Censorship in Saudi Arabia and Self-Censorship in America

A friend and former colleague of mine recently mentioned that, a few years ago, he had shocked a class of young Americans in an international education institution by showing them the cover of a Time magazine he had bought in Saudi Arabia where certain pictures and texts had been blacked out by the censor's black magic marker.

This is my reply:

  

I am sure the naive American students were shocked to see a cover of Time magazine blacked out with magic marker.  But what is infinitely more insidious and dangerous is the type of self-consorship and pro-government propaganda found increasingly by the American media, of which Time is no exception.

One of the best examples you could have given your students is the cover of the November 6, 1972, issue of Time.   The cover depicted a stylized dove of peace and a gigantic headling stretching diagonally across the page reading "The Shape of Peace."   The November 6, 1972 issue of Time came out just before election day, when the country was in the throes of the Vietnam War.  Who was running?  Richard Nixon for re-election and Democrat George McGovern.

Thanks in part to the Time cover, Richard Nixon won the election in a landslide, because voters were bamboozled into believing that he had a "plan for peace" and that a conclusion to the Vietnam War was imminent.  Nixon was re-elected on November 7, 1972, in one of the largest landslides in American history. He defeated McGovern with over 60 percent of the popular vote, losing only in Massachusetts and the District of Colombia..

Of course, Nixon was lying and Time was spreading that lie.  In point of fact, Nixon intensified the Vietnam War after the election.  Hardly a month after he was re-elected, on December 18-29, 1972, he lauched Operation Linebacker II, a massive bombing of Hanoi and Haiphong..  The offensive destroyed much of the remaining economic and industrial capacity of North Vietnam.  Millions of American voters realized that they had been hoodwinked by Nixon--and by the Time cover--but it was too late.

Shortly afterwards, however, the Watergate Scandal erupted.  Nixon resigned in disgrace on August 9, 1974.   

The Vietnam War did not end until April 30, 1975.

View the infamous Time cover.

Jagor

Rush Limbaugh is a fascist, a racist and a mysogynist.

The proof:

1. Fascism. Limbaugh's primary motivation for what he does--besides enjoying an over-inflated paycheck for three hours of right-wingpropaganda--is his animosity, indeed, outright hostility toward any opposing view related to the political, social benefits of a perspective of existence taht ebraces a more humanistic, liberal concept of society.

[H]e gives the false impression to his naive listeners that what he says is based not on hearsay, malarkey, bunkum, baloney and outright lies, but is truthful, because he, the most knowledgeable man in America, has all the facts, and knows more than any living human being.

Indeed, Limbaugh acts as chief spokesperson and propagandist for a fascist theocratic America.
Source: http://freethoughtperspective.net/?page_id=38

2. Racism is defined as "Hatred or intolerance of another race or other races."
Read Rush Limbaugh's Top Ten racist quotes here: http://newsone.com/nation/casey-gane-mccalla/top-10-racist-limbaugh-quotes/

3. Mysogyny is defined as "The hatred of women and girls...[including] denigration of women"
“What does that make [Sandra Fluke]?” Limbaugh said on his show Wednesday night. “It makes her a slut, right? It makes her a prostitute.”

So, bottom line, Rush Limbaugh is demonstrably a fascist, a racist and a mysogynist.  And the sooner we the people pull the plug on Rush Limbaugh the better.

Jagor

Bank of America: Too Crooked to Fail

I guess we all remember Matt Taibbi's April 2010 expose of Goldman Sachs, "The Great American Bubble Machine"  that became an immediate "must read" for all the obscenely-paid social parasites inhabiting Wall Street and environs, whose "jobs" mostly consisted of spinning gold from straw like their mentor, Rumpelstiltskin.  [If you're one of the few who haven't read it, click here: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/the-great-american-bubble-machine-20100405]

Well, now, Matt Taibbi's done it again in a new expose entitled "Bank of America: Too Crooked to Fail" and it's guaranteed to be this year's "must-read" for the remaining parasites--those who haven't already fled in disgust or have joined the ranks of the tens of thousands who been fired.

When I finished reading it, I was actually nauseous--I felt like vomiting--from outrage and anger at the  institutionalized theft, fraud and corruption on an unprecedented, multi-billion dollar scale that has not only gone unpunished but has actually been rewarded by the United States government.

A few choice excerpts:

...Bank of America torched dozens of institutional investors with billions in worthless loans, repeatedly refused to abide by contractual obligations to buy them back, evaded hundreds of millions in local fees and taxes, pushed tens of thousands of people into foreclosure using phony documents, ignored multiple court orders to stop its illegal robo-signing, and exploited President Obama's signature mortgage-relief program. The bank fixed the bids on bonds for schools and cities and utilities all over America, and even conspired to try to game the game itself – by fixing global interest rates!...

So what does the government do about a rogue firm like this, one that inflates market-wrecking bubbles, commits mass fraud and generally treats the law like its own personal urinal cake? Well, it goes without saying that you rescue that "admitted felon" at all costs – even if you have to spend billions in taxpayer money to do it...

Bank of America didn't pay a dime in federal taxes last year. Or the year before. In fact, they got a $1 billion refund last year. They claimed it was because they had pretax losses of $5.4 billion in 2010. They paid out $35 billion in bonuses and compensation that year. You do the math.

Bank of America should have gone out of business back in 2008...

This, in essence, is the business model underlying Too Big to Fail: massive growth based on huge volumes of high-risk loans, coupled with lots of fraud and cutting corners, followed by huge payouts to executives. Then, with the company on the verge of collapse, the inevitable state rescue.  In this whole picture, the only money that's ever "real" is the fat bonuses the executives cash out of the bank at the end of each year...

Full text--warning: not for the faint of heart: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/bank-of-america-too-crooked-to-fail-20120314


Jagor

"Sheriff Joe" Arpaio's days in office may be numbered

Good news for Arizona --and for America: "Sheriff Joe" Arpaio's days in office may be numbered, as he seems to be the latest politician to become a victim of his overweening hubris and arrogance:

Elise Foley reports that Arpaio is being challenged for sheriff by an independent and a Democrat, both of whom say he’s become an embarrassment to their county and Arizona in general.

When he first became sheriff, Arpaio pledged that he wouldn't run for re-election. "I'm not going to run for re-election, so I don't have to worry about being re-elected. I don't have to worry about politics."

Nineteen years later, at the age of 79, Arpaio is still in office, but his occupancy of the political spotlight has come at a cost.

Following the recent slate of scandals -- the birther investigation; a finding that the sheriff's office neglected 400 sex crimes; and a rebuke from the federal government for violating civil rights, among others -- more national groups are calling for him to step down. Source: http://huff.to/za7xrV

Sign the petition and demand the resignation of Joe Arpaio here: http://chn.ge/vx4OjR

Jagor

Ohio lawmaker introduces bill to limit men’s Viagra access

Liz Goodwin reports in The Outlook:

Democratic Ohio state Sen. Nina Turner is the third female lawmaker to introduce a bill that would limit men's access to Viagra and other erectile dysfunction drugs to make a statement about the dozens of anti-abortion bills that have passed statehouses around the country over the last year.

Turner is opposed to a proposed bill that would prohibit abortion after a fetal heartbeat is detected, which can happen as early as six weeks into a pregnancy. The Dayton Daily News reports that Turner's bill would mandate that men seeking Viagra be "tested for heart problems, receive counseling about possible side effects and receive information about 'pursuing celibacy as a viable lifestyle choice.'" Full text: http://yhoo.it/zuIL6v

What's sauce for the goose may be, indeed, become sauce for the gander...

Jagor

Advertisers Abandoning Right-wing Talk Radio

Melisa Jeltsen reports on the Huffington Post:

The overwhelming exodus of advertisers from Rush Limbaugh's show has big-name companies rethinking their relationship with talk radio.

According to a memo published by the industry website Radio-Info.com, at least 98 advertisers -- including big names like Ford, GM and McDonald's -- have indicated they want to avoid "environments likely to stir negative sentiments." 

Excerpt from the memo:

...They’ve specifically asked that you schedule their commercials in dayparts or programs free of content that you know are deemed to be offensive or controversial (for example, Mark Levin, Rush Limbaugh, Tom Leykis, Michael Savage, Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity).  Source:  http://huff.to/wyIFUb

My comment:  Mirabile dictu!  This is too good to be true!  First, virtually every company and organization sponsoring Rush Limbaugh's fascist, racist and mysogyist ravings have cancelled their advertising, but now at least 98 companies do not want their commercials contaminated by proximitiy to Limbaugh and his fellow travelers!

This is turning from a wave into a tsunami of outrage and anger: let's not just pull the plug on Limbaugh, but--while we're at it--pull the plug on all of them!

Jagor

The Four Republican Parties

Back in January 2012, I heard an interview with political commentator David Lindorff, and he suggested that there were, essentially, four different Republican parties.

