bureaucracybusters

Posts Tagged ‘RUSH LIMBAUGH’

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

RUSH LIMBAUGH VS. BATMAN

In History, Politics, Social commentary on July 23, 2012 at 9:16 am

Rush Limbaugh is the sort of man who can see The Adventures of Robin Hood–and root for the Sheriff of Nottingham.

For Limbaugh, the rich can never be too well-protected.  Especially when they’re running for President.

Limbaugh believes that the latest “Batman” movie is out to slander poor Mitt Romney.  And he’s using The Rush Limbaugh Show to valiantly defend him.

Limbaugh’s program airs on over 400 radio stations and is the highest-rated talk-radio program in the United States.

Combining the poison tongue of Nazi Propaganda Minister Joseph Goebbels….

Joseph Goebbels

….with the poundage of Luftwaffe Commander Hermann Goering….

Hermann Goering

….Herr Limbaugh says about the character ”Bane” in The Dark Knight Rises:

Rush Limbaugh

“The villain in the Dark Knight Rises is named Bane.  B-A-N-E. What is the name of the venture capital firm that Romney ran, and around which there’s now this make-believe controversy? Bain.

“The movie has been in the works for a long time, the release date’s been known, summer 2012 for a long time. Do you think that it is accidental, that the name of the really vicious, fire-breathing, four-eyed, whatever-it-is villain in this movie is named Bane?

“It’s going to have a lot of people. This movie, the audience is going to be huge, lot of people are going to see the movie….

“And it’s a lot of brain-dead  people, entertainment, the pop culture crowd. And they’re going to hear ‘Bane’  in the movie, and they are going to associate Bain.

“And thought is that when they start paying attention to the campaign later in the year, and Obama and the Democrats keep talking about Bain, not Bain Capital, but Bain, Romney and Bain, that these people will think back to the Batman movie –’Oh yeah, I know who that is.’”

Apparently they will know more than Limbaugh does.

“Bane” is a comics super-villain fighting a comics super-hero: “Batman.”

“Bain Capitol” is a real-life “vulture capitalism” villain which profits by destroying American jobs.

“Bane” first appeared in the comics–in Batman: Vengeance of Bane #1 (January, 1993).  His creators were Chuck Dixon, Graham Nolan and Doug Moench.

If what Limbaugh says is true, all these men rank as not only among history’s greatest cartoonists but its greatest psychics.

Imagine: In January, 1993, they were able to look into the future and predict that:

  • By the summer of 2012, a multimillionaire named Mitt Romney would become the Republican nominee for President.
  • Romney would have made most of his fotrune as the CEO of Bain Capitol. a Boston-based asset management and financial services company.
  • Barack Obama, a former black Senator from Illinois, would meanwhile be occupying the White House.
  • Desperate to give Obama another four years as President, Warner Brothers Studios would rush “The Dark Knight Rises” into production, to be out in time for summer, 2012.
  • The moviemakers wouldn’t be thinking of huge box-office returns for a typical summer blockbuster.
  • They would, instead, be hoping to brainwash millions of unsuspecting, pure-minded Republican voters into voting against “Bane” and for Obama.

Of course, this is not the first time Limbaugh has rushed to aid the helpless rich.

On May 15, Facebook co-founder Eduardo Saverin renounced his U.S. citizenship.  Born in Brazil, the 30-year-old Saverin became a U.S. citizen in 1998 but has lived in Singapore since 2009.

Giving up his citizenship allowed him to avoid a 15% capital gains tax when Facebook launched its IPO on May 18.  Singapore does not have a capital gains tax.

With Saverin being attacked for his unpatriotic behavior, Limbaugh leaped to his defense:

“So if it’s a more favorable tax haven that you can find elsewhere and you go there,” asked Limbaugh, “why is it automatically that you are unpatriotic? Why is it automatically that you are a coward, that you are not paying your fair share? It’s this whole class envy thing rearing its head again.”

For Limbaugh, the villain isn’t a billionaire who turns his back on the country that gave him the opportunity to become one. No, the villain lies in those who believe that even wealthy businessmen should behave like patriots–instead of parasites.

“But [Barack Obama is] out there demonizing successful people every day, targeting successful people every day, running a presidential campaign based on class warfare, trying to get the 99% of the country who are not in the top 1% to hate the 1%, to literally despise ‘em.”

On November 1, 2011, Forbes magazine reported that, in 2007, the richest 1% of the American population owned 34.6% of the country’s total wealth, and the next 19% owned 50.5%.

Thus, the top 20% of Americans owned 85% of the country’s wealth and the bottom 80% of the population owned 15%.

According to Limbaugh’s philosophy, the bottom 80% of the population owning 15% of the country’s wealth should pay homage to the top 20% of Americans who own 85% of the country’s wealth.

In short, they should “know their place” and not expect their moneyed “betters” to pay their fair share of taxes.

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

BENEDICT ARNOLD: CAPITALIST HERO – PART FOUR (END)

In Business, History, Politics, Social commentary on May 31, 2012 at 12:00 am

In a May 13 Op Ed column, Forbes magazine declared: “For De-Friending the U.S., Facebook’s Eduard Saverin is an American Hero.”

From that column by John Tamny:

“The unconsumed dollars kept from the hands of government will reach today’s and tomorrow’s businessmen.”

Throughout, the editorial implies that Americans would be so much happier if only:

  • the few taxes now levied on billionaires were abolished, and
  • that money stayed firmly in their trustworthy hands.

This utterly ignores the 2008 Wall Street “meltdown,” which occurred following an eight-year period of Republican “hands-off-the-market” regulatory policies.

It also ignores the even more recent loss of at least $2 billion by JPMorgan/Chase bank, in what amounted to a case of legalized gambling.

