Email This Post Email This Post

Keystone XL: Not Just a Potential Environmental Disaster But An Economic One Too.

By Admin Mugsy - Last updated: Monday, November 17, 2014

Did you know about 1/2 of the Keystone XL Pipeline has ALREADY BEEN BUILT? The KXL project is a 1,200 mile long pipeline extending from Hardisty, Alberta to refineries in Houston, Texas near The Houston Ship Channel. The southern legs of the pipeline, one branch from Steele City, KS to the pipeline hub of Cushing, Okla., and the other to two refineries near Springfield, Ill, were constructed between 2011 and earlier this year. in The state of Kansas… which just reelected Governor Sam Brownback despite a record of extraordinary economic malpractice thanks to massive unpaid-for tax cuts strapping the state with a whopping $279 Million dollar budget deficit… gave the Canadian oil company “TransCanada”$15 Million dollar ANNUAL tax cut (ibid first link) to entice them into building the pipeline through their state. That’s like bribing a highway construction crew already knocking on your front door to reroute the freeway through your living room. The tax revenue lost to Brownback’s idiotic tax cut was NOT recovered in tax revenue from new employment. Worse, when that pipeline starts leaking… and it will… the state of Kansas can TRY to get TransCanada to pay for the cleanup, but the imposed fine (if there’s even one at all) won’t cover the actual cost of cleanup or damages. It never does. Who picks up that tab? But “health” and “cleanup” costs are just two of the half-dozen or so economic pitfalls from allowing this pipeline to continue. I already noted the loss of tax revenue in Kansas. Consider that land and the immediate area around it a dead zone for the next 100 years as people decide they don’t want to live near a pipeline (noisy, smelly, dangerous). And the list goes on.

Businesses near the pipeline will soon be forced to relocate as the local population moves away. That translates to fewer jobs and less tax revenue. At the destinations of these pipelines, not only will residents/businesses flee the pipeline itself, but the massive lakes of toxic waste (called: “tailing ponds”) will chase away new residents better than being told their house was the site of a brutal murder/suicide.

Ask anyone from South-East Texas about a place called “Texas City”, and the first thing they’ll mention is how bad it smells. “Texas City” is home to three major oil refineries, only a short hop away from “Port Arthur”… one of Keystone’s three destinations… with its three additional refineries. Trust me, no one lives there unless they have to (employed at the refineries). Not only does the air stink of rotten eggs (sulfur) for miles around, but the air actually burns your eyes and throat after just a few minutes (it is common local knowledge to “roll up your windows” when driving past this section of East Texas.)

I keep hearing supporters of the pipeline say, “It will create jobs!” like it’s a universally accepted statement of fact, and to doubt “that one simple fact” makes you irrational. During last Friday’s episode of “Real Time With Bill Maher”, CNN “Political Contributor” Margret Hoover stated as a fact: “The reality is that the Keystone XL Pipeline will create jobs. Who could be against that?” And MSNBC’s Chris Matthews also repeated the mythical “it will create jobs” claim during “Meet the Press” yesterday. In both cases, NO ONE challenged those assertions. JUST ONCE I’d like to hear someone ask the obvious (bleeping) follow-up: “DOING WHAT?” Seriously. Certainly not in the actual construction of the pipeline itself. As I’ve already pointed out, nearly HALF of the pipeline has already been built. And most of the steel pipe used to construct the pipeline has already been purchased from India. And if you think that Indian steel is stronger than American-made steel with less risk of rupture as 1million barrels a day of liquified dirt SANDBLASTS the walls of that pipe 24/7/365, I have a bird estuary to sell you. No surprise by the lack of pushback on MtP, but one would think that at least on a Left-leaning show like Maher’s, he’d challenge the notion. But he didn’t. Yesterday, ABC’s “ThisWeek” had on the CEO of TransCanda who conceded an AP report that the pipeline would create “just 50 permanent jobs in the U.S.”, but countered that it was still a “job creator” because it would also create “9,000 (low-paying temporary) construction jobs” and “42,000 indirect” jobs (over 2 years)“:
 

CEO of TransCanada, Bill Girling, concedes that the costly pipeline may create only FIFTY permanent jobs in the US and perhaps only 50,000 “temporary” and “indirect” jobs along the construction route over TWO years.

 

Seriously? These are the “jobs, jobs, jobs” Republicans have been promising? We’re risking certain environmental disaster to produce less than half as many jobs as the U.S. economy needs EACH MONTH just to keep up with population growth, over the span of TWO YEARS? Tell me we’re not being ruled by people THAT dumb!

UPDATE: Doing the math, best case scenario of 51,000 temp jobs (9,000 + 42,000) spread out over two years has the same impact as adding just 490 jobs a week for the next two years, or roughly a 0.45% increase in monthly job growth.

While live Facebooking/Tweeting the Sunday News Shows yesterday (click here to follow us on Twitter or here to follow us on Facebook), I found myself in a Twitter “debate” with a “Proud Truther” that thought I wasn’t very bright if I couldn’t figure out all the jobs that could be created from “Construction and maintenance” of the pipeline. Long story short, after I advocated promoting “Green jobs” over the pipeline, he responded with the familiar Republican claim that “government does not create jobs”. This is a common (and painfully stupid) response by Republicans whenever talking about using the government to promote job creation. The “logic” (if you can call it that) goes this way: “If the government creates the job, it costs tax dollars, for a net gain of zero.” And if government were the employer, he might have a point (he’d still be wrong, but at least a defensible argument.)

So I respond back, “Government doesn’t create jobs? That’s demonstrably false. The government creates jobs ALL THE TIME.” May I just point out that this mental midget was arguing with me OVER THE INTERNET… which was a government project and now responsible for hundreds of millions of jobs. Before that, we are STILL reaping the benefits of President Eisenhower’s “Interstate Highway Project” today. And the next time you drive over an eighty year old bridge built under FDR’s WPA (Work Projects Administration), ask yourself how much each of these things has contributed to Commerce in this country?

Remember that “failed” government program that lost millions on “Solyndra“… a GOP punchline for the past six years that Republicans pointed to as an example of “money wasted trying to promote green jobs”? Well, it’s slated to turn a $5 to 6 BILLION dollar profit next year as the majority of companies backed by the program more than out-performed the losses.

Some “reluctant” supporters of constructing the pipeline (and many Republicans, like Sen. John Thune, trying to straddle the fence on Fox “news” Sunday yesterday) like to say, “Construction of the pipeline is inevitable. They are going to sell that oil whether we build the pipeline or not, so we might as well just build it.” Few arguments in favor of the pipeline anger me more than this one. It’s the, “we’re all going to die someday so why not just put a bullet in our brains now?” argument. Former Talk Radio host Ed Schultz made this asinine argument on his radio show last year creating a firestorm. People like myself quickly set him straight and eventually he recanted, but the damage had been done and his show was off the air a few months later.

No. Construction of the pipeline is NOT “inevitable”. Turning tarsand into “oil” is an extremely expensive process, and it is only cost effective with oil between $65-$75/barrel (add this to the mess with ISIS and it’s just one more way the Bush Administration royally screwed this country.) Get the price of oil below $70/barrel and it is no longer cost effective to try to turn that sludge into “oil”. Last week, the price of oil fell below $75/barrel for the first time since 2006. The price of oil the week before the invasion of Iraq? $32/barrel. 

I heard numerous Conservative Commentators yesterday repeat the “common sense” logic that “increasing the supply of oil” (by tapping the Tarsands reserves) will bring down the price of oil. I’ve already detailed in my “Truth About the KXL” report how there isn’t enough oil in the Alberta tarsands (even when added to our our own Bakken shale reserves) to “glut the market”, and that even if there were, OPEC would simply cut production to drive the price back up. So any idea that the tarsands oil will mean lower gas prices is based on nonsense.

For FAR less money… with the side benefits of creating FAR more PERMANENT high-tech green jobs and without the double costs of environmental and economic disaster… we can REDUCE our dependence on oil… the ONLY thing that would actually have an impact on oil prices. I pointed out a couple of years ago that roughly 8% of our electricity is generated by oil-powered turbines. Replace them with windfarms and you DRAMATICALLY reduce the amount of oil this country consumes each year (FAR more than “8 percent”), which in turn would bring oil prices down… quickly. OPEC can’t simply drive prices up by cutting production of a product for which there is already less of a demand. They’ll just drive away customers.

There is no economic future in continuing our dependence on fossil fuels. Green jobs pay better and have an actual future, but our government is about to be dominated by people desperate to protect the Blacksmithing Industry from the invention of the Automobile. Senate Democrats are suddenly willing to hold a vote on Keystone because they think helping Louisiana Senator Mary Landrieu agree with her opponent on the pipeline will save her job (bang head on wall repeatedly). Have they learned NOTHING from the beating they took just one week ago? Conceding your opponents position doesn’t win you elections. I can think of no better/safer time to kick Landrieu to the curb as a warning to other Democrats. Keeping this notorious DINO in office doesn’t change the balance of power. She’s about to vote with the Republicans (again) in opposition to President Obama (again), so tell me again why I should waste ONE DIME trying to save her seat in Washington? Keystone is a White Elephant for Democrats. Add to that the economic costs of cleanup and the decimation of local economies from “blight flight” (you like that? I just made it up) and Republican “tax cuts” to attract something any sane group would pay to keep away, and you have a project that is SO bad on SO many levels, it’s almost inconceivable that anyone is taking this idea seriously.
 



Writers Wanted Got something to say? Mugsy’s Rap Sheet is always looking for article submissions to focus on the stories we may miss each week. To volunteer your own Op/Ed for inclusion here, send us an email with an example of your writing skills & choice of topic, and maybe we’ll put you online!

RSS Please REGISTER to be notified by e-mail every time this Blog is updated! Firefox/IE users can use RSS for a browser link that lists the latest posts! RSS


 

Share
Filed in Economy, Energy Independence, Environment, Global Warming, Greed, Jobs, Money, myth busting, Right-Wing Insanity November 17th, 2014 by Admin Mugsy | • 3 comments | Add/View

Email This Post Email This Post

Electorate Votes Big for Progressive Policies (and the people least likely to implement them)

By Admin Mugsy - Last updated: Monday, November 10, 2014

What conclusions can be drawn from an electorate that voted overwhelmingly for Progressive policies in last Tuesday’s election only to also vote for the people LEAST likely to implement them? In EVERY state where raising the Minimum Wage was on the ballot, all Deep-RED states, it won. In EVERY state where marijuana legalization was on the ballot, it won. In EVERY state where increased gun control was on the ballot, it won. And in EVERY state where “personhood” for fertilized eggs was on the ballot, it lost. Yet in many of these same states, Republicans… who are the least likely to support these measures… won big. How does one account for that?

