June 7, 2013

I am really happy to hear that the politicians are going to be opening their phone records to us

I have heard from so many politicians today both Republicans and Democrats that opening up our phone records to scrutiny is necessary for keeping safe. I am being told that we have nothing to fear then we should have no problem with people looking at our phone records, well I am sure that the people telling me this must not have anything to fear either or else they would never be advocating for such a policy.

Every election season I hear these same politicians tell me that they are men and women of principle so I am sure they will have no problem living by the same principles that they enforce on the rest of us the people.

If the politicians want to look at our phone records then I am sure that they will be more than happy to let us look at theirs, after all they have nothing to hide right?

I want to see the names of every donor and lobbyist that our politicians speak on the phone with, if they have nothing to fear then they should be willing to let us see who they are talking to should they not?

The next time your member of Congress holds a town hall ask them if they are willing to live under the same microscope they want the rest of us to live under, if they are the principled people they claim to be I am sure they will be more than happy to hand over their phone records to you.

June 5, 2013

This is what I am being told justifies killing a person in "self defense"

A couple of scratches.



I have suffered worse injuries than those when I cut myself shaving.

We are being told that suffering a couple of tiny scratches in a fight justifies shooting and killing an unarmed teenager. Wrap your head around that and think about just how fucked up that is.

The fact that we are even having a debate over whether or not the killing of Trayvon Martin was justified shows just how nuts the NRA and their George Zimmerman defending minions have become, any sane person should realize that suffering a scratch does not justify homicide.

I think people should have the right to defend themselves, but when people try to tell me that suffering a couple of tiny scratches justifies killing an unarmed person that shows just how insane the definition of "self defense" that the gun nuts are promoting has become.

Even if murder and perjury suspect George Zimmerman's story were completely true, I still can not possibly see how killing Trayvon Martin would have been justified. If Zimmerman's story were true I would accept shoot to wound as self defense, but I have not heard any credible reason as to why shoot to kill was necessary in the situation Zimmerman was in even if his story were true.

Yet the gun nuts insist that they should have the right to shoot to kill on the basis of suffering a couple of tiny scratches in a fight. We can not allow the gun nuts to weaken the standards for what constitutes reasonable self defense, if Zimmerman's ridiculous self defense claim holds up I hate to think of the precedent it will set.

Most people support the right to self defense, but the sane among us will never allow anyone to tell us that suffering a couple of scratches justifies shoot to kill.

May 16, 2013

My challenge to DU: Cite me an official source that says the Tea Party was "singled out" by the IRS

We have been hearing over and over for the past week that the IRS "singled out" the Tea Party for special scrutiny when they applied for tax exempt status for their "social welfare" organizations. It is an allegation that has been screamed loudly by the right-wing and the media and it has even been repeated by many on the left end of the political spectrum.

I have read a great deal about this "scandal" and I have heard the allegation that the Tea Party was "singled out" many times, but I have yet to find a single official source that confirms they actually were singled out. There have been many stories in the media that have made this claim, but I have yet to find one of these stories that was actually able to back that allegation up with a source.

Many of you may be saying, "The IRS apologized for singling the Tea Party out and the Inspector General's report confirmed they did just that." If you actually read either the apology or the Inspector General's report however neither of them actually state that the Tea Party was singled out.

Let us start out with IRS official Lois Lerner's apology; here are the words that sparked the firestorm:

Now that you have seen what those words say, let's think about what they do not say. Lerner says that they searched out terms like "Tea Party" and "Patriots", but she never says those are the only terms they searched for. They may have also been searching on terms like "Democratic" and "Progressive", we don't know because the IRS has yet to provide us a complete list of all the search terms that may have been used. Lerner never mentions anything at all about how left-leaning groups may have been handled by the IRS, but she was asked about it by a reporter. Here is what she said...