In addition, it utterly ignores the well-documented pattern of hedonistic and corrupt behavior among the rich.  As Robert Payne (1911-1983) the respected British historian warned in his book, The Corrupt Society, in 1975:

“Nor is there any likelihood that the rich will plow back their money into services to ensure the general good.  They have rearely demonstrated social responsibility, and they are much more likely to hold on to their wealth at all costs than to renounce any part of it….

“The rich are usually the last to observe the social pressures rising from below, and when those social pressures reach flashpoint, it is too late to call in the police or the army….A single authoritive sentence suffices to expunge all private wealth and restore it to the service of the nation.

“A nation’s wealth is too serious a matter to be left to the wealthy.  The riches of a nation belong to us all, to be shared among all for the general welfare.

“A country ruled by a small nucleus of rich men is obviously in a state of crisis; such a government cannot endure except by the use of armed force and draconian laws.  Ultimately these instruments prove to be ineffective and useless.”

Finally, Tamny ignores the dire warning of Niccolo Machiavelli, the father of political science, on the threats posed by the nobility to a republic.  (Today’s “nobility” consists of the richest 1% of the American population.)

In The Prince, he writes:

“…It is impossible to satisfy the nobility by fair dealing and without inflicting injury upon others, whereas it is very easy to satisfy the mass of the people in this way.

“For the aim of the people is more honest than that of the nobility, the latter desiring to oppress, and the former merely to avoid oppression….

“The worst that a prince has to expect from a hostile people is to be abandoned.  But from hostile nobles he has to fear not only desertion but their active opposition.”

The Forbes column ends with this salute:

“Let’s raise a glass to Eduard Saverin.”

Forbes‘editors might just as well have invited Americans to “raise a glass” to Benedict Arnold.

In 1778, Arnold, a trusted hero of the American Revolution, sought to “better himself” by “de-friending” America in his own way.  He offered to betray West Point and its 3,000 defenders to the British for 20,000 pounds (about $1 million today).

“He’s a true American hero.”

If this is true, America has traveled a long way from the most famous line of John F. Kennedy’s Inaugral Address:

“Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country.”

And from these words spoken by Robert F. Kennedy on March 18, 1968, during hs brief candidacy for the Presidency:

“Too much and for too long, we seemed to have surrendered personal excellence and community values in the mere accumulation of material things.  Our Gross National Product now is over $800 billion a year….

“Yet the Gross National Product does not allow for the health of our children, the quality of their education or the joy of their play.  It does not include the beauty of our poetry or the strength of our marriages, the intelligence of our public debate or the integrity of our public officials.

“It measures neither our wit nor our courage, neither our wisdom nor our learning, neither our compassion nor our devotion to our country.

“It measures everything, in short, except that which makes life worthwhile.  And it can tell us everything about America except why we are proud that we are Americans.”

And if Eduardo Saverin is a “true American hero,” America has traveled a long way–downhill–from the patriotism of Stephen Decatur.

It was Decatur, the naval hero of the War of 1812, who famously said: “Our country, right or wrong.”

Billionaire traitors like Eduardo Saverin have coined their own motto.  And so have their traitor-loving cronies like Rush Limbaugh, Grover Norquist and the editors of Forbes:

“My wallet–first and always.”

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

BENEDICT ARNOLD: CAPITALIST HERO – PART THREE (OF FOUR)

In Business, History, Politics, Social commentary on May 30, 2012 at 12:20 am

Christopher Lasch was not the only author to warn of America’s coming abandonment by its privileged classes

Another was Robert Payne, the distinguished British historian.

Payne authored more than 110 books. Many of these were biographies. Among his subjects were Adolf Hitler, Ivan the Terrible, Winston Churchill, Joseph Stalin, Vladimir Lenin, William Shakespeare, Leon Trotsky and Leonardo da Vinci.

In 1975, he published The Corrupt Society: From Ancient Greece to Present-Day America. It proved a summary of many of his previous works.

Among the epochs it covered were the civilizations of ancient Greece, Rome and China; Nazi Germany; the Soviet Union; and Watergate-era America.

In his chapter, “A View of the Uncorrupted Society,” Payne warned: Power and wealth are the main sources of corruption.

“The rich, simply by being rich, are infected with corruption. Their overwhelming desire is to grow richer, but they can do this only at the expense of those who are poorer than themselves.”

Their interests conflict with those of the overall society. They live sheltered from the constant anxieties of the poor, and thus cannot understand them.  Nor do they try to.

“Inevitably they come to fear and distrust the poor, and, just as inevitably, their fear and distrust are translated into legislation that protects them against the poor.”

But Payne foresaw an even greater danger from the rich and powerful than their mere isolation from the rest of society:

“The mere presence of the rich is corrupting. Their habits, their moral codes, their delight in conspicuous consumption are permanent affronts to the rest of humanity. Vast inequalities of wealth are intolerable in any decent society.”

Writing in 1975, Payne noted that a third of the private wealth was possessed by less than 5% of the population–while about a fifth of the populace lived at the poverty level.

“The tendency is toward greater and greater concentrations of wealth in private hands.

“Unless this accumulation is checked by law or by violent social change, about two-thirds of the national wealth will be in the hands of 5% of the population in the year 2000, while at the same time considerably more than half the population will be below or near the starvation level. These estimates portend disaster.”

Payne has proven to be an uncanny prophet.

On November 1, 2011, Forbes magazine reported that, in 2007, the richest 1% of the American population owned 34.6% of the country’s total wealth, and the next 19% owned 50.5%.

Thus, the top 20% of Americans owned 85% of the country’s wealth and the bottom 80% of the population owned 15%.

In its May 13Op-Ed column, Forbes magazine declared: “For De-Friending The U.S., Facebook’s Eduardo Saverin Is An American Hero.”