On The Rachel Maddow Show the night after the election, she provided an itemized list of Progressive victories the night before:
 

Howard Dean, who ran the DNC before Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, and whose “50 State Strategy” played a huge role in 2006 Democratic sweep of Congress, said the most brilliant thing on “Meet the Press” yesterday:

“The Republican strategy was simply to say, We’re not Obama. And the Democratic strategy was to say, We’re not Obama either. What in the Hell kind of strategy is that?”

In recent weeks, I too have lambasted Democrats for buying into the Republican meme that “President Obama is wildly unpopular” and running away from him and his policies when they should have been defending them. When given the choice between a Party that does nothing but criticize the president vs a Party that concedes their opponents criticism, why on Earth would anyone vote for the same Party as the president? It was beyond stupid. So it was only natural that the GOP candidates would defeat their wishy-washy opponents.

Yet, when it came to ballot issues, the voters STILL expressed a CLEAR preference for Progressive positions. People WANT Progressive government, but they also want stuff to get done. Republicans went out on the campaign trail and told voters that if they want to END GRIDLOCK, they need control of both Houses of Congress. With a metaphorical gun to the electorates’ head, Republicans told voters to, “Elect me before I obstruct again!” NOT ONCE did I hear a Democrat argue the opposite: that giving THEM control of both houses would also end the gridlock in Washington (I find it curious that, despite a 16% approval rating, Control of the House was never in question thanks to Gerrymandering). Republicans already blame President Obama for their own unprecedented obstruction of Congress, but even with control of both houses, President Obama still has his Veto Pen, so if Republicans think they can “repeal ObamaCare” or include the “deportation of 12 Million undocumented workers” in their border-security bill, we’re STILL going to see gridlock in Washington. And if the Tea Party extremists get their way and begin impeachment proceedings, just how much do you expect this Congress to get done?

So what’s going on here? Did voters just not draw a connection between the policies they were voting for and the people they were electing to implement them (FACT: The more educated you are, the more likely you are to vote Democrat), or something more sinister?

I despise Conspiracy Theories, and I think the moment you start arguing “election theft” when you lose, you lose all credibility when you win. “Voter Suppression” efforts were rampant across the country this election, but they account for the record low turnout (just 36.6%) not for the inconsistent way in which people voted. Yes, there were reports of “vote flipping” on “touch screen” based voting machines (built more than a decade before modern touch screen tablet technology and thus painfully due for an update), but machines were found to be flipping votes in both directions, an indication the problem is more a em>calibration issue than one of nefarious intent.

However…

If one WERE to rig voting machines so that GOP candidates in close races ended up winning big, and Democrats with huge leads ended up winning in squeakers, it is conceivable that the people rigging the machines didn’t think to rig the “ballot issues” as well to keep the results looking consistent. If I were the conspiracy-type, such a result would definitely be ringing alarm bells in my mind. But instead, I think the problem had more to do with an electorate that just didn’t link the candidates they were voting for to the issues they supported.

In Colorado, where “Personhood” was on the ballot, that measure lost by a whopping THIRTY-POINTS, and yet they elected an Evangelical senator that ran in support of personhood during the primaries only to flip-flop on the issue come the General Election. It was a reversal no Coloradoan could claim not to know about since his opponent, Tom Udall, ran so many ads on the subject he was branded: “Tom Uterus”. But like so many other Democrats, Udall ran away from President Obama’s record of success in spite of unprecedented GOP obstruction, suggesting there was some validity to the GOP’s claims of Obama being a failure, so when faced with the choice between the Party that has been saying for six years that Obama was a failure vs a Democrat that suddenly appears to be conceding his opponents argument, who are the voters going to vote for?

So what can we expect from the next two years? While I do expect to see a LOT of fighting, I predict most of it will be in-fighting amongst Republicans… the “old guard” Republicans that learned some lessons from the past, and brash Tea Party hotheads like Ted Cruz that will make “the repeal of ObamaCare” amongst his highest priorities (NOTE: Thanks to ObamaCare health insurance premiums are slated to rise at just 7.5% next year), as he openly ridicules his fellow Republicans for an unwillingness to consider impeaching Obama (while I still consider the possibility as quite high, I think there are enough Republicans old enough to remember the brusing 1999 impeachment of President Clinton, how it was widely viewed as “petty & vindictive”, and know that if they tried it again, the Press would crucify them.)

2014 was a case study in how NOT to run an election. This was NOT, repeat NOT, a “wave” election for Republicans. Record low turnout is not a “wave”. Did more people show up to vote Republican because they oppose the President, or did more people opposed to the president simply show up to vote? Clearly from all the Progressive ballot issues that won, voters don’t disapprove of the Democratic agenda. But don’t tell that to all the Republicans they just voted for to enact that agenda. 36.6% is not a “mandate”.
 



Writers Wanted Got something to say? Mugsy’s Rap Sheet is always looking for article submissions to focus on the stories we may miss each week. To volunteer your own Op/Ed for inclusion here, send us an email with an example of your writing skills & choice of topic, and maybe we’ll put you online!

RSS Please REGISTER to be notified by e-mail every time this Blog is updated! Firefox/IE users can use RSS for a browser link that lists the latest posts! RSS


 

Share
Filed in Election, myth busting, Partisanship, Politics, Predictions, Rants, Seems Obvious to Me, voting November 10th, 2014 by Admin Mugsy | • No comments | Add/View

Email This Post Email This Post

History Has Shown Us What Happens With Republicans In Charge – and it’s not good

By Admin Mugsy - Last updated: Monday, November 3, 2014

Probably THE reason I’ve been writing this blog every week for the last ten years is because of the importance of elections. As the subtitle says, “Recording History for those Who Seek to Rewrite it”. Of course, you wouldn’t need to be reminded of something if you had no power to change it. Not only is it about the elections, but also to remind voters of what happens when they vote while uninformed/misinformed. (Side-Note to anyone that thinks elections don’t matter: Ask the people spending BILLIONS trying to suppress your vote why do they bother if elections don’t matter?) Republicans are notorious for their hypocrisy when their politicians do the very things they claim to oppose (eg: GWB decrying “nation building” during the 2000 RNC Convention, to name but one) to a wholesale rewrite of the Reagan Legacy to turn the former union-leader that raised taxes 12 times, decried Assault Weapons, never attended church and granted amnesty to 10 million undocumented immigrants into “Jesus Meets John Wayne”. I’ve written multiple times of how the founder of “The Party of Lincoln” couldn’t get elected Dog Catcher by today’s GOP. And those are the Republicans we liked. But the past three-decades has produced what has to be the most noxious, partisan, short-sighted Republican Party I’ve ever seen. Republicans have left a long (slimy) trail of hypocrisy and economic disaster in their wake, yet somehow they keep managing to get elected by people with incredibly short memories and no foresight. I’ve likened it to psychotics that believe they “don’t need their meds” WHILE ON their meds (ie: Voting Republican after Democrats clean up their mess), discontinuing them only for disaster to ensue. So let’s take a little stroll down Memory Lane for a look back at the GOP Highlight Reel.

Reagan

During his 1980 Presidential campaign, Reagan criticized the Carter Administration for allowing the National Debt to grow to to a “staggering” $800-Billion dollars. Just days after entering office, in an address to Congress in February of 1981, Reagan’s speech-writers came up with the infamous “stack of dollar bills” analogy to give people a sense of just how much money “one Trillion dollars” really is. The Reagan prescription called for a massive tax-cut intended to (quote) “starve The Beast” [ie: government] in a misguided belief that less money coming in would force Congress to cut spending and reduce the Deficit. Sounds reasonable enough. But what the Reagan Administration didn’t count on was there there isn’t that much “fat” in the Federal Budget. And spending wasn’t exactly curbed when the staunch 1950’s anti-Communist decided that the way to defeat “The Red Menace” was to spend them into oblivion via a costly arms race. Before Reagan was governor of California, the former actor was the Head of “The Screen Actors Guild”… a union to protect the rights of people in the film industry… and volunteered to be an FBI informant in McCarthy’s anti-Communist witch-hunt that led to him testifying against “the Hollywood Ten”… a blacklist that ruined the careers of a number of prominent writers, actors and directors.

What the Reagan Administration did not count on was that sucking that much money out of the economy meant fewer paychecks. Less than two years later, Reagan’s Corporate tax cuts led to 10.8% unemployment, the highest since The Great Depression and a level not seen since. To get the unemployment rate back down, the Reagan Administration went on a hiring binge, greatly expanding the size of the Federal Government… which cost money, further exploding the Debt.

By the time Reagan ran for reelection in 1984… less than four years after lambasting the Carter Administration for allowing the National Debt to grow to $800-Billion dollars… “Reaganomics” had nearly doubled 204 years worth of accumulated Debt to $1.5-Trillion dollars. Because the government was borrowing so heavily to finance the Federal Government, people enjoyed all the benefits of low taxes AND a fully-funded Federal Government without realizing just how much they were putting on the National Credit Card. By the time Reagan left office, the National Debt had more than TRIPLED to $2.7-Trillion dollars. 12-years later, soon after taking office, Dick Cheney declared that “Reagan proved that Deficits don’t matter”. Then the Bush Administration proceeded to turn Clinton’s Surplus into a $1.4-Trillion dollar a year Deficit… which didn’t seem to bother Republicans all that much until Barack Obama inherited it. Then suddenly, The Debt (but not The Deficit which is shrinking) became an apocalypse waiting to happen. But I digress.

If the hypocrisy of Deficit Spending under Reagan weren’t enough, how about being “the most corrupt Administration in history”… a title that took some doing barely a decade after the Nixon Administration. Reagan’s presidency ended with ONE-HUNDRED AND THIRTY-EIGHT public officials being indicted or going to Federal prison, the most in American history thanks to things like the “Iran/Contra” scandal (selling arms to Iran to finance the Nicaraguan Contras). And I well remember when… after Congress rejected Reagan’s request to provide rebel Contra forces with money to buy guns, as “Commander-in-Chief”, “St. Ronnie” simply circumvented Congress (sound familiar?) by ordering the U.S. military to storm the beaches of Nicaragua loaded down with as much weaponry as they could carry, dump it all there on the beach, and walk away. The Contras got their guns and Congress was forced to spend the money anyway to rearm our military.