WHAT??! This is a high level official that oversees groups seeking tax exempt status and she can tell us how Tea Party groups are flagged, but she can not provide us with even one shred of information on how left-leaning groups were flagged. As a person who is in charge of overseeing tax exempt groups it seems that she should be able to explain to us how groups are flagged, yet she only claims to have knowledge of the process they used to flag one small subset of applicants. Does anyone really find this believable? How could someone in her position have absolutely no information on the flagging process of on any left leaning groups? How are we supposed to determine that the Tea Party was singled out when we are not even given anything to compare their experience with?

The Inspector General's Report acknowledges that the Tea Party groups were not the only groups flagged for scrutiny, in fact the Tea Party only made up about 30% of the flagged groups. If you read the report however the focus is nearly entirely on the way Tea Party groups were flagged and says almost nothing about how other groups were flagged. It cites questions that were asked to Tea Party groups but were not asked to "other groups", yet it never specifies what other groups it is talking about. It is common knowledge the IRS does scrutinize some groups more than others because it has limited resources, we already knew that some groups don't get the same level of scrutiny but that is not the issue here. The issue is whether or not the Tea Party was singled out based on their political views, but the Inspector General's report does not say that left leaning groups who were flagged were not asked the same questions.



Interesting, the report says that they have a "Be on the Look Out" group that not only includes applications for "Tea Party", "Patriots", or "9/12", but they also flag "other political sounding names". What those "other political sounding names" are they do not tell us. They do tell us that there are groups on the BOLA listing that are not based on political cases, right after that statement we see the number 16 which indicates a footnote, let us take a look at what that footnote says.



WHAT??!! There were other groups on the list that were not affiliated with the Tea Party, but the Inspector General's report did not review ANY of them? What the hell kind of report is this? How the hell are we supposed to know that the Tea Party was singled out when they don't even review the treatment of other groups that were on the exact same BOLO list that they were?

If this scandal swirls around whether or not the Tea Party was treated differently than other groups then knowing how other groups were treated is absolutely crucial information in determining whether or not there was political bias, yet the Inspector General's Report did not even review it.

Who the hell would initiate a review like this without including such crucial information as to the scrutiny placed on other non Tea-Party groups, well the report gives us the answer to that question...



So members of Congress called for this report, presumably Republicans. Did these members of Congress order the Inspector General to only evaluate the treatment of the Tea Party and not look at any other groups? If so is this not an example of abusing a government investigation for partisan political purposes?

I issue my challenge again, I challenge anyone to find me a piece of evidence from an official source that shows the Tea Party was singled out. I have heard the allegation many times this week, but I have yet to find a single piece of evidence that proves the Tea Party was treated differently, all I can find is reports on how Tea Party applications were handled with silence on how the applications of non-Tea Party groups who were also flagged were handled.

Can anyone cite me a source, or can we conclude that this "scandal" is not about the Tea Party being singled out?

On edit: I want to thank Chathamization who is a relatively new DUer that pointed me to the footnote used in the Inspector General's report. The contributions Chathamization provided were invaluable.

May 3, 2013

Thank you to all those who spoke out.

The admins have sent a clear message that violent rhetoric is not welcome here.

May 3, 2013

It is time to take a firm stand to denounce those who advocate "Second Amendment Solution" terrorism

A recent poll shows that 29% of Americans, including 44% of Republicans, 18% of Democrats and 27% of independents support an armed rebellion in the near future.

This may be the single most disturbing poll I have seen in a long time, and I have seen plenty of disturbing polls.

Let me be clear: those who are among the 18% of Democrats who believe this shit are not on my side. They can call themselves Democrats all they want but they are among the same level of scum as the teabaggers who cheer on Ted Nugent.

I have long been a strong supporter of non-violent resistance against the government and I have been in the streets many times over the last few years engaging in non-violent resistance. Non-violent resistance is a wonderful thing, but violent resistance is terrorism and all those who speak of "Second Amendment Solutions" are making it clear to us that they are at the very least terrorist sympathizers.