First of all, the Evangelicals, who "want to control everybody" by imposing their so-called Christian values [opposition to women's reproductive rights, opposition to the freedom to marry, xenophobia in general and Islamophobia in particular] on the entire country.  The candidate who most espouses their views: Rick Santorum

Second, there are the plutocrats of Big Business-Wall Street, who are supported by their legions of unwitting acolytes and groupies, who have swallowed the poisonous propaganda spewed out by the mainstream media and don't yet realize that the plutocrats are their worst enemies. Their candidate: Mitt Romney.

Third, the traditional Republican conservatives, whose views are generally focused on economic issues domestically and solving international problems by wars instead of diplomacy.  Their candidate: Newt Gingrich.

Fourth, the Libertarians, who are against virtually everything--they're not only anti-war [good], but they're anti-government in general [bad].  Their candidate: Ron Paul.

On the other hand, we Democrats are pretty well united.  Sure, we are bitterly disappointed with President Obama's lack of courage and leadership and his kowtowing to the Republicans on too many occasions, but Obama is still the best of the lot and--if the Republicans remain divided on Election Day--particularly if, as we hope, Ron Paul runs as the candidate of a Libertarian Party or another third party--President Obama will win re-election in a landslide.

Jagor

More than 50 Companies Have Stopped Sponsoring Limbaugh

Media Matters for America reported on Thursday, March 9, 2012, that more than  50 companies had cancelled their sponsorship of Rush Limbaugh's fascist, racist and mysogynist ravings:

On March 8, WABC's online feed aired Rush Limbaugh's radio show almost exclusively with unpaid public service announcements and included significant amounts of dead air space, as only nine paid advertisements were broadcast during three hours of programming.

Those ad spaces are increasingly going to free public service announcements for organizations ranging from the New York Office of Emergency Management, the United Negro College Fund, and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services -- 77 such PSAs aired on March 8, after a week of advertisers fleeing Limbaugh's show. Source: http://bit.ly/ygXlZs

And Melissa McEwan reported on the feminist blog Shakesville that 89.5% of the commercials during Rush Limbaugh's show yesterday were public service announcements donated free of charge by the Ad Council.

— A total of 86 ads aired during WABC's broadcast of The Rush Limbaugh Show [on March 7, 2012]

— 77 of those ads were public service announcements donated free of charge by the Ad Council.

— Of the nine paid spots that ran, seven were from companies that have said they have taken steps to ensure their ads no longer air during the program.

— WABC's online feed included about 5:33 of dead air when ads would normally have run. Source: http://bit.ly/xsRKa4

By my calculations, that leaves only two companies still sponsoring Rush Limbaugh and paying his $38 million-per year salary

Let's pull the plug on Rush Limbaugh once and for all: cut off the money and cut Rush Limbaugh off the air permanently.

Jagor

Rush Limbaugh Sponsors Leaving in Droves!

As of Wednesday morning, March 7, 2012, at least 30 companies had removed their advertising from Rush Limbaugh's show.
 
Here's a list of the 30 companies that have stopped sponsoring Rush Limbaugh, as reported on Politico:
AccuQuote Life Insurance, Allstate Insurance, AOL, Bare Escentuals, Bethesda Sedation Dentistry, Bonobos, Carbonite, Cascades Dental, Citrix, Girl Scouts, Goodwill Industries, Hadeed Carpet, JCPenney, Legal Zoom, Matrix Direct, Philadelphia Orchestra, PolyCom, ProFlowers, Quicken Loans, Reputation Rhino, Sears, Sensa, Service Magic, Sleep Train, Sleep Number, St. Vincent’s Medical Center, Tax Resolution, Thompson Creek Windows and Vitacost.

Source: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0312/73675.html#ixzz1oQ1UQeZ4

Additionally, Berkshire Hathaway subsidiary Geico [which had removed its commercials from Limbaugh's show back in 2004--thanks, Warren!] issued a statement on Tuesday, emphasizing that it has repeatedly instructed partners not to run its ads during Limbaugh's program. Geico threatened to completely withdrdaw from the Clear Channel network unless its ads are removed from Limbaugh's show.

So, it is starting to look that, God willing, Rush Limbaugh's radio days may be numbered.  Becuase it's hard to pay Limbaugh $38 millon per year when no advertising money is coming in to the coffers!

Keep up the pressure!  Boycott the companies that are still sponsoring Rush Limbaugh!  Pull the plug on Limbaugh!


Jagor

Not the Falklands, not the Malvinas, but Les Iles Malouines

For the last year or so, Argentine President Cristina Fernández de Kirchner has been engaged in a new propaganda war. making bellicose declarations disputing the links between the Falkland Islands and the United Kingdom and reasserting Argentine sovereignty over those islands, where an English colony was established in 1766.

Of course, you don't have to be very old to remember that the Argentine military junta invaded the Falklands Islands back in 1982. The Falklands War lasted from April 2 to June 14, 1982, and resulted in the deaths of 649 Argentines, 258 Brtitish, almost 2,000 wounded on both sides and major losses of military ships and aircraft
. 

The result: a decisive British victory which indirectly resulted in the collapse of the Argentine mililtary junta led by dictator Leopoldo Galtieri.

How can the Argentines be so stupid as to want to take over the Falklands where 100% of the people are English, 100% speak English and 100% don't want to be Argentines?
 

The British should just call a referendum or a plebicite and let the islanders settle it once and for all.  It's called democracy.

There's a precedent: the dispute between France and Germany over the Saarland.  France invaded the Saarland, which was then part of Germany,  on September 7, 1939.   In turn, Germany invaded France on May 10, 1940.  At the end of World War II, the Saarland was included in the French military occupation zone.  After some bilateral negotiations, a plebicite was held on October 23, 1955; 67.7% of the voters rejected continued French suzerainty. On January 1, 1957, the Saarland was formally reintegrated into Germany.  Case closed!
 

Of course, it's all domestic politics in Argentina.  Every time there are some domestic troubles--usually inflation or unemployement--the Argentine politicans fire up the "Malvinas" rhetoric and start their ridiculous saber-rattling. Cristina is no exception.

But, in fact, the country that has the most valid claim to the islands is neither Argentina nor England: it's France!  France established a colony at Port St. Louis, on East Falkland's Berkeley Sound coast in 1764, two years before the English. The French name Îles Malouines was given to the islands – malouin being the adjective for the Breton port of Saint-Malo. The Spanish name Islas Malvinas is a translation of the French name.

Source: History of the Falkland Islands

I'd love nothing better than to see France renew its valid claim to the Falklands. Oops! The Malvinas. Oops! the Malouines.  That would really be fun, especially now that we know that millions of barrels of oil may lie underneath  the Continental Shelf surrounding the islands.

Jagor

The Constitution vs. the Articles of Confederation

Posted February 11, 2012

If you examine closely the fundamental principle  of the right-wingers, the teabaggers and and the self-proclaimed conservatives--emasculate the Federal government and empower the states--you will conclude, as I have, that what these people really want is to scrap the Constitution and return to the Articles of Confederation, which established a weak central government and gave most power to the states.
The Articles of Confederation were enacted in 1781. But Americans soon discovered that government under the Articles of Confederation was an unmitigated disaster.
There weren't three branches of government, only the legislative branch--the Congress.  But Congress was granted little power to finance itself or to ensure that its resolutions were enforced.
There was no president--thus no executive branch of government. Likewise, there was no judicial branch: no Supreme Court, no Courts of Appeals and no District Courts. 
Furthermore the Federal government was so enfeebled that it could not adequately defend the nation's borders.  And the state governments were either unwilling or unable to resist attacks on private contracts and public credit.
Government under the Articles of Confederation was unworkable because they gave the states too much power and denied sufficent power to the Federal government.
Yet that's exactly the agenda of today's right-wingers, teabaggers and and self-proclaimed conservatives!
But because Americans realized after a few years that government under the Articles of Confederation was unworkable,  the several states convened the Constitutional Convention in 1787 and ratified the resulting document, our current Constitution, in 1789, which corrected the abuses permitted by the Articles of Confederation and created the tripartite system of government that we have today.
Patriotic Americans will resist the current attempts to scrap the Constitution and replace it with a new version of the Articles of Confederation!
Jagor

Update February 14, 2012

Accorading to Artlcle the First, according to the 2010 Census, the House of Representativers would be increased from the current 435 members--established by the Apportionment Act of 1911-- to 6,195 members.  This would definitely be a good thing and would comply with the wishes of the Founding Fathers, concerning represenation of the people in the House.
Many other countries have parliaments with many more members than the U.S. House of Representatives, even though their populations are much smaller. 
In the United Kingdom, for example, the House of Commons has 650 members for a population of just 62 million.  And there are 308 members of the Canadian House of Commons for a population of just 32 million.  So it's obvious that just 435 Members in the House of Representatives is far too few for the United States with a population of 313 million!
There are plenty of auditoriums and convention centers with a capacity of 6,000; alternatively, Members of Congress could also be authorized to vote electronically from their offices--which is not the case today. 
Currently, all 435 Members have to be physically present on the Floor of the House for each recorded vote--when I was a Congressional staffer, I knew not to get in the way of the Members as they stampeeded into the elevators on the way to the Floor to cast their votes at the very last minute!
Today, with 50 states in the Union, the legislatures of 27 more states, for a total of 38, would have to ratify the Amendment in order for it to become part of the  Constitution.
Here are a couple of of the points regarding the Constitution and the Bill of Rights:
 The First Amendment is quite clear that, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." 
Concerning Thomas Jefferson, like Thomas Paine and many other patriots and Founding Fathers, He was a Deist--and a member of no established religion.
In the presidential campaign of 1800, Jefferson's opponents, including virtually every preacher in the country, accused Jefferson not only of miscegenation with his slave Sally Hemmings, but also of being an infidel and an atheist. 
Furthermore, Jefferson sought what he called a "wall of separation between Church and State."
Finally, I would lower the voting age to 17 from the age of 18, as stipulated in the 26th Amendment to the Constitution.
Why?
Currently, 17 is the minimm age to join the armed forces.  Therefore,  lowering the voting age to 17would enfrachise all the members of our armed forces.  If you're old enough to fight and die for your country in hellish places around the world, you should certainly be able to vote for the people who are sending you to those hell holes.