Bush-I

Despite the exploding Debt and record corruption, the country still elected Reagan’s Vice President, George HW Bush, to continue the Reagan presidency. Unfortunately for Republicans, Poppy Bush… who ran against Reagan in 1980 criticizing his economic policies as “Voodoo economics” (the belief that you can increase Federal Revenue by slashing taxes on the rich) was a bit more responsible when it came to Federal spending (not by much mind you, but enough.) Poppy Bush, after assuring cynical Republicans that he wouldn’t raise taxes with his infamous “Read. My. Lips.” pledge, was forced to do so when he saw what Reagan’s tax cuts were doing to the Deficit. So he agreed to a small tax increase in exchange for concessions on drastic spending cuts… inflicting the worst of both worlds on the economy, which thew itself headlong into a Recession.

Bill Clinton’s 1992 Campaign Theme was “It’s the economy, stupid”, ridiculing Poppy Bush for refusing to even mention the subject on the campaign trail. So upset were most Americans with the Bush-I economy, many (myself included) turned to Third-Party candidate Ross Perot. To this day, I wonder what disasters might have befallen the country if Perot had actually won the election… a man that it turned out had no interest in “negotiating” with Congress or anyone else, believing there was a “mandate” for what he believed was right for the country and would ignore anyone that told him otherwise (that’s not a guess. That’s what we learned after one of his campaign managers, Ed Rollins, revealed when he resigned in protest.) I view my support for Perot as a learning lesson for why it is so important to be an informed voter today.

The 1994 Gingrich Revolution

In 1994, following two years of vicious partisan attacks and recriminations by Republicans against a president they viewed as “illegitimate” (thanks to Perot’s third-party candidacy that allowed Clinton to win with less than 50% of the vote), House Minority Leader Newt Gingrich orchestrated the GOP takeover of Congress during the 1994 mid-terms resulting in six straight years of pointless costly investigations in a failed attempt to derail the Clinton presidency. When their partisan witch-hunt failed to deny Clinton reelection in 1996, the GOP controlled Congress turned its attention toward “impeachment” to ensure Clinton didn’t finish out his second term. But there was no “there” there. “White Water”… a failed land deal, never produced evidence of criminal wrong-doing. Clinton’s reported philandering was an embarrassment, but not criminal. For some inexplicable reason, President Clinton allowed the GOP to subpoena him and force him to testify under oath that he wasn’t cheating on his wife… again, scummy but not a crime. Under oath, Clinton denied the truthful accusation, which in itself was (arguably) criminal, thus handing the GOP on a silver platter the justification to impeach him.

Two of Clinton’s key critics, Rep. Newt Gingrich and Sen. Henry Hyde were both currently having extramarital affairs WHILE they were denouncing President Clinton for his, a fact that did not to come out until years later. The sum culmination of six-years of investigations of everything from “The White House Christmas Card List” to “Socks The Cat’s Fan Club”: $70 Million dollars, no conviction, and Clinton leaving office with a (legitimate) popularity that rivals that of St. Ronnie (illegitimate, based on the most whitewashed record imaginable).

Bush-II

During the 2000 presidential race, George W Bush… whose only claims to fame prior to being elected governor of Texas were being a chronically failed businessman, son of a former president, and managing a baseball team that traded away Sammy Sosa… crisscrossed the nation talking down the record-breaking Clinton economy, claiming that “If only a Republican president had been in charge with the Republican Congress for the last six years… just imagine how much better things might have been.” People bought it and (arguably) elected a Republican president to preside over THE SAME Republican Congress Clinton had. The result was a disaster. Economic gains reversed almost immediately and the Stock Market plunged nearly one thousand points from Bush’s first day in office (10,587 on 1/19/2001 to 9,605 on September 10, 2001… so no blaming 9/11). The incoming Bush Administration was too busy plotting the invasion of Iraq to listen to CIA warnings of an impending attack on the US mainland by alQaeda, resulting in the arguably avoidable disaster of 9/11. A wave of post-9/11 patriotic fervor swept the GOP back in power in 2002 and Bush (narrowly) back in office in 2004 despite the disastrous decision to invade Iraq on grounds that people were quickly beginning to realize were totally bogus… with the Bush Administration actually campaigning on “You don’t change horses in mid-stream”… a “stream” that ironically only existed because they blew up the dam.

The Stock Market continued to plunge and unemployment continued to climb as rising oil/gas prices (thanks to the invasion of Iraq) made everything more expensive, ushering in the first or TWO Bush Recessions. The Bush Administration’s solution was to cut interest rates to the bone and encourage people to invest in real-estate. Millions of people were talked into taking out “Adjustable Rate Mortgages” to purchase well beyond their means, but as the economy continued to decline, those ARM rates started to go up & up. As more money shifted from buying goods to paying high interest rates on their mortgages and $3/gal gasoline, the economy started to implode as people began losing their jobs and defaulting on their mortgages, resulting in the collapse of the Banking industry and the biggest economic bailout in history… ON TOP OF the ongoing costs of two wars… one of which we never should have been in and neither with a plan to get out. President Bush would be only the second president in history to leave office with the DOW lower the day he left than the day he took office (the first was Herbert Hoover.)

The GOP under Obama

This is the Sh!t storm President Obama inherited. Yet today, less than six years later, the economy is recovering DESPITE unprecedented Republican obstruction. The DOW has nearly TRIPLED where it was following the collapse of the Bush economy (from 6,547 in March of 2009 to 17,390 last Friday), unemployment has fallen to just 5.9% (below where it was when Obama took office) and GDP grew at 3.5%, the strongest rate in 10 years.

o Republicans said Raising taxes on the rich would crash the economy. President Obama raised taxes on the Rich. The economy is strong and getting stronger by the day. The Deficit is shrinking as a result and has NOT ONCE been larger than the Deficit left to him by President Bush.

o Republicans said ObamaCare would push up unemployment as companies laid off employees rather than insure them. Instead, unemployment is at it’s lowest level in over six years… helping prove the point that tax breaks for the rich don’t create jobs, consumer demand does. So employers are hiring, not firing, despite “ObamaCare”.

o Sarah Palin’s “Death Panels”? They never materialized. In fact, people who were denied coverage by insurance companies’ OWN “death panels” before ObamaCare are now covered. The GOP has vowed to repeal that coverage if they regain power.

o They told us “the only way to get gas prices down is to approve the (disastrous) Keystone XL pipeline”. Gas is below $3/gallon and falling thanks in part to increased competition among OPEC nations, not the construction of any pipeline.

o Obama is mishandling Ebola? ONE death by a man that was turned away from a hospital in a RED state. ZERO cases of Ebola spreading within the general public. By all accounts, handling of the Ebola outbreak has been WILDLY successful.

o Mishandling ISIS? First, let’s not forget there wouldn’t even BE an ISIS if it weren’t for the invasion of Iraq ala the GOP.

o Border crisis? As I pointed out last week, the GOP is actually running ads suggesting ISIS is entering into the U.S. across the Mexican border, while others openly wonder if those poor Central American children entering the country may be carrying the African disease of Ebola. Neither of which are true.

The Republican Party, unable to run on their own record or on Obama’s economic record, are instead doing what they always do: make baseless hypocritical claims of criminal wrongdoing (“Fast & Furious” and “IRS-gate” brought to you by the backers of Iran/Contra and Iraq/WMDs), hypocritical claims of incompetency (cries of “Benghazi!” from the people that brought you “9/11″), and threats of impeachment for circumventing GOP obstruction (the same Party that praises St. Ronnie despite circumventing Congress to arm the Contras.)

They can’t win on their record, so they’ve enacted Draconian “Voter ID” laws across the country, suppressing literally millions of traditionally Democratic low-income voters in the name of “voter fraud”… an activity so rare that more people are convicted of “migratory bird violations” each year than have been convicted of voter fraud in the past decade… not only incredibly rare but hardly enough to swing an election. Don’t think for a moment that they don’t know what they’re doing. If the voters were truly on their side, they’d be doing everything to encourage the vote, not suppress it. And, a question I’ve been asking all year: I’m still waiting for someone to explain what cutting Early Voting hours/days has to do with fighting “voter fraud”?

Ebola, ISIS and trumped up claims of wrongdoing. Fear & Smear. That’s all they have to offer this election season. “Be afraid! Be very afraid! Oh, and vote Republican!” The GOP thinks you should ignore the economic growth and their unprecedented obstruction, and put them back in charge. The amazing thing is that it seems to be working. Those who do not learn from history…
 



Writers Wanted Got something to say? Mugsy’s Rap Sheet is always looking for article submissions to focus on the stories we may miss each week. To volunteer your own Op/Ed for inclusion here, send us an email with an example of your writing skills & choice of topic, and maybe we’ll put you online!

RSS Please REGISTER to be notified by e-mail every time this Blog is updated! Firefox/IE users can use RSS for a browser link that lists the latest posts! RSS


 

Share
Filed in Economy, Election, myth busting, rewriting history, Right-Wing Hypocrisy, Taxes, voting November 3rd, 2014 by Admin Mugsy | • No comments | Add/View

Email This Post Email This Post

Ebola Hysteria Is A Greater Threat Than Ebola

By Admin Mugsy - Last updated: Monday, October 20, 2014

In the Summer of 2001, before “9/11″, reports of an 8 year old Florida boy losing an arm after being attacked by a Bull Shark grabbed the headlines. A day or two later, a New York man vacationing in the Bahamas lost a leg in a shark attack. Barely a week after that, another Florida man was bitten six miles from the spot where the first boy was bitten. The media went into hysterics and suddenly it was “The Summer of the Shark”, despite the fact that the annual number of shark attacks was actually DOWN that year as compared to 1999 & 2000. But 2001 was already shaping up to be a slow news year and they needed something to fill the empty airtime. It was “tabloid TV” at its worst, creating fear & panic without justification just to give the Media something to talk about. And we’re seeing it again now with the hype over “Ebola”.

A grand total of THREE people in the entire United States have developed Ebola while here in the U.S., and ALL THREE linked to the same man. The family of the man that has since passed away… who had been living WITH him in the same house and were then imprisoned in their own home WITH his infected sheets and other personal items for weeks… did not contract the virus and are perfectly healthy. The health care worker that stupidly flew cross country WHILE running a fever… the man that sat next to her on the plane… he’s infection-free as well. For a disease that is so infectious (easily caught), it’s not turning out to be easily contagious (easily spread).

