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

Email This Post Email This Post

While President Bush Was Ducking Shoes… you missed the SOFA.

By Admin Mugsy - Last updated: Monday, June 23, 2014

“It was a natural reaction to the killing of a million of my people, the orphaning of 5 million children, the widowing of one million women, resulting in tens of thousands of handicapped persons, tens of thousands of prisoners in American jails in Iraq, and the everyday scandals caused by the American occupation: rape, Abu Ghraib prison, bringing down roofs on peoples heads with Apache helicopters and F16 planes. Despite all this, Bush was saying the Iraqi people are happy, and the Americans liberated the Iraqi people, and the Iraqi people welcomed the Americans with flowers. [...] You lied. We did not welcome you with flowers, and instead, we are saying goodbye with our shoes.” So said Iraqi journalist Muntadhar al Zaidi explaining why he threw both of his shoes at President Bush during his final visit to Iraq. The reason for the visit? To announce an historic “Status of Forces Agreement”SoFA for short… between the U.S. and Iraq promising, quote, “the next president” would withdraw “ALL” U.S. troops out of Iraq by the end of 2011. Problem was, embedded in SoFA was a requirement for Iraq not to seek prosecution against any American soldiers for any crimes they may have committed while serving in Iraq. Because of this, Iraqi president al Maliki refused to sign SoFA. It was also because of this refusal to exempt American soldiers from prosecution, that President Obama did not leave residual American forces in Iraq. He negotiated with Maliki and tried to get him to agree to SoFA, but (as “Mother Jones reported), Iran demanded Maliki not allow ANY residual American forces in Iraq, “and Maliki owed them [Iran].” The Right has been going nuts for the past week trying to blame Obama for the crisis in Iraq that seems to be destabilizing the Middle East. That’s a bit like blaming the firemen for your house burning down after you set fire to it and then waited five hours before calling them.

I’m trying to imagine what the Right’s reaction would have been if President Obama had agreed to keep American forces in Iraq on the condition they could be prosecuted by a foreign government.

My TV survived another Sunday despite having to sit through this little exchange on Fox “news” Sunday yesterday. Michel Needham, the CEO of the Heritage Foundation’s “Heritage Action for America” super-PAC, lobbed this asinine accusation against President Obama (try not to toss your computer out the window):
 

“Six years ago, he [Obama] makes the decision to pull out of Iraq, leave no residual forces… the forces that could have been there identifying the intelligence and targeting the assets that would have prevented this [ISIS] from happening.”

(I especially like the end-part, where Needham agrees that he probably wouldn’t do anything different than President Obama, except to criticize the president’s lack of clairvoyance for not sending agents into Iraq “six months ago” to gather “intel”. Why on Earth would anyone have thought it necessary to gather intel on Iraq in late 2013? I did a Google search and I was unable to find ANY calls… not from Mr. Needham, the Heritage Foundation, nor anyone else on the right, demanding President Obama send agents into Iraq to gather “intel”. We WERE gathering intel in Syria six months ago, and ISIS was there. Lot of good that did.)

Oh Mr. Needham, where to begin. Well, first, I’m not going to nitpick that “six years ago”, Obama wasn’t president. “5+ years”, “six years”. Whatever. But something DID take place “six years ago” before Obama took office. it was President Bush, on December 15, 2008, with barely a month left in office, that sought an agreement with Iraq to withdraw ALL U.S. forces from Iraq. Iraq said, “Not unless we can prosecute them.” Bush said “No” and the agreement was never signed. But the plan to pull ALL American troops out… including any potential “residual force”… remained. President Bush wasn’t about to leave American troops at the mercy of the Iraqi courts. But apparently Mr. Needham wishes President Obama had agreed to let Iraq prosecute American soldiers just so long as we could have kept troops there? Yeah, right. And Mr. Needham must have some unspoken power of “time travel” where American troops could have magically skipped over the last two years and lived in Iraq incident-free to arrive at 2014 to stop ISIS from materializing? American forces couldn’t even stop Muqtada al-Sadr, the powerful and fiercely anti-American cleric, from rising to power. Leaving American forces in Iraq would not have prevented ISIS from rising to power. They started in SYRIA not Iraq. And they were drawn to Iraq in protest of the corrupt & inept Maliki government that was excluding Sunni’s from the political process. That would have taken place whether we left troops there or not. And as pointed out last week, whether it was one more or one hundred more years, the moment American forces left, a thousand years of jihad in Iraq would have picked up right where it left off (and will in Afghanistan too).