Jagor

Update February 23, 2012

...With respect to secession, it is true that there is no Constitutional provision prohibiting secession.  Aside from the Confederacy, there is one state where the secession issue has persisted over the years: Texas.  The modern movement for independence was started by the research of Richard Lance (Rick) McLaren claimed that, in 1861, Texans had voted four-to-one to leave the Union.  We know that from 1836 to 1845 the Republic of Texas existed.  [The California Republic lasted less than a month, but its name still survives on the state flag.] 
In my own view, if there is one state that has a real, justifiable reason to seceed from the Union, it's Hawaii, which was an independent country, first a kingdom, ruled by the Kamehameha dynasty, then a republic declared on July 4, 1894. 
In early 1897, newly-elected U.S. president William McKinley agreed to a treaty of annexation but it failed in the Senate because petitions from the islands indicated lack of popular support and would be in violation of international law. Subsequently, a joint resolution was written by Congressman Francis G. Newlands to annex Hawaii.
On July 7, 1898 President William McKinley McKinley signed the Newlands Resolution which annexed Hawaii, illegally in the opinion of annexation opponents, to become the Territory of Hawaii.
I think it's pretty easy to make a valid case for Hawaiian secession and independence.
As for calling a new Constitutional Convention, according to Article V of the Constitution, "The Congress,..., on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments ..."  Here is a link to a table showing a long list of all the states whose legislatures have voted to call such a convention: http://bit.ly/yBVUlJ
Jagor

Update February 28, 2012

For the Senate, we should repeal the 17th Amendment and return to the original intent of the Founding Fathers that, to ensure a truly federal system, senators should be elected indirectly, by each state's legislature. 
As things are now, the Senate is nothing more than another version of the House, except that its members are elected at large, instead of by districts.  This means that, in order to run for the Senate, tens of millions of dollars must be spent by each candidate, especially in the large states.  That goes a long way to explain why most of the senators are old, white, male multi-millionaires [along with a couple of female multi-millionaires].  Those multimillionares certainly do not represent me or understand my concerns.
For the House, once again, we should return to the original intent of the Founding Fathers and increase to number of Representatives: from the 2010 census the number would be 6,195. Now that would be real democacy!
Getting back to indirect elections, some French friends were somewhat aggressively grilling me about why we Americans don't elect our presidents "democratically," through a popular vote, but elect them indirectly through the Electoral College.
You know my answer to these Frenchies?  I shot back that we elect our president in exactly the same way as they elect their senators--by an indirect election!
That put an end to the conversation!
[For background, there are 343 senators in France; a third elected every three years.  Most of the electors are elected municipal officials, so it's similar to the way as we chose our senators until the enactment of the 17th Amendment.]
Jagor

Quiz: Who Said it--Rick Santorum or Ayatollah Khamenei?

Given Rick Santorum's recent statements opposing women's rights--especially women's reproductive rights-- his homophobia, his denial of global warming, his opposition to university education, his religious intolerance and--particularly--his statement that, when he heard President Kennedy's 1960 speech supporting the "absolute separation of church and state, Santorum "wanted to throw up," it seems to a lot of people--including me--that the kind of government Rick Santorum appears to want is not really a democracy-- which is rule by the people--but a theocracy--which is rule by religion.
Now there's one famous theocracy in the world, the Islamic Republic of Iran.  A well-known American magazine recently published a quiz in which readers were given a series of 8 quotations and asked to choose who made those statements, Rick Santorum or Grand Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.
I've reproduced the questions below, so that you can take the quiz, too. [I'll post the answers on this thread later.]
Who said it--Rick or the Grand Ayatollah?
1. We were put on this Earth as creatures of God to have dominion over the Earth.
2. We believe in democracy and we also believe in freedom, but we do not believe in liberal democracy.
3. Although the literal meaning of socialism is equitable distribution of wealth, it is associated with other concepts which we hate. Over time, socialism has come to be associated with certain things in society that are unacceptable to us.
4. The radical feminists succeeded in undermining the traditional family and convincing women that professional accomplishments are the key to happiness.
5. This is not a political war at all. This is not a cultural war. This is a spiritual war.
6. This is a war between two willpowers: the willpower of the people and the willpower of their enemies.
7. Go back and read what the sirens did once you arrived on that island.… They devour you. They destroy you. They consume you.
8.The Iranian people's hatred for America is profound.
Jagor

Update March 6, 2012

Well, it wasn't as easy as you expected, was it?  It's not that easy to distinguish between a Roman Catholic religious fanatic and a Shi'ite Muslim religious fanatic, is it?

So, here's a link to the original article and the answer key.

Jagor

Boycott Limbaugh's Sponsors

The inflammatory conservative political commentator and host of talk radio program The Rush Limbaugh Show set off a firestorm on Wednesday with his outrageous comments about Georgetown law student Sandra Fluke, who was barred from testifying last week before an all-male panel during a House of Representatives hearing on religious freedom and the Obama administration's contraception policy. Limbaugh on Wednesday called Fluke a "slut."
By Saturday morning, March 3, 2012, Legal Zoom, Citrix Success, Heart and Body Extract, AutoZone, Quicken Loans, Sleep Train, Sleep Number and Oreck said they had removed their commercials from Limbaugh's show.
Nine companies sponsoring Limbaugh remained on the list--but may be in the process of cancelling their sponsorship of Limbaugh.  They are: ProFlowers, CARBONITE, Inc., Mid-West Life Insurance Company of Tennessee, American Forces Network, Mission Pharmacal Company, Life Quotes, Inc., Life Lock, Tax Resolution and AOL.
Remember that in 2008 Clears Channel signed a contract with Limbaugh guaranteeing Limbaugh $400 million [plus a $100 million signing bonus] for the six years form 2008 through 2016.  That money comes from the companies who sponsor Limbaugh's program.  And, indirectly, that money comes from your and my pockets--the pockets of the customers of the companies who sponsor Limbaugh.
It may actually be possible get Rush Limbauch kicked off the airwaves once and for all--when the money runs out.
Website Left Action has also set up a Boycott Rush page that lists sponsors of the show. A petition attached to the page attracted close to 50,000 signatures in less than 24 hours, according to a statement on the page.

Jagor

"Sheriff Joe" Arpaio's Controversies

I just looked up "Joe Arpaio" on the Wikipedia and under the section, "Controversies," I found the following headings:

• 2.8.1 Unconstitutional jail conditions
• 2.8.2 Lack of Cooperation with Department of Justice
• 2.8.3 Racial Profiling
• 2.8.4 Loss of Authority to Identify Illegal Immigrants
• 2.8.5 Federal Grand Jury Inquiry
• 2.8.6 Abuse of power
• 2.8.7 Feud with Maricopa County Board of Supervisors and Maricopa Superior Court
• 2.8.8 Election law violation
• 2.8.9 Misuse of funds

It seems to me that "Sheriff Joe" has become a little too big for his britches and would be best advised to address the controversies pertaining to his professional misconduct rather than making preposterous claims about the President of the United States.

