"She smoked him like a rack of ribs"
- Michael Eric Dyson
He's still not lying to you.
Jimmy Carter on the US government:
"Now it’s just an oligarchy, with unlimited political bribery being the essence of getting the nominations for president or to elect the president. And the same thing applies to governors and U.S. senators and congress members. So now we’ve just seen a complete subversion of our political system as a payoff to major contributors, who want and expect and sometimes get favors for themselves after the election’s over."
"Now it’s just an oligarchy, with unlimited political bribery being the essence of getting the nominations for president or to elect the president. And the same thing applies to governors and U.S. senators and congress members. So now we’ve just seen a complete subversion of our political system as a payoff to major contributors, who want and expect and sometimes get favors for themselves after the election’s over."
Know your enemy. It might be you.
"A delicate balance is required to combat violence perpetrated in the name of a religion, an ideology or an economic system, while also safeguarding religious freedom, intellectual freedom and individual freedoms. But there is another temptation which we must especially guard against: the simplistic reductionism which sees only good or evil; or, if you will, the righteous and sinners. The contemporary world, with its open wounds which affect so many of our brothers and sisters, demands that we confront every form of polarization which would divide it into these two camps. We know that in the attempt to be freed of the enemy without, we can be tempted to feed the enemy within. To imitate the hatred and violence of tyrants and murderers is the best way to take their place."
-Pope Francis (emphasis added)
-Pope Francis (emphasis added)
See no Evil?
What is
evil? Is it relative or absolute? Is it the opposite of good? Are thoughts
necessarily evil? I don't believe that the concept of evil is handed down by
God. Nor do I go the other way and deny what is called morality altogether. For
most of my life I leaned toward relativism – the very same action may seem good
in one place and evil in the other. Hence I came up with my version of Kant's
categorical imperative, wherein I must be able to justify my actions to every
relevant being - case ethics.
There
are hybrids of course. One is the idea that morality is flexible, but only to a
certain extent - some universals are the basis of morality. Another concept,
and this appeals to my existentialist nature, is that morality is what our best
selves agree upon with all the other best selves.
So, for
years I had a neo-Kantian view of evil as not treating people as ends in
themselves, but merely means to some other end. One who does evil cannot
properly justify one's actions to other relevant beings.
Then I
read The Grand Design, by
Patrick Francis, aka Paddy McMahon - especially his take on evil.
During
his discussion of God, McMahon (okay, if we're buying, the "spiritual
guide" talking to McMahon) says that God is "an infinity of
spirit." He further elucidates with a sockdollager of a paragraph:
"When
I say that God is love, then, what do I mean? I mean that God is the animating
force in all expression which includes all life and all activities of life. I
know what you're asking - surely not all activities of life - for example,
wars, murders, oppression, rape, torture? Or the creation of an ugly-looking
beast like a hippopotamus? Or irritating insects like fleas? Bear with me for a
minute when I say that all life and all activities of life without exception
are part of the positive expression of love. In other words, there is no evil.
There is apparent evil and to human eyes many people act in such a way and many
things are done which can only be described as bad or evil. For instance, how
can I say to a mother whose daughter is raped that the man who performed the
act of rape and the act of rape itself are animated by the force of love? Yet,
that is the reality."
Whoa,
Nellie! The narrator goes on to give an example. Two loving parents have two
children. The daughter goes on to be Mother Theresa, but the boy goes on to be
Charles Manson.
"On
the face of it, three of the four people in that family unit were good people
and lived positive lives. There is no difficulty in regarding them and their activities
as animated by the force of love. The son, however, was apparently an evil man
and performed evil deeds during most of his life on earth. The problem is to
accept that both he and his activities were animated by the same force of love
as his parents and sister."
As evil
does not exist, the son's ”apparent evil” is an exercise of free will that
shows a kind of unawareness or rejection of the love inside of him.
"The
same force of love operating within the recipients of his acts of violence righted
by his acts an imbalance which earlier acts of free will on their part had
created in them. He also helped his parents and his sister by creating in them
because of their love for him a tolerance and a compassion which it would not
be possible for them to feel had they not come up against the conflicts which
he caused in them by the intimacy of his relationship with them."
A word
about McMahon. He believes in a kind of reincarnation in which we go from life
after life after life on the way to spiritual perfection. So, when bad things
happen to good people, it's all for the best. We should continually take our
lessons into the next life.
I find
that this jibes quite well with M. Scott Peck's focus on fostering spiritual
growth. We all do things that could be considered evil under various
definitions. But we can accept them as lessons to be learned as we progress
from life to life. We hopefully will act out of deeper understanding of
spiritual principles, not law or "morality." It's not the reward of heaven
for the punishment of hell. It's not some earthly nitpicking as we worry about
interlopers. It's not about good and evil–it's about spiritual awareness.
Perhaps:
"Good"
is awareness or the state of awareness that each integrated soul has retained or
regained.
"Evil"
is non-awareness or the state of non-awareness in which the soul is not
integrated.
No one
is completely "evil" because our souls cannot lose their divine
nature. We all just need to become more aware of this.
This
all, of course, sounds a bit Buddhist to me. We continue suffering as we attain
enlightenment. By the way, the Baha'is don't believe evil exists either. If you
have not looked into Baha'i, I think it might be worth your while.
So
where do I come down on this? As befits my negative capability, the jury's
still out. However, I do find comfort in the idea that all the bad things that
happen to all of us, and that we ourselves make happen, are part of the lesson
plan of spiritual awareness. It might even help me sleep tonight.
In-effing-bility
I’d like to say a few words about ineffability. I just
don’t know which words to say.
I went back to Karen Armstrong’s The Case for God because I remembered two way-ahead-of their-times
theologians. Duns Scotus Erigena
(literally “John the Gaelic Irishman”) in the 9th century, called
theology “a kind of poetry.” St. Symeon the New Theologian lived at the turn of
the first millennium. The “new” in his title was at first derisive;
he was the first Byzantine Catholic to write down his mystical experiences.
These guys were kind of the Rumis of Medieval Christianity.
___________
John Scotus Erigena
God is everything. God is no-thing. God
is more than everything. This
employs Erigena’s dialectic. “God is X. God is not-X. God is more than X.”
God can be best
explained by a paradox that reminds us of the limitations of our human
understanding. God then transcends the paradox.
Take “God exists.”
In a Byron Katie-like turnaround, we posit “God does not exist.” Then, “God is more
than existence.”
