetoric ("...you can run but you can't hide") terrorist attacks on the United States increased. There were, in fact, three times as many such attacks during the Reagan years as during the Clinton years. I doubt seriously that America, indeed, the world, is safer under the Bush administration.

I sincerely hope that you would give my views serious consideration. At a time when most Americans have become convinced that politicians of both parties are merely pawns of big money, big lobbies, and/or the Military/Industrial complex, it would signal a triumph for Democracy itself if – just once – a political issue might be won upon verifiable facts and the merits of a real debate as opposed to various transparent and/or stupid labels and slogans.

Sincerely

Len Hart

---

---