Link to the Wikipedia entry: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Arpaio#Controversies
Jagor

Islam in America

In light of the current wave of hysterical Islamophobic propaganda being diffused around the clock by ignorent know-nothing Republican candidates for president and by Fox News and the rest of the mainstream media, I thought I would post a few comments aobut Islam in America from some of our Founding Fathers:
In 1776, John Adams published "Thoughts on Government," in which he praises the Islamic prophet Muhammad as a "sober inquirer after truth" alongside Confucius, Zoroaster, Socrates, and other thinkers.
In 1797, President John Adams signed a treaty declaring the United States had no "character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Mussulmen."
In his autobiography, published in 1791, Benjamin Franklin stated that he "did not disapprove" of a meeting place in Pennsylvania that was designed to accommodate preachers of all religions. Franklin wrote that "even if the Mufti of Constantinople were to send a missionary to preach Mohammedanism to us, he would find a pulpit at his service."
Thomas Jefferson defended religious freedom in America including that of Muslims. Jefferson explicitly mentioned Muslims when writing about the movement for religious freedom in Virginia.
In his autobiography Jefferson wrote "[When] the [Virginia] bill for establishing religious freedom... was finally passed,... a singular proposition proved that its protection of opinion was meant to be universal. Where the preamble declares that coercion is a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, an amendment was proposed, by inserting the word 'Jesus Christ,' so that it should read 'a departure from the plan of Jesus Christ, the holy author of our religion.'
The insertion was rejected by a great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend within the mantle of its protection the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mahometan, the Hindoo and infidel of every denomination."
While President, Jefferson also participated in an iftar --the evening meal breaking the fast during Ramadan-- with the Ambassador of Tunisia in 1809. 
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_in_the_United_States
[For that matter, each American president since Bill Clinton has hosted an iftar at the White House. And last year, Israeli Ambassador to the United States Michael Oren hosted an iftar for 65 prominent American Muslims and Jews.]
So, when it comes to discussing Islam, I prefer to rely on the words of John Adams, Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson rathar than the ignorant and viciously Islamophobic rantings currently innundating the American airwaves.
Jagor

Warren Buffett: High Corporate Taxes Are An American 'Myth'

Corporations, like the rich, aren't paying their fair share in taxes, billionaire investor Warren Buffett told CNBC's Becky Quick on Monday, February 27, 2012.
Mr. Buffett stated that, even while enjoying record profits, corporations last year paid just 12.1 percent of those earnings in taxes, their lowest tax rate since 1972, according to the Congressional Budget Office. At least thirty of the country's most profitable companies had a negative tax rate between 2008 and 2010.
[In plain English, a "negative tax rate" means that the rest of us poor schmucks are sending our tax money to pay those companies, who are rich enough to afford the shyster lawyers to game the tax system.]
Mr. Buffett stated:
"So our corporate tax rate last year effectively, in terms of taxes paid for the United States, was around 12 percent, which is well below those existing in most of the industrial— industrialized countries around the world.   So, it's a myth that American corporations are paying 35 percent or anything like it. Corporate taxes are not strangling American competitiveness."
Link to the article and full transcript of the interview--eight parts: http://www.cnbc.com/id/46538421
Link to the transcript of Part 2 of the interview, in which Mr. Buffett discusses corporate tax policy: http://www.cnbc.com/id/46541556
After reading that interview, I expect that apologists for the plutocrats--the 1%--who have been brainwashed and bamboozled by the plutocrats' propaganda, will start accusing Mr. Buffett of having converted to Marxism-Leninism or having gome senile--or both.
But, on the other hand, I'd say that Warren Buffett is an extremely intelligent individudal [you can't be the world's second richest man if you're stupid...] and that he is smart enough to see through the fog of propaganda. 
Mr. Buffett realizes, like many others--including the Occupy Wall Street patriots--that the entire American tax system has become dysfunctional and needs to be remedied without delay.
Jagor

"Islam is Peace"

AT 3:12 PM EDT on September 17, 2001, less than a week after the terrible events of 9/11, President George W. Bush traveled to the Islamic Center of Washington on Massachusetts Avenue, in the heart of Embassy Row, and delivered remarks intended to quell the Islamophobia  raging at the time. Excerpts follow:
"These acts of violence against innocents violate the fundamental tenets of the Islamic faith.  And it's important for my fellow Americans to understand that...
"The face of terror is not the true faith of Islam.  That's not what Islam is all about.  Islam is peace.  These terrorists don't represent peace.  They represent evil and war.
"When we think of Islam we think of a faith that brings comfort to a billion people around the world.  Billions* of people find comfort and solace and peace.  And that's made brothers and sisters out of every race -- out of every race.
"America counts millions of Muslims amongst our citizens, and Muslims make an incredibly valuable contribution to our country.  Muslims are doctors, lawyers, law professors, members of the military, entrepreneurs, shopkeepers, moms and dads.  And they need to be treated with respect.  In our anger and emotion, our fellow Americans must treat each other with respect."
Full text: http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2001/09/20010917-11.html
No matter how harshly we may judge Presdent Bush with regard to the unwarrented invasion and occupation of Iraq in 2003, he got it right on September 17, 2001.
I submit that President Bush's remarks are just as pertinent today--if not more so--than they were at the time, particularly in light of the revived Islamophobia now being directed at Iran that is spewing non-stop in the mainstream media and from legions of ignorant and bellicose politicians.
Jagor
* Estimates in 2009 put the number of Muslims worldwide at over 1.6 billion, representing 23% of the total world population.

U.S. does NOT believe Iran is trying to build nuclear bomb

The "Los Angeles Times" reported on February 23, 2012:
U.S. intelligence agencies don't believe Iran is actively trying to build an atomic bomb.
A highly classified U.S. intelligence assessment circulated to policymakers early last year largely affirms that view, originally made in 2007. Both reports, known as national intelligence estimates, conclude that Tehran halted efforts to develop and build a nuclear warhead in 2003.
The most recent report, which represents the consensus of 16 U.S. intelligence agencies, indicates that Iran is pursuing research that could put it in a position to build a weapon, but that it has not sought to do so. Source: http://articles.latimes.com/2012/feb/23/world/la-fg-iran-intel-20120224
So now what are the wild-eyed warmongers going to do?  Are they going to claim that they know more than 16 U.S. intelligence agencies?
Is Millionaire Mitt Romney going to claim he knows more than 16 U.S. intelligence agencies?
Is the religious fanatic wingnut Rick Santorum going to claim he knows more than 16 U.S. intelligence agencies?
Is the zany serial adulterer Newt Gingrich going to claim he knows more than 16 U.S. intelligence agencies?
Are the legions of hysterical fearmongers and their associated airheads on Fox News, CNN, NBC, ABC and CBS going to claim that they know more than 16 U.S. intelligence agencies?
Are any or all of the above going to take a page out of the book written by George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Condoleezza Rice, Donald Rumsfeld, Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz, Douglas Feith and all the other unindicted war criminals from the previous administration and and claim they know more than 16 U.S. intelligence agencies by falsifying the evidence on Iran as they falsified the evidence on Iraq?
If so, will the American people let the warmongers get by with it this time as we let the warmongers get by with it the last time?
Jagor

The Most Dreaded Enemy of Liberty

From what I gather, the warmongers--including three of the four remaining GOP bozos, millionaire Mitt Romney, religious fanatic Rick Santorum and zany adulterer Newt Gingrich --are beating the war drums more furiously than ever and stirring up more Islamophobia than even after 9/11. This time the target is Iraq oops Iran, a country of almost 80 million people and an area larger than Germany, France and Spain combined.
As if they haven't learned anything from the Bush-Obama Permanent War that is costing trillions of dollars and tens of thousands of lives, American  and other, these ignoramuses appeal to people's worst emotions--fear and hate.

According to the Department of Defense’s 2010 Base Structure Report, as of 2009, the US military  maintained 662 foreign sites in 38 countries around the world.

On the other hand, with a billion three hundred million people, China does not have even one single military base outside its borders!  Not one!

Instead of slaughtering and bombing people all over the world, China just keeps rolling merrily along, growing its economy at 7 or 8% per annum while America self-destructs by spending itself to death waging war.
The Chinese must be laughing in their beer at these imbecillic Americans.
Way back in 1795, James Madison, principal author of the Constitution and fourth president of the United States, predicted with uncanny accuracy exactly what was going to be happening in 2012.
Madison wrote: Of all the enemies to public liberty war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded, because it comprises and develops the germ of every other.
War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes; and armies, and debts, and taxes are the known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few. In war, too, the discretionary power of the Executive is extended; its influence in dealing out offices, honors, and emoluments is multiplied; and all the means of seducing the minds, are added to those of subduing the force, of the people.
The same malignant aspect in republicanism may be traced in the inequality of fortunes, and the opportunities of fraud, growing out of a state of war, and in the degeneracy of manners and of morals engendered by both. No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare.
From: Political Observations, 1795
I expect that if James Madison were alive today, he'd be in the streets protesting with the other Occupy Wall Street patriots!
It's high time for the American people to heed James Madison's words and put a stop to the permanent state of war that is destroying America.
Jagor

The Real Reason Mitt Moved Millions to the Caymans

According to a recent article in Smart Money, millionaire plutocrat Mitt Romney didn't necessarily move some of his millions to the offshore haven of the Cayman Islands to escape taxes. 
According to Chigago tax lawyer Jim Duggaan, quoted in the article,  "American taxpayers are taxed on their worldwide income -- so if you're making $10,000 (or $10 million) in interest on a bank account in, say, the Caymans or Switzerland, you're getting taxed by Uncle Sam as if you're making it in a bank account here."
So what's the real reason Mitt moved millions to the Caymans?
Duggan says there are two reasons: litigation risk and political risk.
The article states, "Litigation risk is the old reason. You could get hit by a crazy lawsuit here in the U.S. The wealthy are an easy mark, and anything onshore is vulnerable. But the U.S. courts don't have jurisdiction overseas and if you plan things right you have at least some chance of protecting money held offshore.."
And what about political risk?
"The new reason, though, is political risk: "Diversification from our government, policies, and banking systems," says Duggan. The last few years have shaken faith in our system. Duggan says growing numbers of his clients are worried about the financial system, confiscation -- the whole shebang. "They're concerned about our government, and where our society is headed. " Source: http://sm.wsj.com/z7QAvl
Conclusion: So here's a guy who wants to be president of the United States but who is so concerned about the government of United States and so scared of the courts in the United States that he ships off some of his millions to the Cayman Islands for safekeeping!  What hypocrisy!  What a scandal!  It just boggles the imagination.
And now, do you think anybody should vote for this guy?  He seems to me he's more qualified to run for president of the Cayman Islands.
Jagor