God does not exist
like the things he has created and he is not just an-other being existing
alongside them.
What is that which
is more than "being?" We cannot comprehend. God is not one of the
things that are, but he is more than the things that are, but what that
"is" is, is in no way defined. (Three “is-es” in a row. Whoo-hoo!) God
is not an object; he does not possess “being” in any sense that we can
comprehend. God is “He who is more than being.” His mode of existence is as
different from ours as our being is from an animal's and an animal's from a
rock. But if God is “Nothing” he is also “Everything:” because this “super-existence”
means that what we call God, alone, has true being. He is the essence of
everything that partakes of this.
God is both Everything and Nothing; the two terms balance one
another and are held in a creative tension to suggest the mystery which our
word 'God' can only symbolize. Thus when he replies to a student who had asked
him what was meant when he had called God Nothing, Erigena replies that the
divine Goodness was incomprehensible because it was 'super essential' - that
is, more than Goodness itself- and 'supernatural'. So:
“While it is contemplated in itself [it] neither is, nor was, nor shall
be, for it is understood to be none of the things that exist because it
surpasses all things but when by a certain ineffable descent into the things
that are, it is beheld by the mind's eye, it alone is found to be in all
things, and it is and was and shall be.”
____________
St. Symeon the New Theologian
Symeon made no attempt to define God. This, Symeon insisted, would be
presumptuous; indeed, to speak about God in any way at all implied that “that
which is incomprehensible is comprehensible.”
“O grandeur of ineffable glory! O excess of love! He Who
embraces all things makes His home within a mortal corruptible man, He by Whose
indwelling might all things are governed, and the man becomes as a woman heavy
with child. O astonishing miracle and incomprehensible deeds and mysteries of
the incomprehensible God! A man carries God consciously within himself as
light, carries Him Who has brought all things into being and created them,
including the one who carries Him now. He carries Him within as a treasure
inexpressible, unspeakable, without quality, quantity, or form, immaterial,
shapeless, yet with form in beauty inexplicable, altogether simple, like light,
Him Who transcends all light. And, clenching his hands at his sides, this man
walks in our midst and is ignored by everyone who surrounds him. Who can then
adequately explain the joy of such a man? Will he not be more blessed and more
glorious than any emperor? Than whom, or than how many visible worlds, will he
not be more wealthy? And in what shall such a man ever be lacking? Truly, in no
way shall he lack any of God's good things.”
…
“O Light that none can name, for it is altogether nameless. O Light
with many names, for it is at work in all things ... How do you mingle yourself
with grass? How, while continuing unchanged, altogether inaccessible, do you
preserve the nature of the grass unconsumed?”
_______________
What I like about ineffability viewed through these theological poets
is that it’s not the “effing ineffability” of frustration, but the awe of
trying to get your head around something so gloriously beyond your head.
Well, that’s it for now. I
just wanted to share a postmodern view of spirituality from over a millennium
ago. These guys went unnoticed for
hundreds of years. We needed that time to catch up with their visionary
visions.
So, do I believe in this God-not-God, this everything and no-thing,
this more-than-any-thing? I can’t say. Words fail me.
По-прежнему в Правде нет Известий, в Известиях нет Правды? *
Bashar al-Assad continues to wield power in Syria. Despite
constant reports of civilian massacres by government fighters,
countries like Russia and China continue to block international efforts
to stop the brutality. The BBC reported how these countries (in this
case, Russia) use state-controlled television to rationalize their
intransigence:
"Most Russians get their information about the wider world from three dominant TV channels - Rossiya 1, Channel One and NTV, which are controlled by the state and generally serve the interests of the Kremlin.
"Between them, these channels get around 50% of the total TV audience. Their share of the TV news audience is significantly higher.
"For most of the current crisis in Syria, Russian TV has suggested that President Assad is facing a violent insurgency that has allowed Islamic terrorists and various criminal elements to wreak havoc in the country.
"They frequently refer to the armed opposition in very negative terms, such as 'bandits', 'terrorists' and 'armed gangs' and they lay the blame for most of the violence at their door.
(No Pravda in Izvestia, no Izvestia in Pravda.)
"Most Russians get their information about the wider world from three dominant TV channels - Rossiya 1, Channel One and NTV, which are controlled by the state and generally serve the interests of the Kremlin.
"Between them, these channels get around 50% of the total TV audience. Their share of the TV news audience is significantly higher.
"For most of the current crisis in Syria, Russian TV has suggested that President Assad is facing a violent insurgency that has allowed Islamic terrorists and various criminal elements to wreak havoc in the country.
"They frequently refer to the armed opposition in very negative terms, such as 'bandits', 'terrorists' and 'armed gangs' and they lay the blame for most of the violence at their door.
"Government forces are largely exonerated, and there is little or no
mention of the Shabiha militias widely blamed in the Western media for
carrying out atrocities.
"The reporting of the massacre in Houla was no exception.
"While early reports of the killings were headline news in most Western media, Russian TV initially tried to play them down. ...
"Correspondents from Russia's main TV channels ... go into the country with the blessing of the Syrian government, and do not run the same risks [as other journalists]. ...
"In all these cases, it was the armed opposition or criminal elements who were blamed for the violence. There was no mention of violence from the government side.
"Radio stations and newspapers in Russia present a more balanced picture of the Syrian crisis, with some questioning both wisdom and morality of the Kremlin's backing for President Assad, but these media are not nearly as influential as the main TV stations."
*Still no News in the Truth, No Truth in the News?"The reporting of the massacre in Houla was no exception.
"While early reports of the killings were headline news in most Western media, Russian TV initially tried to play them down. ...
"Correspondents from Russia's main TV channels ... go into the country with the blessing of the Syrian government, and do not run the same risks [as other journalists]. ...
"In all these cases, it was the armed opposition or criminal elements who were blamed for the violence. There was no mention of violence from the government side.
"Radio stations and newspapers in Russia present a more balanced picture of the Syrian crisis, with some questioning both wisdom and morality of the Kremlin's backing for President Assad, but these media are not nearly as influential as the main TV stations."
(No Pravda in Izvestia, no Izvestia in Pravda.)
Dear God
I was listening to my cable alternative channel when one
of my favorite bands, XTC, came on with the blasphemous "Dear God." A
sampling of the lyrics:
... all the people that you made in your image,
see them starving on their feet
'cause they don't get enough to eat
from God, I can't believe in you. ...
see them fighting in the street
'cause they can't make opinions meet
about God, I can't believe in you. ...
