Trump Is A Useful Idiot Who Can Be Manipulated By Stroking His Ego (How The Institutional Right Manages Trump To Further Their Goals)

A useful idiot is someone who supports one side of an ideological debate, but who is manipulated and held in contempt by the leaders of their faction... (Excerpt from the Rationalwiki).
After the passage of the recent tax legislation (a Dickensian horror that will exacerbate inequality as it funnels wealth upward), Congressional Republicans got together with their Fuhrer. It was this disgusting orgy of verbal fellatio that made it clear to me that the Republicans have developed a strategy to manage their puppet.

"No puppet, no puppet" Trump declared prior to the election, during one of the three debates in which Hillary Clinton DESTROYED him. Yet, despite losing all three debates, the Putin puppet ascended to the White House. And the degree to which the election was manipulated by Putin (in order to install his puppet) was further revealed.

Which brings me back to the passage of Trump's bogus "tax cuts and jobs" legislation (which was sold as relief for the so-called "forgotten man", but is aimed squarely at our oligarchs. And will also NOT create jobs, given the FACT that trickle down economics is a total sham). Following the Republican legislative victory the GOP decided a gang bang of praise was in order. So each Congressperson took a turn pleasuring the moron who would be signing their Randian tax code rewrite.

This legislation, btw, is likely what Paul Ryan has dreamt of since he was a young boy (who read Ayn Rand under the sheets while masturbating). It surely is NOT what Trump promised during his campaign. Not that he ever had any intention of following through with any of his campaign promises. He lied, of course. Although, in his mind, I'm positive it was just "campaign rhetoric" designed to get him what he wanted (the adulation of the crowd, votes and the presidency).

Now it seems as though institutional Republicans have finally realized (long after Putin did) that Trump can be easily manipulated by heaping outlandish praise on him. A gang bang, for the record, "is a situation in which several people engage in physical sexual activity with one particular individual sequentially or at the same time. The person is the central focus of the sexual activity".

In the video below Senator Orrin Hatch takes his turn in the sequential gang bang by verbally stimulating the engorged ego of BLOTUS (2:33).



Given how OVER THE TOP Hatch's praise is, it is CLEAR to me that he is bullshitting. And spreading the bovine excrement on THICK. Although with Trump (a man with an incredibly fragile ego who lives for praise) it works. Disgusting, but necessary if your goal is to pass legislation that benefits (almost exclusively) the oligarchs. For the most part the American people aren't buying it (why public opinion of the legislation is so low).

"We're going to make this the greatest presidency that we've seen, not only in generations, but maybe ever", Hatch promised. By which he means (I'm convinced) that FINALLY, with Trump as their useful (bill and Executive Order signing) idiot, the Republican dream of bringing FULL oligarchy to the US can finally be brought to fruition (a second Gilded Age).

Below is an ad put out by America First Policies after passage of the GOP's tax theft legislation (0:33).



America First Policies was "founded by a group of Trump loyalists -- many of them with deep connections to VP Pence" according to Wikipedia. Trump sycophants and butt-lickers, or the "ministry of propaganda" as per one YouTube commenter. Propaganda? Absolutely. One actor in the commercial (a little girl at the end) says "Thank you president Trump for letting us say Merry Christmas again". A claim we all know is utter rubbish because nobody was preventing people from saying "Merry Christmas" during the Obama presidency.

"Everyday Americans are standing up to thank president Trump" the video narrator claims. A actor (portraying a blue collar worker) thanks Trump for "cutting my taxes". Another says "thank you for fixing the economy". Fixing the economy? This is the Obama economy. Obama fixed the mess left behind by the former President Doofus. Obama is who we should be thanking, not this idiot. Trump's tax cuts for the wealthy will have the same effect that the tax cuts for the wealthy (that were passed under the Doofus Administration) had.

I expect a Wall Street bubble. Share prices will increase after CEOs use their corporation's tax cuts to buy back shares (NOT hire people/give raises), followed by a recession. This is what is predicted by Economic historian Robert McElvaine, "a leading expert on the Great Depression". The recession could be "severe" and "catastrophic".

But (before that happens) Wall Street is going to go bananas. Which will give Republican voters a false impression that "tax reform" is working. And might help Republicans in the midterms. That is, I believe, their gamble, at least. Lock in their oligarch-favoring agenda NOW, then leave it to a Democratic president to deal with the mess (note that Obama never got rid of the bush tax cuts).

The Trump Administration (and the GOP under his "leadership") will cause GREAT human suffering, then blame the next (Democratic) president when it all comes crashing down. As is their MO (Clinton cleaning up Reagan/GHWB's mess and Obama having to deal with gwb's tax cut bubble which burst following a real estate bubble).

In the meantime we'll continue to see continued undignified/repulsive brown-nosing by the oligarchs (via their SuperPacs/other disinformation vehicles) and their bought-and-paid-for institutional Republican stooges (as well as the purging of "RINOS" like Flake, trumpers eagerly awaiting the death of John McCain, etc). And propaganda like the America First "Alternative Facts/Thank you Dear Leader" ego-stroking advert above. Barf!

 swtd-398 

My Message From A Damned Ayn Rand, Delivered After She Emerged Burning From The Lake Of Fire

Don't you understand that when this life is finished, you're not there to say "Oh how terrible that I'm a corpse". What I've always thought is a sentence from a Greek philosopher, I don't remember, unfortunately, who it was, that I read at 16, and it's affected me all my life. "I will not die. It's the world that will end" -- Ayn Rand, appearing on the 7/2/1979 broadcast of Tomorrow with Tom Snyder.

You would be shocked by the identity of the individual from whom the next message I received came. If I had not revealed who it was in the title of this post, that is. Yes, it was (the deceased) Ayn Rand. The woman who founded the evil ideology known as Objectivism. So evil that it inspired the founder of the Church of Satan, Anton LeVay, who modeled his religion on it.

This message was delivered after Mrs. Rand emerged, burning, from the Lake of Fire. As per Wikipedia "in both ancient Egyptian and Christian religion, the Lake of Fire is as a place of after-death destruction of the wicked". Given that she was a truly evil woman, it was not a surprise, upon reflection, that Ayn Rand ended up here.

I was still seated at the far end of a 60 foot table, set with a rotting banquet. My host, a "Mr. Charles" (AKA the Lord of the Land of Nightmares) waved his hand, and, as if beckoned, a figure emerged from the Lake of Fire several yards behind us (a tributary of it, actually, given the fact that I was not in hell, but in the Land of Nightmares, but I digress).

The figure approached, aflame and screaming in agony. With another wave of his hand, the flames were suddenly extinguished. An ancient (but surprisingly unburnt, although completely nude) Ayn Rand pulled out a chair opposite me and took a seat.

"I desperately need a cigarette Frederick" the woman said in a Russian accent. Frederick produced a pack from inside his cloak, lit one, and placed it in the quivering hand of the jonesing nicotine addict. "This tastes so good" Rand remarked after taking a long drag. "To bad smoking is what killed you" Charles replied. "That's a load of horse manure" Rand protested. "There is zero conclusive, nonstatistical proof that smoking causes cancer".

"Yes, of course" Charles remarked sarcastically. "I think you might know who this is" Charles said, turning his head to look at me. Rand's eyes met mine, then she said "I have heard that you write nasty things about me. Things that are untrue. I do not hate poor people at all. If I were still alive I would sue you for libel, you cretinous scumbag".

The elderly Mrs Rand shook with rage as she continued. "Poor people hate themselves. They would not choose poverty is they had any respect for themselves. The poor are the lowest forms of life in existence and should be exterminated".

A few moments of silence passed. "Isn't there one other thing you wanted to tell Mr. Sanders" Charles finally said. "A reprieve from Hell for a damned soul is not something that is easily obtained". Rand, who had been silently smoking, drawing long, deep inhalations from her cigarette glanced at Charles, snuffed out her smoke in the carcass of a rotting turkey, then spoke.

"I would leap across the table and strangle this pissant to death right now if I possessed the strength" Rand hissed as she stared at me with a look of pure hate plastered on her face. "Calm yourself, Ayn", Mr. Charles remarked, looking slightly annoyed. "I am calm" Rand objected. "I'm just saying that it would bring me great pleasure to see the light go from his eyes as I choked the life out of him".

"I would be more than happy to let you do it" Charles replied. "But Dervish has protectors in high places, unfortunately". At first I was a little shaken by the fury of the angry Rand, but now I laughed. Although, remembering where I was, I stifled it and all that emerged was a single "ha". "What's that!" the Objectivist founder roared. "How dare you!". This time she did leap to her feet, but Charles blocked her with his hand.