The editors could have been more accurately entitled it: “Let Us Now Praise Famous Traitors.”

From the editorial:

“In Saverin’s case, his decision to renounce his U.S. citizenship will have a definite impact, and for that, those of us who seek smaller government should view him as a hero.”

“Those of us who seek smaller government” include mega-corporations that seek to pollute, avoid paying any taxes, market unsafe goods, gouge customers, and exploit their employees. But, by more than coincidence, this brutal truth is deftly omitted from the editorial.

“Saverin’s decision will starve the feds of revenue they would almost certainly waste….”

It is the legal responsibility of government–not private robber barons–to determine what lies in the national interest. During the Vietnam War, many anti-war protesters refused to pay taxes, claiming they wouldn’t “finance” an “immoral” conflict. But that didn’t stop the IRS from going after the monies that were legally owed.

“[Saverin’s decision] will force a rethink of a tax code that penalizes income and investment success….”

If it’s true, as Mitt Romney claims, that corporations are people, then they are exceptionally greedy and selfish people.

A December, 2011 report by Public Campaign makes this all too clear.

Public Campaign is a national nonpartisan organization dedicated to reforming campaign finance laws and holding elected officials accountable.

The report–which highlighted corporate abuses of the tax laws–offered the following revelations:

  • The thirty big corporations analyzed in this report paid more to lobby Congress than they paid in federal income taxes between 2008 and 2010, despite being profitable.
  • Despite making combined profits totaling $164 billion in that three-year period, the 30 companies combined received tax rebates totaling nearly $11 billion.
  • Altogether, these companies spent nearly half a billion dollars ($476 million) over three years to lobby Congress. That’s about $400,000 each day, including weekends.
  • In the three-year period beginning in 2009 through most of 2011, these large firms spent over $22 million altogether on federal campaigns.
  • These corporations have also spent lavishly on compensating their top executives ($706 million altogether in 2010).

And according to an analysis by the Associated Press, the head of a typical public company made $9.6 million in 2011.

That was up more than 6% from 2010, and was the second year in a row of increases.

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

BENEDICT ARNOLD: CAPITALIST HERO – PART TWO (OF FOUR)

In Business, History, Politics, Social commentary on May 29, 2012 at 12:00 am

On May 13, Forbes magazine ran an Op-Ed piece under the headline: “For De-Friending The U.S., Facebook’s Eduardo Saverin Is an American Hero.”

Democratic Senator Chuck Schumer of New York angrily disagreed.

“It is scary. It is a scary, absurd place where even a tax dodger who renounces America for his own 30 pieces of silver is celebrated as a patriot and an American hero. It is perverse. I am appalled by making heroic a man who renounces citizenship to escape a tax rate of capital gains of 15%.

“No one gets rich in America on their own,” Schumer said. “And when people do well in America, they should do well by America. I believe the vast majority of Americans believe this too.”

From that Op-Ed piece:

“Saverin’s flight from the U.S. is yet another reminder of the superiority of a national consumption tax that in a perfect world would be implemented in concert with the abolition of the I.R.S.”

It’s tempting to imagine a world without an agency to collect taxes. But it’s nightmarish to contemplate a world where there were no taxes to pay for

  • a powerful military to protect us;
  • an FBI to combat terrorism and organized crime;
  • an FAA to safely regulate airline traffic;
  • agencies to repair roads;
  • agencies to erect public buildings (such as schools, courts and libraries) and
  • agencies (such as the EPA and FDA) to protect us from predatory businessmen.

The Op-Ed piece continues:

“A limited federal government is a difficult concept to achieve so long as that same government can grant itself the legal right to tax a certain portion of our incomes.”

Every nation in history–whether a democracy or a dictatorship, whether capitalist, socialist or communist–has understood the absolute necessity for collecting public revenues. And it has created means by which to do so.

“When individuals resist governmental hubris, we should exalt their actions.”

We should, in short, celebrate those who come to the United States to make fortunes they could not make anywhere else–and then, when they do, turn their backs on their adopted country. We should rejoice that they have stuffed billions of dollars more into their already-fat pockets and left their supposed fellow countrymen to shift for themselves.

“Ideally…we’ll implement a consumption tax through which we can limit what we hand over to them to spend. And if the tax is regressive or hits low incomes at the same percentage as high ones, all the better. Everyone should know intimately the cost of government.”

Of course we should have a “regressive” tax that “hits low incomes at the same percentage as high ones.” Of course, those who are barely able to feed their families or can’t afford medical care should pay as much in taxes as a rich parasite who, like Mitt Romney, throws out $10,000 bets like so many dimes.

“And if the loss of Saverin’s millions means fewer government programs will achieve funding, U.S. taxpayers will make up for the Saverin shortfall in spades given the seeming inability of Congress to ‘sunset’ any program.”

For billionaires like Saverin and the well-heeled types who subscribe to Forbes, it doesn’t matter that “fewer government programs will achieve funding.”

Greed-obsessed “swells” like Saverin:

  • don’t depend on Medicare–they can easily afford the best doctors money can buy;
  • don’t have to depend on Social Security to see them through old age;
  • don’t have to worry about standing in food bank lines;
  • don’t need to rely on police departments–if they’re threatened, they can easily afford round-the-clock bodybuards;
  • don’t need consume protection agencies; if they’re victimized by unscrupulous businessmen, they can hire platoons of lawyers and private detectives.

A contemporary writer who warned of America’s abandonment by its privileged classes was Christopher Lasch.  In his posthumously published last book, The Revolt of the Elites and the Betrayal of Democracy [2005] he wrote:

The Revolt Of The Elites And The Betrayal Of Democracy

“There has always been a privileged class, even in America. But it has never been so dangerously isolated from its surroundings.