As recently as last September, John McCain was still bemoaning the fact that President Obama was still refusing to arm the Syrian rebels fighting President Assad, saying his “friends in the Free Syrian Army” would feel “abandoned” if we didn’t send them “arms”. McCain has been calling for the arming of Syrian rebels for YEARS. The largest of the Sunni anti-Assad militia groups McCain wanted to arm, you know today as “ISIS”, the alQaeda-trained terrorist organization now in control of nearly half the region. Yes, had “President” McCain of had his way, we could have been arming ISIS all along. Darned the luck! (How this idiot keeps getting booked on the Sunday shows without a single one of them pointing out this one simple fact, is a mystery to me… well, not really.)

Last week also saw former Vice President Cheney rise from the crypt in his “undisclosed location” to attack President Obama… saying without a hint of irony… that “never has a president been so wrong about so much at the expense of so many.” I can’t imagine the bubble this man has been living in over the past 13 years, but whatever he’s smoking in that bubble can’t be legal.
 

 
Let’s read what Mr Cheney said again: “never has a president been so wrong about so much at the expense of so many.”

As I like to point out, the objective of this site is to “Record history for those who seek to rewrite it”, and I could have spent literally WEEKS taring down all the asinine comments made by former Bush Administration officials and Right-Wing pundits last week that dare criticize President Obama’s handling of the shit-storm left to him by these “detached-from-reality” war criminals whose only audience should be in The Hague. But SO many others did such a great job of taking Cheney and the rest over their knee and slapping the malarky out of them that I didn’t have to.

And now, it’s this accusation that it is President Obama’s fault that the terrorist organization ISIS is taking over the region because HE refused to leave any American troops behind in Iraq after he pulled them all out in 2011. Sorry guys, we know better.
 
Oh, and before we go, a bonus clip from the same Fox “news” Sunday yesterday. Cleta Mitchell, attorney for “Tea Party groups” (gee, I wonder who hired her?) openly accused the Obama Administration of being behind the Cincinnati IRS “scandal”. When asked for the “hard evidence” she insisted she had, all she has was innuendo (this is what passes for “news” on Fox):
 

Mitchell: My “hard evidence” Obama is behind IRS scandal? He was secretly suggesting people do stuff.

 



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, Partisanship, Politics, rewriting history, Terrorism, War June 23rd, 2014 by Admin Mugsy | • No comments | Add/View

Email This Post Email This Post

Is ISIS Really a Threat to the U.S.? The argument(s) for staying out of Iraq’s Civil War.

By Admin Mugsy - Last updated: Monday, June 16, 2014

By now, you’ve already heard the “catastrophic”, “world-is-coming-to-an-end” news that a terrorist group “too extreme for alQaeda” (“too extreme” for a group that dive-bombed hijacked planes into buildings? Doubtful.) is slowly taking over Iraq, with Iraqi soldiers so afraid, they’re “stripping off their uniforms and running for their lives”. And… of course… a conga-line of Republicans taking to the airwaves to say “We told you so!” to President Obama for “leaving Iraq too early.” Okay, can we just stop with the nonsense and hyperbole for a moment. We were in Iraq for EIGHT YEARS… almost twice as long as America’s involvement in World War II. Trust me, if leaving after eight years was still “too soon”, NO amount of time would have been long enough. And in a country where the same people claiming we “left too soon” are also the LEAST likely to PAY for that involvement… is either taxes OR blood… they sure are eager to commit American forces to “Nation Building” once again… something Republicans so abhorred during the Clinton Administration that George W. Bush ridiculed the idea during the second presidential debate of 2000. And, news alert to those same Chickenhawks: THE SAME THING WILL HAPPEN WHEN WE LEAVE AFGHANISTAN after THIRTEEN YEARS. These regions have been at each others throats for CENTURIES, and they’re not going to stop now if we stay a few extra years.