I know most of the scum bags who talk about turning their guns against "government tyranny" are all talk and won't actually carry out the murder they endorse, but it is a possible that a few of those nut jobs will and people will die. The blood of those people will be on the hands of all of the 29% who endorsed this idea.

Free speech is good, if people see government tyranny I highly encourage them to stand up against using any non-violent means at their disposal. Once the guns come out however the person wielding those guns becomes a murderous thug that needs to be condemned by every last person.

I sure as hell don't want the teabaggers deciding we are facing government tyranny and believing it is acceptable to use their guns against those of us they believe are contributing to that tyranny. I don't want anyone on my side to take up arms against the government either and anyone who even encourages such a thing is someone who I will loudly condemn them no matter their stances on other issues.

There is absolutely no way in hell that an armed revolt could ever succeed against the largest and most technologically advanced military the world has ever seen, but that doesn't mean people would not die in large numbers. And what happens then? All these people who were "fighting for our freedom" will cause the biggest crackdown on civil liberties this nation has ever seen, because don't think for a second the government will grant you more freedoms if you start murdering their people.

Those who call for taking up arms to "protect our freedoms" are in reality a threat to the freedoms of all of us. I just hope all of the 29% of Americans who say they support such a stupid and sickening idea are just idiots that say stupid shit without any intent of carrying it out, but if even a few of those 29% are actually serious and do carry out what they say they want to do all the people who encouraged this shit will have to share in the blame.

May 2, 2013

Republicans stand in favor of increasing Obama's power and raising taxes to fund trips to Hawaii

"Government should be run like a business."

I would be surprised if there is a single person reading this who has never heard this favorite Republican Talking Point. Many Republican politicians have ran on the platform that they would run government like a business, in fact their last Presidential candidate tried to base his campaign on running government like he ran his business.

To be clear I do not think government should be run like a business, the ideas I am going to suggest are not ideas that I agree with they are ideas that Republicans agree with and I am merely helping them to get their message out.

If government were run like a business Barack Obama would clearly be the CEO of that business. Obama currently has a salary of about $400,000 a year. For a CEO of a major company that is peanuts, the average CEO makes an average of 12.9 million a year, Republicans have consistently made it clear that they support CEOs making this kind of money, in fact they have accused those who say otherwise of class warfare. The average CEO makes over 32 times what Obama gets paid in a year. Clearly government is not being run like a business here, when the average CEO makes 32 times what Obama makes and Obama is running the largest operation of any of them. If government were ran as a business Obama would make at least 32 times his current salary and a probably a hell of a lot more considering he is the biggest of the big wigs, clearly the Republicans who support running government like a business would support giving Obama a massive salary increase far beyond anything that I would recommend, but they are welcome to their opinion.

Being a CEO is not just about money however, it is about being in control of guiding the company and ensuring that company grows and keeps growing. The Republicans have always been clear that they support business men who work to expand the size of their business. I sure have never heard a Republican suggest that a business should work to reduce its size, so clearly if the Republicans want to run government like a business they want a CEO who will work to expand the size of government just like a business works to expand the size of their business, they would clearly want to fire any business leader who tried to shrink the size of the business.

In order to expand their business a CEO needs to eliminate any employees in the company who are holding the business back. If anyone filibusters the CEO it is obvious that the people who want government run like a business would be supportive of the CEO when he unilaterally decides to fire all those who try to block him from leading the company forward. Paul Ryan, John Boehner, Mitch McConnell, Ted Cruz, clearly all of those people are rebelling against the direction the CEO is trying to lead the company, if government were a business all of them would no doubt be fired and only the people who went along with Obama on everything would be retained. To be clear I don't believe that Obama should unilaterally be able to fire anyone who expresses even the slightest disagreement with him, but that is how businesses are run and because Republicans want government run like a business it seems pretty clear to me that they would have no problem with Obama firing everyone who disagreed with him in his quest to maximize government profit.