Romney and Santorum Both Opposed GM Bailout

News flash: not only has General Motors regained its position as the world's number one auto maker--ahead of #2 Volkswagen, #3 Renault-Nissan and #4 Toyota--but it just announced its biggest profit in history: in 2011 GM made a profit of a colossal $7.6 billion!
Not only that, according to GM's profit-sharing plan, each of GM's 47,000 blue-collar employees in the U.S. will receive a bonus of $7,000.00 next month. The checks are based on the company’s North American performance and are a record for the company.  And that's money that will be re-injected into the American economy.
Yet Republicans Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum both opposed the GM bailout!  [Romney even published an op-ed in the New York Times on November 19, 2008, entitled "Let Detroit Go Bankrupt!]
If I were Romney or Santorum, I wouldn't even set foot in Michigan!
I can assure you of one thing: when Michiganders go to the polls on November 6, they will remember who supported their state and who didn't, and they will vote massively for President Obama, whoever his opponent may be.  Because it was President Obama who saved GM and--indirectly--saved the Michigan economy--not Mitt Romney or Rick Santorum!
Jagor

First-class Postage Going to 50 cents

From ABC News: "The United States Postal Service may raise the price of first class postage to 50 cents."
Well, I'm old enough to remember when it cost just 3 cents to mail a first-class letter and the rate for a post card was one penny.
And some people still believe the fairy tale that the U.S. Government and the Fed are supporting a "strong dollar?" Give me a break!
Below is a link to an interesting web site showing the history of postage rates in the United States.
You'll see that from 1885 to 1917 it just cost 2 cents to mail a one-ounce letter. It was raised briefly to 3 cents and then lowered again to 2 cents in 1919 and remained at that rate until 1932 when it was raised again to 3 cents.
The 3-cent rate remained in effect until 1958, when it was raised to 4 cents and then the rates started taking off: 4, 5, 6, 8, 10, 13, 15, 18, 20, 22. 25. 29, 32, 33, 34, 37, 39, 41 , 42, 44, and, finally 45 cents, announced on January 12, 2012.
The other thing to notice is the incresing frequency of the changes and the increasingly short duration of the rates, lasting from 32 years [1885-1917] to 15 [1919-1932] years to 2012 when it looks if there will be two changes in the same year!
Of course, it doesn't take Ron Paul to figure out that these postage rates were stable when the country was under the gold standard and then started skyrocketing, especialy after the "Nixon Shock" of 1971 when he cancelled convertably of the paper dollar into gold, and the price jumped from $35 an ounce to today's $2,000 an ounce or thereabouts.  http://www.akdart.com/postrate.html
Jagor

Proof the Republicans are finished - The Wave Effect

Political comentator Thom Hartmann, whom we might describe as a non-hysterical cousin of Keith Olbermann, recently presented a chart on his TV show entitled "Republican Waves of Radicalism," showing how the GOP ideology has oscillated in a "cycle of radicalism" from 1900 through 2010. 
The chart starts with 1900 and progressive Republican President Theodore Roosevelt.  Teddy Roosevelt busted the oligarchy trusts and signed into law the Tillman Act of 1907 prohibiting monetary contribution to national political campaigns by corporations. [A law that was overturned by the Gang of Five radical Republican Supreme Court justices in the 2010 case of Citizens United v. FEC.]
Next, Hartmann's graph moves to 1920 and Republican radicalism in the presidency of Warren Harding, who said, "More business in government, less government in business."  He dropped the top income tax rate from 73% to 25% and deregulated the markets.  The result [after two more radical Republicans, Coolidge and Hoover]: the Great Depression.
After the Franklin Roosevelt presidency, in 1946, we get a return to the "Do Nothing Congress" under President Truman, which passed the Taft-Hartley Act crippling workers' right to organize and blocked Truman's effort to introduce single-payer universal health care.
Next, we get 1960 and a Republcian moderate, Dwight Eisenhower, who implemented massive Federal investment in infrastructure--the Interstate Highway System [Ike also brought an end to the Korean War; it's ironic that a general was a peacemaker whereas none of the currrent Washington warmongers has ever served a day in combat...].
But then the trend flips to radicalism in 1964 with Barry Goldwater--promoting states rights and a belligerant foreign policy.
Next the trend reverses again Republican Richard Nixon, who proposed in 1967 universal health care coverage that is virtually identical to "Obamacare" and created the Environmental Protection Agency--the EPA.  Top income tax rate under Nixon: 91%.
The Nixon "rational Republicans" were followed by the "radical Republican," Reagan, who implements the biggest tax cut for the rich since Warren Harding and the biggest tax increase on working people in the entire History of the United States.  Result: a 12% unemployment rate and a stock market crash.
Reagan was followed by the "rational Republican" George H.W. Bush, followed in turn by his "irrational son," George W. Bush, who cut taxes for the rich again [and invaded and occupied Iraq, a country that posed no threat whatsoevcer to the United States.]
In the 2008 election the radical Republicans lose control of House, Senate and the presidency and, in 2010, the cycle turns again with the arrival of the Tea Party, a return of the radical Republicans.
Hartmann poses the question as to which way the Republicans will turn in 2012--to radicalism [Gingrich, Santorum] or moderation [Romney].
Link to the video [8 minutes]:  http://bit.ly/zVAJ2D  Worth watching!
Jagor

United States and Al Qaeda on the Same Side in Syria

As incredibly crazy as it must seem, Robert Dreyfuss reports that that the United States and Al Qaeda are actualy on the same side in Syria!
Mr. Dreyfus writes in February 14, 2012, issue of The Nation, "It’s worth noting that the United States and Al Qaeda are on the same side in Syria."
Dreyfus continues, "That’s not to deny that the government of Syria is conducting a brutal, no-holds-barred attack against a nationwide rebellion that is, increasingly, led by armed paramilitary forces and, well, terrorists...
"Al Qaeda’s Ayman Zawahiri...explicitly endorsed the anti-Assad rebellion this week, following the bomb explosions in Damascus and Aleppo that US officials blamed on Al Qaeda."
Dreyfus quotes Zawahiri, "If we want freedom, we must be liberated from this [Assad] regime. If we want justice, we must retaliate against this regime."
Dreyfus concludes, "On the right and among neoconservatives, there are calls for the United States to intervene directly in Syria, by imposing a no-fly zone, by arming and training the rebels...and even by adopting a Libya-style campaign of bombs, drones and missiles against Assad." Source: http://bit.ly/z9Ohsa
Comment: Who would ever think that the American neo-cons would be on the same side as Al Qaeda?
Well, as Charles Dudley Warner famously said, "politics makes strange bedfellows..."
Jagor

Great News for Democrats: Obama's Truth Team!

The Washington Post reported on February 13 that, "On Monday, the president’s reelection team will unveil a trio of Web sites dedicated to providing supporters with information on the president’s record — and more than a little dirt on his Republican rivals. The campaign has named it Obama’s “Truth Team.”
"Of the three Truth Team portals, one, KeepingHisWord.com http://www.keepinghisword.com/, will list President Obama’s accomplishments.
"AttackWatch.com http://www.attackwatch.com/ aims to rebut political attacks against President Obama.
"The third Web site, KeepingGOPHonest.com http://www.keepinggophonest.com/allows Obama supporters to play offense, providing damaging material about his rivals."
There should be plenty of facts and information in these three websites to effectively counter any and all Republican political propaganda!  On to November!
Jagor

Who Said This?