Did you make mankind after we made you? ...
Father, Son and Holy Ghost
is just somebody's unholy hoax. ...
If there's one thing I don't believe in
it's you ... Dear God.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?
The first thing I love about this song is that Andy Partridge is writing to a God he doesn't believe in. It also reminds me of how I used to answer the question "Don't you believe in God?" I would reply, "I don't believe in God in the way that libertarians don't believe in government. It's not a question of existence - it's a question of whether it's doing anybody any good!"
By the way, I do believe in government. As I have said, I do believe in invisible things: Truth, Justice, the American Way. I do believe in love. I do believe in life after love. (Thanks, Cher!)
And my conceptions on Higher Powers continue to evolve. But I still love the song.
... all the people that you made in your image,
see them starving on their feet
'cause they don't get enough to eat
from God, I can't believe in you. ...
see them fighting in the street
'cause they can't make opinions meet
about God, I can't believe in you. ...
Did you make mankind after we made you? ...
Father, Son and Holy Ghost
is just somebody's unholy hoax. ...
If there's one thing I don't believe in
it's you ... Dear God.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?
The first thing I love about this song is that Andy Partridge is writing to a God he doesn't believe in. It also reminds me of how I used to answer the question "Don't you believe in God?" I would reply, "I don't believe in God in the way that libertarians don't believe in government. It's not a question of existence - it's a question of whether it's doing anybody any good!"
By the way, I do believe in government. As I have said, I do believe in invisible things: Truth, Justice, the American Way. I do believe in love. I do believe in life after love. (Thanks, Cher!)
And my conceptions on Higher Powers continue to evolve. But I still love the song.
You can't justify rationalizations
One of my pet peeves stems from a lazy comment made by an
actual Princeton political philosophy professor on my senior thesis about governmental
lying (“Lying in State” – I’m such a cut-up). He talked about the Iran-Contra
criminals “justifying their actions.” Fortunately, there’s something called a
Senior Paper in which the students respond to a professor’s question. It’s
usually an excuse to dump research that didn’t fit in to the thesis, but I
started from scratch and wrote a 20-page work on practical ethics. (Got an A-)
-----------------
I
won’t go over (or can’t remember?) my arguments. The point here is definitional. (Game Show Host Voice:) "So let's go to the
dictionary definitions!" - which are (for once?) really helpful.
---------------
Rationalize
to
ascribe (one's acts, opinions, etc.) to
causes that superficially seem reasonable and valid but that actually are unrelated to the true, possibly unconscious and often less creditable or agreeable causes, especially after
the event
(old usage) “to make conformable to reason”
to
invent plausible
explanations for acts, opinions, etc., that
are actually
based on other causes: “He tried to prove
that he was not at fault, but he was obviously
rationalizing.”
Justify
to
prove or
see to be
just or valid
to
show adequate
grounds for
doing
to show (an act, claim,
statement, etc.) to be just or right: “The end does not always justify the
means.”
Theology: to declare
innocent or guiltless
from Old French justifier, c.1300,
"to administer justice," also "to show (something) to be just or right," from Latin justificāre, "act
justly toward, make
just, righteous," from jūstus just + facere to make
-----------------
In its original sense, justificāre
was active: “act justly toward,” “make just,” deal justly, do justice. As a rough
guide, “justify” is something you properly do before you act, “rationalize” is
something you improperly make up after the fact. Justification is righteous
(dude). Rationalization is weasel-y.
If
it’s not completely on board, under my definition, it’s not justification.
The hard part is that it’s NOT black/white, not easy - and that might be the point. All we
can do is the best we can – but we have to do it.
The Will to be Willing to Will Willingness
The Road Less Traveled is the most important book that I have read since my reawakening. And the concept of "willing" was itching my cranium.
In the chapter Love Defined, M. Scott Peck goes harshheash on the concept of romantic love - a "dependency myth." He suspects "falling in love" to be "a genetically determined instinctual component of mating behavior." (Be still my heart!) "Falling in love is a trick that our genes pull on our otherwise perceptive mind to hoodwink or trap us into marriage." But without this "temporary infantile regression" most of us would never develop familial bonds, and our species would be fucked.
So what, then, is love? "I define love thus: The will to extend one's self for the purpose of nurturing one's own or another's spiritual growth." Say what?! What planet is this guy from?
How I unpacked and re-assembled this definition, which I have come to find about as good as any other, is beyond the scope of this note. I bring it up to go to a part of his explanation. "Love is an act of will - namely both an intention and an action."
Desiring is not loving. Attraction is not loving. It has just occured to me that that we should use the gerundive form "loving" when we talk about love. If there is no willing, no doing, there is no loving.
Kant talked about never treating people as means to an end, but as ends-in-themselves. There's your integrity. Integer. Whole. Loving you in your entirety, and that's it.
I didn't mean to talk so much about loving - I just needed to finish my thought.
What started all this was a focus on willing - in the active verb sense. I often hear about "self-will run riot." Schopenhauer called the will evil. Nietzsche's “Wille zur Macht” is just plain scary.
(I have to digress. I had so studied philosophies of will that, in a law school class, I had a question about a hearsay exception. The professor was mentioning how it was OK to allow into evidence utterances that were "evidence of a will." I asked: "How can we really know what someone was willing?" Everybody laughed, and the professor said "Will. as in last will and testament." My turn to laugh, and to reaffirm that I prefer philosophy to law.)
I've put away so many discussions on willing (especially "free will" Gawd. Angel, meet pin). Being willing is being human. Combine that with Peck's "will = intention + action." The intention, the choice, must be positive - concentrate on the one person in front of you (even, maybe especially, if it's yourself). No using people - no running over people to get to something else. And the action must true. Kant got it closest when he wrote that every action "must will a universal law" - that you assert by your actions that this is how everybody should act in this situation.
I would amend Kant's "universal law" towards the personal. Act as though your action wills an integral justification - not rationalization (ugh!) (equating the two is a pet peeve) - to every relevant being. In loving's case - one being.
In the chapter Love Defined, M. Scott Peck goes harshheash on the concept of romantic love - a "dependency myth." He suspects "falling in love" to be "a genetically determined instinctual component of mating behavior." (Be still my heart!) "Falling in love is a trick that our genes pull on our otherwise perceptive mind to hoodwink or trap us into marriage." But without this "temporary infantile regression" most of us would never develop familial bonds, and our species would be fucked.
