In this segment, curmudgeon extraordinaire Dr. John (“Woody NinetyNiner”) Konopak urges the perennially low-info, denialist types in the centroid liberal legions to face a few facts about their two-faced favorite politicians. 

In the hot seat: Bill Clinton.

Bill Clinton to take the stage at the DNC. A consummate con man, Slick Willie never disappoints.

“Who Sold the Farm?”

Summary

Maybe by the time you read/hear this, Former President Bill Clinton will have already had prominent role in the unfolding DNC procedings, in Charlotte. His participation will have inevitably been attended by references to the successes of his regime: Lilies gilded to within one tenth of a gram of their carrying capacity, Clinton will bask in acclaim and adulation.

So, if you are going to subject yourself to the festivities, if you suffer from some irony deficiency, perhaps, and need to stock-pile against some future shortage, I want to focus on just ONE aspect of the Clinton regime which seems to me to be highly glossed-over and will have been carefully avoided in the clamor: His connection and indeed, complicity in the devastating banking crisis of 2007-and onward, the effects of which have not substantially dissipated for average Americans even five years later.

It is worth remembering that it was Bill “Clenis” Clinton who sold the farm on financial deregulation.

At the behest of his crack team of economic superstars, Robert (Citibank) Rubin, Harvard’s misogynist Larry Summers, Allen (I call him “Ayn”) Greenspan and their towel-boy, Timmeh Geithner at the NYC Fed, Clenis at LEAST turned a blind eye on–if they didn’t actually collude with–the plans of Phil Gram and the rest of the  corpoRat-owned Neo-libs in the GOP to repeal Glass-Steagall and reverse significant Depression-era reforms; reforms that were keeping retail and investment “banking” separate, and had mostly kept the psycopathic greed-heads from refucking the Economy, as they had in ’29.

SO: Cui Bono? Who profits, the wise old Roman cynic Cicero always asked with his plangent double dative!

Obviously: The bankstas, who are genetically averse to risking their OWN money, but who are pathologically eager to risk OTHER PEOPLE’S money and skim the take.

Heretofore, Glass-Steagal had forbidden bankstas from looting commercial assets for extra investment capital. That was what the Glass-Steagall did. But it was stricken, and replaced by Gram-Leach-Bliley which, with a subsequent measure that enabled the credit default swap garbage (the Commodity Futures Modernization Act, 2000; enacted by Clenis on his way out the door toward untold riches)…sowed the seeds for the coming crises.

Once that was done, what followed in ’07-09 was fucking inevitable, and they fucking KNEW it…

How do I know they knew? The logical process is called “abductive,” also “adductive,” not to be confused with the silver tape–though they have surprisingly similar properties, with which I won’t trouble you now. The question is “How do I know they knew?”

Ask yourself: Why ELSE would Rubin have so swiftly resigned from the cabinet and scurried, rat-like, over to Citibank, to cash in.” Did any of ’em LOSE money? As another Roman said: “Ipso facto! Q.E.D.

(This article first appeared as a video on World-Wide Hippies—  http://www.worldwidehippies.com/2012/09/05/wwhcje-the-soapbox-who-sold-the-farm/)

John Konopak, Ph.D., is a retired former professor (of education), journalism/writing instructor, journeyman Class-A carpenter, school teacher, writer/editor/critic, radio announcer and cold-calling Kirby salesman who now resides in Albuquerque, New Mexico with his two dogs (Budreaux, the Pink-nozed Pitbull, and Hanna-Stella, the terpsichordian hound-mix.)
He claims to have been stoned since 1968.

_________
In collaboration with World Wide Hippies

_________

Bonus feature

Below Bill Clinton DNC speech preview item on The Washington Post.  As is so typical of the corporate media, with no sense of irony whatsoever this material is served up by the WaPo after force-feeding the public some bullshit from some ultra corrupt multinational, including spots from Goldman Sachs, etc.. Well, you have been forewarned. —Eds

_________

Let’s keep this award-winning site going!

Use PayPal via the button below.

THANK YOU.

BY MICHELLE OBAMA
FIRST LADY OF THE UNITED STATES
Special dispatch from The Onion

Good evening, everyone. Thank you so much for being here with us. I speak to you tonight as a mom, a wife, a daughter, a sister, and, of course, a proud American.