Here's a quote that I read recently:
“I would tax dividends and interest income higher and capital gains...Have a higher tax rate. If you said there’d be a certain percent rate for people making over a million dollars and a higher percent rate for people making over $10 million, no problem with me.  I don’t think people should be able to pass unlimited amounts on to their kids.”
Multiple-choice question: Who said this?
(A) Jamie Dimon
(B) Karl Marx
(C) Barack Obama
(D) Mitt Romney
(E) None of the above.
Essay question:
Explain your answer in 50 words or less
Jagor

The End of Wall Street

Check out the cover story from the February 5, 2012, issue of New York Magazine entitled, "The End of Wall Street As They Knew It."
Author Gabriel Sherman writes, "...among the many dislocations Wall Street has suffered since 2008, none may have been more destabilizing than the headlines that flashed across Bloomberg terminals on the afternoon of January 17, when news leaked that Morgan Stanley would cap cash bonuses at just $125,000. A week later, Bank of America announced that it would be cutting the cash portion of its bonuses by 75 percent, giving the rest in stock. All across Wall Street, compensation is crashing. Goldman Sachs, coming off a lackluster fourth quarter, slashed compensation by 21 percent."
Now, as you can imagine, I started shedding copious tears--crocodile tears, that is--when I read that paragraph. 
Sherman continues, "No one on Wall Street liked to be scapegoated either by the Obama administration or by the Occupiers. But many acknowledge that the bubble­-bust-bubble seesaw of the past decades isn’t the natural order of capitalism—and that the compensation arrangements just may have been a bit out of whack. “There’s no other industry where you could get paid so much for doing so little,” a former Lehman trader said. Paul Volcker, whose eponymous rule is at the core of the changes, echoes an idea that more bankers than you’d think would agree with. “Finance became a self-justification,” he told me recently. “They made a lot of money trading with each other with doubtful public benefit.” Source: http://bit.ly/wNc7Dg
I confess that I didn't feel very sorry for those obscenely overapid social parasites who have never worked an honest day in their lives or produced anything of actual value or worth but, instead, have spun gold out of straw like so many Rumpelstiltskins.
Maybe the reforms enacted by Congress will take effect and banks--and capitalism--will return to their historical behavior.
After all, as Vanguard founder Jack Bogle stated in the article, “Reversion to the mean is the rule of the financial market.”
Jagor

Ron Paul: "Honest Rape"

Nomally I don't watch Piers Morgan's show on CNN, but I was recently channel surfing and I happened to see Ron Paul being interviewed by Morgan.
Morgan put Paul on the hot seat when he asked the former gynecologist about his views on abortion.  Here's part of the exchange copied directly from the official CNN transcript:
MORGAN: Here's the dilemma, and it's one I put to Rick Santorum very recently. I was surprised by his answer, although I sort of understood from his belief point of view that he would come up with this.

But it's a dilemma that I am going to put to you. You have two daughters. You have many granddaughters. If one of them was raped -- and I accept it's a very unlikely thing to happen. But if they were, would you honestly look at them in the eye and say they had to have that child if they were impregnated?
PAUL: No. If it's an honest rape, that individual should go immediately to the emergency room. I would give them a shot of estrogen...
http://edition.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1202/03/pmt.01.html
Honest r**e?  What kind of idiocy is this?  Are we to take it that Ron Paul believes that there are two kinds of rape and that a woman can be raped "honestly" or-- presumably--"dishonestly?"
OK.  Here are my two observations about this:
(1) Ron Paul is suffering from senile dementia and should immediately disqualify himself not only from the presidential race but resign his seat in the House of Representatives, since he is mentally unfit to hold that office;
or
(2) Piers Morgan--or anybody else who next interviews Ron Paul--should demand that Ron Paul precisely and accurately define "honest rape" and "dishonest rape" and explain the difference between them.
The women [and men] of America are waiting for Ron Paul's answer.
Jagor

The Plutocrats Funding Newt Gingrich

TPM reported on January 31, 2012,  that:
"Three Las Vegas residents and non-blood relatives of casino executive Sheldon Adelson who describe themselves as “self-employed” gave a combined $1 million to a “super PAC” backing Republican Newt Gingrich on the same day in December, 2011."
The article further states that, "Sheldon Adelson and his wife Miriam reportedly provided a combined $10 million to [the pro-Newt Gingrich Super-PAC] Winning Our Future in January, but that number wouldn’t have to be disclosed for another month." Source: http://bit.ly/wFSbNA
Conclusions:
If anybody wondered whether money can buy politicians, you need look no further.
And, if you needed a reason to amend the Constitution to repeal the 5-4 Supreme Court decision in Citizens United v. FEC [or even impeach one or more of the Gang of Five right-wing activist Supreme Court justices who overruled the four patriotic justices in the Citizens United case], you need look no further.
And, if you needed any proof that the United States is no longer a democracy [rule of the people, by the people and for the people] but has become a de facto plutocracy [rule of the rich, by the rich, and for the rich], once again, you need look no further.
And, finally, a question:
What exactly are Sheldon Adelson and his kin and cronies expecting to get from Newt Gingrich in return for their millions? Inquiring minds want to know...
Jagor

More Unethical Conduct by Mr. Unethical Speaker Gingrich

Mister Unethical Speaker Newt Gingrich is proving true to form with yet another incident of unethical conduct, after being fined $300,000.00 for his unethical behavior when he was in the House of Representatives.
Frank Sullivan, co-author of the song "Eye of the Tiger," has filed suit against Newt Gingrich in Illinois federal court on behalf of Rude Music, Inc.
The complaint says that Gingrich has used the song "Eye of the Tiger," a Grammy-winning song from the film "Rocky III," without authorization to push his political agenda at various conferences and campaign rallies.
The plaintiff claims this is a violation of the song's copyright and demands an injunction to put a stop to Gingrich's choice of entrance music. Source: http://bit.ly/xQ3X1y

It's just one more example of unethical conduct by Newt Gingrich.

As I predicted previously on these forums, Newt Gingrich is rapidly self-destructing--as he always has in the past--notably by escalating his outbursts and accusations directed against his rival, Millionaire Mitt Romney, into the ream of incoherent hysteria.
It's just a question of time before Newt Gingrich explodes, like the frog in Aesop's fable, The Frog and the Ox.
And--just imagine--there are still some Republicans out there who want to send Mister Unethical Speaker Newt Gingrich to the White House, the latest being the allegedly adulterous bozo Herman Cain and the dimwitted airhead Sarah Palin!
Jagor

Apple's Siri: Your Tax Dollars at Work

Writing in the New York Times recently, Steve Lorh reported:
"In 2010, Apple bought Siri, a personal assistant application for smartphones. At the time, it was a small start-up in Silicon Valley that originated as a program funded by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency of the Pentagon [DARPA]. Last year, Siri became the talking question-answering application on iPhones." Source: http://nyti.ms/xV9BK6
What do we learn from this? 
We learn that, because Siri was funded by DARPA, and because DARPA is funded by taxes payed by American citizens to the Federal government, Apple's Siri is an example of your tax dollars at work!
How much taxpayer money did DARPA pay Siri to develop its technology?  Out of Siri's 2011 revenues of $585 million, DARPA contributed approximately 67% and other U.S. Government agencies [National Science Foundation, Department of Education and National Institutes of Health] contribued an additional 23% of Siri's revenues. Source: http://bit.ly/wfDLrc
Just think about that the next time you start moaning groaning about your taxes--or the next time you ask a question to Siri on your iPhone 4S...
Jagor

Mitt Romney Income Calculator

Slate answers the burning question, "How long would it take Millionaire Mitt Romney to earn what you make in a year?"
Thanks to a handy-dandy interactive calculator, you can punch in your income and click on the "Calculate" button and learn the bitter truth about the difference between plutocrats like Millionaire Mitt and mere mortals like you and me.
Here's one example to contemplate.
Supposing you earned $100K in all of 2010.
In 2010, Mitt Romney made $100,000 in 1 day 16 hours 26 minutes and 26 seconds.
At that rate, it would take you 216 years 7 months 10 days 23 hours 44 minutes and 3 seconds to make what Mitt made in 2010.
Don't wait: calculate!
http://slate.me/A7E5Sm
Jagor

The Dollar Exclusion Zone

In its mad and unrelenting determination to destabilize Iran [which has not invaded any country since the Persians invaded Greece in 492 B.C.] and overthrow its regime, the United States twisted arms and coerced the Europeans to join them in imposing a new round of economic sanctions on Iran and curtail imports of Iranian crude.
Well, that might have worked back in the 1950's when the United States was the global superpower and could bully any country into submission.
But no more.
The Asian economic superpowers, whose economies are growing by leaps and bounds as the American and European economies continue to stagnate, have said "no" to the dollar and created a de-facto Dollar Exclusion Zone in Asia.
Japan, China, Russia and India have all signed bilateral agreements with Iran which remove the U.S. dollar as the intermediate medium of exchange. 
First it was China and India who are bypassing the dollar and engaging in direct currency trade.
Next, China and Russia dropped the U.S. dollar in bilateral trade. 
Then China and Iran agreed to bypass the U.S. dollar and engage in an oil barter system. 
And now India and Iran have agreed to settle some of their $12 billion annual trade in rupees.
Source: http://bit.ly/xYvADd
What does this Dollar Exclusion Zone mean?
It means that the United States and Europe have just shot themselves in the foot and that their "sanctions" of Iran are inconsequental and self-defeating.
Maybe the Western powers will figure out one day that boycotts and sanctions don't work and that, instead, they most often have produced unexpected and unpleasant consequences for the boycotting countries.
And maybe the Western powers will figure out one day that it's better to sit down at the table and engage in talks with the Iranians--no holds barred and no preconditions--than to continue their proposterous bluster and saber-rattling in the ultimately vain hopes of scaring the 80 million Iranians into submission.
Here's a news flash: 94% of the Iranians are Shia Muslims to whom martyrdom is a central tenent of their faith; and whatever their views towards the regime, the 80 million Iranains are 100% united behind their government and will go down fighting to the last drop of blood if necessary to defend their country.
That's why, to paraphrase Sir Winston Churchill, it's better to "jaw-jaw" with the Iranians instead of "war-war" with them.
Jagor