So what, then, is love? "I define love thus: The will to extend one's self for the purpose of nurturing one's own or another's spiritual growth." Say what?! What planet is this guy from?
How I unpacked and re-assembled this definition, which I have come to find about as good as any other, is beyond the scope of this note. I bring it up to go to a part of his explanation. "Love is an act of will - namely both an intention and an action."
Desiring is not loving. Attraction is not loving. It has just occured to me that that we should use the gerundive form "loving" when we talk about love. If there is no willing, no doing, there is no loving.
Kant talked about never treating people as means to an end, but as ends-in-themselves. There's your integrity. Integer. Whole. Loving you in your entirety, and that's it.
I didn't mean to talk so much about loving - I just needed to finish my thought.
What started all this was a focus on willing - in the active verb sense. I often hear about "self-will run riot." Schopenhauer called the will evil. Nietzsche's “Wille zur Macht” is just plain scary.
(I have to digress. I had so studied philosophies of will that, in a law school class, I had a question about a hearsay exception. The professor was mentioning how it was OK to allow into evidence utterances that were "evidence of a will." I asked: "How can we really know what someone was willing?" Everybody laughed, and the professor said "Will. as in last will and testament." My turn to laugh, and to reaffirm that I prefer philosophy to law.)
I've put away so many discussions on willing (especially "free will" Gawd. Angel, meet pin). Being willing is being human. Combine that with Peck's "will = intention + action." The intention, the choice, must be positive - concentrate on the one person in front of you (even, maybe especially, if it's yourself). No using people - no running over people to get to something else. And the action must true. Kant got it closest when he wrote that every action "must will a universal law" - that you assert by your actions that this is how everybody should act in this situation.
I would amend Kant's "universal law" towards the personal. Act as though your action wills an integral justification - not rationalization (ugh!) (equating the two is a pet peeve) - to every relevant being. In loving's case - one being.
Absolutely
During a discussion of the Benghazi assault, Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-UT) complained to CNN's Soledad O'Brien about the US handling of Libyan consulate security, despite the House's slashing of the State Department security budget.
O’Brien asked , “Is it true that you voted to cut the funding for embassy security?"
Chaffetz answered, “Absolutely. Look we have to make priorities and choices in this country. We have… 15,000 contractors in Iraq. We have more than 6,000 contractors, a private army there, for President Obama, in Baghdad. And we’re talking about can we get two dozen or so people into Libya to help protect our forces. When you’re in tough economic times, you have to make difficult choices. You have to prioritize things.”
O’Brien responded, “Okay, so you’re prioritizing. So, when there are complaints that, in fact, that there was not enough security, you just said, ‘absolutely,’ that you cut, you were the one to vote against to increase security for the State Department, which would lead directly to Benghazi. That seems like you’re saying you have a hand in the responsibility to this. The funding of the security? How am I wrong?”
Rep. Chaffetz answered, “When you’re in Libya, after a revolution… you prioritize things. And what clearly didn’t happen is Libya was not a priority."
First: We have 15,000 mercenaries in Iraq!?! 6,000 in Baghdad?! The Bush legacy of privatizing war is alive and well and overpaying Halliburton.
Second: The Republican House imposed its will on the budget process and cut A HALF A BILLION DOLLARS from embassy and other State Department security. Then it makes a kangaroo court of the Oversight Committee (again), not even showing Democrats crucial documents and testimony.
Third: Expect the worst from Republicans as they weave the mendacity tapestry into whole-cloth fabrication.
Fourth: Thank you, Soledad.
Fifth: Thank you, Jason, for your too-honest heartlessness and weak comeback to Soledad. Absolutely.
O’Brien asked , “Is it true that you voted to cut the funding for embassy security?"
Chaffetz answered, “Absolutely. Look we have to make priorities and choices in this country. We have… 15,000 contractors in Iraq. We have more than 6,000 contractors, a private army there, for President Obama, in Baghdad. And we’re talking about can we get two dozen or so people into Libya to help protect our forces. When you’re in tough economic times, you have to make difficult choices. You have to prioritize things.”
O’Brien responded, “Okay, so you’re prioritizing. So, when there are complaints that, in fact, that there was not enough security, you just said, ‘absolutely,’ that you cut, you were the one to vote against to increase security for the State Department, which would lead directly to Benghazi. That seems like you’re saying you have a hand in the responsibility to this. The funding of the security? How am I wrong?”
Rep. Chaffetz answered, “When you’re in Libya, after a revolution… you prioritize things. And what clearly didn’t happen is Libya was not a priority."
First: We have 15,000 mercenaries in Iraq!?! 6,000 in Baghdad?! The Bush legacy of privatizing war is alive and well and overpaying Halliburton.
Second: The Republican House imposed its will on the budget process and cut A HALF A BILLION DOLLARS from embassy and other State Department security. Then it makes a kangaroo court of the Oversight Committee (again), not even showing Democrats crucial documents and testimony.
Third: Expect the worst from Republicans as they weave the mendacity tapestry into whole-cloth fabrication.
Fourth: Thank you, Soledad.
Fifth: Thank you, Jason, for your too-honest heartlessness and weak comeback to Soledad. Absolutely.
Wow.
"There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what ... who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it. ... My job is not to worry about those people. I’ll never convince them that they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives."
-Mitt Romney
-Mitt Romney
Inevitably, one lie too many
Mitt Romney's blustering disaster Wednesday morning was both foul and predictable. When the underlying strategy of a campaign is to quickly twist, even lie about, statements and actions in order to fit its metapoints (see "build that," welfare, and Medicare), it was inevitable that it would jump over even the high bar of political tolerance.
Romney's statement, written while attacks were still ongoing Tuesday: "The Obama administration's first response was not to condemn attacks on our diplomatic missions, but to sympathize with those who waged the attacks."
The "first response?" Someone in the US Embassy in Egypt, seeing an escalating protest before the violence, condemned "the continuing efforts by misguided individuals to hurt the religious feelings of Muslims – as we condemn efforts to offend believers of all religions," a reference to a hateful video that succeeded in its goal of inciting Muslims. These words were from a (probably scared) diplomat trying to be diplomatic, were hardly apologetic, and were disavowed by the administration.