“George Bush’s [the president who served from 1989 to 1992] wonderment, when he saw for the first time an electronic scanning device at a supermarket checkout counter, revealed, as in a flash of lightning, the chasm that divides the privileged classes from the rest of the nation.”

Until recently, writes Lasch, American cultural and economic elites willingly shouldered civic responsibilities.  But in post-modern capitalism, a professional elite defines itself as entirely separate from civic concerns:

“The markets on which the fortunes of the new elites rely are tied to enterprises that operate across international borders….They have more in common with their counterparts in Brussels or Hong Kong than with the masses of people in their own country who are not yet plugged into the network of global communications.”

Thus, the privileged class in America–the top 1%–has separated itself from the crumbling public services and industrial cities that are used and lived in by the rest of the country’s citizens.

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

BENEDICT ARNOLD: CAPITALIST HERO – PART ONE (OF FOUR)

In Business, History, Politics, Social commentary on May 28, 2012 at 12:05 am

On May 15, Facebook co-founder Eduardo Saverin renounced his U.S. citizenship.

Born in Brazil, the 30-year-old Saverin became a U.S. citizen in 1998 but has lived in Singapore since 2009.

Giving up his citizenship allowed him to avoid paying taxes on billions of dollars on capital gains when Facebook launched its IPO n May 18.  Singapore does not have a capital gains tax.

And America’s fascist Right couldn’t be happier.

Take Rush Limbaugh, the right-wing talk-show host.  The Rush Limbaugh Show airs throughout the U.S. on over 400 stations and is the highest-rated talk-radio program in the United States. When Limbaugh speaks, his “dittohead” audience listens—and acts as he decrees.

“So if it’s a more favorable tax haven that you can find elsewhere and you go there,” asked Limbaugh, ”why is it automatically that you are unpatriotic? Why is it automatically that you are a coward, that you are not paying your fair share? It’s this whole class envy thing rearing its head again.”

For Limbaugh, the villain isn’t a billionaire who turns his back on the country that gave him the opportunity to become one.  No, the villain lies in those who believe that even wealthy businessmen should behave like patriots–instead of parasites.

“But [Barack Obama is] out there demonizing successful people every day, targeting successful people every day, running a presidential campaign based on class warfare, trying to get the 99% of the country who are not in the top 1% to hate the 1%, to literally despise ‘em.”

Consider the implications of this:

On November 1, 2011, Forbes magazine reported that, in 2007, the richest 1% of the American population owned 34.6% of the country’s total wealth, and the next 19% owned 50.5%.

Thus, the top 20% of Americans owned 85% of the country’s wealth and the bottom 80% of the population owned 15%.

According to Limbaugh’s philosophy, the bottom 80% of the popularion owning 15% of the country’s wealth should pay homage to the top 20% of Americans who own 85% of the country’s wealth.

In short, they should “know their place” and not expect the moneyed few to pay their fair share of taxes.

Of course, this is to be expected of Limbaugh–whose own wealth makes him a multi-millionaire.  In 2001, U.S. News & World Report noted that Limbaugh had an eight-year contract, with Clear Channel Communications, for $31.25 million a year.

And according to a July 2, 2008, Matt Drudge column, Limbaugh signed a contract extension through 2016 that is worth over $400 million.

And Limbaugh isn’t alone in his praise for Saverin.

Another right-winger who defends those who run out on their country is anti-tax activist Grover Norquist,

On May 7, two Democratic Senators—Chuck Schumer of New York and Bob Casey of Pennsylvania—introduced legislation designed to tax expatriates even after they have left the country.

Their “Ex-PATRIOT Act” would impose a mandatory 30% tax on American investments for those who renounce their citizenship and would also prohibit individuals like Saverin from re-entering the country.

“Saverin has turned his back from the country that welcomed him, kept him safe, educated him and helped him become a billionaire,” Schumer said at a press conference. He added that it was time to “de-friend” the Facebook co-founder.

Norquist, the president of Americans for Tax Reform (ATF) said the targeting people that turn in their passports reminded him of regimes that had driven people out of the country, only to confiscate their wealth at the door. 

“I think Schumer can probably find the legislation to do this. It existed in Germany in the 1930s and Rhodesia in the ’70s and in South Africa as well,” said Norquist. “He probably just plagiarized it and translated it from the original German.”

On the floor of the Senate, Schumer denounced Norquist in return:

“I know a thing or two about what the Nazis did. Some of my relatives were killed by them.  Saying that a person who made their fortune specifically because of the positive elements in American society, in turn, has a responsibility to do right by America is not even on the same planet as comparing to what Nazis did to Jews.”

Schumer added that he found it troubling that conservatives would lionize someone like Saverin, who was called “an American hero” by Forbes magazine.

On May 13, Forbes–which describes itself as “The Capitalist Tool”–had run an Op-Ed piece under the headline: “For De-Friending The U.S., Facebook’s Eduardo Saverin Is an American Hero.”

“Can you believe it?” asked Schumer.  “An American hero? Renouncing your citizenship now qualifies as heroic for the hard right-wing?”

“This has gone so far, this idolatry they have taken to such an extreme end, they make Eduardo Saverin into their patron saint.  In the name of low taxes for the wealthy, they have lionized an inherently unpatriotic person.”

, , , , , , , , , , , ,

SELLING TREASON – PART ONE (OF THREE)

In History, Politics on May 8, 2012 at 12:00 am

On the last morning of his life–November 22, 1963–President John F. Kennedy found himself accused of treason.

Opening a newspaper in Fort Worth, Texas, he discovered his photograph offered full-face and profile, in the form of a “WANTED” poster.

On page 14 of The Dallas Morning News ran a full-page ad funded by right-wing billionaire H.L. Hunt.  There could be no mistaking its message: “WANTED FOR TREASON”.