His hand on her chest, Charles gave one of Rand's old sagging titties a squeeze, then he reached down and grabbed her by the privates. "I call this move the Trump" Charles said.

"This Trump obviously knows what women like" Rand purred, grinding her decrepit nether region against Charles' hand. If I had eaten anything recently the display would certainly have caused me to lose my lunch. It surely was a nightmare to behold.

Seeking to interrupt the two, I blurted "I guess the world didn't end on 3/6/1982, despite your belief that it would". "Very funny" Rand replied, taking a seat.

"I admit the world did not end as I thought it would. No matter. From what I hear this Trump will soon be your president. Although I hear he is elected over a woman. Obviously a dyke, as a woman should not want to be president".

"I also hear that the Trump has promised to do away with subsidies for poor maggots to obtain health care [1]. The perverse morality of altruism is the LAST thing America needs. Although Charles says a socialist dystopia is only to be averted thanks to the intervention of the Dark One".

"The Dark One? I thought you were an atheist" I replied. "There is no better cure for atheism than death" Charles chuckled softly. "Now I am done with you, Dervish. Begone. And YOU", Charles said, turning to Rand. "It is time for you to live up to your claim of being an expert sword swallower". Charles rose and began tugging at a length of rope around his waist. Once removed his pants fell to the ground, revealing a burned and shriveled member.

Gagging, I looked away. "Jealous?" Charles inquired. "Now get the hell out of here. My imp will show you to the exit". I looked around and saw the devilkin motioning me to follow him. Eager to leave, I walked quickly in the direction indicated, the intense heat causing my legs to feel rubbery. I heard some sucking noises and moans of pleasure as I quickened my pace, not looking back.

Another message from another individual was delivered before I finally made it back home, but that is another tale for another time. One that will be related on this blog in due course. Also (as previously mentioned) it was quite some time before the memory of what happened during my travels in the Land of Nightmares came back to me. When I finally returned home I fell into a deep sleep and, upon awaking, retained no memory at all of the messages Charles and Rand relayed to me. Not until recently, that is.

Footnote
1. "The House Republican bill [the American Health Care Act] would roll back the expansion of Medicaid that has provided coverage to more than 10 million people in 31 states... [also eliminated would be the] income-based tax credits that help millions of Americans buy insurance"... (Republicans Introduce Obamacare Replacement That Leaves Much To Be Desired).

 swtd-373. mes-6.  Previous. Next.

Paul Ryan Worships Satan. (As Do Many In The Incoming Trump Administration, Including Trump Himself)

And no wonder, for Satan himself masquerades as an angel of light. It is not surprising, then, if his servants also masquerade as servants of righteousness ~ The Christian Bible, 2 Corinthians 11:14-15 (excerpted).

Paul Ryan is a fan of Ayn Rand. You might not know it, but the founder of the Church of Satan (COS), Anton LaVey, cited Rand's ideology as an inspiration. According to the official Church website "Objectivism, the philosophy of Ayn Rand, is an acknowledged source for some of the Satanic philosophy as outlined in The Satanic Bible by Anton LaVey".

Now, supposedly the COS does not believe that Satan actually exists. I say this is bullpucky. Or, it surely does not matter when it comes to Paul Ryan, in any case. Paul Ryan SAYS he is a Christian. Wikipedia notes that Ryan "is a member of St. John Vianney Catholic Church in Janesville". As a (Christian) Church-goer Ryan surely believes in God and he who was cast out of Heaven, Lucifer, the fallen angel.

Remember that Paul Ryan was quite vocal about how much he LOVES Ayn Rand. That is until someone pointed out to him that Ayn Rand was an atheist. Before knowing this he said "I grew up reading Ayn Rand and it taught me quite a bit about who I am and what my value systems are". After discovering (to his great shock) that Ayn Rand did not believe in the Heavenly Father, Ryan changed his tune.

"I, like millions of young people in America, read Rand's novels when I was young. I enjoyed them [but] I reject her philosophy". Sure. That explains why Rand was/is required reading for anyone working for him. And that's why he is still trying to write Rand's philosophies into law. Rand hated all social welfare programs and thought they should be abolished. Ryan hates all social welfare programs and has worked his entire career trying to diminish them. As a first step to abolishing them.

Or, rather he has worked toward profitizing them. Ryan's On The issues page says the government should "allow charities, community groups and even for-profit firms to compete with government for federal money to fight poverty". Take taxpayer money and hand it off to his cronies, in other words.

The Republican desire to block grant money to the states and have a (large) portion of the money go to for-profit entities would result in less help getting to those who need it. According to a 1/6/2017 Huffington Post article, "Paul Ryan's Plan to Merge Safety Net Programs Could Increase Poverty, Not Reduce It".

Which, IMO, is the whole point - screw over poor people while further enriching your cronies and/or the already wealthy. It is the Republican way. Under the Republican icon, St. Ronald Reagan, homelessness increased dramatically (How Reaganonomics drastically increased homelessness).

Although Ayn Rand just wanted poor people to die. Because she hated them so much. Republicans don't care if poor people die. As long as the already wealthy can benefit from their deaths.

This is why I've long suspected/hypothesized that Satan is exerting his influence over our nation via the Republican Party. It "is nearly perfect in its immorality... to justify and extol human greed and egotism is to my mind not only immoral, but evil" Gore Vidal says in regards to Rand's Objectivism.

BTW, the year the GOP nominated George W. bush as its nominee, the stars on the GOP logo were flipped upside down (Bush Era Began Satanic Stars on GOP emblem?). The 5-pointed star, or pentagram, "with a single point upwards depicts spirit presiding over the four elements of matter represents GOOD, while the inverted pentagram is considered EVIL" (paraphrased from The History of the Pentagram from Detoxorcist).

The inverted (point-down) pentagram is also the symbol of Satanism... as per the article "The Pentagram and Ram's Head" from the website "Jesus is Savior.com".

The GOP presents itself as the "pro-life" and "pro-family" party... which is really code for controlling women and homophobia. But the Bible supposedly teaches homosexuality and abortion are wrong. At least that is what Christians who vote Republican believe. But would that not be JUST LIKE SATAN to use Bible misinterpretations to fool people into voting for his agenda?

That agenda being Objectivism, or the vilification of the poor and the cutting of programs that help them. And the cutting of taxes of wealthy people. Don't forget what Jesus said regarding a rich man's chance of getting into heaven. Despite the GOP presenting itself as the Christian/family/pro-life party, their primary purpose is representing the interests of the wealthy.

As for Paul Ryan, I (given my suspicions) did a Google search on "Paul Ryan worships Satan" and one of the results was a 2012 AlterNet article (written after Obama defeated the Mittens/Ryan ticket to win re-election) that confirmed that the Speaker of the House genuflects to the Father of Lies.

Back in 2011 a series of attacks from leading conservative evangelicals darkly warned that Ayn Rand devotees, Paul Ryan included, might be worshiping at the altar of crypto-satanism ... a flurry of mainstream media articles cover a controversy erupting after evangelism superstar Billy Graham prayed with (and in effect endorsed) candidate Mitt Romney and observers noticed that an article on the website of Graham's flagship Billy Graham Evangelistic Association identified Mormonism as a "cult". (Paul Ryan Is an Ayn-Rand Loving "Satanist" and Romney Is in a "Cult?" The GOP's Religion Woes by Bruce Wilson. 10/18/2012).

The COS website says crypto-Satanists are "people who are not Church members, but like what we're doing". First Things, a hard-right Catholic journal (as per the AlterNet article quoted above), describes Objectivism as "The Fountainhead of Satanism".

Over the past few years, Anton LaVey and his book The Satanic Bible has grown increasingly popular, selling thousands of new copies. His impact has been especially pronounced in our nation's capital. One U.S. senator has publicly confessed to being a fan of the The Satanic Bible while another calls it his "foundation book". On the other side of Congress, a representative speaks highly of LaVey and recommends that his staffers read the book. ... Surprisingly little concern, much less outrage, has erupted over this phenomenon. Shouldn't we be appalled by the ascendancy of this evangelist of anti-Christian philosophy? Shouldn't we all - especially we Christians - be mobilizing to counter the malevolent force of this man on our culture and politics? As you've probably guessed by this point, I'm not really talking about LaVey but about his mentor, Ayn Rand. (The Fountainhead of Satanism by Joe Carter. First Things 6/8/2011).

Regarding Objectivism and Satanism, Joe Carter says "at their core, they are the same philosophy". Joe Carter (editor of First Things, a Catholic journal whose "purpose is to advance a religiously informed public philosophy for the ordering of society") furthermore writes that "you can replace the pentagrams of LeVayian Satanism with the dollar sign of the Objectivists without changing much of the substance separating the two".