Make no mistake about it, the ultimate goal of a business is to maximize profit. Sadly for the Republicans the government has not been very profitable, clearly they must think that more revenue needs to be brought in. Obviously the government is not charging enough money to pull in maximum profits, raising taxes substantially will go a long ways in increasing revenue and making the government business more profitable. Considering the government has no competition the smart business move would be to increase the taxes substantially, that is how business works if there is no competition businesses charge more for their services and Republicans want government run like a business so clearly they must want this massive increase in taxes.

These taxes will not only create huge profits but they will also cover the expenses of running the business, this means lavish all expenses paid trips to Hawaii for their executives. This is the sort of bonus that is common for the executives of most large corporations, so clearly those who want government run like a business would be excited to see their tax dollars going to fund a lavish vacation for all the members of the Obama administration.

I may not be a big fan of the idea of running the government like a business so I don't support all of the ideas I mentioned, but I am certain that all the right-wingers who have been advocating for government to be run like a business must support these ideas because they undeniably represent the way businesses are commonly run. Businesses work to expand their size, the executives hold all of the power and can fire anyone who stands in their way, and they regularly raise costs in order to increase profits and provide those lavish all expenses paid Hawaiian vacations to their executives.

The next time you hear a Republican say that government should be run like a business tell them about the ways businesses are run, if they are as principled as they claim to be and are willing to stand behind their government as a business idea then I can guarantee you their heads will not explode.

April 16, 2013

I will not apologize for suspecting those who advocate violence might be guilty of violence

These quotes represent just three of the many pieces of violent rhetoric that has come from the right-wing in recent years. The people who said these disgusting things were not just random right-wingers, they are people who were given giant microphones by the far right.

The right-wing leaders who uttered these disgusting words were not held accountable, G. Gordon Liddy continued to host his radio show, Charlton Heston's "cold dead hands" line was not only cheered by his supporters but was printed onto bumper stickers by the NRA, and Ted Nugent has continued to be reelected to the NRA Board of Directors and provided a microphone to make other violent threats.

Yesterday a tragedy struck in Boston, it happened on Tax Day just a short distance from the site of the original Boston Tea Party. As of right now we don't know exactly who set off the bombs in Boston, but it is certainly not a stretch to see the symbolism of Tax Day and suspect that it might be right-wing extremists who carried this attack out.

Now people tell me that we should wait for the facts to come in before we voice our suspicions, but I feel that we have been seeing the facts for far too long and I can not pretend that these facts do not exist. They may not be facts that point to a specific individual, but they are facts that do raise a lot of suspicions.

The fact is that we have heard far too much of the "from my cold dead hands" rhetoric, we have seen far too many nutty right-wingers tell us that they need an arsenal of guns to protect themselves from the government. They have made no secret of the fact that they dream of using their guns to violently overthrow the government, they want us to think that their guns are needed to protect us from government tyranny. Of course in their world tyranny means allowing gay people to get married and providing health care to poor people.

When I hear violent rhetoric I suspect that at least some of the people pushing that rhetoric are violent people themselves, and when a Tax Day attack happens they are going to be the first people I suspect. The reason I suspect them is based on their behavior, if they did not promote violence I would not suspect them no matter how much I disagreed with them. I disagree with nearly all Republicans, but the vast majority of Republicans I would never suspect of committing a violent act such as this one. There is a small group of them however that does seem extremely dangerous to me, the people who embrace Ted Nugent's violent rhetoric are the type of people who I believe are likely to be violent themselves.

In recent months we have seen right-wingers openly carrying assault rifles into State Capitol buildings in places like Oregon and Washington in order to intimidate law makers who are working pass gun legislation. We have seen the legislators who have introduced gun control bills sent numerous death threats. This is real and it is happening right now, I can't sit and pretend that this sort of violent rhetoric does not make me suspicious.