If you clicked on the comic above to read it full sized, you’ll notice it’s from 2007… just four years after the start of the war in Iraq and before Bush left office. It’s an excellent reminder of all the warnings the opponents of invading Iraq gave. If ANYBODY should be saying “WE TOLD YA SO!”, it’s US. A few famous quotes from that comic:

“I will bet you the best dinner in the Gas Light District of San Diego that military action will not last more than a week.” – Bill O’Reilly on 1/29/03

“There is a certain amount of pop-psychology in America that the Shia can’t get along with the Sunni, and the Sunni can’t get along with the Shia… there’s almost no evidence of that at all.” – Bill Kristol, 4/1/03

“It’s amazing that more than two weeks into the liberation of Iraq, the anti-war crowd is still spinning a doomsday scenario.” – Brendan Miniter of OpinionJournal.com, 4/8/03

“The war was the hard part… and it gets easier. I mean, setting up a democracy is hard, but not as hard as winning a war.” – Fred Barns, 4/10/03

I nearly threw a brick through my TV yesterday as “Meet the Press” had on… of all people… PAUL F-ing WOLFOWITZ… often called “The Architect of the Iraq War”… to comment on the current situation in Iraq. The only reason this is even happening today is because of his pathetic & incomplete plan for the invasion of Iraq based upon false pretenses with no exit strategy. That’s like bringing on Richard Nixon to comment on Bill Clinton’s ethics. Fortunately for me, sanity prevailed and I simply switched off my TV rather than turn it into a fishtank. They also brought on Mitt Romney to criticize President Obama for withdrawing from Iraq… despite advocating the same thing himself in 2007 AND admitting that he is no longer privy to the daily intelligence briefings that are provided the president. And John McCain has spent more time in front of a camera since his loss in ’08 than he has his own wife. Please tell me how many times these shows brought on Al Gore or John Kerry to criticize George Bush after they lost their elections? “Liberal Media” my ass.

The organization that has all these pundits wetting their pants is “ISIS: Islamic State of Iraq and ash Sham” (not Iraq and Syria), formed in April of last year. Are they violent & brutal religious extremists? Yes (I’ve always found it curious how the most religious in any society have a tendency to be the most vicious & brutal, then justify their brutality with the Bible/Koran/Torrah). Would their take-over of Iraq be a big step backwards for Iraq? No question about it. But that doesn’t concern us. There are MANY brutal & dangerous Islamic fundamentalist states across the Middle East, and we don’t go invading all of them and try to “set them right”. It is ONLY a matter of concern for the United States if that organization is threatening to attack the United States, and that is NOT the case here.

ISIS is fighting to restore the Sunni minority back to power (Saddam was Sunni, and the Sunni controlled “Iraq” for centuries) after being marginalized by the al-Maliki government, which is Shia. President Obama openly chastised the Maliki government for excluding Sunni’s from his government. ISIS HATES the corrupt Miliki government. In Syria, Assad’s government in “Alawite”… a Shia sect. Iran is also Shia. ISIS hates them all and wants them all gone. Tell me again why were on the side or Assad, Maliki and Iran? Oh yeah, because they are “a threat to the United States”… or are they?

I went searching online for reports of terrorist attacks committed by ISIS (originally “ISI: The Islamic State of Iraq”). We’ve all heard/seen the coverage of the brutal attacks in Iraq, and have led the Civil War against Assad in Syria (including the brutal murder of seven children). But they have also launched attacks in Lebanon, and are threatening Israel from Gaza. To date, ALL of their terrorist activities have been “local” to that region of the world.

I don’t agree with Ron Paul on very much, but when he was lambasted during one of the 2008 RNC Debates for pointing out the obvious… that al Qaeda only attacked us because we had been meddling in the Middle East for decades… he was spot on. And if you want to see history repeat itself with ISIS, use American force to prop up the corrupt Maliki government and crush the Sunni opposition. As I tweeted yesterday:

#ISIS is only a threat to the U.S. if we involve ourselves in their civil war, propping up the corrupt Maliki gov’t.