So, there you have it. Paul Ryan is a Satan worshipper. Or a "crypto-Satanist". Do I believe Ryan actually takes knee and supplicates to Beelzebub? How should I know? As per Joe Carter's article, my inference is that he believes Paul Ryan has fallen "completely under Rand's diabolic sway". "Diabolic", as in "pertaining to or actuated by a devil".

The "devil" (A devil, not THE devil), in Joe Carter's view being Ayn Rand, who he describes as a "self-professed anti-Christ who hated Christianity". "To be a follower of both Rand and Christ is not possible", but Ryan IS a follower of Rand. Despite his lies about rejecting her philosophy. So, if he isn't a follower of Christ, he must be a follower of Satan.

The evidence supports that conclusion, for certain. You don't have to take my word for it. The editor of "America's most influential journal of religion and public life" says Paul Ryan worships The Wicked One for crying out loud! (my inference).

Although, given this fact, you'd think that Ryan would be excommunicated. In regards to the Pope (the infallible leader of Ryan's supposed religion) the Speaker said Francis doesn't understand capitalism. "The guy is from Argentina, they haven't had real capitalism in Argentina... They have crony capitalism... They don't have a true free enterprise system". (Paul Ryan lectures the Pope, 12/27/2013).

Clearly Ryan is a f*cking liar, as crony capitalism is (as I already pointed out) what he wants for the United States. But dissembling is EXACTLY what you'd expect from someone who venerates the Father of Lies!

It does perplex me, however, that some evangelicals (such as this Joe Carter fellow) took exception to Paul Ryan being a fan of Ayn Rand, but (apparently) have nothing to say about the pussy-grabber-elect Donald Trump (I haven't heard any RW religious leaders say anything against Trump, at least). Fact is Franklin Graham suggested evangelicals should vote Trump, a man who told an obvious and laughable whopper when he claimed that the Bible is his favorite book (Trump offers revealingly bad answers about the Good Book, 10/26/2016).

"Few conservatives will fall completely under Rand's diabolic sway" (the actual quote from Joe Carter's article, from which I inferred that one of those few is Paul Ryan). But it isn't a few of them, it is most of them. Does that mean many or most Congressional Republicans are Satan worshippers like Ryan?

I can't say. But I do believe that Satan is exerting his influence over our nation via the Republican Party, and that the election of Donald Trump is part of the Dark Lord's plan to drag as many souls into the pit of hell with him as possible. "Dick Cheney. Darth Vader. Satan. That's power" the anti-semitic Trump advisor Steve Bannon said (Trump's top adviser is now literally praising Satan, 11/18/2016).

Donald Trump is also a fan of Rand. A 4/12/2016 NY Intelligencer article reveals that the Orange Buffoon identifies "with Howard Roark, the novel's idealistic protagonist who designs skyscrapers and rages against the establishment" (Donald Trump's Role Model is an Ayn Rand Character).

So it's not just Paul Ryan, but Trump and many within his administration who subscribe to the evil Randian ideology. The Washington Post notes (in a 12/13/2016 article) "Ayn Rand-acolyte Donald Trump stacks his cabinet with fellow objectivists".

Objectivism and Satanism are "at their core... the same philosophy". And (I repeat) that's not me saying that, but the editor of a leading Catholic journal! Yeah, I think DARK days are ahead of us, given the fact that the incoming administration (as well Congress) is apparently lousy with Satan worshippers. Or Ayn Rand worshippers (big diff). But remember that Trump himself referred to 2 Corinthians as "the whole ballgame" (Citing "Two Corinthians", Trump Struggles To Make The Sale To Evangelicals).

THE WHOLE BALLGAME! Trump and his incoming administration (as well as Paul Ryan) are masquerading as servants of righteousness but (in actuality) are servants of Satan! The proof is pretty conclusive, IMO.

※PaulRyanSatanist.

 SWTD #366 

Lying Gary AKA Dishonest Johnson; Ayn Rand Hated Poors #5

Hoi polloi is an expression from Greek that means the many or, in the strictest sense, the majority. In English, it has been corrupted by giving it a negative connotation to signify deprecation of the working class, commoners, the masses or common people in a derogatory... sense ~ Definition via Wikipedia.

According to a new Gary Johnson ad, Bill Weld (his Libertarian VP pick) has deemed his running mate "Honest Johnson". In said ad he describes how Johnson is "one of the most honest people" he's met. Almost "painfully honest", he sez. (Watch Out Honest Abe, Meet Libertarian Gary "Honest Johnson").

But I agree with Progressive Talker Thom Hartmann, who, on the 8/17/2016 airing of his program, said (in regards to Gary and Bill) "they're not honest in the presentation of their positions. They use weasel words and slogans to lie about what they actually mean".

For example, they use the words freedom and liberty a LOT. But what do they really mean when they use these words? Obviously (look at their platform) what they're talking about (primarily) is freedom from taxation. And, that's freedom for rich people to not have to contribute to funding the social safety net (DSB #44).

Proof of this is their stated objective of "we should eliminate the entire social welfare system" (Source: Official Libertarian Party Website). But, in spite of the f*cking platform, Lying Gary says "we can still create a safety net. Nobody goes without" (SWTD #343).

But we already have a safety net. We need to strengthen it, not "create" it. I assume Lying Gary says "create" because he's thinking the private sector is going to create a new one after the Libertarians (should they get their way) completely destroy the one we already have (their STATED objective).

Now Lying Gary KNOWS that's NOT the take-away the majority of people get from his message of "nobody goes without". Few people are thinking... YES, nobody goes without means we're going to completely dismantle the safety net (the one we have currently). By "eliminating food stamps, subsidized housing, and all the rest" (direct quote from the LP website).

Sure, all politicians lie (or shade the truth to some degree), but lying about what your freaking platform explicitly states? Me, I'd say the moniker "honest Johnson" ABSOLUTELY does not apply. If a nickname denoting how truthful Gary might be is what Bill wants, I say we go with "Lying Gary" or "Dishonest Johnson".

As for the "painful" part, YES, I think the dismantling of our entire safety net would be QUITE painful for a lot of people. Perhaps not for rich people (unless they have consciences). Although Libertarians believe that it's more morally objectionable to "steal" from people (i.e. tax them), so many (if not all) of them might be fine and dandy about their policies (if instituted) killing people.

I mean, it is a fact that the Ayn-Rand worshiping Libertarian considers the unwashed masses to be worthless trash (parasites and takers). As their heroine wrote "what are your masses of humanity but mud to be ground underfoot, fuel to be burned for those who deserve it".

This being a quote from the original version of Rand's book We The Living. Although this quote was altered when the book was reissued years after its original publication (according to a poster on the Thom Hartmann message board as well as a number of other sources) [1].

Further proof that Rand hated poor people. Heck, I'd say she clearly and indisputably loathed them after reading this comment. Although if they're "fuel" that kinda belies her characterization of them as "moochers" and "parasites". Sounds to me like she's saying they're good (to take advantage of) for their cheap labor (a sentiment shared by many Libertarians and Republicans).

But that's NOT the reason Libertarians like Lying Gary will cite when they talk about eliminating the minimum wage. No, they'll spin BS about how no minimum wage is a GOOD thing, in that it will lead to higher employment. Self-serving baloney (in that it benefits the rich owners) which has been proven false. But that's what you get from Libertarians like Lying Gary (falsehoods that benefit the Oligarchs and hurt everyone else).

BTW, in regards to the "hoi polloi" definition at the top of this post... the Wikipedia entry also notes further synonyms (for the Greek term) that also express the same or similar distaste for the common people, including the great unwashed, the plebeians or plebs, the rabble, the masses, the dregs of society, riffraff, the herd, the proles (proletariat), sheeple, and peons.

Reminiscent of lice, moochers and parasites - the terms Ayn Rand used. Which goes to show that hating poors goes back a LONG way. The goal with this language being to justify the wealthy class having most of the wealth. They deserve it. And they deserve to get it by screwing lower classes. And disguising this fact (they're taking more than they deserve) by painting poor people as undeserving.

Although Rand was more or less honest about her hatred of the less fortunate. I mean, yeah, she denied it, and you might say she was more indifferent than seething with hatred... but you'd be wrong. Her 1957 novel Atlas Shrugged being proof of that. In that she engaged in some serious mass casualty porn in her 1168-page doorstop. In that millions of worthless poors got their just deserts. By which I mean they died via starvation, train "accidents", etc. (SWTD #303).