Maybe in the end I will be proven wrong, maybe it won't be a teabagger that gets arrested maybe it will just be some crazed teenager who was had a sick idea that he thought it would be fun to unleash chaos. Even if I am wrong however I will not apologize for being suspicious because it is the violent rhetoric of a certain group of people that made me suspicious of them, and if a person chooses to speak that violent rhetoric it is their own fault when the finger gets pointed at them when something happens.

The people who promote violence are not innocent, even if they did not have a direct role in planting these bombs they are still responsible for promoting acts of violence and terrorism.

I suspect this bombing was committed by a right-winger who is a fan of the sort of violent rhetoric that I posted at the top of this post. I am not going to make any apologies for voicing my suspicions before all the facts are in because there are more than enough facts to say that a certain group of people have acted in a way that has caused people to be legitimately suspicious of them. If they don't want people suspecting them of violence then they need to stop promoting violence.

March 21, 2013

Know your Enemy Part 2: NRA Board member physically assaults civil rights leader (plus zombies)

Yesterday I made a decision that I wanted to learn more about who serves on the NRA Board of Directors and I set a goal of researching every last one of them and posting about them here in the Gun Control Activism forum. I knew there were some real crazies on the board, but I must say that even I am shocked by just how nuts this organization is. Today we are going to cover three more members of the NRA Board, one who markets ammo to help people survive in the zombie apocalypse, another who refers to people getting murdered as "taking your lumps", and a third who physically assaulted Al Sharpton. Sadly this is not the Onion, these are actual members of the NRA Board of Directors.

Steve Hornady

Steve Hornady runs Hornady Manufacturing Company, Hornady markets ammo to be used in the case of a zombie apocalypse. I am not joking this is an actual ad for their ammo...



I guess I really can't blame Steve Hornady for preparing for the zombie apocalypse, if I found myself surrounded by as many NRA members as he has I would probably believe the zombie apocalypse has arrived as well.

Buster Bachhuber

Buster Bachhuber is probably best known for having the dumbest name of anyone on the NRA Board of Directors, but in his spare time he refers to mass shooting victims as "lumps"...

Link

Such compassion for the Newtown victims don't you think?

Roy Innis

Roy Innis boasted of himself "I am one of the few non-bigoted black leaders", literally seconds after he made that claim he physically assaulted one of the most well known Civil Rights leaders of all time...



Yes, the NRA has a Board Member who has violently assaulted a national civil rights leader on national television, but assault does not stop the NRA from presenting him as a model gun owner.

Despite his violent tendencies Innis does try to present a positive public image for himself, he has ran a "Stop the War on the Poor" campaign. It sounds like a wonderful thing until you realize that Innis is referring to the poor multinational oil companies.


Link

Innis has also taken a great deal of money from chemical giant Monsanto to run his "civil rights" organization, that money seems to have bought some interesting opinions from him my favorite of which is this...

Link

It is true, gun's don't kill people but restrictions on the spraying of DDT kills black babies. Apparently DDT is an essential nutrient in black baby's diets, it must be true because the NRA's resident "civil rights activist" says so.

After zombies, lumps, an assault on Al Sharpton, the poor oil companies, and DDT for black babies I think we have had enough NRA craziness for tonight. I will give you a hint that my next installment will cover an NRA member who takes a bold stand against "Jews Blacks and women". See you in the near future, and if you missed Part 1 you can check it out here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/1262599

March 20, 2013

Know your Enemy: A look at the NRA Board of Directors Part 1

We all know what the NRA is, but there has been far less focus on who the NRA is. We know the NRA is the largest gun lobby in the United States, but how many people know about the people who lead the organization? I have looked at the names of the members serving on the NRA Board of Directors and have seen several familiar names, but there are a number of them that I have not heard of.