The worst thing we can do now is get re-involved back in Iraq. Don’t give extremists another reason to hate us. Religious Extremists will always be there in that part of the world. It took a brutal Strong Man in Saddam Hussein to repress it for decades, and we took him out.

During the Eisenhower Administration, America overthrew the leadership in Iran and propped up a corrupt, brutal military dictator, The Sha. Iran went extremist, the Islamic Fundamentalists overthrew him, turned the nation into a theocracy, and became an enemy of the U.S.. Let’s not repeat that mistake in Iraq.

The current leader of ISIS, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, spent four years in American custody (UPDATE: a PolitiFact investigation finds Baghdadi spent ONE year in custody, not “four”, captured and released in 2004) at Camp Bucca, so he already has sufficient reason to hate the U.S.. Let’s not give him one more.

POSTSCRIPT: Blast-from-the-past. in 2007, then Senator Joe Biden partnered up with then Senator Sam Brownback to propose that the route to peace & stability in Iraq may require breaking Iraq up into three regions, all controlled by a single centralized government. It seems now that he might have been right all along as ISIS, the Kurds and the Shia all seem to be moving in that direction on their own.
 



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 Middle East, myth busting, National Security, Terrorism, War June 16th, 2014 by Admin Mugsy | • 1 comment | Add/View

Email This Post Email This Post

About Those “Terrorists” We Exchanged…

By Admin Mugsy - Last updated: Monday, June 2, 2014

Yesterday (June 1st), President Obama agreed to release five Taliban fighters in exchange for one American soldier, Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl, who had been held prisoner for over five years. The tiny nation of Qatar was used as an intermediary to avoid direct contact/negotiations between Washington and The Taliban. Qatar also agreed to hold the five men in-country for one year before allowing them to return to their countries of origin. Naturally, Republicans went into hysterics, as Republicans tend to do with everything “ter’ist related” ever since they dismissed a warning entitled “Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S.” back in August of 2001. Call it “over-compensation”. Call it “Operation Restore Fake Belief that Republicans Are Good at Security”. Whatever. Doesn’t matter. Ever since that major F-up on their watch, now every threat… real or imagined… becomes a “hair on fire” event. “The President negotiated with terrorists??? We don’t negotiate with terrorists! It only gives them an incentive to take more hostages!”

Nonsense.

A few thoughts immediately crossed my mind:

America has a looooong history of “prisoner exchanges”… dating back to before there even was a “United States of America”. General Washington was in charge of “prisoner exchanges” with the British during the Revolutionary War, and local governors negotiated with local Indian tribes… not just to exchange prisoners, but to stop them from attacking villages… so this is nothing new. But “negotiating with terrorists” is FAR broader than just a simple “prisoner exchange”… it can include giving them money and/or weapons. But we didn’t do that (THIS time). Can’t imagine what Republicans might have done if an American president had done something as reckless as “trade arms for hostages”.

Quick note: Yesterday, June 1st, was the official start of hurricane season, and NOAA, the National Weather Service, released their estimate on the number of storms we can expect to see this season. So this may be a good time to go back and re-read my post from five years ago: “Global Warming will mean FEWER mid-Summer hurricanes, not more”. To date, it’s been spot-on.



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 Middle East, myth busting, National Security, rewriting history June 2nd, 2014 by Admin Mugsy | • 4 comments | Add/View

Email This Post Email This Post

These people are dangerous, and they’re costing lives

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

As I predicted last Monday, this was a bad week. Mom passed away Friday morning as I sat at her hospital bedside, holding her hand for 61 minutes after they switched off the ventilator and I slowly watched my mother’s heart rate fall to zero. It was agonizing, and a trauma I hope none of my readers ever have to endure. I couldn’t sue for malpractice while Mom was alive, but we sure as hell can file for “wrongful death” now that she’s gone. (UPDATE: Nope, can’t do that either. Texas put the same bleeping $250K cap on “wrongful death” suits as well, ensuring no lawyer will touch the case. Bastards.)