That a similar die-off of the worthless eaters might occur under a Johnson administration is a no-brainer. Although he'd still have to contend with Congress. But, if Republicans controlled both houses? I think he could ram through quite a bit of his anti-poor and anti-middle class agenda. Anti these lower classes in that a Johnson administration would seek to push us further along the path to full blown oligarchy.

OK, so Lying Gary says "it's game over on any chance of winning the White House if he does not make it to the debate stage" and THAT is an honest statement. But it would also be game over is Gary got into the debates and then proceeded to tell the truth about the Libertarian platform.

Not that Lying Gary would stand a chance either way (in or out of the debates). Donald Trump locking up a larger percentage of the rube vote than Gary. And he gets it his fake populism (appeal to working people). Mostly by saying he's opposed to the TPP. While Lying Gary is in favor of it.

Point is, we've got populists running on both sides (or, that's how they're presenting themselves). Which is why it was game over from the get-go for a poor-hating, anti-populist, pro-rich stooge like Lying Gary Johnson. Even though Lying Gary is doing slightly better this time (due to support from Never-Trumpers and scarily uninformed Bernie Sanders supporters).

Video: Watch Out Honest Abe, Meet Libertarian Gary "Honest Johnson" (1:02).

Footnote
[1] Check Google and you can confirm the validity of this quote, although I first heard it from Thom Hartmann on his program, as broadcast on Free Speech TV on 8/11/2016. Thom also referred to Rand as "one sick puppy"; a sentiment I agree with 1000 percent. I also Googled it, and found a discussion on the Objectivism Online Forum.

SWTD #349, ARHP #5.

Libertarian Candidate 4 potus Gary Johnson Is A Despicable Colossal Liar

If he does not choose to live, nature will take its course ~ Ayn Rand (1/20/1905 to 3/6/1982) creator of the Objectivist theology and the inspiration for Libertarianism; commenting on the poor man.

The man futily running for potus for potus as a Libertarian, Gary Johnson, appeared on the 7/29/2016 airing of Comedy Central's The Nightly Show with Larry Wilmore. The following is an excerpt from Wilmore's interview of the 29th Republican Governor of NM (1995-2003).

Larry Wilmore: What is Libertarianism, and is Libertarianism as kooky as Libertarians? Gary Johnson: Libertarianism does reflect most people in this country. Keep government out of my pocketbook, out of my bedroom. Let's stop with these military interventions. Let's bring the world together with free trade and diplomacy. Non aggression principle. Look, don't use force unless force has been applied to you. Larry Wilmore: So it's... get out of the bedroom, get out of the wars, get out of my pocket. What do you get into? Gary Johnson: Liberty and freedom. Always come down on the side of choice. That we as individuals should always be able to make choices in our lives. As long as those choices don't adversely affect others. Larry Wilmore: What do you think about the three biggest issues that we're facing right now, and as a Libertarian candidate, how do you propose we address those issues? Gary Johnson: Well, government is too big. It takes too much money out of our pocket books. So, lower taxes, balancing... Larry Wilmore: Does lowering taxes itself reduce the size of government? I mean, that just reduces the ability of government to do the shit it's ineffectively doing right now, right? Gary Johnson: I think you hit on it. Do any of us believe government is running on all 8 cylinders? No. So, we're headed to a fiscal cliff if we don't address some really big issues. And that's going to be the entitlements. Look, we can do this effectively. We can still create a safety net. Nobody goes without. That's issue number 1. Issue number 2... just liberty. Personal freedom. A woman's right to choose. Marriage equality. Let's legalize marijuana. [discussion from this point concerns legalization of marijuana. Then Gary calls both Trump and Clinton polarizing, Gary thinks he's going to get voters both from the Republican and Democratic side and get in the debates, shrink government, get out of Afghanistan].

The number one issue is slashing entitlements (his platform calls for a 43% reduction of all federal government spending) and he says "nobody goes without"? Clearly that's a lie. First of all, "slashing government spending, including Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security" involves stealing from people. What they already paid in? You're not getting that back under a Johnson administration.

Fact is, Libertarians want to completely do away with the safety net according to their own platform.

Healthcare: We favor a free-market health care system. We recognize the freedom of individuals to determine the level of health insurance they want (if any), the level of health care they want, the care providers they want, the medicines and treatments they will use and all other aspects of their medical care, including end-of-life decisions. People should be free to purchase health insurance across state lines. Retirement and Income Security: Libertarians would phase out the current government-sponsored Social Security system and transition to a private voluntary system. The proper and most effective source of help for the poor is the voluntary efforts of private groups and individuals. We believe members of society will become even more charitable and civil society will be strengthened as government reduces its activity in this realm. (Libertarian Party Platform, As adopted in Convention, May 2016, Orlando FL).

Also, the following from the same website (official website of the Libertarian Party).

End Welfare ... It is time to recognize that welfare cannot be reformed: it should be ended. We should eliminate the entire social welfare system. This includes eliminating food stamps, subsidized housing, and all the rest. Individuals who are unable to fully support themselves and their families through the job market must, once again, learn to rely on supportive family, church, community, or private charity to bridge the gap. (Poverty and Welfare).

So, under a Libertarian government, we'd phase out Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid... and end (completely) the "entire social welfare system" and end result will be that "nobody goes without"? Revising my prior comment concerning Johnson lying... That nobody is going to go without is clearly a HUGE lie.

The primary reason that people would go without is that the Libertarian "belief" that "members of society will become even more charitable" is total bullplop.

[Some say that] Charity can fill in any holes that develop [if government spending on welfare programs are cut]... But charity experts say that's a mathematical impossibility. ... Overall, the US government spends $105 billion annually on food programs to help the hungry [while] Feeding America, the largest food charity in the US (and one of the largest charities), moves $5 billion of food and funding to hungry people each year. But even that is a drop in the bucket compared with SNAP. "No charity in the history of the planet could come up with the $80 billion for SNAP", said Ross Fraser, director of media relations for Feeding America. "It doesn't make sense to talk about charity alone helping the hungry. It'd be like saying, why not let the military rely on charitable contributions". The total of US philanthropy is currently $300 billion... The amount represents all the money that people give away, most of it to churches and other religious institutions - 32%, or nearly $96 billion. A good deal of the rest goes to hospitals, universities and cultural institutions such as museums, noted Daniel Borochoff, president of CharityWatch... Just a small portion of those dollars goes to help the poor, noted Borochoff. "You have to think of charities as icing on the cake", he said. "They do not do the heavy lifting". Many activists say that if taxes are reduced, private giving will automatically increase. But history shows that's incorrect. For each of the last 40 years, Americans have given away the same proportion of money without change: roughly 2% of GDP. Even after the Bush tax cuts in the early part of the century, the rate of giving didn't rise, experts say... (Private charity no match for federal poverty aid, experts say by Alfred Lubrano. 5/20/2013 The Seattle Times).

I'll also point out that before Social Security, many people faced destitution in old age. The point is that Libertarians know private charity can't and won't meet the need that exists. Heck, even though we spend as much as we do on welfare (not enough even though it is significantly more than private sector charity) people STILL go without.

Feeding America reported the hunger and poverty facts and statistics in 2014; stastics that said that "46.7 million people were in poverty}, or 14.8% of US citizens. In addition, 10% of seniors (4.6 million people) live in poverty.

Yet this asshole Johnson said that if we SLASHED anti-poverty programs that NOBODY will go without. Because all the lazy Takers will get jobs and for those people who are genuinely needy, private charities will step up. That, or he's saying private charities will spend MORE than government is spending now.

Plus, we have to remember that Libertarians want to get rid of the minimum wage, which would affect the working poor, many of whom need these programs to survive (so Johnson wants to make their situations a LOT worse). Frankly I'm convinced that, when Libertarians like Gary Johnson say "nobody goes without", they mean NOBODY LEFT ALIVE goes without. That would be after millions starve to death.

This is a stated goal of the Libertarian heroine Ayn Rand, an evil woman who fantasized about the utopia that would emerge after the nation's poor died in great numbers (fantasies that took the form of a novel in which large numbers of moochers or "parasites" are exterminated when rich "Makers" go "on strike").

Although Libertarians would take no responsibility for the consequences of eliminating the safety net. They place the blame entirely on poor people. "Not choosing to live" (as per the Rand quote) being "choosing" to not work. And "nature taking it's course" being starving to death and dying. Meaning, in the twisted and immoral mind of the true-believing Ayn-Rand-worshiping Libertarian, poor people are basically committing suicide (something many more Poors would undoubtedly do under a Johnson administration).