29 Companies That Paid Millions For Lobbying (And Didn't Pay Taxes)

From Forbes:
"Thirty large U.S. corporations paid more money to Congressional lobbyists than they paid in taxes from 2008-2010, according to a new report from Public Campaign, a purportedly non-partisan corporate watchdog organization that seeks to reduce the influence of big companies in politics.
"The report names 30 profitable companies (only one of which paid federal corporate taxes during the period analyzed), with lobbying expenditures ranging from $710,000 to $84.4 million.
"The worst offender, according to the report, is General Electric. The company – which drew fire earlier this year when its lack of taxes came to light – spent over $39 million on lobbyists in 2010 alone."
"Only one of the companies named in the report paid income taxes during the period analyzed, although even that company paid a tiny fraction of the standard corporate tax rate. FedEx paid $37 million in taxes – good for a tax rate of 1%. During that same period, FedEx spent $50.8 million on lobbying." Source: http://onforb.es/zPdFYf
What does this mean? It means that these 30 companies, just like many others, understand the hard truth about American politics: that Congress is for sale and that venal congressmen and senators are willing to obey the wishes of the corporate lobbyists and do the bidding of their corporate masters.
Jagor

SOTU: Boehner bored; McConnell frozen in hatred

Watching the President's State of the Union [SOTU] speech last night, I could hardly believe the polarization present and visible in Congress despite the President's calls for national unity and patriotism, citing the team spirit of the Navy SEALS in the Bin Laden operation as an inspiring metaphor for the nation.
Despite the fact that President Obama's speech was interrupted approximately 80 times by applause, as far as I could see, House Speaker John Boehner, who was seated directly behind the President, only applauded only once [please correct me if I'm wrong.]  Most of the time, particularly near the end, the man-tanned Speaker appeared bored [maybe he was counting the millions of dollars he has received in PAC money and other forms of political payola...]
We often saw Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell on the screen, too; in his case, not only did he not applaud, his face appeared to be frozen zombie-like in a permanent expession of absolute hatred directed at the President.
Of couse, as could be expected, the President displayed his oratorical skills and most certainly energized  Democrats in the House Chamber and around the country and, hopefully, some patriotic Republicans, too.
But, despite the President's appeals to the lawmakers' patriotism, the Republicans still seem intent on perpetuating the current gridlock--against the wishes of at least 80% of the American people--and sticking to their unique goal, as enunciated repeatedly by Mitch McConnell, of preventing the President's re-election.
In an interview with National Journal in October 2010, McConnell stated, "The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president." Source: http://exm.nr/chk0Jr
We, the American people, should prove Mitch McConnell wrong, and re-elect the President on November 6, 2012.
Jagor

Senator Paul and the Speech and Debate Clause

The Speech and Debate Clause [Article 1, Section 6] is, indeed, part of our Constitution and the TSA employees who detained Senator Rand Paul were not trained to observe a part the Constitution they are sworn to protect and uphold.
That said, having worked as a Congressional staffer, I have personal knowledge of Members of Congress leaving Capitol Hill for home at the wheel of their cars in a state of drunkenness that would qualify the average citizen for immediate arrest for DUI.

Because their vehicles bore plates identifying them as Members of Congress or Senators, no cop would dare stop these Congressional drunk drivers, much less give them a breathalyzer test.  Unlike the TSA agents in Nashville, the cops in the District, Virginia and Maryland do know about the Speech and Debate Clause.

But James Madison and the other Framers of the Constitution, despite their purported divine inspiration and omniscience, apparently had never heard about something called the internal combustion engine that could allow mere mortals, including Members of Congress, to move at speeds of up to and over 100 miles per hour.
To the Framers of the Constitution who in their wisdom wrote the Speech and Debate Clause, if a Member of Congress or a Senator left Congress and returned home drunk on some of George Washington's home-made corn liquor, about the only untoward thing that could happen is that he would fall off his horse.
But that's what happens when you try to govern a 21st century country under an 18th century constitution.
And that is food--or drink--for thought.
Jagor

Buffett Blames Congress for Romney’s 15% Rate

From Bloomberg:

Warren Buffett, the billionaire calling for more taxes on the rich, said Mitt Romney’s U.S. rate of about 15 percent reflects poor laws rather than failings by the candidate for the Republican presidential nomination.
“It’s the wrong policy to have,” Buffett told Bloomberg Television’s Betty Liu in an interview today. “He’s not going to pay more than the law requires, and I don’t fault him for that in the least. But I do fault a law that allows him and me earning enormous sums to pay overall federal taxes at a rate that’s about half what the average person in my office pays.”
“He makes his money the same way I make my money,” said Buffett, 81. “He makes money by moving around big bucks, not by straining his back or going to work and cleaning toilets or whatever it may be. He makes it shoving around money.”
Source: http://bloom.bg/AvrfAQ
It's time for the Republicans in Congress to heed the wishes of "We the People" and support President Obama's efforts to change the tax law so that rich plutocrats like Mitt Romney will pay the same rate as ordinary American citizens.
Jagor

Gingrich is not paying his fair share of Medicare tax

From Forbes:
"Newt Gingrich avoided tens of thousands of dollars in Medicare payroll taxes in 2010 by using a technique the Internal Revenue Service has consistently and successfully attacked.
"Republican Presidential candidate Gingrich and his wife, Callista, treated only $444,327 of what they got from Gingrich Holdings. Inc. and Gingrich Productions as compensation to them, while reporting a whopping $2.4 million of their earnings from these corporations as profits or dividends. Medicare taxes are levied at a rate of 2.9% on an unlimited amount of compensation and self-employment income (say, from a consulting contract, speeches or a book) but not on profits from a business.
“It appears that [Gingrich] is not paying his fair share of Medicare tax,’’ Robert E. McKenzie, a partner in the Chicago law firm of Arnstein & Lehr LLP concluded, in an email to Forbes, after reviewing Gingrich’s 2010 tax return." 
The Forbes article also states that, unlike Newt Gingrich, "President Barack Obama reported all of his $1.4 million in 2010 book profits as subject to Medicare taxes." Source: http://onforb.es/x8elXf
So, we learn that not only Mitt Romney is a tax evader, but that so is his arch-rival Newt Gingrich; and we also learn that President Obama fully obeys the law and pays his fair share of taxes.
Conclusion: We the People don't want any tax cheats in the White House!
Second conclusion: Re-elect President Obama on November 6; he and Michelle pay their fair share of taxes the way the rest of us do!
Jagor

Christie's Two-Fisted Attack on Newt

Erstwhile Republican dreamboat Chris Christie, the portly governor of New Jersey, came out swinging against current GOP front-runner Newt Gingrich on "Meet the Press" Sunday.
Christie declared that Newt Gingrich has been "an embarrassment" to the Republican Party who didn't have the background or capacity to serve as an effective president.
"We all know the record," Christie said. "He was run out of the speakership by his own party. He was fined $300,000 for ethics violations. This is a guy who has had a very difficult political career at times and has been an embarrassment to the party ... I don't need to regale the country with that entire list again except to say this: I'm not saying he will do it again in the future, but sometimes past is prologue."
Needless to say, Christie is supporting Mitt Romney.
Watch the interview: http://on.msnbc.com/z9tApY
Jagor

Newt Gingrich: Some "Mr. Speaker" Indeed!

Have you noticed how virtually everbody from that dimwitted CNN moderator to the other Republican bozos running for the presidency persistently refer to Newt Gingrich as "Mr. Speaker?"
Well, I would remind those folks that:
1. Eighty-four ethics charges were filed against Newt Gingrich during his term as speaker. After extensive investigation and negotiation by the House Ethics Committee, Gingrich was sanctioned $300,000 by a 395–28 House vote of his Republican colleagues as well as Democrats.  It was the first time in the entire history of the United States--208 years--that a speaker was disciplined for ethical wrongdoing.
2. Newt Gingrich hasn't been speaker of the House for over 13 years--since January 3, 1999.
3. Because of his ethical violations, and because he was held responsible for the loss of Republican seats in the 1998 election, Newt Gingrich was forced by a revolt among the members of his own Republican party to resign not only as Speaker of the House, but as a Member of the House of Representatives itself! 
Some "Mr. Speaker," indeed!  I suggest, "Mr. Unethical Speaker."
Jagor

Romney Parks Millions in Cayman Islands

ABC News revealed on January 18, 2012, that plutocrat multi-millionaire Mitt Romney has stashed away millions in the notorious offshore tax haven of the Cayman Islands.
So now we have hard evidence that Mitt Romney is a tax cheat.
An article entitled, "Romney Parks Millions in Cayman Islands," states:
"Although it is not apparent on his financial disclosure form, Mitt Romney has millions of dollars of his personal wealth in investment funds set up in the Cayman Islands, a notorious Caribbean tax haven."
"[Romney's] personal finances are a poster child of what's wrong with the American tax system," said Jack Blum, a Washington lawyer who is an authority on tax enforcement and offshore banking."
The article goes on to state, "Romney has used a variety of techniques to help minimize the taxes on his estimated $250 million fortune. In addition to paying the lower tax rate on his investment income, Romney has as much as $8 million invested in at least 12 funds listed on a Cayman Islands registry. Another investment, which Romney reports as being worth between $5 million and $25 million, shows up on securities records as having been domiciled in the Caymans."
Read the full article here: http://abcn.ws/wXxGep
And I guess everybody noticed when Romney was vigorously booed by the audience at last night's GOP "debate" in South Carolina when he stated that he would release "part but not all" of his income tax returns in April.
Jagor