But I’m not here to reopen that wound and cause myself more pain. Another busy week ahead with the funeral, collecting evidence and calling lawyers, so this will have to be brief (pardon the dearth of links.)

On yesterday’s Fox “news” Sunday, former CIA/NSA director Gen. Michael Hayden was on to discuss (what else?) Benghazi and the second Ft. Hood shooting. The Benghazi (non)story is already on life-support, but Hayden brought Fox a step closer to pulling the plug. Quite honestly, I’m not quite sure why they keep inviting him on. Sure, in private, when he goes on the record only as “an anonymous source”, Hayden is a snarky bitter partisan, but when he makes statements in public, he’s frequently quick to defend the White House, be it Bush’s or Obama’s. Pretty soon they are going to stop having him on if he keeps defending Obama’s White House this way.

I’ve cobbled together a few highlights from yesterday’s lengthy interview. Wallace goes into the commercial break with the following teaser (and flat-out lie):

   “Turns out it was the CIA that changed the Benghazi Talking Points to avoid embarrassing Hillary Clinton’s State Department.”

We return from the break and Wallace asks Hayden why Morell “ignored” the CIA’s own “Station Chief in Libya” who “repeatedly told him in the days after Benghazi that this was a terrorist attack”, choosing instead to take the word of CIA analysts back at Langley.

   “How unusual is that to disregard the word of your own man in the field?

“Disregard” the word of your own “man in the field”? Clearly, the suggestion here is that the guy who was actually IN Libya would know better about what happened in Benghazi than some pencil-pusher 8,000 miles away back at CIA headquarters. Hayden jumps to Morell’s defense quickly:

   “Look, you give a lot of weight to your man-in-the-field, but keep in mind, our man-in-the-field was more than 500 miles away from the incident [in Tripoli].”

Not exactly an eye-witness. Hayden went on to point out that Morell also went so far as to inform the White House that there was a “dissenting opinion” as to what happened so they wouldn’t “put all their eggs in one basket.” Wallace quickly moves on (emphasis Wallace’s):

   “Morell said that he went around his boss David Petraeus and took out [from the CIA's report] the fact that the CIA had repeatedly warned the State Department about the threat level in Benghazi”, followed by Wallace playing the clip of Morell testifying that he felt the claim was only there to allow the CIA to “pound its chest” and “lay all the blame on the State Department”.

Hayden again unspins Fox’s attempt to turn this into something sinister by pointing out that the CIA putting that line in about “repeatedly warning the State Department” was inappropriate, and removing it was an attempt to NOT politicize the issue rather than provide State with political cover.

The entire interview was sad all around and I may try to post it online in the near future when I have more time.

Then there was the (second) shooting (in 5 years) at Fort Hood. Right Wing Congressman Mike McCall went on Meet the Press to suggest that maybe restricting firearms on the military base was a bad idea and that maybe allowing everyone to go around packing heat would make the place much safer. Fortunately, cooler heads prevailed as Former Joint Chief Admiral Mike Mullen came on later to disagree with McCall, noting that NOT having everyone going around armed has likely resulted in FEWER such incidents. Lord only knows how much worse it could get if every soldier with PTSD was allowed to carry a loaded semi-automatic firearm with them every where they went on one of the largest military bases in the country. And it’s not like they can’t GET guns quickly at Ft. Hood. One Right Wing argument for armed guards in schools is that no one had access to a gun to stop any rampage. Well at Fort Hood, they DID have guns. Heck, they were armed to the teeth, and this still happened… not once, but twice.

