Category Archives: Republicans

Politics And Its Perp-e-traitors

Crime, Government, Politics, Republicans, Taxation, The State

By all means, make former IRS official Lois Lerner do the perp walk, publicly. Please. She’s but one among many state-employed scum, but getting one is better than none. Freedom lovers must get their kicks where they can.

The Republican-dominated House Ways and Means Committee has voted today, Wednesday, to seek a criminal investigation as to whether Lerner misled investigators and released private taxpayer information. The same committee wants to hold this despicable woman in contempt of Congress for her failure to “comply with various subpoenas.”

Filled with bravado, JOHN BOEHNER (R-OHIO) told Megyn Kelly: “… I don’t care who is gonna be fired. I wanna know who is going to jail. The fact is that the IRS — there are specific laws that protect taxpayers and force the IRS to comply with the law. Somebody at the IRS violated the law.”

If it takes place, this unlikely prosecution will punish one perp when there are hundreds (maybe thousands) like Lerner walking around free. It will be late in the game, and it will be “political,” as that stupid saying goes (as if any other considerations are ever made by politicians).

Why “political”? Ask yourself why it is that Republicans have refrained form moving against the Transportation Security Administration attack dogs (TSA) and the National Security Agency (NSA), who violate American bodies and their privacy daily? Because the NSA and TSA are not Republican issues.

Republicans like the pervs of the Surveillance- and Security State; the taxwoman not so much.

Mass Murderer Exhibits Barren Art

Aesthetics, Art, Bush, Crime, Criminal Injustice, Media, Republicans, War

1 Reply

Not quite murderabilia, but certainly the “artwork” of a mass murderer. George Bush is exhibiting his hideous, Socialist-realism style art. Dana Perino waxed orgasmic about the Bush art on that vapid program called “The Five.” From where Dana Ditz is perched, it’s fine to worship Bush and his puke paintings, but not Obama.

Bush’s art has a “Pogo the Clown” quality to it. The allusion is to the art of another mass murderer, John Wayne Gacy Jr. The boxy lines and the dead quality of the art of both men makes it difficult to tell the difference; the art of Bush Jr. has the same turgid quality as that of John Wayne Gacy Jr.

See if you can differentiate:

Bush even had the audacity to paint the faces of men he sent into an unethical, unconstitutional war, in violation of Just War Theory.

Bush and Gacy are not the first butchers to paint, if you can call it that. Ulysses S. Grant smeared paint around too. Grant’s muse was murder:

Sherman wrote to Ulysses S. Grant (commanding general of the federal army) in 1866, “even to their extermination, men, women and children.” The Sioux must “feel the superior power of the Government.” Sherman vowed to remain in the West” till the Indians are all killed or taken to a country where they can be watched.”

“During an assault,” he instructed his troops, “the soldiers cannot pause to distinguish between male and female, or even discriminate as to age.” He chillingly referred to this policy in an 1867 letter to Grant as “the final solution to the Indian problem,” a phrase Hitler invoked some 70 years later.

I must concede that Ulysses S. Grant was a lot more talented than the two other mass murderers. This poor horse, snout buried in a nose bag, has a long-suffering quality to it, almost like its illustrator had feelings for his subject.

*Bloodbath image here

The Christie Innocence Project On Mad TV

Criminal Injustice, Ethics, Government, Media, Republicans

News reporting is obsolete on cable and network TV, for the most. It has given way to The Endless Event Coverage. That, and the ubiquitous dog, cat, baby rescue “human-interest” stories. Today, the big event—literally BIG; it blanketed the screen—was Chris Christie. “A Christie marathon” mocked broadcaster Mark Levin, who was commenting sarcastically about the New Jersey governor’s self-appointed exoneration committee in the matter of his administration’s intentional closing of the George Washington Bridge as political retribution.

I’ll call it the Christie Innocence Project.