In order to be effective advocates against guns I think it would be valuable to have some information on all of the members of the Board of Directors so I have decided to start a new project for this group, I am going to look up information on all the members of the NRA board and post what I find here. Because the NRA has over 50 members who serve either on their Board or in a key leadership position I will have to compile the information over several installments so it may take me a long time before I get to everyone, but ultimately my goal is to write something about every last one of them. Here are the facts on the first few members on my list of the NRA Leadership:

Joe Allbaugh

Link

Yes, our very first member not only was the person who vetted Dick Cheney and completely ignored his corrupt ways in that vetting process, he was also the guy who ran the post-election operation of the Bush campaign that involved the most blatant theft of an election in Presidential history.

Of course anyone who would vet Cheney and find that his corruption doesn't matter probably is not too above board himself and it should come as no surprise that Allbaugh was also involved in the exploitation of the war in Iraq for his own personal profit.

link.

As it seems pretty obvious that our first NRA Board member is obviously a corrupt right-wing tool, it probably won't surprise you that the next member on my list of the Board members is also an obviously corrupt right-wing tool.

Graham Hill

Graham Hill is the founder and CEO of a right-wing lobbying group called Ice Miller LLP, he also serves as the Director of the Fifty Caliber Institute.


Link.

Hill also specializes in helping corporate interests to buy out politicians.


Link.

And the personal biography of him on Ice Miller's own website brags that he "managed negotiations" on the Patriot Act.

Link

Well the NRA may claim to be all about Freedom but the first two board members seem to be closer to Dick Cheney and the Patriot Act than they are to anyone who truly cares about freedom.

Many of us have heard from the gun enthusiasts on this site that there are many Democrats in the NRA, if you believe them then you might hold out hope that the third member on my list of the NRA leadership is not quite so rabidly right-wing. Sadly however, there is not much hope for that wish to come true.

Scott Bach

Scott Bach is living proof that the Tea Party has absolutely nothing in common with the original Boston Tea Party, unless you think the Boston Party would be fans of King George, the man who Bach apparently wishes was leading America today:

link

Yes, Scott Bach may be a Tea Party guy, but that does not stop him from taking a stand to call for the return of King George just like the original Tea Party from the 18th century would have wanted. Bach has a very deep desire to move us back to the 18th century, a time in which believes our founders were shooting .50 caliber sniper rifles.


Link

You know, for all the grief NRA supporters have given to gun control advocates over not knowing the technical details of gun features, it would seem the NRA would keep members off their board who can't understand the difference between a musket and a modern high-tech sniper rifle. I wonder how many people George Washington sniped from a mile away with his .50 caliber musket.

These are just the first three members on my list folks, I shudder for what is to come in future installments of this blog.

January 20, 2013

Murderous 'monster' acquires an arsenal

Source: Minneapolis Star Tribune

They knew the Delano house far too well. It was where Christian Philip Oberender, then 14 years old, had murdered his mother in a shotgun ambush in the family rec room in 1995.

Now, 18 years later, Carver County Sheriff Jim Olson was sending his deputies back to the home where Oberender still lives. Just two days earlier, Olson had scanned the day's shift reports and froze when he tripped over Oberender's name. A scan of a Facebook page then showed firearms spread out like a child's trophies on a bed inside the home, along with notes about the Newtown, Conn., gunman who shot 20 children to death.

snip

Even more disturbing was the letter Oberender had written recently to his late mother, Mary: "I am so homicide,'' it said in broken sentences. "I think about killing all the time. The monster want out. He only been out one time and someone die.''

snip

Even though Oberender killed his mother with a firearm, even though he was committed to the state hospital in St. Peter as mentally ill and dangerous more than a decade ago, he was able to obtain a permit to purchase firearms last May. That piece of paper gave Oberender, now 32, the ability to walk into any licensed Minnesota retailer and buy any assault weapon or pistol on the rack.


Read more: http://www.startribune.com/local/west/187610601.html

---

Another "responsible gun owner" who passed their background check.