In 1978, a movie called “The Swarm” capitalized on the hysteria over a report that “Africanized Killer Bees” were making their way up from Central America, across our Southern border and into the United States. The movie may have bombed at the box office in part by people too afraid to leave their homes to go to the movie theater for fear of being attacked by bees. Eventually, the bees did get here, but in relatively small number and reports of “death by killer bees” are incredibly rare. But the panic at the time was very real. Of all the things people had to be frightened about, sky-darkening swarms of “Killer Bees” decimating entire cities wasn’t exactly one of them.

This really caught my attention yesterday morning (from the opening minutes of “Meet the Press”):
 

More deadly than Ebola

 

15 minutes into their hour long Fear Fest over Ebola, Chuck Todd produced the above list of things you have a FAR GREATER chance of dying from in the U.S. than Ebola, yet that didn’t stop them from spending the entire hour preying on people’s irrational fears for the sake of ratings (in fact, ALL FOUR major network Sunday Shows yesterday were dedicated to the topic of “Ebola”.) I’d just like to point out for the record that the name “ISIS” never came up once on ANY of these shows. Two weeks ago, we were “all gonna die” as ISIS/ISIL made it’s way into the U.S. across Rick Perry’s extraordinarily porous border with Mexico. Why must every mortal threat to Republicans cross the Mexican border?

You have an almost 54 THOUSAND TIMES greater chance of catching & dying from THE FLU than Ebola. And you are TWENTY-SIX TIMES more likely to be struck & killed by lightning, but for some reason, THREE cases… only one of which was fatal… all connected to the same man… has everyone in a panic.

And when I say “everyone”, I of course mean Republicans. Because, as I’ve been pointing out for weeks now, Republicans are terrified of EVERYTHING. They live in constant blinding fear of everything from “government plots” (see: “FEMA camps” and “Death panels”) to black kids in hoodies. They sleep with a gun under their pillows and think one guy with Ebola in Dallas is going to lead to a nation-wide pandemic (though by definition, a “pandemic” is global.)

A number of prominent Republicans are harnessing that irrational fear of Ebola for political gain, attacking President Obama’s “failed response to controlling the Ebola outbreak“… which I remind you has been just THREE people in Dallas. And it doesn’t help matters any when a spineless White House seems to concede their ridiculous claims by “admitting” they could have handled their response to the Ebola “crisis” better. And even when Chuck Todd gave several medical professionals an opening to criticize the GOP’s refusal to appoint a Surgeon General (who normally would be in charge of setting national policy on an issue such as this), they were quick to dismiss the idea that a Surgeon General is even necessary.

One of the (ridiculous) key criticisms being levied by the GOP against President Obama’s choice of “Ebola Czar” is that he’s “not a doctor” (which is stupid because no one expects The Manager to be able to do the job of his staff. Could your boss do YOUR job?). But you know who WOULD be “a doctor”? A Surgeon General, which the GOP has chosen to block (Sen. Roy Blunt defended the GOP’s year-long obstruction of Obama’s nominee by putting the blame on Obama for “not appointing someone they could support.” Does anyone reading this believe there is ANYONE Obama could have nominated they wouldn’t have blocked? They’ve blocked FAR less controversial nominations for purely political reasons. And now it looks as though voters that haven’t been paying attention will reward their unprecedented obstruction, awarding control of Congress to a Party with an approval rating lower than Ebola.)

The Big Talking Point right now that Republicans seem to be gaining the most traction with is a “Travel Ban” to/from nations in Ebola “Hot Zones”. This “quick-fix” has a lot of appeal to easily-panicked Americans that have been fed a steady diet of Fear by the GOP-led media for the past month. I mean, it seems so obvious! “Why hasn’t Obama cut off commercial travel to Ebola-infected territories?”

Here’s why:

  1. There are no direct flights between the U.S. and these tiny West African nations dealing with the disease, making identifying travelers a logistical nightmare. It’s not like you know which country a passenger is returning from when they arrive in the U.S.. It would be like trying to screen out people that visited Martha’s Vineyard before allowing them into California when there are no direct flights between the two.
  2. If you make travel to these regions “a crime”, you drive potentially infected travelers underground, afraid to seek help should they become ill for fear of being arrested.
  3. And following up on #2, a willingness to come forward and/or seek help means greater tracking & accountability. We are presently able to track/contact other passengers & coworkers that might have come in contact with infected patients. Drive the victims underground, and tracking their movements becomes impossible.
  4. “Bans” & “Restrictions” create panic. If we start restricting travel in & out of these countries, you’re going to see people trying to “sneak in”. And I don’t mean “across the Mexican border” like Rightwing fear-mongers would use to terrify their racist hoards, I’m talking about simply getting your passport stamped in a “non-restricted” country so they can fly in without being questioned.
  5. And when people start to panic, their irrational fears get the best of them. Soon you have every idiot with a mild fever clogging up the ER because their nephew’s classmate has a cousin from Liberia. Add to that, doctors spending additional time running (expensive) unnecessary tests checking otherwise healthy patients for a disease that’s less common than being mauled by a black bear and a brown bear on the same day.

Republican governors across the country that are suddenly worried about the spread of Ebola haven’t exactly helped matters any by refusing Federal Medicaid funding to provide health care to tens of thousands of poor Americans. So now you have an enormous pool of high-risk people that will be slow to seek medical help because they can’t afford it.

One of those governors is Rick “Oops” Perry, who is on a world tour criticizing President Obama (remember when criticizing the president overseas was a major no-no?) for refusing to ban travel to Ebola affected regions. Meanwhile, in the U.S., the ONLY place that has seen a person-to-person transmission of Ebola is Dallas in Perry’s home state. So when this idiot starts calling for a travel ban in & out of Texas and orders the closure Texas’ airports to the rest of the country, I’ll give him a listen. Till then, he’s just stoking fear to score some cheap political points.
 

REMINDER: In many states, Early Voting begins today. Don’t allow Republicans to be rewarded for their obstruction, Sequesters, Shutdowns, pointless investigations, refusal to expand Medicaid, and an almost certain likelihood of attempting to impeach President Obama, by allowing them to win control of the Senate or Governor’s race. Vote!
 



Writers Wanted Got something to say? Mugsy’s Rap Sheet is always looking for article submissions to focus on the stories we may miss each week. To volunteer your own Op/Ed for inclusion here, send us an email with an example of your writing skills & choice of topic, and maybe we’ll put you online!

RSS Please REGISTER to be notified by e-mail every time this Blog is updated! Firefox/IE users can use RSS for a browser link that lists the latest posts! RSS


 

Share
Filed in Election, fake scandals, Healthcare, myth busting October 20th, 2014 by Admin Mugsy | • No comments | Add/View

Email This Post Email This Post

Dems, If You Want To Win the Senate, stop accepting GOP line that Obama is a failure.

By Admin Mugsy - Last updated: Monday, October 13, 2014

Obama's achievements only make them hate him more.

I don’t know what angers me more: Hearing every pundit on TV talk about how “unpopular” President Obama is citing questionable polling numbers as the basis for their opinion, or Democratic candidates who believe it and then run in fear of being associated with him (again, I’m looking at YOU Alison Lundergan-Grimes. You are about to lose to someone with a 31% approval rating… a race that was yours to lose… because you think eschewing Obama will win over Conservative McConnell voters? Seriously?)

For ONCE, do you know what I’d like to hear? How about just ONE of these candidates say in response to “Do you support Obama?”:

“You mean, do I support the guy that brought unemployment down to 5.9% just 22 months after Romney said he’d do it in four years? Do I support the guy who TRIPLED the stock Market since it bottomed out following the collapse of Wall Street six years ago? The guy who has already created over TEN MILLION NEW JOBS? The guy who has cut the Deficit to its lowest rate since Bill Clinton balanced the Budget in ’98? The guy whose healthcare reform has slowed the growth of rising insurance rates to its lowest in 30 years? And, of course, the guy who got bin Laden? Is THAT what you’re asking me? You think that’s something I should be ashamed of?”

As I’ve pointed out repeatedly here on M.R.S., Obama’s poll numbers are being DRAGGED DOWN BY INSANE UNJUSTIFIED REPUBLICAN HATRED FOR THE MAN. The better he does, the more they hate him. Amazingly, President Obama’s approval rating is still in the low 40’s despite having a stunning SEVEN PERCENT approval rating among Republicans. Seven percent? Are you freaking kidding me??? Hell, even Ebola gets nine. Tell me ONE legitimate thing that could justify a 7% approval rating? At the absolute BOTTOM of President Bush’s popularity in 2008, Democrats still lavished him with a 31% approval rating (ibid). Remember when Rush Limbaugh said he “hopes Obama fails” (despite knowing Obama’s failure means the country failing)? Because it’s more important to them that Democratic ideology doesn’t succeed, because if it does, we’ll see more off it. So if raising taxes on the rich leads to more tax-free reinvestment into their businesses spurring job and economic growth, that might mean more tax hikes in the future, meaning greedy bastards like Limbaugh or the Koch Brothers might have to pay higher taxes.

But what these Luddites fail to realize (and we saw this after the Clinton tax hikes of the 1990’s) is that the resulting economic growth means MORE profits and a healthier economy, while GOP policies eight years ago led to TWO Recessions and the collapse of Wall Street.
 

Complain about Obama’s handling of Ebola and I’ll raise you “Katrina”.

Complain about Obama’s handling of ISIS and I’ll ask you whose invasion of Iraq destabilized the entire region into the chaotic mess that led to their rise?

Complain about slow economic growth and I’ll point to THE MOST OBSTRUCTIVE GOP IN HISTORY BLOCKING THE PRESIDENT AT EVERY TURN, ensuring that nothing gets done so they can then turn around and blame him for the lack of progress, hoping you’ll be dumb enough to reward them for it in November.
 

Grimes wants to be like Mitch

This is how it works: A Republican prez makes a massive mess and an angered populace replaces him with a Democrat. Then a Republican Congress blocks him from doing anything to clean up that mess just so they can get (re)elected. And then, if that president uses his Constitutionally given powers to circumvent their obstruction (beating them at their own game), they become so outraged they threaten to impeach him for it (“We can’t have him getting around our attempts to keep him from getting anything done!”)

So manic is their obsession to stop President Obama from achieving anything, Sen. Jim Inhoff (R-Climate Change Denying Cuckoo Bird) actually withheld emergency funding to fight Ebola, relenting only after drawing sharp criticism for his craven partisan obstruction.