Later on in the evening, NBC hosted a special presentation on Global Warming and whether a tipping point had been reached. It was fairly good as one hour summaries of complex issues go, even taking time to explain how we can have “Global Warming” and the record-breaking freezing cold we’ve been having at the same time. But you really can’t do a topic as complex as Climate Change in just one hour, and while they mentioned the skeptics, I think not including Jesus-freaks Paul “lies straight from the pit of Hell” Broun and Jim “the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on mankind” Inhoff in the story was an opportunity lost. These Ludites are more than willing to jeopardize the lives of tens of millions based on their own personal interpretation of a 5000 year old Harry Potter novel known as The Bible. I say “their” interpretation because even the freaking Pope believes in Climate Change and released a report on the subject (pdf) in 2011.

In truth, the GOP DESPISES the subject of Global Warming primarily because they associate it with Al Gore. So basically, this one tiny group of anti-science mental midgets that have chosen to interpret The Bible in such an extreme and narrow fashion that not even the Vatican agrees with them, is willing to risk global catastrophe rather than admit that maybe Al Gore was right. Really. That is all it boils down to.

And if Gore had been President on September 11th, do you think for a moment that they would have rallied around him the way Democrats embraced George Bush after 9/11? Hell no. They would have begun impeachment proceedings on 9/12. Don’t believe me? Just look at their outrage over four dead in Benghazi. Now multiply that by 1,000.

These people are twisted. They’re dangerous, and they’re endangering lives. My mother was just their latest victim.
 



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, Scandals, Terrorism April 7th, 2014 by Admin Mugsy | • 1 comment | Add/View

Email This Post Email This Post

Keystone XL Protest Signs for Download

By Admin Mugsy - Last updated: Friday, February 28, 2014

As promised, here are seven posters/signs that I created for the Keystone XL Protest that I plan to attend this weekend.

As I mentioned on Monday, I believe it is FAR more effective to focus on NON-CO2 related reasons for opposing the pipeline when your goal is to convince people that don’t believe in “Global Warming” and have been spoon-fed a steady stream of lies of “Job Jobs Jobs”, “cheap gas” and “Energy Independence”, to vote against something they’ve been told would be a magic bullet for the economy.

Previews are in JPG format. Each poster in both “tall” and “wide” formats for signs or posters. Click images to download in high resolution PhotoShop format:


The oil is to be EXPORTED - The oil is to be EXPORTED


HIGHER prices NOT lower -  - HIGHER prices NOT lower


The JOBS myth - The JOBS myth


No good for gasoline - No good for gasoline


Massive Tailing Ponds - Massive Tailing Ponds


An ENORMOUS waste of fresh water - An ENORMOUS waste of fresh water


Summary poster - Summary poster

If you find these posters useful, let us know. – Mugsy
 


 

Share
Filed in Economy, Energy Independence, Environment, Global Warming, Greed, Jobs, Middle East, myth busting, Politics February 28th, 2014 by Admin Mugsy | • No comments | Add/View

Email This Post Email This Post

No, the Keystone Tar Sand Oil is NOT Inevitable

By Admin Mugsy - Last updated: Monday, February 24, 2014

A little birdy tells me that President Obama is now considering approving the final leg of the infamous “Keystone XL” pipeline because some big names on the Left have resigned themselves to the idea that the tar sands making it to market is “inevitable”, so we might as well be the ones to do it before a “less” environmentally conscientious nation “like China” (who is investing heavily in Green energy and focusing on pollution after Beijing started hitting blindingly toxic levels of smog prior to the 2008 Olympics.) Meanwhile, ask North Carolina and West Virginia what they think about our environmental record. Quite honestly, anyone claiming to be “a Liberal” that tells you the KXL “is inevitable so we might as well do it”, isn’t really a Liberal. Because a true Liberal finds the better way. They don’t just throw up their hands and say, “Okay Big Money, you win! I surrender!” Screw you and the Iron Horse you rode in on. That’s like saying, “Wall Street is going to find a way to screw us out of our money anyways so we might as well deregulate the whole damned thing.” No, Naysayers, the tar sands oil making it to market is NOT “inevitable.” Answer me this: That “tar sand” has been there for tens of thousands of years. Why now? Why are we suddenly considering using it “now”? Was there a sudden drop in the supply of oil that I’m not aware of? Are we running out of places to drill? Has OPEC suddenly cut back production because oil is suddenly harder to find? No. The reason… the ONLY reason they are suddenly looking at it is because it’s suddenly economically feasible thanks to the Bush Administration driving oil prices into the stratosphere. In the past, converting tar sand into “oil” was just too damned expensive. Now, with $95/barrel oil, suddenly, the process is cost effective. Wanna stop the tar sand’s from being used, GET THE PRICE OF OIL DOWN. And there’s several ways to do it.