But most of all, I’m happy to stand before you as a meticulously calculated communication tool whose every action, from the color of my dress down to each wave of my hand, has been premeditated and painstakingly devised by a set of experienced political handlers working to re-elect my husband this November.

Honestly, I’m thrilled to see all of you here tonight, knowing that my presence has been consciously engineered to soften my husband’s image and give his poll numbers a quick boost. There is really no greater pleasure in the world than getting up on this stage and talking to millions of Americans not only as a first lady, but also as a cynical ploy to add warmth, humanity, and relatability to an otherwise cold, detached three-day display of political gamesmanship.

It is also an honor to tell you, in words that were written out for me by a speechwriter and then carefully reviewed and edited by dozens of ruthlessly single-minded campaign advisers, all about how my husband is a caring husband and loving father, and how, in spite of his incredibly busy schedule, he is still so devoted to our family. A moment like this is such a great chance to reveal painstakingly scripted anecdotes about how he still picks up the girls from soccer practice and how I’m always nagging him to take the trash out so that you will believe he is an everyday person like you and your friends and not a massively powerful world leader with a superhuman degree of ambition and political savvy.

After all, there are very real issues facing our country, and I’m proud to be forced to repeat some hackneyed political rhetoric that will go down much easier because it is coming out of my mouth, and to tell you about how much my husband loves these great United States and how he has met a series of challenges that you will indeed believe he has met because I seem trustworthy and not like some Washington insider who is just trying to get your vote, even though that is precisely what I am.

It’s also a true honor to have my gender exploited in order to gain support among the key demographic of female voters, who I am forced to pander to by talking about my own relatable experiences as a woman. I’m honored to have my motherhood put on full display as a tug on the heartstrings of other moms around the country, and to talk about how difficult it is to raise a family and how I understand all the struggles that working mothers face in this day and age, as though that has even the slightest relation to my husband’s ability to lead this country out of an insecure economic landscape and tackle complex debates over health care, Social Security, tax reform, and foreign policy, among other things.

And furthermore, it feels wonderful to be paraded out here, mascotlike, as an African-American woman, allowing my husband to appeal to both minority voters and women simultaneously, a rare feat which no other person in this campaign is able to carry out with such efficacy and which, again, I am so, so happy to do.

Lest we forget, I hasten to add what a privilege it is to be objectified by all of you here and the millions of people watching at home, as I’m forced to use my charming smile and physical attractiveness to distract an entire nation from what is, by most accounts, a generally disappointing presidency. I can’t begin to convey what a dream it is to be used as a puppet by the hordes of political playmakers who direct my husband’s campaign, and to stand here in a shameless attempt to appeal to voters who like how I carry myself as a strong, independent-minded woman and love the picturesque image of our seemingly ideal American family.

Needless to say, I am also overjoyed to have our two young daughters repeatedly roped into participating in this sick little dog and pony show.

If all goes to plan, after I walk off this stage, you will see my husband not only as a strong political leader, but also as an everyday man who is trustworthy, honest, compassionate, and all the other bullshit you’d expect to hear from someone being used exclusively as a totem for some uplifting and calculatedly inspiring political message. And you have no idea how proud that makes me.

Thank you, God bless you, and God bless the United States of America.

Let’s keep this award-winning site going!

Use PayPal via the button below.

THANK YOU.

Mormonism Sure Is Weird
JAMES JOYNER   ·   TUESDAY, JUNE 19, 2012   · OUTSIDE THE BELTWAY.COM

Jeffrey Goldberg asks, “What if Mitt Romney were Jewish?” Rather than the expected argument that it’s improper to question bizarre religious beliefs held by those aspiring to the presidency, Goldberg takes an interesting turn.

The Washington Post (WPO)’s Jason Horowitz reported this month that officials on Mitt Romney’s campaign don’t care much for journalistic explorations of their candidate’s religious beliefs.

One spokeswoman, Andrea Saul, has been throwing brushback pitches at reporters who write about Romney’s faith, asking if they would write similar stories about Jews.

According to Horowitz, Saul objected to sentences in an earlier Washington Post piece describing how Joseph Smith, the founder of Mormonism, is said to have discovered the golden plates that provided the theological underpinnings of his new faith.

“Would you write this sentence in describing the Jewish faith?” she asked, providing an example: “‘Jews believe their prophet Moses was delivered tablets on a mountain top directly from G-d after he appeared to him in a burning bush.’ Of course not, yet you reference a similar story in Mormonism.”

Goldberg correctly points out that we’ve never elected a Jewish president and that recent vice presidential nominee Joseph Lieberman actually got some of that sort of reporting. I’d forgotten that but it’s true:

A New York Times reporter, Laurie Goodstein, detailed Lieberman’s exotic rites at length, in the manner of an anthropologist explaining a previously unknown Amazon tribe: “Many of Mr. Lieberman’s most basic religious rituals are intimate acts,” the article said. At morning prayer, “the senator lays on tefillin, the small leather boxes that contain four biblical passages written on parchment, binding the boxes to one arm and his forehead with leather straps.”

Here’s where it gets interesting:

So what does the Romney camp find so frightening? In talking to my Mormon friends (some of my best friends are Mormons), the answer is clear. The practices and origin stories of most religions, when viewed by outsiders, all seem fairly strange. But Mormonism seems just a bit stranger than the rest. The great fear is not that Americans will see a Mormon politician as too sinister to lead the country (the way that some Baptist leaders once saw the Catholic John F. Kennedy) but that Americans will see a Mormon as too bizarre to be president.

They point to the issue of “sacred underwear,” the derisive term for undergarments worn by some Mormons to remind themselves of their religious responsibilities. Many find the concept odd, but should they? Is Mormonism really that much stranger than other religions?

I vividly remember learning from a Catholic friend that, each Sunday, his family would attend church to drink the blood of Jesus and eat his body. Freaky. But is it any freakier than the sight of a bunch of Jews gathering around an 8-day-old boy to watch a man with a beard snip off the tip of the baby’s penis, and then to eat blintzes afterward? Religious Jews, of course, also wear a variation of “sacred underwear” — zizit and tallitot, traditional garments that date back thousands of years, to the ancient Middle East.

The Mormon tradition dates back less than 200 years, to Palmyra, New York. What Mormons suffer from more than any other major religion is proximity. The foundation stories of Mormonism took place in the age of skeptical journalism, and they took place in the U.S. Most Christians believe in a Second Coming. Mormons believe the Second Coming will be in Missouri. Many Muslims believe that Muhammad ascended to heaven from Jerusalem on a winged animal, which has the ring of something mystical and transcendent. If Muhammad had departed for heaven from Tenafly, New Jersey, well, that would open up Islam to some level of derision.

I recall way back in 1997 when 39 members of a California religious cult calling itself Heaven’s Gate committed suicide in order that they might be swept aboard an alien spaceship following the Hale-Bopp comet. I recall this tragedy being discussed with great credulity on that weekend’s “This Week” roundtable, which happened to be on Easter Sunday. I recall thinking that, with the notable exception of the suicidal component, the belief system of the Heaven’s Gaters seemed far less silly than those who believed that our invisible overlord sent his only begotten Son–who was actually just an aspect of himself–to earth whereby he would be born to a virgin who was herself born to a virgin in order that he might undergo 33 years of testing and ultimately die for our sins only to be resurrected three days later in order to give mankind hope for eternal redemption, which would come at some time at least two thousand years into the future when he would return. At least we had good reason to believe that the Hale-Bopp comet existed.

Mormonism is strange in comparison to more mainstream Christian beliefs mostly because it takes all of the strange beliefs of Christianity and heaps some new ones on top. At the end of the day, though, I take the same view of Mormonism as  South Park creators Matt Stone and Trey Parker: the mythology is absurd hokum but most Mormons simply take away broad lessons about the value of family, community, and common decency.

About the author
_____
ADDENDUM
Source: BibleFacts
Mormon Errors

On Cults
In 1820 a 15 year old boy named Joseph Smith said that the angel Moroni (other versions say God or three angels) appeared to him and told him all churches were wrong, their professors were corrupt, and all their creeds were an abomination, so in 1830 he founded the Mormon cult. He said the true Gospel had not been preached for 1800 years, and Mormonism is the only true church. Joseph Smith was assassinated in Carthage Illinois in 1844.

The teachings of the cult are as follows:

A race of gods, {advanced humanoids from a planet orbiting the mysterious star Kolab} who were once only men but through adherence to Mormon teachings became gods, called a council and decided that Jesus would be the god and savior of planet earth. Lucifer, spirit brother of Jesus 1, wanting to be God and savior of earth, lead a rebellion and lost. The followers of Lucifer became demons and therefore denied bodies of flesh and blood for all eternity. Those who remained neutral in the rebellion were cursed to be born with black skin 2. Those who followed Jesus were born with white skin.

This explains the Mormon doctrine of the pre-existence of souls and the doctrine that God the father has a body of flesh and blood 3.

God the Father is also called Michael the archangel 4.

The father god, Adam 5, came from Kolab to earth with one of his wives, Eve, to populate the planet, and of course that means there was no fall.

Joseph Smith and Brigham Young both taught originally that polygamy was good. The Scripture says its sin, and so does the book of Mormon, Jacob 2:22.

Later the father god, Adam, came back to earth and had sex with the virgin Mary 6 to give Jesus a physical body. {This denies the virgin birth and conception by Holy Spirit 7}

Jesus married Mary, Martha, and Mary Magdalene and had children 8, through whom Joseph Smith is supposed to be a direct descendant.

Salvation is exaltation to godhood. The goal is for the Mormon male to become a god and with one or more goddesses populate whole new worlds. Goddesses will be eternally pregnant.

Jesus died to pay for our sin nature, but His blood does nothing to cover our individual sins 9.

You must pay for your own sins with your own blood.

Salvation is accomplished by works, baptism, and temple marriage. Without a temple marriage a woman can never become a goddess. Therefore the woman must be totally obedient to her husband or he may choose not to resurrect her.

If you die and go to hell a Mormon descendant of yours can be baptized in your place. Eventually no one will be in hell. This is why the Mormon cult is the best place to go for genealogical research, their religion depends on it.

Using alcohol, tobacco, tea, coffee, coke, or Pepsi or not tithing can result in being removed from the cult and thereby loosing godhood.

The Bible tells us that Satan originated the “you can become gods” lie in Genesis 3:5.
Galatians 1:8 says, “But even if we or an angel from heaven should proclaim to you a gospel contrary to what we proclaimed to you, let that one be accursed!” (NRSV)

The fact that Joseph Smith and Brigham Young taught these and other occultic doctrines is well documented. The current LDS and RLDS may not hold to all of these teachings, (for instance, most Mormon groups no longer hold to the Adam is God doctrine) but why continue to belong to a group that still holds to the name of such false prophets?

Famous Mormon quotes:

“God was once as we are now, and is an exalted man, and sits enthroned in yonder heavens.” (Joseph Smith, Times and Seasons, Aug. 1, 1844)

 As man is, God once was. As God is, man may become.” (Lorenzo Snow, Millenial Star, Vol. 54)

“In the beginning the head of the GOD’S called a council of the GOD’S and they came together and concocted a plan to create the world and the people in it.” (Joseph Smith, The Journal of Discourses, Vol. 6)

“In the heaven where our spirits were born, there are many GOD’S, each of who has his own wife or wives which were given to him previous to his redemption while yet in his mortal state.” (Apostle Orson Pratt, The Seer, Vol. 1, Pg 37)

“If we should take a million worlds like this and number their particles we should find there are more GOD’S than there are particles of matter in those worlds.” (Apostle Orson Pratt, Journal of Discourses, Vol. 2, Pg. 345)

“The Father has a body of flesh and bone as tangible as man’s…” (Doctrine and Covenants, Sec. 130:22)
Our God and Father in heaven, is a being of tabernacle, or, in other words, he has a body, with parts the same as you and I have.” (Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, 1:50)

“When our father Adam came into the Garden of Eden, he came into it with a celestial body and brought Eve, one of his celestial wives, with him… He is our father and our GOD and the ONLY GOD with whom we have to do.” (Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, Vol. 1, Pg. 50)

1. Journal of Discourses Vol. 13 p.282
2. Journal of Discourses Vol. 17 p. 290
3. Pearl of great price 4:1-4; See John 4:24 & Luke 24:37-39
4. Doctrine & covenants Sec. 104:28
5. Doctrine & covenants Sec. 27
6. Doctrine & covenants Sec. 4 p. 218
7. Journal of Discourses Vol. 1 pp. 50,51; Matthew 1:20
8. Journal of Discourses Vol. 4 p. 259
9. Journal of Discourses Vol. 3 p.247, Vol. 4 p.219,220

All Biblical quotations taken from the NRSV unless otherwise noted.

www.biblefacts.org    Date: 6-1995

Let’s keep this award-winning site going!

Use PayPal via the button below.

THANK YOU.

Diatribes and Curious Silences
Democrats and U.S. Labor Delusional About Latin America

by ALBERTO C. RUIZ
The Democrats just put out their platform on Latin America, and it demonstrates only the loosest connection to reality.   Thus, while praising the “vibrant democracies in countries from Mexico to Brazil and Costa Rica to Chile,” as well as “historic peaceful transfers of power in places like El Salvador and Uruguay,” the Democrats continue to point to Cuba and Venezuela as outliers in the region in which the Democrats plan “to press for more transparent and accountable governance” and for “greater freedom.”   Of course, it is their Platform’s deafening silence on critical developments in the region which says the most about their position vis a vis the Region.

Not surprising, the Democrats say nothing about the recent coups in Honduras and Paraguay (both taking place during Obama’s first term) which unseated popular and progressive governments.   They also say nothing about the fact that President Obama, against the tide of the other democratic countries in Latin America, quickly recognized the coup governments in both of these countries.   Also omitted from the platform is any discussion of the horrendous human rights situation in post-coup Honduras where journalists, human rights advocates and labor leaders have been threatened, harassed and even killed at alarming rates.

As Reporters Without Borders (RWR) explained on August 16, 25 journalists have been murdered in Honduras since the 2009 coup, making Honduras the journalist murder capital of the world.   In this same story, RWR mentions Honduras in the same breath as Mexico (a country the Democrats hold out as one of the “vibrant democracies” in the region) when speaking of the oppression of journalists and social activists, as well as the general climate of violence which plagues both countries.   As RWR stated, “Like their Mexican colleagues, Honduran journalists – along with human rights workers, civil society representatives, lawyers and academics who provide information – will not break free of the spiral of violent crime and censorship until the way the police and judicial apparatus functions is completely overhauled.”   And indeed, according to the Committee to Protect Journalists, 38 journalists have been killed in Mexico since 1992, and it has been confirmed in 27 of these cases that the journalists were killed precisely because they were journalists.   Meanwhile, in Mexico, over 40,000 individuals have been killed due to the U.S.-sponsored drug war – hardly a laudable figure.

Of course, in the case of Honduras, and Paraguay as well, things are going fine for U.S. interests post-coup, with Honduras maintaining the U.S. military base which President Manuel Zelaya, overthrown in the coup, had threatened to close.  Similarly, in Paraguay, one of the first acts of the new coup government was agreeing to open a new U.S. military base – a base opposed by Porfirio Lobos, the President (and former liberation Bishop) overthrown in the coup.   The other act of the new coup government in Paraguay was its agreement to allow Rio Tinto to open a new mine in that country, again in contravention of the deposed President’s position.   The Democrats simply do not speak of either Honduras or Paraguay in their Platform.

Instead, the Democrats mostly focus on their alleged desire to bring freedom to Cuba, saying nothing about the strides already made by Cuba itself where, according to a January 27, 2012 story in the Financial Times, entitled, “Freedom comes slowly to Cuba,” “there are currently no prisoners of conscience.”  This is to be contrasted with Colombia, the chief U.S. ally in the region, which houses around 10,000 political prisoners and prisoners of conscience.   The Democrats, shy about such unpleasant facts, simply say nothing about Colombia – this despite the fact that Colombia just announced historic peace talks with the guerillas which have been engaged in a 50-year insurgency in that country.   Apparently, this does not deserve a mention amongst the Democrats’ anti-Cuba diatribe.

Meanwhile, the Democrats also single out Venezuela as a country in which it is hoping to free from its alleged chains.   What the Democrats fail to note is that Venezuela already has a popular, democratically President in Hugo Chavez who is making life better for the vast majority of Venezuelans, and who appears poised to receive the majority of the votes of the Venezuelan people in the upcoming October elections as a consequence.  Thus, according to Oxfam, “Venezuela certainly seems to be getting something right on inequality. According to the highly reputable UN Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean, it now has the most equal distribution of income in the region, and has improved rapidly since 1990.”  Again, contrast this with the U.S.’s chief ally Colombia and with Mexico, the two countries with the worst problems of inequality in the region.  As the Council on Hemispheric Affairs noted earlier this year, “both Colombia and Mexico suffer from some of the world’s most unequal distributions of wealth. In 1995, Colombia was ranked the fifth most unequal country (of those with available statistics), with a Gini coefficient of 0.57, while Mexico was ranked the eighth worst with a Gini coefficient of 0.52.  Between 2006 and 2010, Colombia’s inequality ranked 0.58, while Mexico’s coefficient was 0.52, qualifying them as two of the lowest ranked countries in the world.”   The Democrats, uninterested in such trivialities as social equality, simply ignore such inconvenient data.

For its part, U.S. labor, as represented (albeit very poorly) by the AFL-CIO’s Solidarity Center, continue to march in step with the U.S. government and the Democrats in their imperial delusions about the Region.  Thus, while for some time simply hiding the fact that it has been working in Venezuela at all, the Solidarity Center, in response to pressure about this issue, has recently admitted on its website that it has been continuously working in Venezuela these past 13 years – i.e., to and through the coup in 2002 which the Solidarity Center aided and abetted by funneling monies from the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) to the anti-Chavez CTV union which was a major player in the coup.

Stinging from the just criticism over this, the Solidarity Center now claims — reminiscent of George W. Bush who fancied himself a “uniter” as opposed to a “divider” – claims that it is in Venezuela to unite the divided labor movement.    Thus, the Solidarity Center states:  “[g]iven the political fragmentation and divisions between unions in Venezuela, Solidarity Center activities work to help unions from all political tendencies overcome their divisions in order to jointly advocate for and defend policies for increased protection of fundamental rights at the workplace and industry levels. The Solidarity Center currently supports efforts to unite unions from diverse political orientations (including chavista and non-chavista, left and center) to promote fundamental labor rights in the face of anti-labor actions that threaten both pro-government unions and traditionally independent unions.”    In its statement, the Solidarity Center says nothing about the progressive labor law which President Chavez just recently signed into law without any help from U.S. labor.   This law, among other things, outlaws outsourcing and subcontracting, shortens the work week, increases minimum vacation time, increases maternity leave and requires employers to provide retirement benefits.

The Solidarity Center statement about Venezuela is laden with irony as well as hubris.  The U.S. labor movement is itself greatly fragmented, with two competing houses of labor (the AFL-CIO and Change to Win) as well as divisions even within these two confederations.   That the Solidarity Center would presume to be able to unite any union movement outside its borders is laughable.   Indeed, only imagine the reception from the labor movement in this country if China’s labor confederation purported to intervene in the U.S. to help unite the labor movement here.  Aside from wondering how exactly the Chinese unionists planned to do this, many would wonder about the ends to which such unity, once miraculously created, would be applied.    And, one must wonder the very same about this in regard to the Solidarity Center’s role in Venezuela.   First of all, the so-called “chavista” unions want nothing to do with the Solidarity Center, funded as it is by the NED and U.S.-AID, especially after the 2002 coup.    Again, they would have to question what the Solidarity Center, which just received a massive grant of $3 million for its work in Venezuela and Colombia, would want to “unify” the Venezuelan union movement to do.   The question appears to answer itself, and it is not a pretty one.

A modest proposal for the AFL-CIO and its Solidarity Center is to focus on uniting the labor movement at home in the U.S. to challenge the power that capital has on our political system; pressing for better U.S. labor law (on this score it could learn a lot from Venezuela and its labor movement); abandoning its labor paternalism (if not imperialism) and leaving it to the Venezuelans to unite their own labor movement.    Similarly, the Democrats, instead of worrying about ostensibly bringing U.S.-style democracy (more like social inequality and militarism) to other countries in the Region, should spend more time trying to make this country less beholden to corporate and monied interests, and thereby more democratic in the process.  But again, this is not what the Democrats are about.   What the AFL-CIO is about, aside from blindly supporting the Democrats, is anyone’s guess.

Alberto C. Ruiz is a long-time labor and peace activist.

Let’s keep this award-winning site going!

Use PayPal via the button below.

THANK YOU.

Clint Eastwood’s act at the RNC was pathetic on many levels, a performance only a giant egotist like Eastwood could entertain, filled to the brim with lies, distortions, vacillations, thick unwitting ignorance, hypocrisies, and omissions—in sum a stinking embarrassing mess calculated to please an audience of Republicans.  Where do you begin with something like that?

The errors were so numerous and so serious as to require a long and tedious process of rectification and education.  That kind of exertion would try the patience of a saint, and sainthood ain’t what we are aiming for. So watch the video and draw your own conclusions.—PG

Let’s keep this award-winning site going!

Use PayPal via the button below.

THANK YOU.