Something (committing suicide by not working) I imagine Libertarians like Johnson believe people should have the freedom and liberty to do. If they choose. In any case, we are definitely not "in this together", nor are we "our brother's keeper". This explains why Libertarians are atheist, I suppose. Although their ideology has been adopted by Satanists (the article Satanism and Objectivism from the Church of Satan website, notes that "Objectivism... is an acknowledged source for some of the Satanic philosophy as outlined in The Satanic Bible by Anton LaVey").

Which is why I say I am NOT unfairly judging Gary Johnson (as one supporter recently claimed). Not given my view (based on the stated objective of Libertarians to "eliminate the entire social welfare system" so that parasites will die) that Objectivism and Libertarianism are evil ideologies.

It's a shame that Larry Wilmore didn't call Johnson on his HUGE whopper ("We can still still create a safety net. Nobody goes without"). And note that, while he said he's opposed to "military interventions" he also said "don't use force unless force has been applied to you". Which is his out for continuing the fight against ISIS in the highly improbable event he's elected president.

I mean, I think the "foreign interventions" are over (we aren't going to topple any more foreign governments by sending in occupying forces). At least for a few generations. After Afghanistan and Iraq the American people are DONE with them. So he'd end the war in Afghanistan (which I'm strongly in favor of). But he'd continue the fight (boots on the ground) against ISIS. My point being him saying "let's stop with these military interventions" is meaningless. We already did them and aren't likely to do anymore (so he thinks he's taking a "stand" by saying he's not going to do something we aren't going to do anymore anyway).

Similar to how, when he ran for potus in 2008, he said that he was in favor of gay marriage. And that Barack Obama was chicken because he didn't come out in favor of it at that time. But the hypocrite Johnson, while governor of NM, didn't use his position to push for it. This guy seems to mostly take "principled stands" when taking the "stand" is meaningless. I mean, it wasn't like he had a chance of winning the presidency in 2008, so what the hell difference did it make that his position on gay marriage might have cost him votes?

"All politicians lie" is a criticism I hear often. Especially from Libertarians and the Right. But Johnson's lies concern the core principles of Libertarianism! He says "Nobody goes without", yet the fact that Libertarians want to "eliminate the entire social welfare system" is clearly stated on the official website of the Libertarian Party (this would be the party that Johnson is running as the potus candidate of)!

Oh, and Gary Johnson absolutely does share Ayn Rand's views when it comes to the "parasitical takers".

Gary Johnson: ...I view big government in the same way that the novelist and philosopher Ayn Rand did - that it really oppresses those that create, if you will, and tries to take away from those that produce and give to the non-producers. (Gary Johnson on Principles & Values. On The Issues) [1].

So, why isn't it "oppressive" to those who give to charity? If the money is going to "non-producers" (and surely it MUST, if NOBODY is going to go without). Apparently people will decide to voluntarily oppress themselves (via significantly more charitable giving).

Obviously Johnson's claim that "we can still still create a safety net" and that "nobody goes without" (under a Johnson administration) is a f*cking lie. Obviously the Takers who still refuse to work (at a job where they would earn a NON-Living wage, due to Johnson abolishing the minimum wage) would go without. And die, which is WHAT THEY WANT! (as stated by Ayn Rand).

The end result would be a huge increase in the working poor. We'd probably have to create a new term, as "working poor" won't come close to describing HOW POOR these people would be (slums and shanty towns would surely proliferate under a Johnson presidency). And death for those who "refuse to work".

Including many who can't find work (I seriously doubt Johnson believes he'd be able to magically bring about full employment. Or that he'd even want to, given the fact that a tight labor market causes wages to rise... and Libertarians want to keep wages LOW). And, many of the people who "refused" to work would be doing so due to health or disability reasons (don't forget that Social Security provides for many disabled people and Gary wants to "phase it out").

All of which leads me to conclude that, not only would would the safety net be significantly harmed (causing MANY more people to go without), but that we'd quickly deteriorate into a 3rd world hellhole with one of the greatest divides between rich and poor on the planet. Not that we're doing great in that regard anyway. But under an improbable Johnson presidency (one under which Congress worked with him, which, given the fact that Libertarians and Conservatives both hate Poors, they likely would), extreme poverty would assuredly increase astronomically.

Footnote
[1] Wikipedia: On the Issues is an American non-partisan, non-profit organization providing information to voters about candidates, primarily via their web site. The organization was started in 1996, went non-profit in 2000, and is currently run primarily by volunteers.

Image: Gary Johnson wants a government that's big enough (and taxes enough) to pay for a "strong defense", which I would assume includes fighting ISIS. And he's also for a regressive consumption tax. According to Brookings "if you move the tax from income to consumption, you're raising the relative burden on low savers, which are low and moderate income households, so almost any revenue neutral shift from the income tax to a consumption tax will be regressive in that manner".

See Also: Gary Johnson, Libertarian Fraud (DSD #26).

8/17/2016 Update: In regards to Gary Johnson and his VP nominee William Weld, Thom Hartmann (on the 8/17/2016 airing of his program) said "They're not honest in the presentation of their positions. They use weasel words and slogans to lie about what they actually mean".

SWTD #343, ARHP #4.

The Day The World Ended

It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine ~ Lyric from the REM 1987 song with the same title.

You probably aren't aware of it, but the end of the world has come and gone. The world ended on 3/6/1982. It was a Sunday. The significance of this day is that this is date on which a mentally ill lunatic named Alisa Zinov'yevna Rosenbaum (AKA Ayn Rand) died.

Tom Snyder: I kind of think of this as ongoing, that there is an eternity, and that we are going to be a part of that eternity, that we aren't just corpses in graves when we die. Ayn Rand: But we are not corpses in graves. We are not there. Don't you understand that when this life is finished, you're not there to say "Oh how terrible that I'm a corpse". What I've always thought is a sentence from a Greek philosopher, I don't remember, unfortunately, who it was, that I read at 16, and it's affected me all my life. "I will not die. It's the world that will end". (Interview is from the 7/02/1979 broadcast of Tomorrow with Tom Snyder. As per Wikipedia, "unique one-on-one exchanges were common to the program").

Rand is clearly talking about the END of the world and not just the end of the world "as she knows it" (to paraphrase REM). And, I don't know about you, but I'm pretty sure the world continued on after 3/6/1982. 34 years (plus 2 months and 21 days) have passed since Rand kicked the bucket. Longer since the day her most loyal acolyte Alan Greenspan (one of the primary architects of the bush recession) placed a "floral arrangement in the shape of a dollar sign" near her casket [1]. Which was strange, given the fact that Rand wasn't there. Seeing as she WASN'T a corpse in a box buried under the earth, it surely was a pointless gesture.

Also pointless was the fact that Rand left a will. Wikipedia says Rand's will "named Leonard Peikoff the heir to her estate", but I'm thinking this info must be erroneous and she did NOT leave a will. Given the fact that Leonard Peikoff ceased to exist the second Rand bit it. Why the hell would Rand leave a will if she knew the world was going to end when she died?

Obviously Rand was nuts. One of the manifestations of her mental illness being her sociopathic belief that the universe revolved around her and that when she died that was the end. Not just for her, but for everybody. A fact Liberal Talker Thom Hartmann commented on during the 5/24/2016 broadcast of his program.

Thom Hartmann: This [Snyder/Rand interview] gives you a glimpse into the mind of a sociopath. Sociopaths genuinely believe that when they die the world ends. That the only life that matters in the world is their life. [The sociopath believes that] in my life, I have no obligation to future generations.

This is why Objectivism, the philosophy devised by Rand, is (as George Monbiot put it) "a manifesto for psychopaths". Under this brain-diseased ideology greed and selfishness are virtues, and poor people are parasites and moochers that should be exterminated. Or, as Rand put it, "nature will take it's course". By which she meant that the parasites will die when the social safety net is completely eliminated (as Rand strongly believed it should be).

George Monbiot, a British writer, known for his environmental and political activism, expressed his thoughts on Objectivism in a 2012 article.

[Objectivism] has a fair claim to be the ugliest philosophy the post-war world has produced. Selfishness, it contends, is good, altruism evil, empathy and compassion are irrational and destructive. The poor deserve to die; the rich deserve unmediated power. ... Objectivism... holds that the only moral course is pure self-interest. We owe nothing, she insists, to anyone, even to members of our own families. She described the poor and weak as "refuse" and "parasites", and excoriated anyone seeking to assist them. Apart from the police, the courts and the armed forces, there should be no role for government: no social security, no public health or education, no public infrastructure or transport, no fire service, no regulations, no income tax. ... Rand's is the philosophy of the psychopath, a misanthropic fantasy of cruelty, revenge and greed. (A Manifesto for Psychopaths by George Monbiot. 3/5/2012).