As I reported last week, if the price of oil were to fall $30 to just $65/barrel, excavating the tar sands would no longer be cost efficient. And arguably, I don’t see the U.S. refining tar sand for China. If they want it, they are going to have to ship it someplace else to refine it. Suddenly, we’re not looking at $65/barrel, you’re looking at more like $75/barrel before it becomes too expensive for a foreign country to try an utilize it.

Ever wonder why CANADA doesn’t just simply refine it THERE in Canada? Why not simply build a refinery there rather than bisect the United States with a 1,800 mile long pipeline to the Gulf? Because they plan to EXPORT that oil once it has been refined. No port, no profit. And as long as oil is in the $75+ range, there’s profit to be made. Get that price down, and all your worries about Keystone go too.

I personally believe that protesters that focus on the catastrophic environmental damage the KXL would do are doing themselves a tremendous disservice. If your target audience is people that don’t believe in “Global Warming” and believe in all the lies they’ve been fed about what an economic boom it would be, you might as well be claiming the KXL kills “Spotted Owls” for all the good it would do. No, you’ve gotta hit them where they live. TELL THEM that it WON’T “create a million jobs” like they’ve been told. TELL THEM that it WON’T lower… but in fact RAISE… the price of gas. TELL THEM that it means an enormous 11-foot deep lake of black toxic sludge the size of Central Park (840 acres) in their backyard blighting the landscape, stinking the air, and lowering their property values. Hit them where they live. And be ready to answer question when they ask you to defend your claims. Because as long as these lies are allowed to persist, they become the truth. “Everyone” was gung-ho to invade Iraq over “Weapons of Mass Destruction” that we were literally guaranteed were there (“slam dunk”). But afterward when the weapons didn’t turn up, suddenly everyone realized they had been lied to for someone else’s personal gain and WE were stuck with the check.

I plan on taking part in a “Stop the Keystone XL pipeline” protest this Saturday, and I hope to create some nice “ready-to-print” signs that I can distribute in file format to fellow protesters. If I do, I’ll be sure to post them here on M.R.S. for free download sometime this week.
 



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, Jobs, Money, myth busting, Seems Obvious to Me February 24th, 2014 by Admin Mugsy | • No comments | Add/View

Email This Post Email This Post

Apathy Latest Enemy In Fighting Keystone XL Pipeline

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

Back in April of 2011, I wrote a lengthy post detailing all the misconceptions, deceptions and outright lies being spread by supporters of the “Keystone XL” pipeline. It was popular and important enough that I gave that post its own page, linked from the Top Menu above. Quite literally, EVERY benefit being claimed about the pipeline is complete & utter nonsense: a million new jobs, lower gas prices, and energy independence with minimal impact on the environment. All of it, total bullshit (read my report for details.) In March of last year, the U.S. State Dept declared that they believed the pipeline would have a “negligible” impact on the environment (based on a report prepared for them by people working for TransCanada), which I reported on at the time. Last week, the State Dept released its follow-up report on the environmental impact of the KXL, declaring their belief that it would in fact have “minimal impact”, giving President Obama cover should he decide to approve the final/key leg of the pipeline, extending it up to the Alberta Tarsands itself. Critics of opponents like me think the only reason we oppose the KXL is because of its impact on “Global Warming”… which they deny anyway, so we’re easy to dismiss. We’re just a bunch of squishes that “over-react” when it comes to the Environment. Well, as I pointed out in my post last year, even if you don’t believe in Climate Change, there are plenty of other reasons to oppose the KXL. Few jobs (would you believe fewer than FIFTY permanent jobs?), HIGHER (not “lower”) gas prices, and other environmental hazards like incredibly frequent massive spills of thick gooey tar (292 in North Dakota alone in less than two years) that are next to impossible to clean up. They say “pipeline technology has improved” to the point where such spills are rare. Since when? How long must we go without a pipeline rupturing that we can start calling them “rare”? Because last I checked, we haven’t gone a full 7-months yet without a pipeline leaking tens of thousands of gallons of oil somewhere in the United States.