Image 1

Under the headline ran the following:

“THIS MAN is wanted for treasonous activities against the United States.

“1. Betraying the Constitution (which he swore to uphold).  He is turning the sovereignty of the U.S. over to the communist controlled United Nations.

“He is betraying our friends (Cuba, Katanga, Portugal) and befriending our enemies (Russia, Yugoslavia, Poland).

“2. He has been WRONG on innumerable issues affecting the security of the U.S. (United Nations-Berlin Wall-Missile removal-Cuba Wheat deals-Test Ban Treaty, etc.)

“3. He has been lax in enforcing Communist Registration laws.

“4. He has given support and encouragement to the Communist inspired racial riots.

“5. He has invaded a sovereign State with federal troops.

“6. He has consistently appointed Anti-Christians to Federal office: Upholds the Supreme Court in its Anti-Christian rulings.  Aliens and known Communists abound in Federal offices.

“7. He has been caught in fantastic LIES to the American people (including personal ones like his previous marriage and divorce).”

Kennedy’s comment: “We’re really heading into nut country today.”

Now, fast-forward almost 49 years–to a May 7, 2012, town-hall meeting for GOP Presidential candidate Mitt Romney in Euclid, Ohio.

“We have a president right now who is operating outside the construction of our Constitution,” a female attendee told Romney.

As the audience applauded, she continued: “And I do agree he should be tried for treason.

“But I wanna know what you are going to be able to do to help restore balance between the three branches of government and what you’re going to be able to do to restore our Constitution in this country?”

Unlike John McCain, who in 2008 memorably corrected a woman who declared Obama was “an Arab,” Romney didn’t issue such a correction.  Instead, he chose to simply address the question.

Since the end of World War 11, Republicans have regularly hurled the charge of “treason” against anyone who dared to run against them for office or think other than Republican-sponsored thoughts.

Republicans had been locked out of the White House from 1933 to 1952, during the administrations of Franklin D. Roosevelt and Harry S. Truman.

Determined to regain the Presidency by any means, they found that attacking the integrity of their fellow Americans a highly effective tactic.

During the 1950s, Wisconsin Senator Joseph R. McCarthy rode a wave of paranoia to national prominence. On February 9, 1950, he claimed:

“The State Department is infested with communists. I have here in my hand a list of 205—a list of names that were made known to the Secretary of State as being members of the Communist Party and who nevertheless are still working and shaping policy in the State Department.”

After four years of such frenzied attacks on Congress, the State Department and respected journalists such as Edward R. Murrow, McCarthy finally overstepped himself. He accused the United States Army of being an active hotbed for Communists.

At the Army-McCarthy hearings, McCarthy’s credibility was forever destroyed. He was finally censured by his fellow Senators and disappeared into anonymity, alcoholism and death in 1957.

The fact that McCarthy never uncovered one actual case of treason was conveniently overlooked during his lifetime.

And today, right-wing columnists like Ann Coulter try to rehabilitate his memory–just as right-wingers in Russia still try to rehabilitate the memory of Soviet dictator Joseph Stalin.

Nevertheless, the success of McCarthy’s treason-charged rhetoric proved too alluring for other Republicans to resist.  Among those who have greatly profited from hurling similar charges are:

• President Richard Nixon
• His vice president, Spiro Agnew
• Former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich
• Former Congressman Dick Armey
• President George W. Bush
• Vice Presidential candidate Sarah Palin
• Congresswoman Michelle Bachman
• Rush Limbaugh
• Glen Beck
• Sean Hannity
• Bill O’Reilly.

The election of Barack Obama pushed the “treason chorus” to new heights of infamy. With no political scandal (such as Bill Clinton’s affair with Monica Lewinsky) to fasten on, the bureaucracy of the Republican Party deliberately promoted the slander that Obama was not an American citizen.

From this there could be only one conclusion: That he was an illegitimate President, and should be removed from office.

Republicans also claimed–sometimes openly, sometimes in secret–that Obama was really a Muslim who intended to sell out America’s security to his Muslim “masters.”

To the dismay of his enemies, Obama–in the course of a single week–dramatically proved the falsity of both charges.

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

RIGHT AND LEFT

In Bureaucracy, History, Politics on March 29, 2012 at 8:00 pm

You may want to slide into doing pieces about some Democratic figures, Obama and the like in order to present something other than a death defying anit-Christ, Jew hating, Nazis Republican Corporate Tax Cheater with a long-leg for Justice and a short memory of the American flag….

* * * * *

I received this email recently from a conservative friend who sometimes reads my blog. Since his sentiments may be shared by others, I will respond accordingly.

I have written more often about Republican transgressions than Democratic ones. But not because I believe Democrats are all saints and statesmen. All people are flawed, with plenty of stupidity and criminality to go around for any party.

I have focused primarily on Republican bureaucrats for two reasons:

First, I believe it’s the Right that’s on the move in America, not the Left.

It’s the Right that

  • keeps on introducing one anti-abortion/birth control measure after another to the ballot or Federal/state legislature.
  • is trying to limit–rather than expand–voting rights by demanding sharp reductions in the amount of time allowed to sign up voters.
  • wants to return us to the days when insurance companies legally denied coverage to anyone with a “pre-existing” medical condition.”

So I write about the Right because it–and not the Left–is the dominant force in American politics today.

Of course, right-wingers like Sarah Palin insist that it’s the Left that holds power over the media. But most of the political talk-show hosts on radio and TV are right-wingers–such as Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Michael Savage, Bill O’Reilly and Laura Ingraham.

Pew researchers found in 2004 that

  • 17% of the public regularly listens to talk radio.
  • This audience is mostly male, middle-aged and conservative.
  • Forty-one percent are Republican and 28% are Democrats.
  • Forty-five percent describe themselves as conservatives.
  • Eighteen percent say they are liberals.