The more President Obama succeeds, the madder they get. So when pollsters ask people to rank the president’s job performance… numbers already artificially depressed due to Republican obstruction that has earned them a 16% approval rating… those numbers are dragged into the toilet by the seething hatred of all things Obama, turning mildly low numbers into the low forties.

Meanwhile, despite approval ratings in the single digits, a GOP controlled House is going to remain in GOP control, and a Senate that has been “Wag the Dogged” by unprecedented filibustering by the GOP is going to be REWARDED with additional seats to ensure even LESS gets done in President Obama’s final two years in office (because they’ll be too busy impeaching him for wearing black socks with sandals… or something equally stupid.)

But even with these artificially low poll numbers, President Obama is still wildly popular compared to President Bush when he left office (and the less said about Dick Cheney, the better.)

Remind me again why any Democrat is worried about being linked to this president?

The Rachel Maddow Show makes the same point on Monday’s show, questioning why Democrats seem to be running away from Obama this election season despite a legacy of achievement:

 



Writers Wanted Got something to say? Mugsy’s Rap Sheet is always looking for article submissions to focus on the stories we may miss each week. To volunteer your own Op/Ed for inclusion here, send us an email with an example of your writing skills & choice of topic, and maybe we’ll put you online!

RSS Please REGISTER to be notified by e-mail every time this Blog is updated! Firefox/IE users can use RSS for a browser link that lists the latest posts! RSS


 

Share
Filed in Economy, Election, myth busting, Partisanship, Politics, Rants, Right-Wing Insanity, Seems Obvious to Me, voting October 13th, 2014 by Admin Mugsy | • No comments | Add/View

Email This Post Email This Post

Boehner Says House Has “focused like a laser” on jobs. Seriously. (Fact-checked.)

By Admin Mugsy - Last updated: Monday, September 29, 2014

We start this week with another quote:

“A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes.”Mark Twain

Even more true today in the age of the Internet.

And I hate to tell you this, but Democrats just lost the Senate. As soon as you start letting the other side frame the debate, you’ve lost. I don’t say this discourage you. I say this to EN-courage you… to get off your butt and vote this November. When you’re winning, you get complacent. The person everyone expects to come in second on American Idol ends up winning because his/her fans rally to help their fav win. (And remember what an all GOP Congress did in the last two years of a Democratic president: They impeached him.)

Few things annoy me more than Democrats that try to sound like Republicans in an attempt to win (re)election (I’m looking at you Alison Lundergan-Grimes.) When given the choice between a Dem-hating Republican or an “embarrassed to be associated with the president” Democrat, the Republican always wins. The FIRST thing they teach you in Debating-101 is to “NEVER concede your opponents position”. And in this case, it’s the GOP idea that President Obama is somehow a “failure” whose policies are unpopular. This is why Red States stay red despite obvious crushing failure (eight of the 10 richest states are Blue while nine of the ten poorest states are Red), and how Blue States elect Republican governors. As I’ve been noting for weeks now, we have record job growth (already THREE TIMES as many jobs created in six years than Bush created in eight.) The ACA (“ObamaCare”) has actually slowed the rate of growth in insurance premiums while ensuring everybody… and clearly did NOT cost jobs or “destroy the economy” as they claimed. No “Death Panels”. The same people that destroyed the economy in 2008 and threw Iraq into chaos in 2003 producing the likes of ISIS, are now telling us how “bad” things are and how we need to put them back in charge.
 

Boehner (9/28/14): “We have been focused like a laser on jobs.
Oh, and bi-partisan.”
(1:02)

Look at Boehner’s face there at the end. Even HE knows he’s full of shit. This has been THE least productive Congress in history… BY FAR. They’s made Truman’s “do-nothing Congress” look like work-a-holics. Number of days this congress worked: 133. Annual salary: $174,000.

After claiming to have “focused like a laser on jobs”, Boehner claims there are “over 40 bills sitting in the United States Senate” that Reid refuses to let come to a vote. Notice though that he carefully does not says “jobs” bills, though that is clearly what he’s implying. This Congress has voted at least 54 times to “repeal ObamaCare” (something that doesn’t exist.) Ted Cruz is declaring at every campaign stop (to raucous cheers) that “The Republican Party won’t rest until we have repealed EVERY WORD of ObamaCare!” That would include reinstating “pre-existing conditions”, kicking your college-aged children off your insurance, and making women pay for their birth control. “Lifetime caps?” You want ‘em? You’ve got ‘em! Insurance companies can go back to kicking sick people off their insurance as soon as they start costing them money (or even long before.) Bully for you, Senator Cruz. But pity the rest of us that must endure your jackassery because like-minded morons that have no clue of the consequences of your rhetoric rejoice in your hatred of all things Obama to the point of their own detriment.

So I checked out the list of bills passed by the House in search of those “40 jobs bills languishing in the Senate” (and it shouldn’t be too hard since they only passed 163.)

The first “jobs” related bill passed by this House was 113-24: Bureau of Reclamation Small Conduit Hydropower Development and Rural Jobs Act… not passed until August 9, 2013… eight months into their first year… and that bill WAS picked up and passed by the Senate. So, moving on…

Hmmm. Not a single other “jobs” bill passed the House in 2013. And I’m not being picky. Most of the bills looked something like these:

113-10 – An act to specify the size of the precious-metal blanks that will be used in the production of the National Baseball Hall of Fame commemorative coins.
113-43 – Congressional Award Program Reauthorization Act of 2013
113-49 – An act to name the Department of Veterans Affairs medical center in Bay Pines, Florida
113-64 – Community Fire Safety Act of 2013
113-103 – An act to amend the Act entitled “An Act to regulate the height of buildings in the District of Columbia”
113-112 – An act to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 14 Main Street in Brockport, New York, as the “Staff Sergeant Nicholas J. Reid Post Office Building”.

Moving on to 2014, “113-79 – Agricultural Act of 2014″ looks promising. Nope, it’s just a bill to let the DoA keep doing what it’s been doing, and it passed the Senate too. Still looking for those “40 jobs bills” supposedly passed by the House that Reid won’t let come to a vote. Heck, right now, I’d settle for just ONE “jobs” bill (the “jobs” bill mentioned above isn’t one either.)

Maybe I need to broaden my definition of “jobs”. How about “113-97 – Cooperative and Small Employer Charity Pension Flexibility Act”? Nope. That passed the Senate too. Hmm, we’re already a third of the way through 2014 and most of the 113th Congress’ entire session.

July 22, 2014. Have I finally stumbled upon a “jobs” bill? “113 – 128 – Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act”. Nope. Just a minor change to an existing law… and it too passed the Senate. The hunt goes on. Just 25 bills to go. How many [jobs] bills did Boehner claim the Senate is refusing to vote on? We’re not going to make it.

“113-144 – Unlocking Consumer Choice and Wireless Competition Act”. A bill to allow people to switch carriers even on “locked” phones. Not a “jobs” bill and passed the Senate.

Not much point in continuing. You get the idea. I found NO “jobs” bills. ZERO, NADA. ZILCH. You think I’m kidding, check the list out for yourself. While I might be willing to concede some of the bills might have some tangential impact on jobs, NOT ONE was blocked by the Senate. Sorry Boehner, you’re full of crap on this one (like everything else.) But how many voters are going to take the time to peruse EVERY SINGLE BILL PASSED BY THE HOUSE OVER TWO YEARS to learn the truth? (I do the work so you don’t have to.)

Sen. John Barrasso (R-WY) actually complained on Fox “news” Sunday yesterday that “Harry Reid” dismissed the Senate for “the second earliest recess in history.” (that may be bullshit too. Can’t verify.) Problem is, the House called for an early recess first, and the Senate can’t do a damn thing w/o the House. So, left with no choice, Reid recessed early as well. But Fox viewers that only know what they hear on Fox are going to blame Harry Reid for Congress doing nothing. Naturally, host Chris Wallace was all too willing to let Barrasso’s half-truth go unchallenged.

Democrats already have an uphill battle trying to hold onto the Senate. Unprecedented Gerrymandering has ensured the House will stay in GOP hands for perhaps the next decade (unless a mass revolt flips the House in 2020.) Dem’s don’t do themselves any favors when they allow the GOP to frame the debate, “conceding” that the President’s policies are a failure and/or unpopular… neither of which are true, and run AWAY from the President’s (successful) record rather than run on it.

Twain didn’t know how right he was.
 



Writers Wanted Got something to say? Mugsy’s Rap Sheet is always looking for article submissions to focus on the stories we may miss each week. To volunteer your own Op/Ed for inclusion here, send us an email with an example of your writing skills & choice of topic, and maybe we’ll put you online!

RSS Please REGISTER to be notified by e-mail every time this Blog is updated! Firefox/IE users can use RSS for a browser link that lists the latest posts! RSS


 

Share
Filed in Election, Jobs, Money, myth busting, Partisanship, Politics, rewriting history, Right-Wing Hypocrisy, voting September 29th, 2014 by Admin Mugsy | • 1 comment | Add/View

Email This Post Email This Post

Sunni Violence Against Americans Is Not New (2006 video)

By Admin Mugsy - Last updated: Monday, September 15, 2014

This past week was packed wall-to-wall with Neocons and former “Bushies” alike criticizing President Obama for the rise of ISIS/ISIL. Senator McCain is still  blaming President Obama for “pulling all of our troops out of Iraq in 2011″ without leaving any residual forces behind… a claim that frustrates me to no end. The fact no one in the media ever challenges McCain on this point is bad enough, but even The White House doesn’t push back to correct the record. I’ve already pointed out in a prior column how it was President Bush, in one of his final acts as president, whom failed to convince the Iraqi’s to agree not to prosecute American soldiers for war crimes if we left troops there beyond their agreed-upon departure date set by President Bush. So when the time came in 2011 to pull our troops out, out they ALL came (thank goodness.) Senator McCain says that the Iraqi’s wanted some American troops to remain. Perhaps, but they also refused not to prosecute those who did. Senator McCain says that we didn’t have to negotiate the SoFA with the Maliki government. Wouldn’t THAT have gone over like a lead balloon! And I’ve yet to figure out how we stop the Maliki government from prosecuting any American troops that we might have left behind? Just because you circumvent the Maliki government (so much for Iraqi sovereignty), doesn’t mean you can stop them from arresting & prosecuting American troops, Senator. Please explain how you would have pulled that one off? I’d love to know… as I’m sure the White House would be as well. (I believe The Daily Show mentioned in an episode last week that “if we had left some five-to-ten thousand troops behind, does that mean alQaeda in Iraq would not have evolved into ISIS? We couldn’t control the violence with 150 THOUSAND troops” and these guys think a tiny residual force would have stopped the Sunni insurgency from forming?)

Saddam was Sunni. ISIS is Sunni. And this little “news-nugget” almost eight years to the day, is a stark reminder of from whence ISIS came:
 

70% of Iraqi Sunni’s support the insurgency
Sept 20, 2006 (1:52)

This was less than 6 weeks before the election, the results of which were BOTH houses of Congress flipping control from Republican to Democrat, and President Bush then firing Donald Rumsfeld… whom he had been insisting for months was “not going to be fired” because he had so much confidence in his ability as Secretary of Defense. Instead, just ONE DAY after the election, Rummy was gone.

2007 was the bloodiest year of the Iraq war averaging almost 100 American troop deaths per month before Gates came up with the brilliant idea of sending in more troops to quell the violence (violence that was a result of not sending in enough troops in the first place). This was Bush’s trademark “Surge”TM that supposedly “turned the tide in Iraq”. And though the new strategy reversed the trend of worsening violence against American troops, it did not end. An average of about two-dozen U.S. troops were still being killed each month in Iraq Bush’s final year in office, falling into the single digits under President Obama before our withdrawal by the end of 2011. Senator McCain had the stunning gall last week to claim “We had it won, thanks to the surge” (ibid: “McCain”) and then simultaneously argue that we needed to keep troops there to prevent the rise of ISIS.

Uh, excuse me? Either the war was won or the resistance was growing. Which is it? It can’t be both (well, in “MissionAccomplished-Land”, where a war can simultaneously be “won” and “not over”, I suppose it can.)

Sunni militants… the product of Bush’s invasion of Iraq… became “alQaeda in Iraq”, which begot “ISIS”, which begot “ISIL” (or just the “I.S.” according to them.) They were never gone, the war in Iraq was never “won”, and the idea that “if only” we had just left a few thousand troops behind, Iraq would be at peace today and all of this might have might have been avoided, is ludicrous.
 



Writers Wanted Got something to say? Mugsy’s Rap Sheet is always looking for article submissions to focus on the stories we may miss each week. To volunteer your own Op/Ed for inclusion here, send us an email with an example of your writing skills & choice of topic, and maybe we’ll put you online!

RSS Please REGISTER to be notified by e-mail every time this Blog is updated! Firefox/IE users can use RSS for a browser link that lists the latest posts! RSS


 

Share
Filed in fake scandals, Middle East, myth busting, National Security, Politics, Terrorism, War September 15th, 2014 by Admin Mugsy | • No comments | Add/View

Email This Post Email This Post

If Republicans Sue Obama, Democrats MUST Impeach Bush for Commiting Same Crime

By Admin Mugsy - Last updated: Monday, August 11, 2014

In 1867, two years after the assassination of President Lincoln, the Republican Party was in open revolt against a Republican president, threatening him with impeachment. In an attempt to reach out to the Southern states, President Lincoln replaced his 1st term vice president Hannibal Hamlin with Andrew Johnson… a Republican, but from the Southern state of Tennessee. Lincoln, who had just defeated the South, was barely a month into his second term (inaugurations were held in March back then) when he was assassinated and succeeded by the Southerner Johnson, who was quick to veto a series of bills he thought unfairly punished the Rebel states (okay, I admit, this is a bit of an over-simplification). Ironically, had Lincoln of lived, he probably would have done the same thing. But in the current climate, Johnson was branded a “traitor” that needed to be impeached. And they did. And for 222 years of this nations history, that was the one & only time Congress had ever attempted to impeach a president. (on this 40th anniversary of Nixon’s resignation, bear in mind he only did so to avoid an impeachment he was sure to lose.) Then came Bill Clinton, for whom Republicans went on a six year binge of dirt-digging to try and… first defeat, and when that failed, impeach him… NOT for any crime he committed as president, but for lying to a Grand Jury during one of those dirt-digging investigations that they had no business holding in the first place. And now, just one term removed since the last Democratic president, the GOP is at it again, threatening to “sue” President Obama (while others openly talk of impeachment) for refusing to “uphold the law” (in this case, delaying the ObamaCare mandate, something they actually wanted.) One has to wonder if this is going to be the GOP’s S.O.P. from now on every time a Democrat wins a second term?

The problem is, the “crime” President Obama is supposedly guilty of, just about every prior president is also guilty of (and far worse). So if President Obama is guilty of a crime, so is his predecessor, George W Bush.

First Republicans thought they had something with “Fast & Furious”… the FBI Code Name for an operation to track the legal “straw-man” sale of guns in this country only to be transported across the border into Mexico. But that went nowhere fast (which made Republicans furious).

Then came “Benghazi”. But that’s really more about derailing Hillary Clinton’s presidential aspirations than it is about President Obama. And now that a NINTH investigation… this one actually chaired by Republicans… has cleared the White House of any wrong-doing any chance of using it to impeach Obama are as remote as Sarah Palin’s chances of becoming president.

Any dreamt-of attempt to link the imaginary Cincinnati IRS “scandal” to President Obama was a desperate long-shot at best. Oh they tried. Mightily. But even the most rabid partisan Republican Congressman knew they were grasping at straws at the off chance that the White House might have actually been micromanaging tiny individual IRS offices. That’s why you probably heard occasional claims of other IRS offices in other states supposedly guilty of the same thing, in hopes of bolstering the idea that what happened in Cincinnati was just part of a nation-wide effort by the White House to instruct IRS offices across the nation to target “Tea Party” groups for extra scrutiny. But no “nationwide effort” was ever uncovered, and so went that as a possible route towards impeachment.

More recently, it was the possibility that President Obama might unilaterally bestow “amnesty” upon the tens of thousands of Central American refugee children flooding across the Mexican border. But you can’t impeach someone for something they haven’t done yet. Threatening to impeach him might keep him from doing something, but Republicans don’t want to simply keep President Obama “in check”, they want him GONE… like yesterday.

That just leaves “ObamaCare”… which to their dismay, withstood a Supreme Court challenge as Constitutional, making it “the law of the land”. When the law passed in 2009, Republicans demanded that it not take effect until AFTER the next election (in hopes that a newly elected Republican president would repeal it before it ever went into effect. Democrats agreed and put it in the bill. Despite this accommodation, not a single Republican voted for it anyway.) But when President Obama won re-election handily, their next big concern was that rapidly approaching “March 2013″ deadline for the “mandate” that everyone must have insurance. “Too fast!” “Not enough time!” “We’re totally unprepared because we were positive we’d win in November and the law would never take effect!” So now, Republicans and Republican-friendly corporations started begging President Obama for “more time!” to comply with the mandate. Seeing as how such a task might require more time for the largest corporations, President Obama agreed and instructed the IRS to delay any noncompliance penalties for large corporations.

And despite doing exactly what Republicans and big businesses wanted, Republicans took the President’s gesture as PROOF that the entire law is bad and will hurt big business. And by “not enforcing [this portion of] the law”, he is guilty of “a crime”… which is an impeachable offense. But since an impeachment would be a pointless waste of time without control of the Senate (and be hugely unpopular with voters tired of their partisan nonsense), they have instead opted for just “suing” him for “not enforcing the law”… a law mind you THEY DON’T WANT ENFORCED.

So, what’s the logic here (as if there actually is any)? Sue the president for delaying the mandate, and if you win, screw over all those (once Republican-friendly) corporations into having to comply with the mandate… now with even LESS time to comply since they thought Obama had given them some breathing room.
 

Have you REALLY thought this out guys? (Look who I’m asking. The same people that rushed us into Iraq without an exit strategy.)
 

The problem is, if President Obama is guilty of a “crime” by unilaterally not enforcing part of his own health care law, then former President Bush is also guilty of the exact same “crime” when he delayed implementation of “MediCare Part-D” in 2006. So, if what President Obama did was “a crime”, then President Bush is every bit as guilty and should be impeached.

Now, a lot of people don’t fully understand that term: “impeached”. It doesn’t mean “removal from office” and it doesn’t just apply to sitting presidents. An “impeachment” is a “criminal prosecution” that takes place in the House of Representatives. That’s all. You don’t have to even still be in office to be “impeached”. So “yes”, we can still hold impeachment hearings in the House for President Bush (and Vice President Cheney too if we were so inclined) retroactively. Hell, we could even go back and impeach Andrew Johnson again… not that it would do any good.

The media has wasted a lot of energy the past two weeks breathlessly reporting President Obama’s “low approval rating of just 41%”. (It’s a nonsense figure of course, dragged down by absurdly unrealistic Republican disapproval of Obama.) “That’s George W Bush territory” they proclaim! Something odd about any group that believes the the surest route to victory is to acknowledge just how bad the former head of your own Party was.

Let us all hope the GOP does actually attempt to sue Obama before the mid-term elections. Probably the shortest route to Democratic control of The House in November.
 



Writers Wanted Got something to say? Mugsy’s Rap Sheet is always looking for article submissions to focus on the stories we may miss each week. To volunteer your own Op/Ed for inclusion here, send us an email with an example of your writing skills & choice of topic, and maybe we’ll put you online!

RSS Please REGISTER to be notified by e-mail every time this Blog is updated! Firefox/IE users can use RSS for a browser link that lists the latest posts! RSS


 

Share
Filed in fake scandals, myth busting, Partisanship, Politics, rewriting history, Right-Wing Insanity, Unconstitutional August 11th, 2014 by Admin Mugsy | • No comments | Add/View

Email This Post Email This Post

Both Sides Are At Fault? Democrats Don’t Control the Senate. They Just Don’t.

By Admin Mugsy - Last updated: Monday, August 4, 2014

Every time the news reported on how little Congress got done before embarking on their annual August Recess, some newscaster was always sure to point out the fact that “the Senate… controlled by Democrats…” likewise has been every bit as unproductive as the GOP-controlled House. The obvious implication being: “Both sides are equally to blame!”, followed by “The Democratically controlled Senate likewise went on recess without passing a bill [on XYZ subject]. Can’t blame just Republicans for doing nothing!” The hell I can’t. Since President Obama first took office in January of 2009, Democrats controlled Congress unobstructed for a total of just 24 working days. That’s it. Then the illness & death of both Sen. Byrd and Ted Kennedy denied Democrats of their “Super Majority” in the Senate, and Republicans Gerrymandered their way into majority control of the House in 2010. Other than those 24 days, Republicans have forced EVERY vote of consequence to require a 60 vote super majority just to pass, ensuring that Democrats can’t pass ANYTHING of consequence without the votes from the Republican minority. So while voters gave control of the Senate to Democrats (four times since 2006), and 50+1 votes is normally enough votes to pass anything, now even 55 votes (53 Democrats + 2 Independents that caucus with them) isn’t enough thanks to GOP obstructionism. Democrats don’t control EITHER half of Congress. They just don’t. Oh sure, Democrats may have the Majority in the Senate, and get to decide what bills they take up for a vote, but even then, there’s no point in even bringing a bill up for a vote without pandering to the lunatic fringe on the Right. The Minority is setting the agenda in the Senate. Meanwhile in the House, it’s strict “majority rules” over there. No “Super Majority” gamesmanship over there. Democrats are less-than-powerless in the House and castrated geldings in the Senate. So whenever I hear one of these talking heads tries to lay blame on “both sides”, pointing out that “the Democratically controlled Senate” is just as dysfunctional as the Republican controlled House, I want to reach through my TV and throttle them. The ONLY thing Democrats “control” is the White House, and Republicans are hard at work at bottling THAT up too, threatening to sue the president for doing anything on his own after they worked so hard to prevent Congress from getting anything done. So STOP apologetically “acknowledging” that “Democrats control the Senate” because they don’t. Except for 24 days back in 2009… and not all in a row mind you… Democrats have been blocked from getting ANYTHING of substance done.

Meanwhile, pollsters are asking people who probably couldn’t name the Vice President if you stuck a gun to their head, their opinion on who’s to blame for: [insert political issue here.] I heard one poll the Media breathlessly trumpeted that “33% of Americans think President Obama should be impeached” while “only 30% of Americans ever thought President Bush should have been impeached.” That’s because Republicans are insane. The poll in question reached 33% only because so many RepublicansFIFTY-SEVEN PERCENT… support impeachment while “just 35 percent of independent voters and 13 percent of Democrats” do. These are the same Republicans that still want to see President Obama’s Birth Certificate. It’s also the same Republican Party that is obstructing everything Democrats try to do, hoping Obama will get the blame. And those same people being polled… they don’t know why things don’t seem to be getting better fast enough, or in some cases, seem to be getting worse (eg: border security and Foreign Policy)… all they know is “Obama is in charge so he must be at fault.” They don’t know that our nation has been hijacked by a secret Republican coup ensuring nobody gets anything done.

And the Media plays the “both sides are to blame” game.
 


 

Fox “news” personality Greta van Susteren appeared on her home-away-from-home, ABC’s “ThisWeek” yesterday and demanded that President Obama “call Harry Reid and the Senate back into session”, yet made NO similar demand of Boehner and the GOP-controlled House.” Like the Senate could do anything with half of Congress still away on vacation. On a personal aside, Why do ABC, CBS & NBC have on so many Fox personalities on their shows as guest pundits week after week? You NEVER see pundits from any of the OTHER rival networks on FOX as guest commentators. When was the last time you saw Rachel Maddow on the “FnS Power Panel” or George Stephanopoulos guest-hosting “Fox & Friends”? But I digress. (BTW: That screenshot in the upper left is from the TV app on my PC listing information about ABC’s “ThisWeek”, but due to a programming flaw, longer descriptions of other programs aren’t erased by shorter ones, producing some rather comical descriptions.)

So the next time someone tries to “blame both sides” for the dysfunction in Congress by pointing out that “Democrats control the Senate”, correct them. On the spot. Don’t let them get away with it. Our country has been hijacked by Right-Wing ideologues controlling not only the House, but the U.S. Senate as well via unprecedented obstruction. One need look no further than the fact that before Bill Clinton, this nation had impeached only ONE president in our 222 year history. Now it looks as though this is what Republicans will do in the sixth year of EVERY Democratic presidency.

ANNOUNCEMENT: August 1st marks the 10-year Anniversary of Mugsy’s Rap Sheet. The site began life as a “Blogger.com” site back during the height of the 2004 Presidential election and in the wake of the invasion of Iraq over “WMD’s” that never materialized after a year of assurances with 100% certainty that they existed in great “stockpiles” being readied to be used against us. It has been the job of M.R.S. ever since to ensure that no Republican lies are ever forgotten, no misinformation goes unchallenged, and no hypocrisy goes unnoticed. – Mugsy

 



Writers Wanted Got something to say? Mugsy’s Rap Sheet is always looking for article submissions to focus on the stories we may miss each week. To volunteer your own Op/Ed for inclusion here, send us an email with an example of your writing skills & choice of topic, and maybe we’ll put you online!

RSS Please REGISTER to be notified by e-mail every time this Blog is updated! Firefox/IE users can use RSS for a browser link that lists the latest posts! RSS


 

Share
Filed in Election, General, myth busting, Partisanship, Politics August 4th, 2014 by Admin Mugsy | • No comments | Add/View

Email This Post Email This Post

Is Anyone Surprised Republicans Are Talking Impeachment?

By Admin Mugsy - Last updated: Monday, July 28, 2014

I had been thinking it for years before I tweeted last January: “Reminder on importance of 2014 mid-terms: GOP impeached Clinton his final two years. #MtP”. And like swallows returning to Capistrano, the GOP seems to think that “impeachment” is a perfectly acceptable response to circumventing every Democratic presidency in its sixth year. They’ve been looking for an excuse since November 7th, 2012 (the day after Obama’s re-election.) Back in May when President Obama unilaterally agreed to a prisoner exchange to bring home ailing American POW Bowe Bergdahl, demon-spawn Liz Cheney was already citing it as an impeachable offense. Bush’s last Attorney General Michael Mukaseythe highest law  enforcement officer in the land… who should know the law better than anyone, actually said on Fox “news” Sunday last June that, “the president can legally do something and still be impeached [for it].” NO. No he can’t. The Constitution specifically states “high crimes and misdemeanors” as the only things a president can be impeached for. But that just goes to show you just how flippantly Republicans take something as serious as impeaching a president. For a group of people that seems to cite “The Constitution” so much, they sure seem to know damn little about it. I could start a list of things President Bush should have been impeached for… and we’re not talking the rinky-dink nonsense they impeached Clinton over or now want to impeach Obama over (when they finally settle on something, I’ll let you know). During the Bush presidency, the GOP lie silent (except to call you & me “unpatriotic” if we dare question our “Commander-in-Chief” in “a time of war!”) in response to a multitude of some VERY SERIOUS and clearly unconstitutional abuses of power. Shocking, I know. So what’s their latest reason for pondering “impeachment”? The (feux) “immigration crisis”. And what exactly has Obama done to warrant impeachment? Nothing. Literally. This latest round of impeachment talk is what to do IF the president unilaterally grants all these child refugees “amnesty” (yes, this is the same Obama currently deporting those same refugees faster than President Bush did.) And lest we forget St. Ronnie granting amnesty to TEN MILLION undocumented immigrants?

Exactly eleven years ago yesterday (July 27, 2003), four months after the invasion of Iraq and still no “WMD’s” to be found, Florida Senator Bob Gramm went of Fox “news” Sunday to suggest that perhaps President Bush should be impeached over invading Iraq on false pretenses. Please note Brit Hume’s high bar for whether or not President Bush did anything “impeachable”. He literally bristles with contempt towards Gramm (whose name they misspell, natch) at the very idea, unwilling to even let columnist Mara Liason (sitting next to Hume) to get a word in edgewise to ask a question (old video. I apologize for the quality):
 

Sen. Gramm: If what Clinton’s did was impeachable, Bush knowingly
lying us into war was far worse.
(July 27, 2003)
(4:04)

 

And now Republicans are openly talking of impeachment over something President Obama *might* do? You gotta be kidding me.

Of course, as noted above, this is just their latest excuse to try and derail Obama’s presidency and permanently blemish his otherwise impressive legacy. He got us out of Iraq, he’s getting us out of Afghanistan, is getting the economy back on track (the 1.4 million new jobs created in the first six months of this year is the most since late 1999)… five of those months surpassing the 200,000 jobs mark… the DOW hit a new record high four or five times already this month, and it’s driving the GOP nuts!

Noted bow-tie enthusiast George Will showed an uncharacteristic (albeit brief) flash of sanity on Fox “news” Sunday yesterday, commenting on the immigration “crisis”:

“This country has seen and absorbed far more immigrants coming into our country than we are seeing today.” – George F. Will on Fox “news” Sunday yesterday

Whether it’s “Ben-GAH-zeee!” (Obama’s inability to foresee the deaths of four people on 9/11… 2012), extending the “ObamaCare” deadline for small businesses (which Republicans actually wanted), his use of “Executive Orders” to actually get something done (in this case, to force Federal Contractors to pay a higher minimum wage and prevent them from employment discrimination based on sexual orientation) when our (literally) “do-nothing Congress” can’t organize a two-car parade, and now the basesless fear over what he might do over immigration… Republicans have been desperately looking for an excuse to impeach the president for years.

When polls showed the American public has no appetite for seeing yet another wildly partisan Republican Congress attempting to impeach yet another Democratic president, Speaker Boehner quickly shifted gears to suggest merely suing President Obama rather than impeaching him. “Sue him? For what?”, I hear you ask. Well, they haven’t quite worked that little detail out just yet. But consider this: If the president did something that he could be sued for in a Criminal court, then he must have broken the law… which is (by definition) an impeachable offense. So are they telling us President Obama committed a CRIME he can be SUED for, but it’s not anything for him to be impeached over.

Over the weekend, more violence erupted in Libya, forcing the Obama Administration to order the evacuation of our embassy in Tripoli. On FnS, the famed “Power Panel” discussed whether or not it was a mistake for President Obama to have “taken out Qadaffi.”

I kid you not. Hand-to-God. Really???

One has to wonder just how detached from reality these people must be to openly wonder if removing the brutal & violent dictator of a relatively peaceful Middle-Eastern nation was a good idea in light of the resulting violence, and not worry about being seen as raging hypocrites.

Of course, the big difference between 9/11/2012 and 9/11/2001, or the ousting of Saddam vs the ousting of Qadaffi is that the later “impeachable offenses” were both committed by a Democrat… which in itself is an impeachable offense in GOP-Land.
 



Writers Wanted Got something to say? Mugsy’s Rap Sheet is always looking for article submissions to focus on the stories we may miss each week. To volunteer your own Op/Ed for inclusion here, send us an email with an example of your writing skills & choice of topic, and maybe we’ll put you online!

RSS Please REGISTER to be notified by e-mail every time this Blog is updated! Firefox/IE users can use RSS for a browser link that lists the latest posts! RSS


 

Share
Filed in Election, fake scandals, Middle East, myth busting, Partisanship, Politics, Predictions, Right-Wing Insanity, Seems Obvious to Me, Unconstitutional July 28th, 2014 by Admin Mugsy | • No comments | Add/View

Email This Post Email This Post

If Obama’s “Talk of Amnesty” is “Luring” Immigrants, Why Aren’t More of Them From Mexico?

By Admin Mugsy - Last updated: Monday, July 21, 2014

I kept wishing someone would say (while shaking their head slowly), “Have you no shame, Senator Cruz?” The reincarnation of anti-Communist witch-hunter Senator Joe McCarthy went on “Meet the Press” yesterday and was given free network airtime to repeat the asinine GOP claim that it is President Obama’s “talk of amnesty” that is drawing this flood of refugee children to the U.S. Border (I should note that Cruz… son of a “refugee” himself, refuses to call these kids “refugees”, because that would be admitting they are fleeing something deadly.) It has become a ubiquitous GOP Talking point that it is President Obama’s “sudden” talk about pursuing a “path to citizenship” for the children of undocumented immigrants that is responsible for the recent flood of immigrant children from Southern Central America. It’s nonsense of course. And I keep waiting in vain for one of these vapid “Sunday show” hosts to challenge the claim, but they never do because either they don’t think there is anything wrong with their “logic” or they actually agree with the claim.

Two big flaws in their argument:

  1. While the flood of refugee children appears to be sudden & recent, President Obama’s talk of “a pathway to citizenship” for the children of immigrants is not.
  2.  

  3. If talk of “Amnesty” is what’s drawing them here, why aren’t an increasing number of them coming from Mexico?

Let’s start with Myth #1: The idea that President Obama has only recently started talking about “a pathway to citizenship”. Certainly discussion of “immigration reform” increased recently after House Republicans… after saying they would finally take up the issue of immigration reform after 14 months of giving it lip service… suddenly found a new excuse not to take up the issue: they “couldn’t trust Obama to uphold the law” after he suddenly “unilaterally” decided to extend the “ObamaCare Deadline” for thousands of small businesses (something the GOP actually wanted). But Obama has been talking about “a pathway to citizenship” ever since he was Candidate Obama in 2007:

When [Mr.] Obama was asked whether or not he would allow undocumented immigrants to work in the US [during] the Dec. 4, 2007 Democratic Debate on NPR, he said:
 
“No, no, no, no. I think that, if they’re illegal, then they should not be able to work in this country. That is part of the principle of comprehensive reform.”
 
“But I also want to give them a pathway so that they can earn citizenship, earn a legal status, start learning English, pay a significant fine, go to the back of the line, but they can then stay here and they can have the ability to enforce a minimum wage that they’re paid, make sure the worker safety laws are available, make sure that they can join a union.”

Democrats have been futility trying to shame Republicans (how do you shame people with no shame?) into taking up Immigration Reform ever since Mitt Romney and the GOP took a shellacking among Hispanic voters in 2012. On November 8, 2012… just two days after the election… Speaker Boehner declared that “immigration reform” would be “a priority” for the GOP in 2013 (to be fair, he didn’t say how high a priority it would be) adding: “This issue has been around far too long” and “[a] comprehensive approach is long overdue“.

Flash forward more than a year later and the first time it looks like they’ll actually take up the matter in Congress, they miraculously find an excuse not too.

As pointed out in last weeks’ column, this “sudden” surge in immigration actually started back in 2011. The spike in illegal immigration is by no means “sudden”. It just seems that way since Republicans (cynically) started making it an issue (in order to avoid taking up immigration reform once again, citing the need to stem this “sudden” surge in refugee children first before they’ll take up the issue.) It’s a bit like refusing to go to an AA Meeting until you get your drinking under control first.

#2) The idea that it is President Obama’s talk of “Amnesty” that is drawing them here: If the (false) promise of “citizenship for children” is what’s enticing people South of the Border to come to the U.S., how come 74 percent of the increase is coming from the “Northern Triangle” region South of Mexico? Yes, in sheer numbers, more of the refugee children are coming from Mexico. But it’s a much larger country. The “sudden surge” (over 700%) is coming from the equatorial nations. Are Mexicans suddenly not interested in “easy American Citizenship” so that when they (supposedly) hear President Obama talk about “Amnesty” for immigrant kids, they now yawn and say, “Not interested”? Yet other children are willing to make the 1,000 mile trek, risking life & limb upon hearing that same promise? Does that make sense to anyone… anyone SANE or not hosting a Sunday talkshow I mean.

I wonder just how eager these bastards would be to send these children back to almost certain death if they had to take them there themselves and look them in the eye as they leave them there and drive away?
 



Writers Wanted Got something to say? Mugsy’s Rap Sheet is always looking for article submissions to focus on the stories we may miss each week. To volunteer your own Op/Ed for inclusion here, send us an email with an example of your writing skills & choice of topic, and maybe we’ll put you online!

RSS Please REGISTER to be notified by e-mail every time this Blog is updated! Firefox/IE users can use RSS for a browser link that lists the latest posts! RSS


 

Share
Filed in fake scandals, Immigration Reform, myth busting, Partisanship, Politics, Racism, Seems Obvious to Me July 21st, 2014 by Admin Mugsy | • No comments | Add/View

Email This Post Email This Post

Scientists of convenience: “Life begins at conception”?

By Admin Mugsy - Last updated: Monday, July 7, 2014

If you’re like me, you probably noticed loooooong ago that “Conservatives” and “Science” go together like horseshit & ice cream. In October of 2012, Congressman Paul Broun (in)famously declared that sciences like “global warming” and “evolution” were “lies straight from the pit of hell.” During the 2004 Presidential Campaign, John Kerry was called an “elitist” because he was fluent in two languages (English & French). President George W Bush compared himself to Moses in a Bible passage referring to him as “slow of tongue” (ie: not very bright). And the less said about Sarah Palin and Dan Quayle, the better. Yes, the GOP has celebrated “stupidity” for decades, calling it “being folksy”. “Elitist college professors” turn students into “Liberals” (no, actually education turns students into Liberals. People who are incurious about the world typically don’t seek higher education.) Yes, Conservatives have had a hate/hate relationship with science for as long as I can remember… except in ONE very specific subject: “conception”… specifically, when “life” begins. Then suddenly, they’re all freaking Doctor Killdare. And they can tell you with 100% scientific certainty that “life begins at the moment of fertilization and will go on to explain in great biological detail why that’s true.

 

“Life begins at conception”? How exactly do they come to that conclusion?
 

Well, because “we can see under a microscope how a cell immediately begins to divide at the moment of fertilization. And at x# of weeks, “we can see” that the “child” responds to pain.

So the basis for their opinion on this ONE, AND ONLY ONE, ISSUE is SCIENCE, NOT The Bible.
 

Is it just me or does that strike you as particularly odd as well?
 

The same people that think the Law of Gravity is up for debate, and that standard light bulbs don’t waste electricity, rely on science… not The Bible… heavily to defend their position on just when life begins. They’ll tell you how the moment the sperm breaks the membrane of a woman’s ova, “cell division”… and the process of creating a fetus… begins. They suddenly know enough about DNA to put OJ away for murder, and declare with great authority that “a child” has been created and to destroy that fertilized egg is therefore an abortion.

Actually, The Bible says life begins “at life’s first breath” (502 passages reference “life” and “breath”), which they are TOTALLY willing to IGNORE when it’s convenient. Yet, when it comes to “homosexuality” (of which the Bible says nothing) or “Climate Change” (ditto), the Bible trumps all science.

As TV/radio-host/comedian/pundit John Fugelsang noted on the radio all last week, “if a fertilized egg is a child, then that makes God the most prolific serial abortionist in history!” Gotta wonder just how much sanctity God puts on human life when he designed the female body so that it could rid itself of “fertilized eggs” so easily (Monty Python anyone?)

And God opposes abortion? Says who? The Bible? If you don’t know already, The Bible actually contains detailed instructions on how to perform an abortion. And all those women The Bible said should be “stoned to death” for committing adultery (or be so reckless as to let herself get pregnant after being raped), what do they think became of those unborn children they were carrying? (and I’d like to point out, if you think the husband knew his wife was pregnant before she was showing, guess again. Can you say “third-trimester abortion” boys & girls?

Since 2010, the GOP House has been OBSESSED with passing anti-abortion legislation that they KNOW doesn’t have a prayer (pun intended) of passing, yet during the first six years of the Bush-II Presidency, when the GOP controlled BOTH Houses AND the White House, they didn’t attempt to pass a single piece of anti-abortion legislation. They don’t REALLY want to overturn Roe because it’s a big cash-cow for them.

So, back to my original point: when it comes to sciences like “paleontology” or “the ozone layer”, science is “evil” and “knowledge” only “clouds your mind from knowing The Truth.” But when it comes to “Conception”, suddenly science is their best friend (until you try to point out that the fertilized egg will soon stop dividing and no longer continue to grow if it doesn’t attach itself to the uterine wall to provide it with nourishment, ergo, an egg that is never implanted will NEVER become a “child”), you’ve just introduced an inconvenient fact that doesn’t jibe with their reality, and suddenly science is no longer their best friend.

If I believed in The Bible the way these people believe in science… oh wait, I do… what do you think they’d say about my claiming to be an authority on The Bible?

POSTSCRIPT: Chuck Lorre, the producer of several thousand CBS sitcoms, likes to insert “vanity cards” at the end of every episode of every show he produces. Some are just for laughs, while some take a humorous look at a serious subject. At the end of a “Two and a Half Men” episode last April, Chuck inserted the following Vanity Card that I just happened to catch:
 

Women's Rights - April 3, 2014

 



Writers Wanted
 
Got something to say? Mugsy’s Rap Sheet is always looking for article submissions to focus on the stories we may miss each week. To volunteer your own Op/Ed for inclusion here, send us an email with an example of your writing skills & choice of topic, and maybe we’ll put you online!

RSS Please REGISTER to be notified by e-mail every time this Blog is updated! Firefox/IE users can use RSS for a browser link that lists the latest posts! RSS


 

Share
Filed in Abortion rights, myth busting, Party of Life, Politics, Rants, Religion, Right-Wing Insanity July 7th, 2014 by Admin Mugsy | • No comments | Add/View