A campaign grounded in reality might have cut its losses and, as most Republicans did, simply abhor the violence and mourn the victims. But the fact-free Romney was in for an perfidy, in for a pound. "The embassy in Cairo put out a statement after their grounds had been breached," Romney misrepresented in a hastily-planned press conference. He argued that the president was responsible for sending "a statement which is akin to apology and I think was a severe miscalculation."
Severe miscalculation, indeed. Romney would not let the facts get in the way of a potshot directed at the president's "foreignness." Mitt's unseemly demagoguing of an international crisis fit neatly into the spurious narrative of The President Obama Perpetual Apology Tour. So the Romneyites dipped again into the concoction of half-truths and lies that they have poured down the throats of Americans that they depend on not to follow Mitt's hot shots of toxins with a cool chaser of checking.
Romney's doubling-down is not only inept and inaccurate, but now dangerous. The politicization of a terrorist attack evinces Romney's ignorance of what rash words can do to a world that keeps a keen ear to our leaders' proclamations. Formerly politicians, and even the press, could review a Romney/Ryan speech as "effective, if misleading." Now that Romney has crossed the Rubicon of his lies having real-world global consequences, he will find it severely convoluted to swim back.
And using the deaths of US diplomats and ex-Navy Seals for partisan points? Unforgiven.
Romney's statement, written while attacks were still ongoing Tuesday: "The Obama administration's first response was not to condemn attacks on our diplomatic missions, but to sympathize with those who waged the attacks."
The "first response?" Someone in the US Embassy in Egypt, seeing an escalating protest before the violence, condemned "the continuing efforts by misguided individuals to hurt the religious feelings of Muslims – as we condemn efforts to offend believers of all religions," a reference to a hateful video that succeeded in its goal of inciting Muslims. These words were from a (probably scared) diplomat trying to be diplomatic, were hardly apologetic, and were disavowed by the administration.
A campaign grounded in reality might have cut its losses and, as most Republicans did, simply abhor the violence and mourn the victims. But the fact-free Romney was in for an perfidy, in for a pound. "The embassy in Cairo put out a statement after their grounds had been breached," Romney misrepresented in a hastily-planned press conference. He argued that the president was responsible for sending "a statement which is akin to apology and I think was a severe miscalculation."
Severe miscalculation, indeed. Romney would not let the facts get in the way of a potshot directed at the president's "foreignness." Mitt's unseemly demagoguing of an international crisis fit neatly into the spurious narrative of The President Obama Perpetual Apology Tour. So the Romneyites dipped again into the concoction of half-truths and lies that they have poured down the throats of Americans that they depend on not to follow Mitt's hot shots of toxins with a cool chaser of checking.
Romney's doubling-down is not only inept and inaccurate, but now dangerous. The politicization of a terrorist attack evinces Romney's ignorance of what rash words can do to a world that keeps a keen ear to our leaders' proclamations. Formerly politicians, and even the press, could review a Romney/Ryan speech as "effective, if misleading." Now that Romney has crossed the Rubicon of his lies having real-world global consequences, he will find it severely convoluted to swim back.
And using the deaths of US diplomats and ex-Navy Seals for partisan points? Unforgiven.
Lyin' Ryan
Just a few of the Paul Ryan speech's whoppers:
Medicare (too many to list)
Credit downgrade (as if it weren't precipitated by Ryan and his co-conspirators)
Debt commission inaction (after Ryan effectively torpedoed it)
No Obama debt plan (Boehner walked out of the White House with one - who killed it?)
Obama as biggest deficit-raiser (two wars, two humongous tax-cuts-for-the-rich, Medicare PhRMA boondoggle, TARP - all Bush, all unpaid-for, all voted-for-by-Ryan, anyone?)
Affordable Care Act as government takeover, hidden taxer, Medicare raider
Stimulus as counterproductive cronyism, fraud
And yes, the Janesville GM plant closing
It's telling that the only fact-check that the Romney folks are litigating is the SUV plant in Ryan's home town, as only this might put a dent in Ryan's undeserved reputation as a straight-shooter. They have been silent on the other fibs because, as reporters close to the campaign have been told, there's no political damage likely to accrue. As one of Romney's pollsters declared, "We're not going to let our campaign be dictated by fact checkers."
Clever lefty pundits like Lawrence O'Donnell note that fact-check responses to the Republicans' disinformation won't work on undecideds, and that Dems need to up the hyperbole ante. "Obama raided Medicare," Lyin' Ryan said. Lawrence would have Obama (maybe Biden) say, "Romney will abolish Medicare." The fact that O'Donnell is probably correct is an indictment on politicians, the media ("Ryan gave a great, if misleading, speech"), and, yes, the woefully underinformed electorate.
Medicare (too many to list)
Credit downgrade (as if it weren't precipitated by Ryan and his co-conspirators)
Debt commission inaction (after Ryan effectively torpedoed it)
No Obama debt plan (Boehner walked out of the White House with one - who killed it?)
Obama as biggest deficit-raiser (two wars, two humongous tax-cuts-for-the-rich, Medicare PhRMA boondoggle, TARP - all Bush, all unpaid-for, all voted-for-by-Ryan, anyone?)
Affordable Care Act as government takeover, hidden taxer, Medicare raider
Stimulus as counterproductive cronyism, fraud
And yes, the Janesville GM plant closing
It's telling that the only fact-check that the Romney folks are litigating is the SUV plant in Ryan's home town, as only this might put a dent in Ryan's undeserved reputation as a straight-shooter. They have been silent on the other fibs because, as reporters close to the campaign have been told, there's no political damage likely to accrue. As one of Romney's pollsters declared, "We're not going to let our campaign be dictated by fact checkers."
Clever lefty pundits like Lawrence O'Donnell note that fact-check responses to the Republicans' disinformation won't work on undecideds, and that Dems need to up the hyperbole ante. "Obama raided Medicare," Lyin' Ryan said. Lawrence would have Obama (maybe Biden) say, "Romney will abolish Medicare." The fact that O'Donnell is probably correct is an indictment on politicians, the media ("Ryan gave a great, if misleading, speech"), and, yes, the woefully underinformed electorate.
Grandma, do you have a spare $6,500?
The lies and obfuscations of Romney/Ryan on Medicare would be laughable if their consequences weren't so cryable.
A concise reckoning of the divergent Medicare futures can be found at "The Difference between Obama and Ryan's Medicare Plans" on TPM.
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/08/difference-between-paul-ryan-barack-obama-medicare.php
Among the differences you might already know (Obama's reduced payments to pharma, insurance, and hospitals, Ryan's voucher plan, etc.) is one you may not: the Congressional Budget Office's conclusion that Ryancare (Medi-scare?) would cost seniors an extra $6,500 per year. Do the Republicans really want to continue this conversation?
A salient point is made by a commenter on the story (Rick Brew), concerning the savings from phasing-out of the Medicare Advantage experiment, a privately-administered program that has turned out to be not-so advantageous (the federal government spent 12 percent more on Medicare Advantage than it did for comparable care under traditional Medicare):
"The experiment has failed. The companies still demand the premium over regular Medicare for Medicare Advantage which is taken from Medicare tax money. The only money removed from 'Medicare' is the unearned premium the insurance companies are getting to cover administration, executive salaries, and dividends. There is no cut to basic Medicare benefits or to health care suppliers. The only cut is to insurance companies getting money they did not earn.
"This is just like taking the unearned fees banks were getting for issuing student loans. The loans are now getting more funding and costing less. Medicare will see the same positive results from the cuts."
A concise reckoning of the divergent Medicare futures can be found at "The Difference between Obama and Ryan's Medicare Plans" on TPM.
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/08/difference-between-paul-ryan-barack-obama-medicare.php
Among the differences you might already know (Obama's reduced payments to pharma, insurance, and hospitals, Ryan's voucher plan, etc.) is one you may not: the Congressional Budget Office's conclusion that Ryancare (Medi-scare?) would cost seniors an extra $6,500 per year. Do the Republicans really want to continue this conversation?
A salient point is made by a commenter on the story (Rick Brew), concerning the savings from phasing-out of the Medicare Advantage experiment, a privately-administered program that has turned out to be not-so advantageous (the federal government spent 12 percent more on Medicare Advantage than it did for comparable care under traditional Medicare):
"The experiment has failed. The companies still demand the premium over regular Medicare for Medicare Advantage which is taken from Medicare tax money. The only money removed from 'Medicare' is the unearned premium the insurance companies are getting to cover administration, executive salaries, and dividends. There is no cut to basic Medicare benefits or to health care suppliers. The only cut is to insurance companies getting money they did not earn.
"This is just like taking the unearned fees banks were getting for issuing student loans. The loans are now getting more funding and costing less. Medicare will see the same positive results from the cuts."
Paul Ryan and the American Character
Much talk about America's political divide centers around which side represents "The American Character." Allow me to use Paul Ryan as a metaphor. One part of his American character is represented by Ayn Rand and her glorification, even protectiveness, of the "great man," and disgust for virtually anyone else. Another part is his Catholicism, notably its concentration on helping all who are poor or desperate. (One of the lessons of Catholicism to which I still aspire.) As far as Ryan's budget is concerned, Catholic leaders have spoken: moral fail. "Both our Constitution and our faith teach us that 'We the People' are called to care for one another, to have responsibility for each other." I'll take that America over Ayn Rand any day.
And you can't spell "RYAN" without "AYN."
And you can't spell "RYAN" without "AYN."
Everything immoderation
Texas Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst, Rick Perry's right-hand (and -wing) man, decisively lost last night's US Senate primary to Tea Partier Ted Cruz, who kept pinning the very conservative Dewhurst with the dreaded "M" word - Moderate. Cruz will almost certainly win in November and thus accomplish the near-impossible: make Congressional Republicans even more uncompromisingly intransigent.
Two of that endangered species known as Republicans Who Will Work Across the Aisle (one of whom announced his retirement yesterday) have dared to speak up.
Freshman Rep. Richard Hanna took his party to task yesterday, saying the Republican Party is too willing to accommodate its most extreme members. “I have to say that I’m frustrated by how much we — I mean the Republican Party — are willing to give deferential treatment to our extremes in this moment in history.”
He said he feels more bitterness coming from the Republican caucus than from the Democrats. “I would say that the friends I have in the Democratic Party I find … much more congenial — a little less anger,” he said.
“We’re talking about about building roads and bridges for Chrissakes,” he said, adding that he had come to believe his Congressional colleagues have become “more interested in fighting with each other than getting the no-brainers done and governing.”
http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/revenge-of-the-rinos-moderate-republicans-in-congress-starting-to-rebel/
London's calling, and it wants you to put a mitt in it
"England is just a small island. Its roads and houses are small. With few exceptions it doesn't make things that people in the rest of the world want to buy. And if it hadn't been separated from the continent by water, it almost certainly would have been lost to Hitler's ambitions."
Mitt Romney, No Apologies (2010)
Romney on the Brits:
“Do they come together and celebrate the Olympic moment? That’s something which we only find out once the Games actually begin.”
....
“It’s hard to know just how well it will turn out. There are a few things that were disconcerting… The stories about the private security firm not having enough people, the supposed strike of the immigration and Customs officials – that obviously is not something which is encouraging.” (NBC, 7/25/12)
In the course of 24 hours, he also forgot the opposition party leader's name (while standing next to him), divulged a secret meeting with the UK's top spy (the first rule of MI6 is: you do not talk about MI6), and professed no interest in his wife's Olympic horse.
Perhaps Willard should have been listening to an unnamed advisor, quoted in The Daily Telegraph:
“We are part of an Anglo-Saxon heritage, and he feels that the special relationship is special. The White House didn’t fully appreciate the shared history we have.”
(Romney's a bungler, but at least he's a WASPy bungler!?)
"Mitt Romney is perhaps the only politician who could start a trip that was supposed to be a charm offensive by being utterly devoid of charm and mildly offensive."
-Alex Spillius, "Romney doesn't like us? We shouldn't care." The Daily Telegraph
President Obama never, as Romney has constantly claimed, apologized for America. But if Willard doesn't put a mitt in it, we may have to apologize for Romney. #Romneyshambles
Mitt Romney, No Apologies (2010)
Romney on the Brits:
“Do they come together and celebrate the Olympic moment? That’s something which we only find out once the Games actually begin.”
....
“It’s hard to know just how well it will turn out. There are a few things that were disconcerting… The stories about the private security firm not having enough people, the supposed strike of the immigration and Customs officials – that obviously is not something which is encouraging.” (NBC, 7/25/12)
In the course of 24 hours, he also forgot the opposition party leader's name (while standing next to him), divulged a secret meeting with the UK's top spy (the first rule of MI6 is: you do not talk about MI6), and professed no interest in his wife's Olympic horse.
Perhaps Willard should have been listening to an unnamed advisor, quoted in The Daily Telegraph:
“We are part of an Anglo-Saxon heritage, and he feels that the special relationship is special. The White House didn’t fully appreciate the shared history we have.”
(Romney's a bungler, but at least he's a WASPy bungler!?)
"Mitt Romney is perhaps the only politician who could start a trip that was supposed to be a charm offensive by being utterly devoid of charm and mildly offensive."
-Alex Spillius, "Romney doesn't like us? We shouldn't care." The Daily Telegraph
President Obama never, as Romney has constantly claimed, apologized for America. But if Willard doesn't put a mitt in it, we may have to apologize for Romney. #Romneyshambles
If you didn't build it, they will still come
It occurs to me that reaction to President Obama's "you didn't build that" remarks illustrates something of a Rorschach test. Conservatives, even those who saw that the "build that" properly referred to infrastructure, teachers, etc., stress the individual overcoming obstacles to succeed. Liberals scratch their heads based on the seemingly inarguable notion that the greatest system ever built provides shoulders on which entrepreneurs may stand. It may come down to something like a Trojans-Bruins partisanship that rarely changes minds, even those that aren't inclined to root for either team.
It occurs to me it didn't occur to him
Mitt Romney doesn't seem to understand.
“Democrats are in the process of destroying his strengths, the one thing that connects him to independents and conservative Democrats,” says Republican messaging mastermind Frank Luntz. That, in essence, is exactly what happened in 2004, when fierce supporters of the sitting president tried to undercut John Kerry’s key credential—namely, his service in Vietnam. “The Obama approach is not a surprise. Romney should have known this would be coming.”
Daniel Stone of The Daily Beast consulted GOP strategists, who "admit they’re surprised that Romney hasn’t had a response prepared for attacks on his Bain record, and that questionable finances weren’t dealt with several years ago, before Romney started running in earnest."
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/07/18/messaging-guru-frank-luntz-offers-romney-help-on-bain-taxes.html
Mitt's intransigence, even indignance, over demands for his tax returns might stem from the Weltanschauung he developed over years of palling around with The Masters of the Universe. One-percenters, as I learned from a few friends at Princeton, do play by different rules. What used to be noblesse oblige morphed into an attitude of entitlement and self-absorption that allows them to think of themselves as the North Pole of their own moral compasses. (I'm lookin' at you, Arthur Laffer!)
Rule Number One: Mind Your Own Business! No one is qualified to second-guess what (in his own mind) is perfectly proper manipulation of the rules - which is also why it seems logical to only him that public scrutiny of the forms he submitted to the government is verboten on the basis that someone might comment unfairly on them.
And so it would only cause Mitt cognitive dissonance for me to tell him that his blind spot of a bias should disqualify him as a leader in a democracy. After all, he's running for president, for Pete's sake.
“Democrats are in the process of destroying his strengths, the one thing that connects him to independents and conservative Democrats,” says Republican messaging mastermind Frank Luntz. That, in essence, is exactly what happened in 2004, when fierce supporters of the sitting president tried to undercut John Kerry’s key credential—namely, his service in Vietnam. “The Obama approach is not a surprise. Romney should have known this would be coming.”
Daniel Stone of The Daily Beast consulted GOP strategists, who "admit they’re surprised that Romney hasn’t had a response prepared for attacks on his Bain record, and that questionable finances weren’t dealt with several years ago, before Romney started running in earnest."
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/07/18/messaging-guru-frank-luntz-offers-romney-help-on-bain-taxes.html
Mitt's intransigence, even indignance, over demands for his tax returns might stem from the Weltanschauung he developed over years of palling around with The Masters of the Universe. One-percenters, as I learned from a few friends at Princeton, do play by different rules. What used to be noblesse oblige morphed into an attitude of entitlement and self-absorption that allows them to think of themselves as the North Pole of their own moral compasses. (I'm lookin' at you, Arthur Laffer!)
Rule Number One: Mind Your Own Business! No one is qualified to second-guess what (in his own mind) is perfectly proper manipulation of the rules - which is also why it seems logical to only him that public scrutiny of the forms he submitted to the government is verboten on the basis that someone might comment unfairly on them.
And so it would only cause Mitt cognitive dissonance for me to tell him that his blind spot of a bias should disqualify him as a leader in a democracy. After all, he's running for president, for Pete's sake.
It's enough to make you sick
Mitt Romney, July 6, 2012:
“I’ve spoken about health care from the day we passed it in Massachusetts and people said is this something that you should apply at the federal level and I said no."
Read more:http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0712/78175.html#ixzz1zu9cgcIW
Mitt Romney, July 30, 2009:
"There's a better way. And the lessons we learned in Massachusetts could help Washington find it. ...
"Using tax penalties, as we did, ... encourages 'free riders' to take responsibility for themselves rather than pass their medical costs on to others. ...
"At the core of our health cost problem is an incentive problem."
http://mittromneycentral.com/op-eds/2009-op-eds/mr-president-whats-the-rush/
“I’ve spoken about health care from the day we passed it in Massachusetts and people said is this something that you should apply at the federal level and I said no."
Read more:http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0712/78175.html#ixzz1zu9cgcIW
Mitt Romney, July 30, 2009:
"There's a better way. And the lessons we learned in Massachusetts could help Washington find it. ...
"Using tax penalties, as we did, ... encourages 'free riders' to take responsibility for themselves rather than pass their medical costs on to others. ...
"At the core of our health cost problem is an incentive problem."
http://mittromneycentral.com/op-eds/2009-op-eds/mr-president-whats-the-rush/
The only thing Mitt stands for is election.
Leakers wobble, but they don't shut up
National Review Senior Editor Ramesh Ponnuru:
"My own sort of educated guess, based on people I talk to at the Supreme Court, is that — Well, as I’m sure people know, there’s an initial vote the same week, on the Friday of the oral arguments. And my understanding is that there was a 5-4 vote to strike down the mandate and maybe some related provisions but not the entire act. Since then, interestingly, there seem to have been some second thoughts. Not on the part of Justice Kennedy, but on the part of Chief Justice Roberts, who seems to be going a little bit 'wobbly'. So right now, I would say, [the outcome of the case] is a little bit up in the air."
June 2, 2012
That's right. JUNE SECOND. A month ago. My guess is that some disgruntled member of the SCOTUS family (I'm looking at you, Clarence, and at your anti-Obamacare-activist wife, and maybe your clerks [Hardy? Lea? Nicholson? Stratton?]) started leaking as soon as Justice Roberts started writing his one-man majority opinion.
Linda Greenhouse of the NYTimes writes:
"Around Memorial Day, a number of conservative columnists and bloggers suddenly began accusing the 'liberal media' of putting 'the squeeze to Justice Roberts,' as George Will [put it, May 26. He continued:] 'They are waging an embarrassingly obvious campaign, hoping he will buckle beneath the pressure of their disapproval and declare Obamacare constitutional.'
"Although the court has been famously leakproof, Mr. Will and some of the others are well connected at the court, and I wondered at the time whether they had picked up signals that the chief justice, thought reliable after the oral argument two months earlier, was now wavering, and whether their message was really intended for him [in order to pressure and then embarrass Roberts]."
CBS' Jan Crawford, whom Justice Thomas considers one of his favorite journalists, noted, post-decision, that it became clear to the conservative justices that Roberts was, as one put it, "wobbly." Clearly, that "one" put it "wobbly" more than once.
Add to this the deliberate hints in the Scalia-Kennedy-Thomas-Alito dissent (such as continually referring to Justice Ginsburg's concurrence as a "dissent"), and the conclusion emerges that these unfrozen caveman justices are not exhibiting a sense of decorum.
By the way, conservative journalists, don't bellyache about unproven administration leaks and then revel in the flood out of what we thought was a sacredly secret society.
"My own sort of educated guess, based on people I talk to at the Supreme Court, is that — Well, as I’m sure people know, there’s an initial vote the same week, on the Friday of the oral arguments. And my understanding is that there was a 5-4 vote to strike down the mandate and maybe some related provisions but not the entire act. Since then, interestingly, there seem to have been some second thoughts. Not on the part of Justice Kennedy, but on the part of Chief Justice Roberts, who seems to be going a little bit 'wobbly'. So right now, I would say, [the outcome of the case] is a little bit up in the air."
June 2, 2012
That's right. JUNE SECOND. A month ago. My guess is that some disgruntled member of the SCOTUS family (I'm looking at you, Clarence, and at your anti-Obamacare-activist wife, and maybe your clerks [Hardy? Lea? Nicholson? Stratton?]) started leaking as soon as Justice Roberts started writing his one-man majority opinion.
Linda Greenhouse of the NYTimes writes:
"Around Memorial Day, a number of conservative columnists and bloggers suddenly began accusing the 'liberal media' of putting 'the squeeze to Justice Roberts,' as George Will [put it, May 26. He continued:] 'They are waging an embarrassingly obvious campaign, hoping he will buckle beneath the pressure of their disapproval and declare Obamacare constitutional.'
"Although the court has been famously leakproof, Mr. Will and some of the others are well connected at the court, and I wondered at the time whether they had picked up signals that the chief justice, thought reliable after the oral argument two months earlier, was now wavering, and whether their message was really intended for him [in order to pressure and then embarrass Roberts]."
CBS' Jan Crawford, whom Justice Thomas considers one of his favorite journalists, noted, post-decision, that it became clear to the conservative justices that Roberts was, as one put it, "wobbly." Clearly, that "one" put it "wobbly" more than once.
Add to this the deliberate hints in the Scalia-Kennedy-Thomas-Alito dissent (such as continually referring to Justice Ginsburg's concurrence as a "dissent"), and the conclusion emerges that these unfrozen caveman justices are not exhibiting a sense of decorum.
By the way, conservative journalists, don't bellyache about unproven administration leaks and then revel in the flood out of what we thought was a sacredly secret society.
Capital Bains
Vanity Fair on Romney's offshore thing (emphasis on "sure thing") with tax havens:
"Federal and state tax laws have been deliberately shaped to give foreigners special tax exemptions unavailable to Americans, plus financial secrecy and exemptions from regulatory restraints. ...
"The money sucked into Tax Haven U.S.A., often via the 'feeder' tax havens, is frequently tax-evading and other criminal foreign money, and it is predominantly channeled not into productive investment but into real estate and financial business." (How convenient for Mitt.)
And the kicker: "Many of these funds are set up in tax havens such as the Cayman Islands, where a confidentiality law states that you can be jailed for up to four years just for asking about such information."
"Federal and state tax laws have been deliberately shaped to give foreigners special tax exemptions unavailable to Americans, plus financial secrecy and exemptions from regulatory restraints. ...
"In this grand scenario, tax havens such as the Caymans serve as feeders of foreign savings into Tax Haven U.S.A. from abroad, providing foreign investors with additional ways to skip around tax, disclosure, and regulatory requirements that they might trigger if they invested directly.
Above and beyond tax evasion with secrecy, isn't it just a small step for an outfit like Bain to further cheat the American people by parking money offshore, then by "investing" it, with tax exemptions, back into the US through a "foreign" front company?
I take back all the nasty ...
Profile in Courage: Chief Justice John Roberts. Perhaps forever pissing off the right (including Justice Kennedy, dissenting!), Roberts saved healthcare for 30 million otherwise uninsured Americans, and saved the reputation of the Supreme Court to boot.
Don't be so fast (or furious)
Fast and Furious was not an ATF gunwalking scheme. It was an agency investigation in response to the fact that they couldn't stop guns from walking in Arizona, mostly because of (irony alert!) lax gun laws. The scandal emerged from deception and political opportunism against hardworking ATF agents. CBS got hoodwinked by a rogue agent, and a violence-inciting blogger later showed up as a FOXNEWS "expert" on a conspiracy theory he helped foment. Shame.
http://features.blogs.fortune.cnn.com/2012/06/27/fast-and-furious-truth/
"So here’s the summary:
http://features.blogs.fortune.cnn.com/2012/06/27/fast-and-furious-truth/
"So here’s the summary:
1. Republicans and gun rights advocates such as the NRA tie the hands of the ATF and the Department of Justice.
2. The ATF struggles to gain evidence on gun trafficking due to these restrictions.
3. The ATF struggles to pursue cases against trafficking that they do manage to gain evidence on due to these restrictions.
4. A U.S. border guard gets killed by guns that the ATF was unable to stop.
5. Congressional Republicans launch a witch hunt against Obama’s Justice Department and ATF.
6. The wrong people get crucified by Congress and the media."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)