True, there are commentators on the Left such as Randi Rhodes, but they command only a fraction of the following–and influence–of their right-wing counterparts.

As for my having “a short memory of the American flag”: I believe I have a far better grasp of American history than most people. As proof, I cite my three-part series on the Alamo and my four-part series on the toxic relationship between the U.S. and Cuba.

When Rightists talk about “the flag,” they usually do so as a substitute for confronting problems that need redressing.

So if you’ve been victimized by your medical insurance company and feel serious healthcare reform is needed, the Right attacks you as being “down on America.”

Thus, if you’re

  • against allowing corporations to pay no taxes;
  • against allowing corporate polluters to go unpunished;
  • for letting women decide if they want to have children,

you don’t have time to offer these views because you’re too busy defending yourself.

Most right-wing attacks on the patriotism of their opponents are not meant to “ defend” America. They are intended to suppress views Rightists disagree with.

The second reason I often write about the Right lies in the fundemental difference I see between Democrats and Republicans.

Democrats want to be the party of inclusion. They seek to extend legal rights to almost everyone–including illegal aliens and street-polluting vagrants.

They want to allow illegal aliens to attend American colleges–at public expense. They defend the rights of vagrants to defecate on sidewalks against the rights of tax-paying citizens to be safe from such filth and disgusting sights.

Republicans, by contrast, want to be the party of exclusion–by denying rights, not extending them.

They talk endlessly about “getting government off the backs of the people.” But they have sponsored a mind-numbing series of laws to interfere with the most private aspects of a woman’s life.

Throughout 2011, Republicans introduced more than 1,100 anti-abortion provisions in state legislatures and enacted 135 of them.

Escalating their attacks on women’s sexual privacy, Republicans now seek to deny their legal access to birth control.

Republican legislation has similarly invaded the privacy of thousands of 9/11 “first responders” while slandering their patriotism.

The responders have been required to have their names run through the FBI’s database of suspected terrorists. Otherwise, they will be barred from getting government-supplied medical treatment for their numerous, worsening ailments.

I’ve offended some on the Left by demanding an end to illegal immigration and street-polluting vagrants. And I’ve offended some on the Right by attacking their efforts to curtail the right to abortion, birth control and affordable medical care.

That puts me somewhere in the middle of the political road, where I’ve always seen myself anyway.

If some others don’t, I can live with it.

, , , , , , , , , , ,

REPUBLICANS AS VOYEURS

In Bureaucracy, History, Humor, Law, Politics on March 17, 2012 at 1:12 am

At the height of World War II, Dr. Hans Lammers, legal advisor to Adolf Hitler, issued this legal directive at the enraged order of his Fuhrer:

“In many [criminal] cases it will undoubtedly be necessary to determine whether there were sexual relations between two people or not.

“But if this much is known, it is wholly superfluous to probe for closer particulars as to how and where such sexual intercourse took place.  The cross-examination of women in particular should cease!

“Every time that cross-examining police officials or judges keep probing for details as to the how and where of the sexual intercourse, the Fuhrer has gained the very clear impression that this is done for the same reason that the same intimate questions are asked in the Confessional box

“The Fuhrer wants clear instructions issued for the abolition of unnecessary cross-examination.”1

By contrast, the Arizona legislature has introduced a bill that:

  • requires women who want their contraception covered by their health insurance to prove to their employers that they are taking it to treat medical conditions—not to prevent pregnancy; and
  • makes it easier for employers to fire a woman for using birth control to prevent pregnancy.

Current Arizona law states that health plans covering other prescription medications must include contraception.

To override this requirement, the State House of Representatives passed House Bill 2625 in early March.  The Senate Judiciary Committee endorsed it on March 12.

The full Senate has yet to vote on the legislation.

House Bill 2625 allows any employer to refuse to cover contraception that will be used “for contraceptive, abortifacient, abortion or sterilization purposes.”

If a woman wants the cost of her contraception covered, she must “submit a claim” to her employer providing evidence of a medical condition, such as endometriosis or polycystic ovarian syndrome, that can be treated with birth control.

Even more invasive, the law allows Arizona employers to fire a woman upon finding out that she took birth control  to prevent pregnancy.

In short: While Adolf Hitler was outraged at public officials taking what he considered prurient interest in a woman’s sex life, Arizona’s Republican legislators feel no such restraint.

“I believe we live in America,” said Majority Whip Debbie Lesko (R-Glendale), who sponsored the bill. “We don’t live in the Soviet Union. So, government should not be telling the organizations or mom-and-pop employers to do something against their moral beliefs.”

This should come as no surprise to anyone–least of all women.

Throughout 2011, Republicans attacked women’s reproductive rights–not simply access to legal abortion but even birth control.

At the state level:

  • State legislators introduced more than 1,100 anti-abortion provisions and had enacted 135 of them by year’s end.
  • Seven states either fully defunded or tried to defund Planned Parenthood, which provides basic health care, contraception, breast cancer and STD screenings to millions of low-income women each year.

At the Congressional level:

  • Republicans used abortion and Planned Parenthood funding to extort Democratic concessions during budget negotiations and threatened to shut down the government.
  • Republicans introduced mandatory ultrasound bills.
  • Republicans tried to narrow the definition of rape to include only “forcible rape.”  Under this change, a woman who was coerced, drugged or otherwise incapacitated by a rapist, would not be legally counted as a rape victim.
  • Republicans barred the District of Columbia from using its own locally raised funds to help low-income women pay for abortions.