Obviously the world would end for a LOT of people if Rand's philosophy were instituted at a governmental level. In that they would die. Alan Greenspan, when he instituted Randian ideology in his capacity as chairman of the Fed (laissez faire capitalism/deregulation), almost killed our economy. Although what he did afterward (going along with bailouts) is where he parted with Randian ideology (or Libertarians will tell you, at least). Rand would have said our economy should be allowed to crash and burn.

Not that I agree with how the bailout were constructed. Instead of rescuing the fatcat banksters, I believe the banks should have been nationalized and the homeowners bailed out. But the way it was done benefited the rich and powerful while many others (members of the middle and lower classes) suffered. Which is one aspect of this crisis that surely would have made Rand smile.

According to the British Journal of Psychiatry "a dramatic spike in suicides between 2008 and 2010 can be linked with the economic crisis" (More Than 10,000 Suicides Tied To Economic Crisis, Study Says). So maybe Rand wouldn't have smiled. Not because people died, but because NOT ENOUGH people died (given how much she hated poor people and wished them dead).

In any case, the world clearly goes on, despite Ayn Rand's departure. Although the world is surely a worse place due to the fact that her sociopathic ideology is "sorely needed right now"... or so Republican politicians like Speaker Paul Ryan believe.

And the Randian goal of maximizing income inequality would surely lead to the world ending for a LOT more people. As, in addition to the 2008 economic crisis driving 10k people to take their own lives, Republican economic policies in general have this effect (Conservative Policies are Driving Americans to Suicide).

Unfortunately for us all Ayn Rand, while she did die and most assuredly is a corpse in the grave, the sociopathic Objectivism lives on. Given that it spawned the political ideology Libertarianism [2], as well as infecting the Republican Party (OST #61).

Which is why I say it's time to make Objectivism/Libertarianism a figurative corpse in the grave. By sending it to the the trash heap of history where it belongs.

Footnotes
[1] Once in government, Greenspan applied his guru's philosophy to the letter, lobbying to cut taxes for the rich and repeal the laws constraining the banks, refusing to regulate the predatory lending and the derivatives trading which eventually brought the system down. ...as Adam Curtis's documentary showed last year, the most devoted member of her inner circle was Alan Greenspan. Among the essays he wrote for Ayn Rand were those published in a book he co-edited with her called Capitalism: the Unknown Ideal. Here, starkly explained, you'll find the philosophy he brought into government. There is no need for the regulation of business... as the greed of the businessman or, more appropriately, his profit-seeking ...is the unexcelled protector of the consumer. (Excerpted from A Manifesto for Psychopaths by George Monbiot).
[2] Even though "Ayn Rand's philosophy of Objectivism has been and continues to be a major influence on the libertarian movement, particularly in the United States and many libertarians justify their political views using aspects of Objectivism", Ayn Rand said (of Libertarianism) "I do not join or endorse any political group or movement. More specifically, I disapprove of, disagree with and have no connection with, the latest aberration of some conservatives". (Libertarianism and Objectivism & The Ayn Rand Lexicon: What was Ayn Rand's view of the libertarian movement?).

Video: Writer/Author & philosopher, Aynd Rand & broadcast legend, Tom Snyder discuss the subject of death, dying, and the soul, during this brief clip from Rand's interview with Tom Snyder" (3:17).

SWTD #335, ARHP #3.

Additional Evidence Supporting The Hypothesis That Ayn Rand Hated Poor People

The poverty of our century is unlike that of any other. It is not, as poverty was before, the result of natural scarcity, but of a set of priorities imposed upon the rest of the world by the rich. Consequently, the modern poor are not pitied... but written off as trash. The twentieth-century consumer economy has produced the first culture for which as beggar is a reminder of nothing ~ John Berger (dob 11/5/1926) English art critic, novelist, painter and poet. Berger's essay on art criticism, Ways of Seeing, written as an accompaniment to a BBC series, is often used as a university text.

In a prior commentary (SWTD #303), I hypothesized that because Ayn Rand killed large numbers of fictional moochers in her massive tome (Atlas Shrugged), she hated poor people. Bolstering this case, I believe, was the fact that her "hero", John Galt, called for other wealthy individuals such as himself to take actions that resulted in the deaths of millions of citizens of the oppressive Socialist dystopia that Atlas Shrugged took place in. And, in regards to these deaths, Rand pontificated on how the dead deserved to die due to their support for the Socialist state.

Of course Rand denied that she hated the poor, but I think her writings speak for themselves. A commenter on my blog, when I asserted that the evidence shows hate, asked if I could "point to any statement made by Ayn Rand that she hated the poor". Because Rand never SPECIFICALLY said "I hate poor people"... if I look at other things she said or wrote and conclude that these writings show she hated poor people... that's just my opinion.

Perhaps, but I still contend that the evidence is pretty solid. And I will continue to assert that Rand did indeed hate poor people. The facts I presented in my prior commentary back that up. But those writings I pointed to do not represent the totality of words from Rand that show (IMO) how much she hated poor people. Which is reason for this commentary... to present additional proof of Rand's hate for the less fortunate.

The following concerns Rand's take on money and those who don't have a lot of it.

Rand called the United States a "nation of money", and she meant it as a compliment. "The words to make money hold the essence of human morality", she wrote in a famous passage in her 1957 novel, Atlas Shrugged. In Rand's hierarchy of virtue the American industrialist is "the highest type of human being" and the needy are rabble. "Parasites, moochers, looters, brutes and thugs can be of no value to a human being", Rand wrote in 1963. "Nor can he gain any benefit from living in a society geared to their needs, demands and protection, a society that treats him as a sacrificial animal and penalizes him for his virtues in order to reward them for their vices, which means: a society based on the ethics of altruism". (Ayn Rand - Paul Ryan's Moral Heroine - Instructs Johnny Carson on the Virtue of Selfishness, 1967 by Mike Springer. Open Cluture 8/14/2012) .

Obviously, given that poor people have less money, they must be less moral (according to Rand). If an individual is less moral as well as a parasite, a moocher, a looter, a brute or a thug; and if they are of "no value"... well, it's clear that Rand's opinion of such people (the poor) was exceedingly low. Heck, sounds like she thought the poor aren't even human, as they are of "no value to a human being". My guess is that the "human being" she refers to would be a rich person.

So, rich people are the only real humans beings, while the poor are nothing but parasites. Of course parasites are creatures that, if they afflict humans, are exterminated. Rand's idea for how the extermination should be accomplished? Eliminate all socialist safety net type programs. Society should not be "geared to their needs", after all. Obviously such a policy would obviously result in some, if not many deaths. Or, as Rand said (in regards to a hypothetical poor man) "if he does not choose to live [by having enough money to do so], nature will take its course [and he will die]".

In other words, "die you evil parasitical scum!". Or, I will sit by and watch you die. And call it "immoral" if anyone suggests help should be provided. Is this hate? You can judge for yourself, but I think more people will say YES than NO. In my opinion. Although it is possible that Rand simply wrote the poor off as trash and did not give them any further thought. However, given how many moochers she killed off in Atlas Shrugged, I doubt it. I mean, she was pretty clear (in AS) that she thought the world would be better off with significantly fewer looters. And fantasized about how to off large numbers of the hated parasitical moochers.

Video: Ayn Rand appears on the Tonight Show, 10/22/1967. According to Rand, a mixed economy (such as we have here in the US) leads to war. Social safety net programs designed to help the less fortunate are "immoral", as are the moochers who utilize them. Given these facts I ask... how could Rand NOT hate the poor, given the evil they represent? (26:37).

SWTD #310, ARHP #2.

You Can't Appeal To A Republican Using Either A Religious Or Economic Argument (Re States Accepting The Medicaid Expansion) Because These "Christians" Hate The Poors So Much

There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what...who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims. ...These are people who pay no income tax. ...and so my job is not to worry about those people. I'll never convince them that they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives ~ Willard Mittens Romney (dob 3/12/1947) The failed Repub 2012 potus nominee. Remarks at private fundraiser (re why he would not get the vote of the takers) in Boca Raton FL 5/17/2012.

Remember when Rep Alan Grayson said "if you get sick, America, the Republican healthcare plan is this: Die quickly". He was only referring to people who can't afford health insurance, of course. Rich people do not have this problem. Only the Poors should "die quickly" because people complaining about Poors suffering in order for Health Care Insurance companies to continue making tremendous profits are annoying. Better they die quickly so nobody has to be confronted with that unpleasantness and whining about it.

Republicans feigned outrage and demanded an apology. But Alan Grayson was correct. Proof of this is the Republican desire to repeal the ACA. Failing that, they believe Republican governors should reject the Medicaid expansion. Even though they are losing billions in federal funds by doing so. Even though the ACA gives tens of thousands of new customers to the for-profit health insurers. Punishing poor "takers" takes a higher priority.

Although some Republican governors accepted the money. Jan Brewer is one example. John Kasich of Ohio is another. Although in both cases their respective state legislatures are fighting back [1+2].

Because he is running for preznit, Kasich was confronted on this issue during the recent Fox Nooz potus interview. Megyn Kelly (basically) expressed the Republican outrage re Kasich attempting to help the Poors. How DARE he! Surely this is proof he is unfit to be preznit. Which is why Kelly brought it up. Voters needed to know of this and reject him for his un-Republican actions. This specific un-Republican action (he does pass the anti-choice litmus test). But even passing this very important litmus test is not good enough.

Megyn Kelly: Governor Kasich, you chose to expand Medicaid in your state, unlike several other governors on this stage tonight, and it is already over budget by some estimates costing taxpayers an additional $1.4 billion in just the first 18 months. You defended your Medicaid expansion by invoking God, saying to skeptics that when they arrive in heaven, Saint Peter isn't going to ask them how small they've kept government, but what they have done for the poor. Why should Republican voters, who generally want to shrink government, believe that you won't use your Saint Peter rationale to expand every government program? *Audience applauds* Gov. John Kasich: Well, first of all, Megyn, you should know that President Reagan expanded Medicaid three or four times. Secondly, I had an opportunity to bring resources back to Ohio to do what? To treat the mentally ill. Ten thousand of them sit in our prisons. It costs $22,500 a year to keep them in prison. I'd rather get them their medication so they could lead a decent life. Secondly, we are rehabbing the drug-addicted. Eighty percent of the people in our prisons have addictions or problems. We now treat them in the prisons, release them in the community and the recidivism rate is 10 percent and everybody across this country knows that the tsunami of drugs is threatening their very families. So we're treating them and getting them on their feet. And finally, the working poor, instead of them having come into the emergency rooms where it costs more, where they're sicker and we end up paying, we brought a program in here to make sure that people could get on their feet. And do you know what? Everybody has a right to their God-given purpose. ...our Medicaid is growing at one of the lowest rates in the country. ...we went from $8 billion in the hole to $2 billion in the black. We've cut $5 billion in taxes and we've grown 350,000 jobs. *Audience applauds* (Excerpt from the 8/6/2016 Fox Nooz potus interview).

Getting mentally ill people in prison the treatment they need and getting them out of prison sooner saves money. And, a 10% recidivism is a lot lower than the average, which, according to Wikipedia, is 43.3%.

Treating people in emergency rooms, where they can't be turned away (due to the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act, or EMTALA) is significantly more expensive than scheduling appointments and getting treatment before a medical condition becomes an emergency. People with chronic diseases can't show up in emergency rooms and ask for ongoing treatment (which is needed to combat chronic conditions). These people can only show up and ask for help after their disease has progressed to the point where their lives are in immediate danger. Obviously treating these people earlier would be a lot cheaper.

Lastly, poor people who can't afford to see a doctor missing days of work (due to them being sidelined by treatable ailments) costs the economy money. So the Medicaid expansion in Ohio is "over budget", but it does not factor in these savings. At all. It simply ignores them, in addition to ignoring the inhumanity of locking up treatable mentally ill people. As well as the inhumanity of allowing poor people with treatable diseases to progress to a point where their lives are in danger (and at which point it is sometimes too late... meaning they die).

But Republicans revel in inhumanity toward those they deem lesser because their Christianity is fake. I mean, because in addition to ignoring the religious argument (Kelly mocked him?) they only look at the raw numbers. And totally ignore the (somewhat hard to quantify?) savings of accepting the Medicaid expansion and going "over budget". Frankly, it sickens me.

For many Republicans, that their Christianity is not sincere is proven by Kasich's attempt to appeal to it and failing. Proof, in my mind, of how much these fake Christian Republican hypocrites hate poor people. They refuse to do the right thing (those other governors on the stage that rejected the expansion) when you make an argument that appeals to their supposed religious sensibilities. Obviously these sensibilities are non-existent except when it comes to controlling women's bodies.

And they also refuse to do the right thing when an economic argument is presented (money is saved by accepting the Medicaid expansion). Un-believable callousness and indifference that (for some) crosses the line into outright hate, IMO. Think I'm being hyperbolic? Ayn Rand hated the poor, and Mitten's VP choice Paul Ryan talked her up a lot (until it was pointed out to him that she was an atheist) [3].

Which explains why Mittens wanted Ryan (they had a shared hatred). Ryan's budget, the path to (increased) prosperity (for the rich on the backs of the poor), being proof of his hate for the less fortunate [4].

Footnotes
[1] Court Okays Republican Challenge To Arizona Medicaid Expansion (excerpt from a 12/31/2014 Daily Caller article by Sarah Hurtubise) 36 Republican state lawmakers are suing outgoing Republican Gov. Brewer over the legality of a hospital assessment which will fund Brewer's plan to expand Medicaid.
[2] Republican Lawmakers File Lawsuit Against Ohio Medicaid Expansion (excerpt from a HuffPo 10/23/2013 article by Mollie Reilly) The suit, filed with the Ohio Supreme Court... claims the Controlling Board acted in violation of the state legislature by approving the $2.56 billion appropriation of federal funds to expand Medicaid in the state. Governor John Kasich... turned to the board for approval after the GOP-controlled state legislature balked on the issue.
[3] See SWTD #303 (8/10/2015) Ayn Rand Took Great Delight In Killing Large Numbers of Fictional Moochers In Atlas Shrugged.
[4] Regarding my correct usage of the word hate in this commentary... many Republican politicians, if they are not simply indifferent to the plight of the poor, actively despise them and want to punish them for being poor. Republican voters, a not insignificant number of them being poor Southern Whites, are oblivious to this hate, instead voting R because the GOP panders to their hate for minorities and their misguided belief that the Bible says abortion is murder, which it does not. Although Repub politicos and their pluto masters have other reasons for wanting to control women.

Video: Kasich defends his Medicaid expansion and gets some applause, but the very fact that Megyn Kelly demanded an explanation from him in the first place? Helping poor people while citing God? No, many "Christian" Republicans don't find that acceptable.

SWTD #306

Ayn Rand Took Great Delight In Killing Large Numbers of Fictional Moochers In Atlas Shrugged

Ayn Rand's "philosophy" is nearly perfect in its immorality, which makes the size of her audience all the more ominous and symptomatic as we enter a curious new phase in our society... To justify and extol human greed and egotism is to my mind not only immoral, but evil ~ Gore Vidal (10/3/1925 to 7/31/2012) a political commentator, essayist and novelist who identified with the liberal politicians and the progressive social causes of the Democratic Party.

I think that this, the killing of worthless moochers and takers in her 1957 novel Atlas Shrugged (AS), shows that when Rand claimed (see video below) that she did not hate the poor, she lied. Haters usually deny that they're haters. Often they even deny it to themselves. So, even though Rand lied (to herself as well as the public) her writings show she hated poor people. People she referred to as "lice", "looters", "moochers", "parasites" and "takers".

For the record, I have not (nor do I ever intend to) read any of her fiction doorstops (or other published works). What follows are excerpts from articles I found online wherein the article author describes (and comments on) Rand's mass killings of fictional moochers.

when a railway worker in AS decides to punish the wicked socialist government by making a train crash happen, Rand implies the passengers had it coming. She runs through the politics of the train crash victims, implying they were accessories to the socialist government that is being justly punished... [one victim was] an elderly school teacher who spent her life turning class after class of helpless schoolchildren into miserable cowards, by teaching them that the will of the majority is the only standard of good and evil..." And so endlessly on, through over a dozen deserving victims. "There was not a man aboard the train who did not share one or more of their ideas", she notes - so let them burn. (excerpt from a 3/10/2009 HuffPo article by Johann Hari).

But this killing of an entire train full of moochers is just the beginning! The death toll rises considerably when the evil Galt character (the "hero") withdraws to his gulch, from which he encourages other rich a-holes to engage in acts of terror in order to overthrow the socialist government.

Calvin Atwood runs a monopoly for electrical power, and his "going Galt" cuts off the electrical supply for a solid third of North America. Thomas Hendricks' new surgical technique was pushed to the forefront due to government support, resulting in other methods of stroke prevention being ignored, and undeveloped, so when he "went Galt" he directly murdered thousands of people as a result. Atlas Shrugged is littered with these people. Ayn presented them as heroic figures, the same way in which Osama Bin Laden presented the 9/11 hijackers. In the end, these were common terrorists, common criminals, with John Galt at their head. The blood of millions stained theirs, and John Galt's, hands. (excerpt from John Galt Is A Terrorist by Nathaniel Downes. Addicting Info 12/29/2012).