It is, however, encouraging to note that no major online newspaper or magazine featured fatso front-and-center. Except for Mad TV, aka MSNBC:

… the internal review conducted by his lawyers, who rather predictably exonerated their client, has clearly given him new mojo. When asked at the presser how so-called Bridgegate might affect the 2016 race, Christie said, “The fact of the matter is that I had nothing to do with this. As I said from the beginning, and this report has supported exactly what I said. And in the long sweep of things, any voters, if they consider this issue at all, in considering my candidacy — if there ever is one at all — I’ve got a feeling it’ll be a small element of it, if any element at all.”
In acknowledging his plummeting poll numbers, Christie added, “But there’s nothing that’s permanent about that. …
…in facing down the press on Friday, Christie was clearly trying to move beyond Bridgegate and regain his stature with a national audience. Indeed, on Thursday, Christie gave his first television interview since the scandal blew up, declaring to ABC News that he doesn’t think the scandal hurt him in Iowa, which holds the important, first-in-the-nation presidential caucuses.
“I think they love me in Iowa, too,” the governor said on World News with Diane Sawyer. “I’ve been there a lot. I think love me there too, especially because of the way I am. Not in spite of, especially because,” Christie added.
In continuing his media blitz, the governor has agreed to be interviewed by Fox News’ Megyn Kelly. The Q&A will air Friday night. ”

Christie is insufferable—his slobbering, verbose style grates.

UPDATED: Putting Lipstick On The Pigs At NSA*

Constitution, Democrats, Homeland Security, Propaganda, Republicans, Technology, Terrorism

We’re doing the right thing; we’re not doing anything illegal,” said Four-Star General Keith Alexander to Fox News’ Bret Baier. An otherwise good reporter, Baier has been asking some poignant questions of the very clever, dissembling, outgoing director of the National Security Agency’s unconstitutional, naturally illicit and all-round reprehensible spying programs. However, Baier, another bright lad, seems to be merely going through the motion; making sure he does journalistic due diligence without any forceful follow-up. A less than obligatory follow-up would be: “I know that what you do is probably ‘legal,’ but is it ‘moral’?”

The occasion of the interview? Obama’s likely bogus “calls for an end to NSA’s bulk phone data collection.”

“What would you do to Edward Snowden if you were alone in a room with him” was more revealing of Baier’s sympathies. Alexander vaporized about the assorted entrapment operations to which hoovering up trillions of messages have led. (More about “The Dynamics of Entrapment.”)

BAIER: Former President Jimmy Carter saying he writes letters instead of sending e-mails because he’s worried that you’re listen — you’re reading his e-mails.

ALEXANDER: Well, we’re not. So he can now go back to writing e-mails. The reality is, we don’t do that. And if we did, it would be illegal and we’d be found, uh, I think accoun — held accountable and responsible. Look at all the folks that have looked at what we’re doing, from the president’s review group to Congress to the courts to the DNI, DOD, Justice. Everybody reviews what we do to see if anybody is doing anything illegal like you suggest. No one has found anything, zero, except for in 12 cases where people did that and we had already reported those.

* With apologies to pretty pigs.

UPDATE (3/26): The great Glenn Greenwald seems surprised that, much like Republicans, Democrats are opportunistic, lying, bottom-feeders. He notes that “what rational people do, by definition, is” this:

if a political official takes a position you agree with, then you support him, but when he does a 180-degree reversal and takes the exact position that you’ve been disagreeing with, then you oppose him. That’s just basic. Thus, those of us who originally defended Obama’s decision to release the photos turned into critics once he took the opposite position – the one we disagreed with all along – and announced that he would try to suppress the photos.
But that’s not what large numbers of Democrats did. Many of them first sided with Obama when his administration originally announced he’d release the photos. But then, with equal vigor, they also sided with Obama when – a mere two weeks later – he took the exact opposition position, the very anti-transparency view these Democrats had been attacking all along when voiced by Bill Kristol and Liz Cheney.
At least for me, back then, that was astonishing to watch. It’s one thing to strongly suspect that people are simply adopting whatever views their party’s leader takes. But this was like the perfect laboratory experiment to prove that: Obama literally took exact opposition positions in a heated debate within a three week period and many Democrats defended him when he was on one side of the debate and then again when he switched to the other side.

“The Leader is right when he does X, and he’s equally right when he does Not X. That’s the defining attribute of the mindset of a partisan hack, an authoritarian, and the standard MSNBC host. …”

MORE.