During the first two months of 2012:

  • Virginia Republicans introduced a bill whose original language required women to undergo an invasive trans-vaginal ultrasound procedure 24 hours before having an abortion.
  • A modified version of the bill–requiring women to receive trans-abdominal ultrasounds, was signed into law instead.
  • With the connivance of House Republicans, Susan G. Komen for the Cure, the nation’s largest breast cancer charity, tried to pull cancer-screening grants from Planned Parenthood because some of its clinics provide abortions.
  • The House Oversight Committee convened a hearing to deny contraceptive insurance coverage under the guise of “protecting religious liberty.” The Democrats’ one female witness, Sandra Fluke, was forbidden to speak at it.
  • Right-wing broadcaster Rush Limbaugh and Foster Friess–Rick Santorum’s chief financial backer–publicly equated birth control use to sexual promiscuity.

And yet Republicans insist they are not waging a “war on women.”

The situation calls to mind a famous joke:  A wife unexpectedly returns home and catches her husband in bed with another woman.  Before she can speak, her husband demands: “Now, what are you going to believe–your own eyes, or what I’m telling you?”

The sheer number of laws proposed or enacted by Republicans at state and Federal levels–to control the sex lives of American women–is staggering.

The dictatorial mentality of right-wingers who advocate such legislation can best be summed up in yet another joke:

Q.  What’s the difference between the Republican Party and the Taliban?

A.  The Republicans are still working on their Arabic.

__________

  1. David Irving, The War Path, Viking Press, 1978.

, , , , , , , , , , ,

THE REPUBLICAN W.O.W. (WAR ON WOMEN)

In Bureaucracy, History, Politics on March 12, 2012 at 1:00 am

According to right-wing talk-show host Rush Limbaugh: “This whole notion of a war on women, it’s so contrived. It’s so forced. It feels so unnatural.  ‘Cause there is no war on women.”

No doubt that’s what the Republican party wants female voters to believe.

But if bureaucracies are judged on their actions instead of on their propagandistic claims, women may well decide otherwise.

Consider:

In the Kansas legislature, Republicans have sponsored a sweeping anti-abortion bill that:

  • would levy a sales tax on women seeking abortions, including rape victims;
  • would exempt doctors from malpractice suits if they withheld medical information to prevent an abortion;
  • would take away tax credits for abortion providers;
  • remove tax deductions for the purchase of abortion-related insurance coverage; and
  • require women to hear the fetal heartbeat.

In Congress, Republicans are sponsoring the Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act, which

  • would make it illegal for anyone but a parent to accompany a young woman across state lines to seek an abortion–even if her parents are absent or abusive.

Meanwhile, Wisconsin state senator Glenn Grothman (R-West Bend) said:

  • “unwanted or mistimed” pregnancies are the “choice of the women”
  • who should learn “that this is a mistake.”

Grothman recently introduced Senate Bill 507, which would

  • formally consider single parenthood a contributing factor to child abuse if passed into law.

On March 8–International Women’s Day–Senator Roy Blunt (R-Mo.) marked the occasion by asking his Twitter followers to join him in celebrating National Agriculture Day.

Blunt had sponsored an amendment that would have

  • allowed employers to refuse health care coverage of any kind for “moral reasons.”

It was voted down in the Senate on March 1.

Many Republicans are still trying to revive the Blunt amendment.  House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) has promised to continue the fight in the House.

Republicans spent much of 2011 challenging women’s reproductive rights.  At the state level:

  • State legislators introduced more than 1,100 anti-abortion provisions and had enacted 135 of them by year’s end.
  • Seven states either fully defunded or tried to defund Planned Parenthood, which provides basic health care, contraception, breast cancer and STD screenings to millions of low-income women each year.

At the Congressional level:

  • Republicans used abortion and Planned Parenthood funding to extort Democratic concessions during budget negotiations and threatened to shut down the government.
  • Republicans introduced mandatory ultrasound bills.
  • Republicans tried to narrow the definition of rape to include only “forcible rape.”  Under this change, a woman who was coerced, drugged or otherwise incapacitated by a rapist, would not be legally counted as a rape victim.
  • Republicans barred the District of Columbia from using its own locally raised funds to help low-income women pay for abortions.

During the first two months of 2012:

  • Virginia Republicans introduced a bill whose original language required women to undergo an invasive trans-vaginal ultrasound procedure 24 hours before having an abortion.
  • A modified version of the bill–requiring women to receive trans-abdominal ultrasounds, was signed into law instead.
  • With the connivance of House Republicans, Susan G. Komen for the Cure, the nation’s largest breast cancer charity, tried to pull cancer-screening grants from Planned Parenthood because some of its clinics provide abortions.
  • The House Oversight Committee convened a hearing to deny contraceptive insurance coverage under the guise of “protecting religious liberty.” The Democrats’ one female witness, Sandra Fluke, was forbidden to speak at it.
  • Right-wing broadcaster Rush Limbaugh and Foster Friess–Rick Santorum’s chief financial backer–publicly equated birth control use to sexual promiscuity.

According to Niccolo Machiavelli, the father of political science, this does not bode well for Republican prospects in November–at the Presidential, House or Senate level.

The reason, says Machiavelli, is this:

“…The quickest way of opening the eyes of the people is to find the means of making them descend to particulars, seeing that to look at things only in a general way deceives them…

“I believe also that…no wise man should ever disregard the popular judgment upon particular matters, such as the distribution of honors and dignities, for in these things the people never deceive themselves….”

Republicans have repeatedly asserted that “job creation” is their “Number One priority.”  Yet wherever they have been elected, they have sought, first and foremost, to place highly restrictive laws on women.

And these laws have been aimed at the most intimate of all aspects of a woman’s life: Her freedom to decide whether–or when–to become a mother.

While Republicans claim their mission is to “get government off the backs of people,” they are relentlessly trying to insert controls on the vaginas of women.