Mitt admits paying only 15% in taxes

USAToday has revealed that multi-millionaire plutocrat Mitt Romney confirmed on January 17, 2012, that "most of his income comes from investments and is taxed at 'closer to the 15% rate' far below the 35% rate on wages for taxpayers in the top tax bracket."
"Tax law experts who examined Romney's most recent federal financial disclosure report for USA TODAY estimated he earned between $9.8 million and $38.8 million in 2010, with roughly half of the money taxed at a rate lower than that paid by many Americans."
USAToday quotes tax expert Martin Press, "Average taxpayers, and even high-income earners such as doctors and lawyers, don't qualify for such money-saving breaks on their wages and other non-investment income...This is the way our tax system is set up." Source: http://usat.ly/xelIlg

It seems to me that, in light of such flagrant abuses based on tax laws that favor the multi-millionaire plutocrats and punish hard-working, middle-class American citizens, it's high time to change those tax laws and require multi-millionaires like Mitt Romney to pay their fair share of taxes--just like the rest of us!
But--and don't forget this when you go to vote on November 6--Mitt's Republican cronies in the House of Representatives, led by the venal John Boehner, will hear none of it!  The Republicans want their plutocrat paymasters to continue getting a free ride off the backs of poor and middle class Americans and not raise the millionaires' taxes by a single penny.
Jagor

Mitt Lived in "Palace" in France

It seems that multi-millionaire plutocrat Mitt "The Flip-flopper" Romney flip-flops not only on his political views, changing them according to whatever he considers the most politically expedient, he also seems to have flip-flopped on his own biography.
Although Romney told  supporters that he had experienced austerity as a Mormon missionary in France, using a bucket for a lavatory and a hose for a shower, in reality Mitt Romney was living in an 18-room palace in one of the ritziest neighborhoods of Paris.
The intrepid reporters of the [London] Telegraph revealed this information in an article dated December 11, 2011.
The Telegraph reports that, "the Republican presidential hopeful spent a significant portion of his 30-month mission in a Paris mansion described by fellow American missionaries...as [a] “palace”  It featured stained glass windows, chandeliers, and an extensive art collection. It was staffed by two servants – a Spanish chef and a houseboy.
“They were very big rooms,” said Christian Euvrard, the 72-year-old director of the Mormon-run Institute of Religion in Paris, who knew Mr Romney. “Very comfortable. The building had beautiful gilded interiors, a magnificent staircase in cast iron, and an immense hall.”
According to the Telegraph, the Mormons sold the palace in the 1970s, and it was until recently the embassy of the oil-rich United Arab Emirates.  The palace is currently estimated to be worth as much as $12 million. Source: http://tgr.ph/ynwabE
So, since we have so much evidence of how Mitt Romney flip-flops on the issues and even flip-flops on his own backgrond, how can we believe what he says if he became president?
And, by the way, Mitt, when are you going to release those income tax returns of your, just like all your adversaries?
Jagor

Mitt Romney Laid off 1,700 Workers at Dade International

One of plutocrat Mitt Romney's recurring talking points is that, unlike President Obama, he can "create jobs" because he has "mangement skills" and "business experience" due to his tenure at Bain Capital, which he ran for fifteen years.
But the facts in a New York Times article dated November 12, 2011, demonstrate the opposite:  "From 1984 to 1999, Mr. Romney and his deputies made fortunes by investing in, acquiring and then selling about 150 companies and, in numerous cases, took those companies into bankruptcy resulting in the loss of thousands of jobs."
One example cited in the article concerns a pharmaceutical company called Dade International.  According to the Times, "At Bain Capital’s direction, Dade quadrupled the money it owed creditors and vendors. It took steps that propelled the business toward bankruptcy. And in waves of layoffs, it cut loose 1,700 workers in the United States."
Source: http://nyti.ms/ylvgNJ
So, it appears that Mitt Romney's real management skills resulted in enrichening himself and his cronies at Bain Capital to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars, while throwing thousands of American workers into the street.
Jagor

Banksters collect millions while their stocks crash

iStock Analyst reports, "Banks may have been the hardest hit this year in the stock market, but the CEOs who run them are doing just fine.""
"According to data from Rochdale Securities analyst Dick Bove, while the 23 financial institutions he follows saw their stock prices and market cap drop by more than -30% and -11%, respectively, bank CEO compensation averaged $7.74 million. That means the banking heads brought in 50 to 100 times the average worker.
"Take [Bank of America's] CEO Brian Moynihan who will earn $2.26 million this year while his bank's market value dropped -60% – the worst in Rochdale's study.
"Chase CEO Jamie Dimon will earn $41.9 this year — the most among the bank CEOs in Bove's coverage list — for a bank that saw its stock lose roughly -23% this year.
"There's also Goldman's Lloyd Blankfein whose compensation was nearly $22 million, while  the investment bank he runs  – Wall Street's most powerful — lost more than -46% of its market cap."
Source: http://bit.ly/wEk8pd
So, the way I see it, these plutocrat banksters and fraudsters are being generously rewarded with mulit-milion dollar payouts for mismanaging their companies and destroying the assets of those companies.
Am I the only guy around that thinks these guys should be terminated for their gross incompetence and mismanagement--if not tarred-and-feathered and run out of Wall Street on a rail?
Or, maybe a more humane way of dealing with these social parasites would be to send them to the mail room to sort the mail at Minimum Wage.  There's not much they could mess up there, and at least their compensation would be commensurate with their actual work.
Jagor

Mitch Romney is a Plutocrat

Everybody should have figured out by now that Mitt Romney is a plutocrat, a member of the 1%.
[A plutocrat is a member of the plutocracy, which can be defined as "government of, by and for the wealthy."]
Despite all Mitt Romney's puffery about "creating jobs" in the companies he ran, first Bain & Company and then Bain Capital, Romney made millions while laying off thousands of workers.
In point of fact, four of the 10 companies Bain Capital acquired while Mitt Romney was CEO declared bankruptcy within a few years, laying off thousands of employees.
Here are the facts, as written by Tanya Somanader in an article published on December 19, 2011:
Four of the 10 companies Bain acquired declared bankruptcy within a few years, shedding thousands of jobs. Not only does [Bain Capital] have a history of making millions by buying up and gutting companies, but Romney also secured a plush retirement deal from Bain that brought him “millions of dollars in income each year.”
[D]ocuments show that “Bain investors profited in eight of the 10 deals, including three of the four that ended in bankruptcy.” Indeed, the firm pointedly made higher profits “by firing workers, seeking government subsidies, and flipping companies quickly for large profits.”
Source: http://bit.ly/vPKpnZ%20
Now you know why Mitt Romney doesn't want to release his income tax returns, because if he did when he does, the American people will learn that he is filthy rich.
I happened to be watching Wolf Blitzer's Situation Room program yesterday and guest James Carville--who should know a thing or two about political campaigns--said that the Democrats are not going to let up on this issue--they they are going to chew on this issue like a dog on a bone--and that, sooner or later, Romney will be forced by public pressure to release his income tax returns.
Then, when Romney does finally release his income tax returns, the American people will learn the truth: that Mitt Romney is just another plutocrat who got rich by terminating the jobs thousands of Americans.
Jagor

What Really Happened in North Korea

The highly choreographied funeral of the late North Korean dictator Kim Jong-il and the coronation of his youngest son, twenty-something Kim Jong-un, as his successor were broadcast around the world. 
But behind the scenes were a series of machiavellian machinations--including disappearances and political assasinations--of Kim Jong-un's potential rivals that would not have seemed out of place in the court of the Medici.
Here's what really went on in North Korea between the time in January 2009 that Kim Jong-il decided that his youngest offspring would be his successor and the time of his death, on December 17, 2011, as reported by the Korean English-language publication, The Chosunilbo:
"A series of executions and unexplained deaths since North Korean leader Kim Jong-il's son Jong-un was anointed heir to the throne in January 2009 were apparently meant to remove obstacles to the transition...
Pak Nam-gi, director of the Planning and Finance Department in the Workers Party, and Moon Il-bong, head of finance, were executed by firing squad in April and June last year.  Hong Sok-hyong, who succeeded Pak, was relieved of all of his duties in June and his whereabouts are unknown.  Ex-minister of railways Kim Yong-sam was executed in June of last year after being linked to a massive explosion in Ryongchon in 2004 that is believed to have been a botched attack on Kim Jong-il's armored train...
There are views that Kim Jong-un's "reign of terror" has already begun. According to a government source, there were 60 public executions in North Korea last year, a three-fold increase from 2009."
If you're interested in what's really happening in North Korea, you can read the entire article here:
http://english.chosun.com/site/data/html_dir/2011/12/27/2011122700527.html