The State Department report is rubbish. It has already been revealed, once again, that “consultants” hired to write the report were lobbyist for a trade group linked to TransCanada (owners of the pipeline). And their “conclusion” that the pipeline would have a negligible impact is based on the enormously questionable belief that if the pipeline were not built, the “oil” would just be “shipped by rail”, getting out into the market anyway (meaning the “pipeline” would have little impact, not the oil). Not only does rail not move as much product (I’m not calling it “oil” because it’s not. It’s a thick mud called “bitumen”) as a pipeline would, but as The Washington Post points out, if the price of oil falls to roughly $70/barrel, shipping by rail is no longer cost efficient. And if the price of oil falls below $65/barrel, it doesn’t matter how it’s transported, it’ll be cheaper just to leave the tar-sand in the ground. So the assumption that “we might as well just transport it by pipeline since it’s going to be delivered one way or another” is questionable at best.

I don’t like the fact that opposition to the KXL seems to have waned in the Progressive Media as of late. I hear Progressives talk about the KXL almost with a sense of futility that it’s going to happen eventually no matter what. We’ve been talking about this pipeline “for years now” and nothing bad has happened “so far” so maybe the criticism was overblown? “Nothing” has happened “so far” because it hasn’t been built! It reminds me of critics of health care reform blaming “Obamacare” for things that happened before it went into effect. Progressive radio host Ed Schultz… who has been on my shit-list ever since he spent an entire show in 2009 defending dog-killer Michael Vick’s right to earn millions of dollars playing football the same day Blue-dog “Democrat” Max Baucus (D-MT) announced that he would be siding with the GOP to deny Democrats a 60-vote Super Majority if the Health Care Reform bill included a Public Option… stated on his show last Thursday that he “supports” the KXL pipeline and “thinks it should be done” (then spent Friday’s show talking about the Super Bowl). Bye-bye, Ed. I’m done with you. I suggest you find a new job as a sportscaster, since that seems to be where your interests really lie.

Here are some new photos, and a video clip, to go with my earlier reports on the Keystone XL pipeline:

Tailing pond pipe in Alberta, Canada
Tailing pond pipe
 

Tailing pond with pipes (left)
Tailing pond, Alberta
 

Tailing pond dwarfs rig
Tailing pond, Alberta
 

Oil sands, Canada
Oil sands, Canada
 

Mildred Lake, tailing pond
Mildred Lake
 

Pipes in Sudbury tailing pond
Sudbury tailing pond
 

More pipes
Tailing pond pipes
 

Tarsands oil contains 17% more carbon than conventional crude oil.
17percent more emissions
 

More Alberta tarsands
Alberta tarsands
 

More Alberta tarsands
Alberta tarsands
 

More Alberta tarsands
Alberta tarsands
 

Closeup of tailing pond:
Tailing pond

All of these tailing pipes gush toxic waste 24-hours a day, 365 days a year.
Gusher
 

Video clip showing that gushing pipe in action (11sec)


So I’m posting this brief reminder/update on the Keystone XL Pipeline before I hear any more foolishness about the “futility” in fighting a pipeline that seems to be inevitable. That’s how they win, by wearing us down. They have deep pockets to drag this out for as long as they need until they lull us into believing, “Smoking’s good for you. Never mind the “licorice smell in your water, West Virginia. Oh, and the check is in the mail.”

Starting on February 5th, the State Department will begin an “open commenting period” of just 30 days allowing people to write them in opposition/support of the Keystone XL pipeline. Be sure to make your voice heard (don’t contact them before the 5th or risk having your message ignored.)
 



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, Jobs, myth busting, Politics February 3rd, 2014 by Admin Mugsy | • No comments | Add/View