If American women remain alert to this, they can retain–or regain–control over their own bodies.  And put at least a temporary end to the reign of the American Taliban.

, , , , , , , ,

G.O.P (E)HARMONY

In Humor, Politics, Social commentary on March 9, 2012 at 12:15 am

Recently, Rush Limbaugh has forsaken politics for sex–at least in his broadcasts.

Rush Limbaugh

Consider the clearly salacious nature of his remarks about 30-year-old Georgetown University law student Sandra Fluke:

  • “She’s having so much sex she can’t afford the contraception.”
  • “Ms. Fluke, have you ever heard of not having sex?  Have you ever heard of not having sex so often?”
  • “If we are going to pay for your contraceptives and thus pay for you to have sex, we want something for it.  And I’ll tell you what it is.  We want you to post the videos online so we can all watch.”

Limbaugh’s comments ignited a firestorm of criticism.  So far, at least 40 advertisers have pulled their ads from his radio show.

But what if Limbaugh wasn’t aiming his anger at Sandra Fluke?  What if he was simply channeling discontent with his own sex life?

True, on June 5, 2010, Limbaugh–then 59–married Kathryn Rogers, a 33-year-old party planner from Florida.

But now she’s a lusty 35.  And he just turned 61.

So maybe old Rushbo’s having trouble “keeping up.”

On top of that, none of Limbaugh’s three previous marriages produced any children.  So maybe he feels a bit inadequate in that department, too.

In short, maybe it’s time for Mr. Right-Wing to find a new partner–one that’s truly worthy of him.  Say, someone like Ann Coulter.

For America’s right-wing community, this would be a marriage made in Fascist Heaven.

The Rush Limbaugh Show airs throughout the U.S. on over 400 stations and is the highest-rated talk-radio program in the United States. When Limbaugh speaks, his “dittohead” audience listens—and acts as he decrees.

Coulter is a Constitutional attorney, right-wing social and political commentator, author, and syndicated columnist. She is notorious for her fascist political opinions and the controversial ways in which she defends them. Coulter has been engaged several times, but never married.

A marriage between Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh would prove the greatest power-match since the Macbeths. Thus, all that remains is to find a way to bring them together.

And the best way to do that is to show Rushbo and Annie the resulting fruits of such a blessed union. Thus, the following musical tribute to G.O.P. (e)harmony:

“NAZI GIRL”
(To be sung to the tune, “Barbie Girl”)

RUSH:
Hi ya, Annie!

ANNIE:
Hi Rush!

RUSH:
Do you wanna go for a ride?

ANNIE:
Sure Rush!

RUSH:
Jump on….

ANNIE:
I’m a Nazi girl in a Nazi world.
Life as a racist, it’s bodacious!
You can strut and shout, that’s what I’m all about.
Imagination, hate is our creation.

RUSH:
Come on Annie, let’s go Nazi!

ANNIE:
I’m a Nazi girl in a Nazi world.
Life as a racist, it’s bodacious!
You can strut and shout, that’s what I’m all about.
Imagination, hate is our creation.

I’m a blond bimbo girl in a right-wing hate world.
Wind me up, turn me loose, I’ll go slander.

RUSH:
You’re my doll, rock n’ roll, feel the glamour in pink.
Kiss me here, touch me there.
Hanky panky….

ANNIE:
You can touch, you can play, if you say: “I’m always Right.”

(uu-oooh-u)

I’m a Nazi girl in a Nazi world.
Life as a racist, it’s bodacious!
You can strut and shout, that’s what I’m all about.
Imagination, hate is our creation.

RUSH:
Come on Annie, let’s go Nazi!

ANNIE:
(Ah-ah-ah-yeah)

RUSH:
Come on Annie, let’s go Nazi!

ANNIE:
(uu-oooh-u)

RUSH:
Come on Annie, let’s go Nazi!

ANNIE:
(Ah-ah-ah-yeah)

RUSH:
Come on Annie, let’s go Nazi!

ANNIE:
(uu-oooh-u)

ANNIE:
Hear me lie, hear me brag, say whatever you please.
I can dress like a slut, I’m a right-wing prick tease.

RUSH:
Come jump in, bimbo friend, let us do it again.
Hit the town, fool around, let’s go Nazi.

ANNIE:
You can touch, you can play, if you say: “I’m always Right.”
You can touch, you can play, if you say: “I’m always Right.”

RUSH:
Come on Annie, let’s go Nazi!

ANNIE:
(Ah-ah-ah-yeah)

RUSH:
Come on Annie, let’s go Nazi!

ANNIE:
(uu-oooh-u)

RUSH:
Come on Annie, let’s go Nazi!

ANNIE:
(Ah-ah-ah-yeah)

RUSH:
Come on Annie, let’s go Nazi!

ANNIE:
(uu-oooh-u)

ANNIE:
I’m a Nazi girl in a Nazi world.
Life as a racist, it’s bodacious!
You can strut and shout, that’s what I’m all about.
Imagination, hate is our creation.

ANNIE:
I’m a Nazi girl in a Nazi world.
Life as a racist, it’s bodacious!
You can strut and shout, that’s what I’m all about.
Imagination, hate is our creation.

RUSH:
Come on Annie, let’s go Nazi!

ANNIE:
(Ah-ah-ah-yeah)

ANNIE
Come on Annie, let’s go Nazi!

ANNIE:
(uu-oooh-u)

RUSH:
Come on Annie, let’s go Nazi!

ANNIE:
(Ah-ah-ah-yeah)

RUSH:
Come on Annie, let’s go Nazi!

ANNIE:
(uu-oooh-u)

ANNIE:
Oh, I’m having so much fun!

RUSH:
Well, Annie, we’re just getting started.

ANNIE:
Oh, I love you Rush!

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 49 other followers

%d bloggers like this: