Showing posts with label Ames. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Ames. Show all posts

Thursday, June 5, 2014

Ames: Putin is pursuing a 'Nixon Strategy'

I'm a bit late posting this. Mark Ames's main point, that "all politics is local," was made by moi  two weeks earlier than he in the post, "Ukraine's 'most dangerous 10 days'...and beyond."

Others have made Ames's point, that Putin's Ukraine policy is really all about boosting his popularity at home, not about defending Russia's interests:

This is a long background way of getting to the point that I want to make about understanding Putin by way of “all politics is local.” Putin lost the crucial big city yuppie class. They’re gone for good. There are a lot of ways an autocrat in a nominally democratic country can respond to that. Putin has chosen a new politics appealing to the Russian Silent Majority, and that means appealing to their resentments, heating up the culture wars between liberal Moscow and the slower, fearful masses in the rest of those eleven time zones. To exploit the huge differences between the Moscow liberals and yuppies opposed to Putin, and the rest of the country that resents them.

[...]

And that brings me to Putin and Ukraine. It goes without saying that Putin didn’t plan this crisis to happen — he already had his man in power in Kyiv. But Putin did exploit the situation, turning a major humiliating defeat in February into a massive political victory within Russia by doing what the Silent Majority would’ve wanted Putin to do: Redress grievances, air out resentments nonstop against the West and against west Ukraine fascists, and screw whatever the West thinks.

There’s not much comfort here for any side in the West when you frame Putin’s actions through local politics.

Indeed, respected Russian pundit Andrei Piontkovsky argues that Putin is fighting for his actual life (not just his political life) in Russia!  (Putin, says Piontkovsky, doesn't want to end up someday like Gaddafi.)

Although I do agree that "all politics is local," I don't agree with Ames 100%, especially when he throws the "fascist" label at all Ukrainians, or even the majority, who were on Maidan; and when he repeats the tired old lies that some indirect grants to journalists, pollsters and human rights groups somehow translated into a "Western-sponsored coup" in Ukraine. If only it were that easy! Then the USA would be handing out grants in a lot more countries!....


By Mark Ames
May 14, 2014 | Pando Daily

Monday, February 3, 2014

Ames: Apple, Google, Adobe, Pixar colluded to depress tech wages

Ever trenchant muckracker Mark Ames reveals here that tech giants like Apple and Google not only outsource their manufacturing to suicidal sweatshops in China that revolt against their masters, not only do they avoid U.S. taxes by registering in Ireland, they also conspired to hold down wages for U.S. tech workers, the alleged winners in this whole globalized, "We got the brains, you got the brawn" value chain. 

Tell me again why we celebrate these "American" companies?  


By Mark Ames
January 23, 2014 | Pando Daily



UPDATE: There's this far-right libertarian Nazi that I correspond with, he says he's a millionaire, let's call him Old Dirty Bastard, who responded to this post. I think this thread is pretty instructive for all you not-so-crazy folks, and shows why we need unions and collective bargaining to protect us from the ODBs of the "free market":

(ODB): Wake up and smell the coffee---it's been happening forever. They are dumb if they don't get their best deal. They do it to states by incorporating in states like Nevada also.

(Me): Employers have always colluded to keep wages down in a given sector? Did you read the article?  You don't even believe your own libertarian mumbo-jumbo!  What a cynic you are! Don't preach to me anymore about your free-market beliefs, etc. because you believe in the Law of the Jungle, where Might Makes Right. 

(ODB): Explain the difference between free market and the law of the jungle. I do not see it

(Me): That's your definition of libertarianism.  The Sherman Anti-Trust Act, Teddy Roosevelt, Grover Cleveland... they were all long-haired hippy commies "ruining" the free market.  There's no use arguing with you, you are so far to the right that you're back on the left with Hitler and Pinochet. 

UPDATE (20.02.2014): Mark Ames followed up his original report with more court documents and e-mails, this time between Apple's Steve Jobs -- "an American hero" -- and Palm's Edward Colligan: "Steve Jobs threatened Palm’s CEO, plainly and directly, court documents reveal."

Thursday, February 21, 2013

Ames: Christopher Dorner: Man, myth, murderer

Ames is right, people tend to see in Christopher Dorner what they want to see.  

But the fact that the LAPD is corrupt and racist is undeniable, and it's wrongful terminations were out of control: 

Los Angeles police brought an average of three times more lawsuits a year per officer than officers in Chicago and the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department.

Finally, Christopher Dorner did not give off any signs of mental illness until he "snapped," which is quite normal for rampage shooters, exposing, once again, the stinking red herring of the NRA and pro-gun conservatives that somehow mental health checks will prevent shooting rampages.

Saturday, December 22, 2012

Ames: Big backers of 'gun-nuttery' have ulterior aims

As usual, Mark Ames has a unique take on events, usually describing how Big Business tries to dumb us down, rile us up, or lull us to sleep at the right moments. He sees the NRA and the larger "gun cult batshittery" as another example, and it's not about guns:

[I]t’s now so deeply ingrained that owning guns is a form of radical subversive politics, the people who still engage in real politics have the pick of the litter. That first became really clear in the depths of the 2008-9 collapse, when a lot of people who thought of themselves as radicals and anarchists made a lot of feckless noise about how they were arming and preparing for the collapse and revolution. They could’ve gone out and organized something and maybe built a politics of people power or even a politics of what they call revolution, a politics that actually changed things. But instead, they locked themselves in their homes and apartments with their guns and fancied themselves political revolutionaries just waiting to be swept up. But no one came. No one bothered or cared. And really, why would any plutocrat or evil government agency bother with the suckers, all harmlessly atomized and isolated and thoroughly neutralized by the false sense of political empowerment that their guns gave them, while you do the real work of plundering budgets, bribing politicians and writing laws even more in your favor?

So while everyone was hiding out in their homes armed and ready for Hollywood finales that never came, in the real world political power was concentrating at warp-speed with zero resistance.

From the oligarchy’s perspective, the people were thoroughly neutralized by the false sense of political empowerment that guns gave them. Guns don’t work in this country — they didn’t work for the Black Panthers or the Whiskey Rebellion, and they won’t work for you or me either.

It takes years to cultivate a political mindset that voluntarily neutralizes itself by convincing itself that its contribution to world revolution comes down to purchasing a few guns at K-Mart, then blogging about it. That’s what reactionary plutocrats like the Koch brothers understood about the deeper politics of gun fanaticism, and why their outfits like the Cato Institute have been at the forefront of overturning gun regulations and promoting "Stand Your Ground" vigilantism as a substitute for political engagement: That by poisoning the political climate, it poisons the minds, which circulates back to the external environment, and back into the minds, until you lock the culture into a pattern in which you always get more and they always get fleeced, which makes them more fanatical and you more powerful...

This is what I missed or ignored about gun control: The longterm view that the Koch brothers and the Scaifes and everyone backing gun-nuttery understood about how gun laws or the absence of those laws can completely transform the surrounding political climate.


By Mark Ames
December 17, 2012 | NSFW CORP

Friday, December 14, 2012

Ames: Sordid, bloody history of 'right to work'

I'm posting this in full because Mark Ames gives us a great history lesson. Most Americans are ignorant of their own history. They take for granted and don't know things like where the 8-hour workday and a ban on child labor came from. These things came from Progressives and Democrats. 

Likewise, we don't know how many innocent workers and their wives and children were murdered for trying to organize. Those company-sponsored massacres of innocent people with machine guns and tear gas in the first three decades of the 20th century don't make it into our elementary school textbooks.  

So git yerselves edumacated and think twice before you nod your head absently in support of innocuous-sounding, anti-American poison like "right-to-work" laws. We owe a debt of gratitude to our grandparents and great-grandparents who fought and died to protect unions and build the large, stable U.S. middle class that was the envy of the world through the 1970s. We owe it to them not to throw away their hard-fought gains that gave us the good life we enjoyed.


By Mark Ames
December 12, 2012 | NSFW CORP

"From now on, white women and white men will be forced into organizations with black African apes whom they will have to call ‘brother’ or lose their jobs."
— Vance Muse, founder of the "right to work" anti-labor campaign

The Michigan GOP apparently blindsided everyone with the union-busting "right to work" laws they just rammed through the state. Certainly my labor friends were caught off-guard tactically by the Republicans’ speed and choice of battleground.

For most of the county, though, the confusion has to do with what "right to work laws" are and why they’re so bad. You can see it written on the faces of the morning cable news hosts on CNN and even MSNBC — trying to pretend like they know what "right-to-work" laws actually mean, flummoxed by the brazen Orwellian neologism of the phrase and sweating over the possibility that they might have to explain it. Lucky for them, and for most of the media establishment (and for the Koch brothers), few people even know what questions to ask about "right to work laws." All they know — kinda — is that they’re bad for unions, and that those unions seem to know exactly how bad things are about to get.

Today, in most of America, unions have it bad. And part of the reason it’s bad is because we no longer know how to organize. Imagine trying to organize workers in your call center or warehouse, or your software gaming firm or your human rights NGO, as they’re doing at Amnesty International. The pressures against you — from worker cynicism and colleagues’ fear of losing their jobs, to personal relations with your boss and superiors, the bills you have to pay, and simple questions like "how do I organize" and "how do I know I won’t be screwed" — not to mention the inevitable appearance of company snitches, provocateurs, and just run-of-the-mill assholes and idiots... I’m not even talking here about your company’s ability to fire you, demote you, abolish your department, slash your pay, pretty much whatever the Hell they want ever since Reagan busted the air traffic controller’s union... This is the lot of American labor organizers in 2012 , except for in a few remaining pockets of America where union power and memory is still strong and tightly woven into the local cultural DNA.

Michigan is one of those places, which is why crushing labor power there would be as inspiring to the rightwing oligarchs who just got creamed at the polls as, say, the rise of the Tea Party was in early 2009.

So yesterday, as Michigan Republicans pushed the bill into law, labor groups converged on the capital in Lansing. According to the BBC, "police in riot gear used tear gas to control tensions among a crowd [outside the Michigan statehouse] of more than 10,000 protesters." For a lot of (once)-middle-class Americans, it’s hard to reconcile that level of anger with something as dull-sounding as "right to work laws."

"Austerity measures" are easier to fear: "austerity" is meant to sound scary and sadomasochistic. But "right to work" sounds dreary and almost redundant, like "right to pay bills."

That’s until you start to understand the history of the "right to work" movement, the racist human hagfish who brought "right to work" into our lexicon and made it happen, and the far-right fascist oligarchs who made it worth their while. Once you meet a few of these cretins — specifically, Vance Muse, the Karl Rove-meets-David Duke brains behind the whole "Right-to-Work" movement whom I’ll introduce you to a little later in this piece — you’ll understand why those thousands who converged on Lansing were acting like their state legislators just invited Count Dracula into everyone’s homes.

In terms of understanding what just happened, it would help if we were back in the 1940s and 50s, when most liberals and establishment media used — and understood — the antonym, "union security" — a descriptive phrase for the New Deal labor laws which finally gave union organizers a fighting chance, and saw the percentage of unionized workers in the US soar from single digits in the early 1930s to around 35% of the workforce by the mid-late 1940s.

The "right-to-work" movement to destroy labor unions began almost as soon as FDR passed the Wagner Act in the mid-1930s, which gave labor organizers "union security" as the old euphemism went and should still go. Again, you have to understand the historical context: Until the Wagner Act passed, when it came to workers’ rights, America in the 1930s was about half a century or more behind the rest of the West — child labor wasn’t even outlawed here until 1938.

But nothing compared to the endless massacres and murders of American labor organizers, massacres that are all but censored from the official history of this country. Maybe you’ve heard something about the Ludlow Massacre of the families of mine workers at Rockefeller’s mines in Colorado in 1913 — but you probably don’t know many of the details, like how Rockefeller’s private armed goons patrolled the miners’ miserable tent cities in an armored car with a mounted machine gun, spraying the tents and terrorizing the strikers, who demanded such radical concessions as "enforcement of Colorado’s laws," the eight hour work week, and pay for time spent working. Or how the terrorized women and children in the embattled tent city dug a giant makeshift bunker pit beneath one of the larger tents to hide out from the bullets — only to have Colorado National Guardsmen douse the tents with kerosene and light them on fire while the miners’ families were sleeping, then shoot some of those who ran out, killing over a dozen children, scores of workers and their wives, and ending with the arrests of hundreds of miners.

In the end, anywhere from several dozen to 200 were left dead. We don’t know exactly — and there hasn’t been much effort on the part of our culture to find out. This "we don’t know the death toll" marks just about all of the many killings and massacres of labor organizers and strikers in the pre-New Deal era.

The same goes with the West Virginia mine wars: whether the massacre of tent city workers in 1913 by coal miner thugs firing from armored trains passing through the tent cities, or the Battle of Blair Mountain in 1921, when the company raised the largest private standing army in the US, and attacked strikers with gas shells fired from artillery and dropped from bombers. President Harding followed that up by sending in federal troops and the US Air Force led by Brig. General Billy Mitchell, and when it was over, the miners’ unionization drive was dead. Along with well over 100 workers and family members — again, the exact number is "in dispute" as they say.

The "Red Scare" of 1919-20 was aimed at breaking labor unions, and specifically at equating union security — the "closed shop" where unionized companies and factories could require all workers to pay dues to the unions since they all benefited from union contracts — with Bolshevism. In contrast stood the "open shop"—where union membership was merely a "choice" strongly discouraged by employers — with "Americanism." In fact that’s what they called "right to work" back then: the "American Plan."

The Palmer Raids of those years (where J. Edgar Hoover first distinguished himself) resulted in tens of thousands of Americans illegally rounded up, beaten, tortured, imprisoned without any due process, and deported by the thousands, citizens included. Big business coordinated their PR offensive with the Palmer Raids by labeling anti-union open shop laws "American Plan."

After the 1929 crash, that euphemism became associated in people’s minds with the brutal pre-New Deal culture. So corporate America went back to their PR flaks to brand "open shop" with a new, less toxic-sounding euphemism. The phrase they came up with was "right to work," as if they were actually empowering workers with "individual liberty" by going after their unions.

History shows us what’s at stake here, and how far big business was willing to go to keep "right to work" or "American Plan" the national standard. Big business in America regarded the rest of the population and its labor pool much the same way colonial powers viewed the local Natives — as inherently hostile, alien savages whose purpose was to enrich their masters, and who must not be given even the slightest concessions, such as child labor laws, lest it put ideas in their heads about "rights"...

It was in this atmosphere that the ACLU really began as a defender of labor rights, when the ACLU equated civil liberties and Constitutional liberties with union organizing rights. Contrast that with today’s ACLU, which supports Citizens United and corporate "free speech" in exchange for massive donations from tobacco firms and the Koch brothers, while focusing on high-profile culture war cases at the expense of labor.

By 1930, labor unions were practically dead, considered a relic of the past by the media and academic elites. The Great Depression changed all that, in part because unlike today, back then Americans had no food stamps, no unemployment insurance, no state pensions, and of course, no child labor laws and no labor protections to speak of — all the things labor unions are responsible for giving us today.

From the Ford Motors massacre in Michigan in 1932, which left four workers killed and up to 50 wounded — through the Chicago Memorial Day Massacre of striking Republic Steel workers in 1937, in which company thugs and cops killed 10 peaceful marchers nearly all of whom were shot in the back, and wounded 60 more, billyclubbing the wounded as they crouched in the dirt — America was a savage and violent place to work if you weren’t rich.

Hearings were held in the Senate, and the LaFollette Committee Report discovered that corporations not only operated armies of spies in the tens of thousands, but that "Republic Steel Corporation [responsible for the 1937 massacre] has a uniformed police force of nearly 400 men whom it was equipped not only with revolvers, rifles, and shotguns, but also with more tear and sickening gas and gas equipment than has been purchased...by any law-enforcement body, local, State or Federal in the country.  It has loosed its guards, thus armed, to shoot down citizens on the streets and highways," the Senate report observed.

That was the arsenal controlled by just a single steel company.

FDR leveled the workplace playing field some with the Wagner Act, for the first time making union security (closed shop) a reality. Labor union power and membership soared, as did wages and benefits; America suddenly had Social Security and unemployment insurance, child labor laws, a minimum wage, five day/40 hour work week, and within a few years, a powerful middle class.

To big business plutocrats, the New Deal labor laws represented a sort of political Holocaust that they never forgot or forgave. They lost their full spectrum political dominance over their workers and over the political and judicial direction of the country, and all that essentially because FDR brought to an end America’s "open shop" culture and empowered unions with "closed shop" union security.

But business vowed that one day it would have its revenge. And that revenge would be "right to work" laws.

A report I found dating back to 1962 by Group Research, Inc — one of those left-liberal outfits back in the days before the left was defunded — dated big business’ first use of this new "right to work" to 1935, when the Automobile Manufacturers’ Association lobbied against FDR’s pro-labor Wagner Act, telling the New York Times, "men have an inalienable right to work, free from coercion..."

That’s an interesting coincidence, because Mitt Romney’s dad, George Romney, owed his success to the Automobile Manufacturers’ Association, which hired him as a top lobbyist in 1939. It was from that job that Romney eventually took over his own Michigan automobile firm, AMC, took over Michigan as governor (where he oversaw the bloodiest inner city riots of 1967), told America he’d been brainwashed in Vietnam, denounced supporters of the Equal Rights Amendment as "moral perverts" and homosexuals, and yes, gifted the world with his vulture capitalist son, Willard M. Romney, or "Mitt The Impaled" as we call him here at the NSFWCORP headquarters.

But I digress. And there’s a reason I digress. Because I’ve been putting off introducing you to Vance Muse, the real brains behind the "right to work" movement that’s still plaguing Americans to this day.

Vance Muse was a racist political operative and lobbyist from the state of Texas — the native habitat for all America’s vermin —as Satanically vile as "Turd Blossom" Rove, a racist smear-peddler like Andrew Breitbart, only without Breitbart’s degenerate heart and fondness for blow.

Here is a description of Vance Muse, creator of the "right to work" movement, from a book by an old celebrated journalist, Stetson Kennedy, the reporter who famously went undercover inside the KKK and wrote a tell-all in the 40’s:

"The man Muse is quite a character. He is six foot four, wears a ten-gallon hat, but generally reserves his cowboy boots for trips Nawth. Now over fifty [this is published in 1946—M.A.], Muse has been professionally engaged in reactionary enterprises for more than a quarter of a century."

Among Vance Muse’s "reactionary enterprises": He lobbied against women’s suffrage, against the child-labor amendment, against the 8-hour workday, and in 1936, Muse engineered the first split in the South’s Democratic Party by peeling off the segregationists and racists from the New Deal party, a political maneuver that eventually led to Strom Thurmond, George Wallace, and at last a Republican right-wing takeover of the South, and with it, the collapse of the old New Deal coalition. Which worked out fine for Vance Muse, since he was a covert Republican himself, serving "for years" as the Republican Party state treasurer in Texas.

That first attempt at splitting the Democratic party by peeling away the Southern segregationist-fascists took place in 1936, when Georgia’s brutal white supremacist governor, Eugene Talmadge, organized a "grassroots" convention with Vance Muse’s help. To stir up anti-FDR and anti-New Deal hate in the South, Vance Muse used photographs he acquired showing First Lady Eleanor Roosevelt being escorted by two African-American professors at Howard University. Muse used that photo to stir up the white supremacists in Georgia, he leaked it to as many newspapers as he could, and he even brandished it around a Senate hearing he was called before in 1936. Those hearings revealed that the anti-FDR "convention" that Vance Muse put on, through his "Southern Committee to Uphold the Constitution"— which featured guests of honor like Gerald L K Smith, America’s leading anti-Semite and godfather to the modern American Nazi movement — was financed not only by Confederate sponsors like Texan Will Clayton, owner of the world’s largest cotton broker, but also reactionary northeast Republican money: the DuPont brothers, J. Howard Pew of Sun Oil, Alfred Sloan of General Motors... That unholy alliance of Northeastern and Confederate plutocrat money financed the first serious attempt at splitting the Southern Democrats off by exploiting white supremacism, all in order to break labor power and return to the world before the New Deal — and to the open shop.

Incidentally, Vance Muse’s northern donors — DuPont, Pew, Sloan — were the same core investors in (and board directors of) the first modern libertarian think-tanks of the 40s and 50s, including the Foundation for Economic Education. DuPont, Pew and Sloan funds also seeded the American careers of Ludwig von Mises, Friedrich von Hayek, Milton Friedman and Murray Rothbard, among others. In other words, Vance Muse’s funders built the first layer of the libertarian nomenklatura that Charles Koch later took control of — no surprise, since Koch outfits are credited with making the Michigan "right to work" law possible.

...Getting back to Vance Muse: In 1936, he incorporated in Texas another union-busting outfit called the "Christian American Association" which was closely associated with the Texas Ku Klux Klan as well as the American Legion, a far-right veterans’ group used to bust up unions and terrorize minorities and suspected Communists. It was this same Christian American Association which launched the "right to work" anti-union campaign using that very same euphemism.

Dartmouth professor Marc Dixon, writing in the Journal of Policy History, summed it up like this:

The modern Right-to-Work movement and political mobilization championing this slogan...was spearheaded by the Christian American Association out of Houston in the early 1940s.

Initially, Vance Muse set the association up to create a sort of fundamentalist Christian KKK outfit to undermine FDR’s 1936 election. In 1941, he saw an editorial in the Dallas Morning News calling for Texas to pass an open shop amendment called "Right-To Work" to its state constitution.

Dixon writes:

"After traveling to Dallas and consulting with the editor, Muse was encouraged to use and promote the idea of Right-to-Work. This became their [Christian American’s] primary cause and they campaigned extensively for Right-to-Work legislation throughout the country, and especially in Texas."

Vance Muse’s fellow traveler in Texas union-busting fascism was a local big business outfit called the "Fight for Free Enterprise" and together, the two of groups passed laws outlawing picketing by striking workers and making it easy for anyone to accuse picketing workers of inciting violence, open shop "Right-to-Work" laws, and they even pushed for a Nazi-like law that would force union organizers to wear "identifying head gear (red for the CIO and gray for the AFL)."

Even as millions of Americans were fighting fascism overseas, Vance Muse in his ten-gallon hat bragged to his Confederate plutocrats about the passage of Texas’ anti-picketing bill, saying it would "keep the color line drawn in our social affairs."  In 1944, he told the Houston Post that so-called "Eleanor Clubs," named in honor of the First Lady, were a "RED RADICAL scheme to organize negro maids, cooks and nurses in order to have a Communist informer in every Southern home."

Muse’s sister and partner in Christian American, Ida Darden, agreed with her brother, telling the Antioch Review she worried that the Eleanor Clubs...

...stood for "$15 a week salary for all nigger house help, Sundays off, no washing, and no cleaning upstairs." As an afterthought, she added,"My nigger maid wouldn’t dare sit down in the same room with me unless she sat on the floor at my feet!"

Allowing herself to go still further, the little lady went on to say, "Christian Americans can’t afford to be anti-Semitic, but we know where we stand on the Jews, all right. It doesn’t pay us to work with Winrod, Smith, Coughlin, and those others up North; they’re too outspoken and would get us into trouble...You’d be surprised how many important corporations support our work."
Southern Exposure, Stetson Kennedy

Indeed. That, again, from the sister and partner in the outfit that created the modern Right-To-Work movement which, decades later, just steamrolled over Michigan.

A March 10, 1945 article in the Sunday Morning Star in Delaware reported on Vance Muse’s outfit, as its first "Right-To-Work" successes started to get national attention:

"Union groups throughout the country are asking [for] an investigation of the Christian American Association which has been pushing anti-labor bills in many state legislators. Anti-Semitic and anti-Catholic literature has also been attributed to the Christian Americans."

In fact, their anti-Catholic literature was so strident that they were all but chased out of Louisiana.

But in Texas it worked: That year, 1945, Vance Muse’s Christian American Association successfully lobbied for Texas’ "Right-To-Work" law thanks to a brilliant smear campaign run by Muse himself: He arranged for a woman called Ruth Koenig, who claimed to be the head of an alleged Texas Communist Party, to testify before the Texas legislature on the Right-to-Work law. Naturally the Communist testified against the law – and thanks to that testimony Muse’s Christian American Association was able to label any Texas lawmaker opposed to Right-to-Work as a Communist. Flyers were printed up warning state residents about "Communists in the Legislature," listing their names, linking them to Koenig with the header: "Where She Leads Us, We Will Follow."

Until that day, Texas was on its way to becoming a strong union state, according to Dartmouth’s Prof. Dixon, outpacing other states in the South thanks largely to successful organizing by the CIO.  After passage of the Right-to-Work law...well, look at Texas today. It’s libertarian Hell, Koch Industries paradise, home to Ron Paul and Rick Perry. Just how they like it.

The transition to our time has been seamless. Charles Koch’s father, Fred Koch, made his name in right-wing politics as one of the leaders of the Kansas Right-to-Work movement. The fight in Kansas was more bitter and protracted than in Texas — Kansas had a strong tradition of populism and farmer socialism — but in 1958, they succeeded and the law passed. That same year, Fred Koch co-founded the crypto-fascist John Birch Society with eleven other industrialists, the most powerful grassroots libertarian outfit of the postwar era until his son Charles raised libertarianism to an entirely new level.

Among other things, the John Birch Society taught that President Eisenhower was a conscious active Communist agent taking orders from Moscow; that the Civil Rights movement was a Communist conspiracy and Martin Luther King took direct orders from Moscow; and that the world was controlled by a group of conspiratorial insiders known as the Illuminati; and that America is "a republic, not a democracy."

Politically, its goal was the same as Vance Muse’s: reversing "the whole new-deal march toward state socialism" and expunging "the disease of collectivism," in the words of Bircher leader Robert Welch. In other words: union-busting, stripping government benefits and eliminating taxes on the rich. (To understand why Fred Koch and the Bircher libertarians hated Ike so much, imagine today a Republican like Eisenhower who raised the top marginal tax rate to 91%, who poured massive government investments into building roads and schools, who publicly declared his support for Social Security and denounced any Republican who opposed it — you get the point.)

The founder of the National Right To Work Committee in the mid-1950s, Reed Larson, came from Fred and Charles Koch’s base in Wichita, Kansas — headquarters of Koch Industries. Fred Koch teamed up with Reed Larson to pass Kansas’ Right-to-Work law, and Reed Larson’s "National Right to Work Committee" intertwined itself with Fred Koch’s John Birch Society.

And that sordid history of Right-to-Work, that seamless historical thread running straight out of Vance Muse’s putrid little brain right through all of the shock and misery on display in Lansing, Michigan today — that’s what’s the matter with Kansas. Dorothy’s wrong, folks: we’re all stuck in Kansas, and no one’s safe, no matter which state you live in.

Saturday, October 6, 2012

Ames: George Romney reveals Mitt's real beliefs on equal rights

Mitt Romney's dad's real political beliefs are important because, as the Birthers and Dinesh D'Souza have taught us, children always grow up to hold their parents' political beliefs.  So here's what George Romney believed:

In 1979 and 1980, at the height of the battle to ratify the Equal Rights Amendment, Mitt Romney’s father, former Gov. George Romney—the supposedly “liberal” “cool” Republican who was destroyed by Nixon’s dirty tricks—publicly denounced supporters of the Equal Rights Amendment as  “moral perverts,” labeling the movement a homosexual conspiracy to destroy the American family.

[...] In 1979-80, just before Ronald Reagan was elected president, ratification of the Equal Rights Amendment to the Constitution was all but assured. But thanks to an intense and well-organized campaign waged by the Mormon Church leadership, the ERA was stopped in its tracks in Utah and a handful of other states where Mormon influence could make the difference.

Here's how the AP quoted George Romney in 1979:  “At an international women’s year meeting, lesbians and the homosexuals and moral perverts (cited) this amendment as a means of eliminating any basis of moral criticism.”

That's what Mitt's dad believed, ergo that's what Mitt really believes, no matter what he says to the contrary.  So now we know that Mitt Romney opposes equal rights for women.  And of course we already know that  Mitt hates gays.

Those are just facts, folks.  Just like we know for a fact that President Obama is an "anti-colonialist" who wants to transfer America's wealth to Africa.

Sunday, November 27, 2011

Ames reveals amazing UC Davis-Greece connection

Mark Ames is on a roll. Lately he's been digging up some unbelievable connections -- and not the "six degrees of separation" kind of connections on GB's lunatic chalk board either.

This is too amazing not to read.


By Mark Ames
November 22, 2011 | The Exiled


Ames: CATO, Reagan said 'Deficits don't matter'

Everybody gets duped once in a while. Hell, I voted for Obama, thinking I was getting a real anti-war progressive. Alas, I got duped. Obama is in fact a moderate Republican... or what used to be called a moderate Republican until about 10 years ago.

What matters is how you react when you're finally faced with the truth: Do you double down on your delusion, go permanently schizo with cognitive dissonance, or do you face up to it and admit you were fooled?

This article is full of quotes that should bring on that moment of truth for you slash-the-debt/tea-party types.

Let me know which way you go.


By Mark Ames
November 21, 2011 | The Exiled

Wednesday, October 12, 2011

Koch lured libertarian Prof. Hayek to U.S. with Social Security!

Levine and Ames conclude their scoop on the Koch's and Hayek's hypocrisy thusly:

"Why didn't Charles Koch offer to put up some of his enormous wealth to pay for Hayek's temporary medical insurance? One obvious answer: because the state had already offered a better and freer program. But perhaps Koch's stinginess also reveals the social ethic behind libertarian values: every man for himself; selfishness is a virtue."


By Yasha Levine and Mark Ames
September 27, 2011 | The Nation

Tuesday, January 25, 2011

Ames: Jaded Russians hardly shaken by terror act

Compared to most of Russia's bloody and brutal 20th century, the last decade of so of Chechen terrorism in Russia has been a relatively peaceful period! Meanwhile, 10 years on, 9/11 still has us Americans frightened and on edge. Everything is relative, sure.

Nevertheless, a revival of our old-fashioned Western frontier stoicism might not be a bad thing.


By Mark Ames
January 24, 2011 | Vanity Fair

It takes a lot to terrorize a Russian. Compared to the truly spectacular acts of terrorism and violence that Russians have suffered over the past two decades, today's suicide bombing at Moscow's busiest airport, Domodedovo, is too small-time to have much of an effect besides pissing off an already-pissed-off population.

Back in 2004, two passenger jets that took off from this same airport were blown out of the sky by Chechen "black widows"—Chechen women widowed by the brutal war with Russia, and turned into suicide bombers. Shortly after that double-Lockerbie airplane bombing, opposition leader Eduard Limonov explained to me what he thought was behind the logic: "They understood that Russians wouldn't be moved if only one plane was blown up, so they blew up two planes simultaneously, just to get our attention," he said. Limonov used to write about Russian hard-heartedness, the result of their brutal experience with Communism, followed by the nihilistic Yeltsin Era, when the average male's life expectancy plunged from 68 years to just 56, in a free-market Babylon of corruption, plunder, and violence.

At a Moscow rock festival in 2003, two Chechen suicide bombers blew themselves up at the gated entrance, killing more than a dozen people and wounding scores more. Nevertheless, the 40,000 concert-goers were neither frightened nor particularly bothered; the festival went on for another six hours of vodka-and-beer-soaked revelry. Previous bombings of the Moscow metro, buses, and airlines have had no effect on public transport usage or travel. When suicide bombers attacked the popular Egyptian resort at Sharm-el-Sheikh in the summer of 2005, killing 88, most Europeans panicked and canceled their trips to the resort area—but not Russians.

Several years ago, Limonov—Russia's most famous living writer and leader of the anti-Putin opposition with Garry Kasparov—wrote a column for my defunct Moscow newspaper, The eXile, about how desensitized Russians have become:
Russians have a healthy attitude towards literature. As barbarians they expect it to shake them, to shock them, to thrill them. As Lolita didn't shock them, they throw it away with a deep contempt. The fact is that Russians are very insensitive people, with a low level of sensitivity. In order to move, to touch them, one must hurt their sensitivity, to wound their stone-made Russian souls. That is the task not for literature, but for mass-murderers, for the rapists of children, for the civil war, for the Hitler's invasion. Russians were not moved by "White House" massacre of 1993, they were not touched by [Chechen guerrilla leader] Basayev's assault on Budyonnovsk in 1995. Mass-murderer Andrei Chikatilo have winned their interest, yes, indeed Russian punk band call itself "Chikatilo Blues." But Russians were not moved at all by old-fashioned seduction of intellectual Humbert Humbert by teenager Lolita, as it is no shock for them, no big deal.
Russian news sites are already reporting stories about how the notorious taxi mafia at Domodedovo is taking advantage of the chaos by charging as much as 20,000 rubles, or nearly $700, for the ride into the city center. In the immediate aftermath, the airport's incoming passengers weren't told about the bombing, and were led to another part of the airport to get their bags, unaware that they were walking through the scene of a gruesome terror act. Online bloggers and commentators are already complaining about airport corruption and lack of security, how the suicide bomber was allowed to walk into the "green zone" in the baggage claim area to maximize his kill count.

In 2004 at the same airport, it took only $200 in bribes to get the two Chechen suicide bombers onto the two airlines which they destroyed in mid-air.

As appalling as it might seem, let's remember what America's far more sentimental reaction to 9/11 got us: two disastrous wars, tens of thousands of deaths, and the sorts of police-state measures once thought unimaginable. The difference may be more in our sentimentality than in our brutality.

Sunday, October 31, 2010

Jon Stewart's rally bad for America, liberal activism

Just in case some of you think I take my marching orders from Jon Stewart, here are two very strong criticisms of his silly Rally to Restore Sanity yesterday.

First, mean-spirited, angry liberal journalist Mark Ames, who attended the rally for a short while before he had to bail, argued that the rally is emblematic of his generation's prime directives to 1) never risk looking stupid, no matter what is at stake, and 2) always preserve one's ironic detachment from events, even from oneself. That kind of cool pose is great and everything at parties, but not when the general welfare of the nation is at stake. Concluded Ames:

You see, this is why so many cool Gen-Xers and Gen-Yers were so jazzed up about going to the Stewart rally – by definition, they were guaranteed not to look stupid by going to it, because it's not really a rally. They're not putting anything on the line. They're just going to chant the equivalent of that annoying Saturday Night Live Update skit 'Really?' No generation ever looked so cool so late in their lives as my generation. We did it! We achieved our dream! We don't look as stupid as the hippies did when they were in their 40s! Woo-hoo! We still mock ourselves and we're still self-aware, but best of all, we don't look stupid by devoting ourselves to ideas or movements that other people might one day laugh at. We won! We won the least-stupid-looking-generation competition! Let's gather together in an ironic, self-aware way, and celebrate how we're not really rallying or laying anything on the line–not even now, not even when the whole fucking country is collapsing. What's our prize, Don?
Meanwhile, behind Door Number 1, the country is in two losing wars and the worst economic crisis in 80 years, behind Door Number 2, over 40 million Americans are on fucking food stamps, behind Door Number 3, millions are being land-transfered out of their property like landless peasants in a banana republic–yeah, it's bad, whatever dude, it's always been bad, nothing ever changes much, don't have a cow, deal with it….

Second, founder of the anti-war group CODEPINK, Medea Benjamin, made a similar although more focused criticism prior to the event, saying Stewart's "slacktivism" celebrates those people who are too "sane" to rally against insane wars, Wall Street bailouts, and other unjust government policies. She also noted how Stewart's Daily Show spent two hours taping her, along with an anarchist and a teabagger, lumping them all together as protesting nutjobs. As if any loud and angry protest by definition is crazy. She concluded:

So let's celebrate the people who walk the talk. Slacktivism did not end slavery, activism did. Slacktivism did not get women our rights. Activism did. Slacktivism won't end war or global warming. But activism just might.

I've said it before: my generation's children and grandchildren are not going to be proud of us because we were so cool and avoided saying stupid things; they're going to blame us for sitting on the sidelines in ironical detachment while our country went to shit. If we don't stand up and stand for something -- and that something should be liberal-progressive ideals which have saved us in the past and can do so again -- then we are irrelevant.

That said, Jon Stewart is funny. That's his job. It's not his job to organize and lead us. We are not like those atomized zombies of the Right looking for a TV preacher like Glenn Beck to tell us where to gather and what to say and do.

Sunday, February 28, 2010

Ames: Polite libs like Krugman don't get it: Repubs like being Mean and Deceived

Judging by the great number of outright hoaxes aimed at Obama, Democrats, and liberals that are forwarded every week to my Inbox with a scarily long list of prior recipients, hoaxes which are easily debunked by Snopes, PolitiFact, UrbanLegends, TruthorFiction and other sites, I can only conclude that U.S. conservatives are unusually mean and want to be lied to.

Ames is right: debate and logical argument don't really matter. Conservatives want to live in their mean-spirited bizarro rabbitt hole; they just scream, kick you in the face, and burrow in deeper when you grab their ankles and try to pull them out of there.


By Mark Ames
February 27, 2010 | The Exiled

Saturday, February 27, 2010

Ames: Ayn Rand's crush on 1920's serial killer

Jeez, I didn't know Ayn Rand was this messed up.

I admit it, in my stupider adolescence I was an Ayn Rand fan... for a feverish few months. Pretty soon though I realized that only children with absolutely no idea what human beings were really like could write, or love, her novels. In Rand's universe, the only ill-gotten wealth was government tax revenue. All priests were deceiving hucksters. All rich people liked each other and got along because they recognized their fellow Supermen. There was one fascist standard of true art, (which Objectivist Supermen would immediately recognize), and everything else was trash. Family and friends were parasites distracting the capitalist gods from realizing their all-important productive work. Rape was sometimes OK. And "true" love could only result from an "objective" assessment of the paramour's productive value.

Her philosophy was just as cold, materialistic, fascistic, and anti-democratic as that of the Soviet Union which she escaped as a little girl. Only she turned Marx around by worshipping the capitalists and hating the proletariat. Both of these ideological extremes were absurd, wrong, and deadly when put in practice.

So it's amazing when you think that leading figures like Alan Greenspan and Clarence Thomas are Ayn Rand fans, because you realize that they must really hate and despise the America in which they find themselves, the government that pays them, and most of their fellow citizens. Ayn Rand would have found most of you literally disgusting and immoral.


Ayn Rand, Hugely Popular Author and Inspiration to Right-Wing Leaders, Was a Big Admirer of Serial Killer

Today her works treated as gospel by right-wing powerhouses like Alan Greenspan and Clarence Thomas, but Ayn Rand found early inspiration in 1920's murderer William Hickman.

By Mark Ames
February 26, 2010 | AlterNet

URL: http://www.alternet.org/story/145819/?page=entire

Friday, February 12, 2010

Ames: America's persistent problem is too much democracy

You may not like Ames but he is devastating. You teabaggers ignore him at your own moral peril. The GOP "braintrust" is anti-democratic at its core, just like our Founding Fathers were: Their greatest fear wasn't British tyranny, it was "mobocracy" by the unpropertied uncouth underclass. As the self-proclaimed true inheritors of our founding traditions, elitist Republicans hate democracy and majority rule.

Check it out, you beigists!

"What about the $23 trillion Republican bailouts? Well, again, we're too stupid to understand. The thing is, those bailouts had to be done their way in order to save us from the Road to Serfdom. It's hard to explain, but basically, the anti-government conservatives in the Bush Machine saved us from that Road to Serfdom by turning us into serfs. You see, all along it was the Road that they warned us about, not serfdom — that road is really treacherous, and government funded, and just a bad place to be. We weren't rational or strong enough to wean ourselves off of big government. So they saved us with their tough love, and stole the $23 trillion bailout for themselves before we could get our hands on it — which no doubt we would have done. In their hands, that $23 trillion debt makes us serfs, which is not as bad as the other alternative: we take the $23 trillion ourselves, leading us down the road to serfdom. Confused? If we were capable of studying economics, we'd understand the scientific logic of this reasoning."

And here's what Ames has to say about Tom Tancredo, keynote speaker at the Tea Party Patriots convention, who alongside Sarah Palin dvocated a return to Jim-Crow era voter literacy tests:

"*Note: In 1969, when Tancredo was finishing his four-year stint as pro-war College Republican campus activist, he received a note in the mail from the Draft Board calling him up for duty in Vietnam — so the wobbly-kneed invertebrate ran screaming and crying to the draft board appealing for an exemption from the very same war told everyone else to die in. After making a total abject ass of himself squirting into his underwear before the draft board, they finally gave in and handed Tancredo the yellow-striped coward's exemption he begged for — ruling him mentally unfit for duty due to "anxiety bouts" and "panic attacks." It was the only government job he ever turned down — he believed that "sacrifice" meant sacrificing other people's money and lives, not his own. After squirming out of the war, Tancredo spent the rest of his life sucking on the taxpayer teat, first as a junior high school teacher, then a state legislator, then a Department of Education federal employee (where he spent most of his time firing his colleagues), then Congressman, and finally, a Republican Party foundation-welfare queen."

Just like Cheney, Limbaugh, Dubya -- all of them actively avoided combat, although they're perfectly fine with "projecting American power" in every godforsaken desert and primitive sh**holte on Earth from the comfy environs of power.


Royal Tea Party Rebels: The Heroic Billionaires' Struggle To Overthrow The Tyranny Of Democracy
By Mark Ames
February 12, 2010 The Exiled

URL: http://exiledonline.com/royal-tea-partiers-the-heroic-billionaires-struggle-to-overthrow-the-tyranny-of-democracy/#more-17899

Friday, January 15, 2010

Ames: Obama & Geithner 2 of a kind?

Even if you don't agree with Ames' slant, this is insightful background info on two slippery, spineless people, Obama and Geithner, whose lives have curiously overlapped.


Are Obama And Geithner The Twins From Hell?
By Mark Ames
January 15, 2010 | Exiledonline

URL: http://exiledonline.com/are-obama-and-geithner-the-twins-from-hell/

Saturday, November 7, 2009

Ft. Hood massacre: Different but the same

As usual, Going Postal author Mark Ames is the authority on post-shooting-massacre reportage (see below), although many facts are still sketchy. Predictably, right-wingers are latching onto the facts that the shooter, Major Nasan, was Muslim and didn't want to be deployed to Iraq or Afghanistan, as if these two facts should have been obvious tipoffs to the military to throw Hasan in the brig, intern him at G'itmo, or Lord knows what.

UPDATE (Nov. 10, 2009): There are a lot of reports coming out now about Hasan's connections to Islamists and sympathy for terrorists, but the facts are still sketchy. We also don't know the extent to which the CIA was already aware of Hasan's rhetoric and connections.

But I think other facts of this massacre are more interesting. Apparently, using two handguns, Hasan managed to shoot over 40 soldiers on a military base before two civilian police officers took him down (one a "tough woman" cop no less!). I find that amazing. It's an argument for gun control staring us in the face. Indeed, who should be better trained and equipped to react to a shooting massacre than our nation's soldiers? (On the flip side, who is better trained to kill efficiently?) And yet, it seems, these soldiers were caught by surprise and unable to stop Hasan from killing 13 people and wounding another 38 in a span of 5 minutes. In fact, this mass shooting seems identical to most other school and workplace shootings: people screaming, confused, taking cover anywhere they can, and then the police arriving on the scene either to kill the shooter or find his suicided corpse.

UPDATE (Nov. 13, 2009): It now seems, a la Jessica Lynch, that early reports of a heroic woman cop were overblown. One witness reports all she did was get shot and fall down, and it was a black policeman who "neutralized and secured" Hasan. The black policeman said as much.

Yeah, I'm gonna catch flak for even implying that our soliders are not flawless supermen, but relax. I think the whole thing is entirely explainable: they were on their base, the place where they probably felt safest on Earth; and many of them probably recognized Hasan, or were perhaps even treated by him. What's atypical in this case is that the victims found nothing inherently alarming or scary about seeing someone with a gun -- which was actually to their detriment. Contrast this with a student in his familiar desk at school, or an office clerk in his cubicle: the last place either would expect anything dangerous or out-of-the-ordinary to happen. In the few seconds it takes for the brain to process what is happening -- "hey, isn't that so-and-so, the guy who... hey, is that a gun? no, couldn't be, he's so quiet and I heard that ... oh no! he's pointing it at me and he looks strange, run!..." -- the victim has already been shot, perhaps fatally. The two situations -- military base vs. school or office -- aren't that different after all. Familiarity breeds complacency.

Remember, this all happened in 5 minutes with a few non-military-issue handguns, not M-16s or anything you wouldn't find in anyplace in the USA. Indeed, Hasan's expertise with semi-automatic weapons -- which must have required re-loading, think about that -- meant he could score a higher body count -- another argument for everybody's being an expert with firearms.

I suppose the "More Guns Make Us Safer" crowd will advocate our military's carrying handguns with them at all times while on base, in order to end future shooting rampages more quickly. However, I expect our non-political, no-nonsense U.S. Military will have none of it. Or perhaps they'll caution us all to be vigilant at all times to shooting massacres, but it's just not humanly possible to be always on high alert, even for the world's best professional soldiers.

As usual, reasonable, rational people see one uniting factor in all these massacres, and hence come to one inescapable conclusion: easy access to an abundance of firearms is the problem. So what are we going to do about it? As usual, nothing. Apparently, we hate ourselves, each other, and our country so much that we wish literal "Death to America!"


Fort Hood Massacre: A Brief History of American Violence
By Mark Ames
November 6, 2009 | The Exiled

URL: http://exiledonline.com/fort-hood-massacre-a-brief-history-of-american-violence/

Saturday, October 24, 2009

Ames: Posse Comitatus violated after murder rampage

If you're a gun/militia nut, chances are you know what the Posse Comitatus Act is, and what violating it means: every right-winger's worst nightmare (or the best day of his life, depending on how nutty and eager he is to fight).

It's the rest of this article that interests me more, since I lived in Alabama, and since I sympathize with exploited workers, not with rich managers who bankrupt companies and whole counties yet manage to retain their $ millions. But probably gun/militia nuts won't give a s*** about that part.


By Mark Ames
October 24, 2009 AlterNet

Thursday, October 1, 2009

Ames: Newsmax blog advocated treason until lefty blogs called them out

Here's a new rule: rightwing pundits and bloggers shouldn't be allowed to declare their (almost sexual) love of our nation's military -- a love which they assume gives them special claim to speak for the best interests of our military, and our nation -- unless they have done an actual combat tour in 'Nam, Iraq, or Afghanistan.

Simple rule, right? And yet how many writers would disappear from view forever if it were followed?

They're all pencil-necked geeks, flabby wannabes, and chickenhawks who have read too many Tom Clancy novels and not enough history books. They don't know the first thing. Oh, but they think they do. Because the LOVE our armed forces. Gimme a break.

Know what our generals are really good at? Doing what they're told. That's what they're educated and trained to do; and the ones who do it the best with the snappiest "Yessir!" rise up the ranks the fastest. Our generals have no special insights into politics or the human condition, and certainly no special gift for governing. Our top military brass are there because they are the best political chameleons and career climbers, able to shift and wiggle their way up the ranks through successive Democratic-Republican administrations.

I'll tell you another secret: our military works because civilian prick politicians who smoked dope, snorted coke and never fired a gun at anybody, like Clinton and Dubya, get to tell it what to do. They don't need the military's approval. They (and by extension, we) tell it whom to fight, and the military gets to tell us how many things they can blow up, how many people they can kill, when, and with how many resources. Now that's service. And the USA pioneered it. That's what we should be proud of.

Our only job is to avoid sending them into impossible missions that they can't possibly execute, like Iraq and Afghanistan. Such situations require civilians with independent minds, because, per secret #1, generals are always going to tell their commander-in-chief that they can get the job done, if only they are given the right resources. Unfortunately, the general who says to his president, "Sir, we can't do that," probably won't be reporting to that president much longer. To be sure, successful U.S. presidents should recognize that they're surrounded by sycophantic yes-men, whether they are appointed bureaucrats or career soldiers. They need to exercise common sense, and know a little history and geography -- or at least have advisers who do. But when all their advisers are like, "We love the generals, the generals are rock stars, they say we can win it!" then the President (and by extension, America) is in deep trouble. Exhibits A and B: Iraq and Afghanistan.


By Mark Ames
September 30, 2009 | Exiledonline.com



shaggy-scared

Zoinks! I think I heard a liberal blogger!

This is just like America's rightwing pussies: all bluster and no fight. When no one's looking, they're screaming crazy treasonous shit like they're badass revolutionaries, but at the first whiff of liberal-blogger criticism, they're fleeing with their tails between their legs.

Yesterday, on a rightwing webzine site called Newsmax, one of their columnists called for the US military to overthrow President Obama, in order to "resolve the 'Obama Problem.'" The column, headlined "Obama Risks a Military 'Intervention,'" laid out a nerdoid fantasy-scenario in which the U.S. military ousts Obama, and the junta rules America for an interim period to "restore" the Constitution:

Imagine a bloodless coup to restore and defend the Constitution through an interim administration that would do the serious business of governing and defending the nation. Skilled, military-trained, nation-builders would replace accountability-challenged, radical-left commissars. Having bonded with his twin teleprompters, the president would be detailed for ceremonial speech-making.

You can almost smell author John L. [for "Loser"] Perry's urine-scented basement bedroom and sticky underwear wafting up from each word of his waffentwerp fantasy column.

In the great tradition of waffentwerp loudmouths like Perry, as soon as a few liberals started to blog his article, the yeasty pussies at Newsmax screamed "RETREAT!" and pulled the article down, and used the ol' grammar school excuse of "I've never even seen this guy in my life!" claiming that Perry isn't even on Newsmax's payroll. Translation: WE'RE TOO AFRAID TO STAND BEHIND OUR YAPPING POODLES.

It's like the screaming loudmouth jerk who makes a lot of noise about "I'll kick yer fuckin ass man!" but then when the other guy finally gets tired of it and starts to lift himself from his barstool, the loudmouth flees like Snagglepus, exit stage left, even. Fucking pathetic.

I'll write more about this soon, but a couple of points to note:

1. I've been following the angry-rightwing's obsession over the military coup in Honduras which overthrew the democratically-elected leftwing president, Manuel Zelaya. If you've watched how the rightwingers have framed that coup, it's been clear that they see it as both a proxy-coup for the battle they believe is unfolding in America, and a blueprint for how to get rid of Obama.

2. Since the John Loser Perrys of America are truly such big gigantic pussies that they can't feel safe without guns, it's time some of us who don't want to be part of John Loser Perry's twerp fantasy to brush up on our marksmanship skills at the local shooting range too.

And now, just to make sure that this article is posted in as many places as possible, I give you the mighty John L. Perry's coup blueprint:


Obama Risks a Domestic Military 'Intervention'

There is a remote, although gaining, possibility America's military will intervene as a last resort to resolve the "Obama problem." Don't dismiss it as unrealistic.

America isn't the Third World. If a military coup does occur here it will be civilized. That it has never happened doesn't mean it wont. Describing what may be afoot is not to advocate it. So, view the following through military eyes:

  • Officers swear to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic." Unlike enlisted personnel, they do not swear to "obey the orders of the president of the United States."
  • Top military officers can see the Constitution they are sworn to defend being trampled as American institutions and enterprises are nationalized.
  • They can see that Americans are increasingly alarmed that this nation, under President Barack Obama, may not even be recognizable as America by the 2012 election, in which he will surely seek continuation in office.
  • They can see that the economy — ravaged by deficits, taxes, unemployment, and impending inflation — is financially reliant on foreign lender governments.
  • They can see this president waging undeclared war on the intelligence community, without whose rigorous and independent functions the armed services are rendered blind in an ever-more hostile world overseas and at home.
  • They can see the dismantling of defenses against missiles targeted at this nation by avowed enemies, even as America's troop strength is allowed to sag.
  • They can see the horror of major warfare erupting simultaneously in two, and possibly three, far-flung theaters before America can react in time.
  • They can see the nation's safety and their own military establishments and honor placed in jeopardy as never before.So, if you are one of those observant military professionals, what do you do?Wait until this president bungles into losing the war in Afghanistan, and Pakistan's arsenal of nuclear bombs falls into the hands of militant Islam?Wait until Israel is forced to launch air strikes on Iran's nuclear-bomb plants, and the Middle East explodes, destabilizing or subjugating the Free World?What happens if the generals Obama sent to win the Afghan war are told by this president (who now says, "I'm not interested in victory") that they will be denied troops they must have to win? Do they follow orders they cannot carry out, consistent with their oath of duty? Do they resign en masse?

    Or do they soldier on, hoping the 2010 congressional elections will reverse the situation? Do they dare gamble the national survival on such political whims?

    Anyone who imagines that those thoughts are not weighing heavily on the intellect and conscience of America's military leadership is lost in a fool's fog.

    Will the day come when patriotic general and flag officers sit down with the president, or with those who control him, and work out the national equivalent of a "family intervention," with some form of limited, shared responsibility?

    Imagine a bloodless coup to restore and defend the Constitution through an interim administration that would do the serious business of governing and defending the nation. Skilled, military-trained, nation-builders would replace accountability-challenged, radical-left commissars. Having bonded with his twin teleprompters, the president would be detailed for ceremonial speech-making.

    Military intervention is what Obama's exponentially accelerating agenda for "fundamental change" toward a Marxist state is inviting upon America. A coup is not an ideal option, but Obama's radical ideal is not acceptable or reversible.

    Unthinkable? Then think up an alternative, non-violent solution to the Obama problem. Just don't shrug and say, "We can always worry about that later."

    In the 2008 election, that was the wistful, self-indulgent, indifferent reliance on abnegation of personal responsibility that has sunk the nation into this morass.

    John L. Perry, a prize-winning newspaper editor and writer who served on White House staffs of two presidents, is a regular columnist for Newsmax.com. Read John Perry's columns here.