Millions of looters dead, huh? Perhaps the "non productive people" deserved to die, given the fact that "society damned the wealthy for being productive by expropriating the fruits of their labor". Taxed them too much, in other words. Perhaps we should be thankful that the Koch plutocrats are only trying to buy the presidency and install their Wanker puppet, instead of hatching a plan to kill a significant number of people in order to stop society from cruelly damning them with a relatively low tax rate? (As the rich become super-rich, they pay lower taxes. For real).

In the video below, Rand says (re poor people) that we shouldn't "tailor everything for their convenience". "Convenience" being "the state of being able to proceed with something with little effort or difficulty". Yeah, it isn't difficult being poor at all. Even though it should be. We don't want the poor to get too comfortable in that social safety net hammock, right?

This would be the hammock that Paul Ryan referred to when he said "we don't want to turn the safety net into a hammock that lulls able-bodied people to lives of dependency and complacency, that drains them of their will and their incentive to make the most of their lives". However, as Paul Krugmann points out in his article The Hammock Fallacy, "Mr. Ryan and colleagues outright misstate what the research says" and that "the reason so many Americans remain trapped in poverty isn't that the government helps them too much; it's that it helps them too little".

Rand did not want to help poor people AT ALL, and so "opposed all forms of welfare" (Ryan's Ayn Rand obsession). If that isn't hate, it surely is total indifference and a complete lack of empathy.

But, as Rand gleefully killing large numbers of moochers in Atlas Shrugs shows, her disdain for the parasites clearly rises to the level of hate. "The best way to help the poor is to not be one of them", Rand says (quoting prosperity theologist Reverend Ike). She also wrote that if a man "does not choose to live, nature will take its course". Poor people who starve, freeze to death in the winter, or croak due to not being able to afford medical treatment have surely CHOSEN not to live, since it's possible (in Rand's view) to chose to not be poor.

So... there should be no welfare (at all) and if poor people choose to be poor nature will take it's course and they will die.

Video: Did Ayn Rand hate the poor? My verdict? Yes, she absolutely loathed them (1:14).

SWTD #303, ARHP #1.

An Example Of An Individual Taken In By The Lie That The bush Administration Received Faulty Intel & Made A Mistake In Invading Iraq?

the [bush] Administration repeatedly presented intelligence as fact when in reality it was unsubstantiated, contradicted, or even non-existent ~ The conclusion of Phase two of the Senate Report on Pre-war Intelligence on Iraq.

As a result of John Ellis Bush (AKA Jeb Bush) being asked whether or not he would have done the same as his war criminal brother and invaded Iraq, the question of whether Iraq was a "mistake" or not has come up again. (Although Jeb lied, pretending to mishear the question as whether or not he'd invade at the time NOT knowing what we know now, when the question actually was would he have invaded knowing what we know now. He said he would have... and Hillary would have too. When Hillary would not have).

Les Carpenter (AKA "rAtional nAtion", RN, or "Lester Nation") of the blog rAtional nAtion uSA, falling for the lie, answered the actual question in a recent blog post. Les said "Yes, Iraq was a mistake".

Problem is, that question is bullshit because it plays up the false narrative that the bush administration received faulty intelligence. The fact is that the bushies never received any intelligence that said what they so desperately wished to be true, which is that Saddam had WMD he might use. Perhaps on the US. With the proof being a mushroom cloud.

While there were some tidbits of info suggesting the bush version of the intel might be true (which turned out to be misleading bullplop propagaged by liars like Ahmed Chalabi, passed on with the goal of tricking the bush administration into toppling Saddam), the actual intelligence was clear that Iraq having WMD was doubtful.

And the IAEA produced a report saying so (the IAEA is the UN agency that sent a team of inspectors into Iraq to look for WMD and did not find any). They told the UN this, which is why the UN voted not to authorize the war.

So, despite the fact that we know now (and we knew then) that Iraq did not have WMD, the narrative now is that Iraq was a mistake (and we didn't know then). Although, for quite some time following Jeb's doofus brother leaving office, the narrative was that it was the right thing to do despite no WMD being found. bush said a number of times that he'd make the same decision again. Now the narrative is that it was a "mistake". Which is as far as they want to go, I believe.

Perhaps some day we'll get to the point where the American public largely accepts that gwb lied, same as they accept that LBJ lied us into Vietnam? Who knows. Obviously the bushies want to stop that truth from becoming widely accepted. Right now because it would not be good for Jeb to have to run with the electorate believing his brother lied (as opposed to having been a victim of bad intel).

Today [2/9/2015], The Wall Street Journal op-ed page has Republican judge Laurence Silberman fiercely insisting that the Bush administration did not lie, and that the claim it lied is itself a calumny. Silberman's argument is a simplistic one aimed at confusing those who have already forgotten the basic sequence of events. Silberman argues that a bipartisan commission, which he co-chaired, investigated the matter, and found that the Bush administration was victimized by faulty intelligence. (Republicans Still Denying Bush Lied About Iraq by Jonathan Chait. Daily Intelligencer).

Les Carpenter (AKA "rAtional nAtion") is one of those who, despite being a Libertarian and not a Republican, believes the false narrative currently being spun.

rAtional nAtion: Whether GWB knowingly lied or the intelligence was wrong I am not in a position to know; with certainty. Neither aRe you Dervish. Irrespective of this it was unwise to invade a foreign country that posed no threat to the USA. 5/14/2015 AT 06:55:00 PM EDT)

Actually, Les, I am in a position to know that bush lied. All one really needs to do is be aware of the facts, as the Daily Intelligencer points out in it's article (continued from above).

Silberman does not mention that the commission he chaired did not even investigate whether the Bush administration manipulated intelligence. Senate Republicans refused to allow the commission to investigate this matter, fearing it would harm Bush's reelection prospects. Indeed, Silberman himself wrote in the report at the time, "Our executive order did not direct us to deal with the use of intelligence by policymakers, and all of us were agreed that that was not part of our inquiry". This was a favorite line of pro-Bush spin. It is true that passing on faulty intelligence by mistake is not the same thing as misrepresenting intelligence. Bush's defenders habitually rebutted accusations of the latter by insisting that the former was true. In reality, both things happened - the administration suffered from honest intelligence failures, and it misled the public about the facts as it understood them. The question of whether, in addition to being victimized by faulty intelligence, also misrepresented the intelligence it did have, was left to a second Senate report, called the "Phase II" report, which came out a few years later. That report, which was endorsed by two of the committee's seven Republicans and all its Democrats, concluded, "the Administration repeatedly presented intelligence as fact when in reality it was unsubstantiated, contradicted, or even non-existent". (Republicans Still Denying Bush Lied About Iraq by Jonathan Chait. Daily Intelligencer).

It is a "demonstrable fact that the Bush administration deliberately misled the public". Iraq was not a mistake, but a deliberate decision by the bush administration to lie to get the war it wanted. Case closed.

The only question that remains is... why does Les Carpenter of the Libertarian/Objectivist blog "rAtional nAtion uSA" say he doesn't know "Whether GWB knowingly lied". I suppose he might be telling the truth when he says he isn't in a "position" to know, which he wouldn't be only if he is deliberately avoiding reading anything that gives the accurate facts concerning this matter. Which he might be doing because he doesn't want to know the truth. Or he might be on board with the false narrative. Perhaps because he's a fan of Jeb and doesn't want his chances of winning the White House harmed.

Of course this is all conjecture, as Les, when I presented him with some of the facts, declined to respond again. Personally I think the reason for Les going along with this lie is because he wishes to protect the GOP. He does not care for Jeb as such (or any of the other potential candidates who are expected to declare), but he does dislike Hillary intensely and does not want to see her win. In his mind a Republican might be better than Hillary.

Although this does not jibe with Les' recent claim that he is "moving away from the right", but it's the best explanation I can come up with. Pure conjecture, in other words. Which Les and his yes man Dennis Marks have indicated they loath.

Awhile ago an Anonymous commenter on this blog said "ever notice how RN never really says what he thinks? He likes to bait people, without stating his position". I agreed that I had noticed this. In fact, I continue to notice that he does this. He also loves to cry about "old bones" if inconsistencies are pointed out between past and current statements (by him or his toady Dennis).

For example, he frequently says he's an adherant of Ayn Rand's Objectivism (which views selfishness as a virtue), even though this does not jibe with his claim of supporting what he calls "Thomas Paine style benevolent capitalism" (which is not really a thing. What Les actually refers to is a mixed economy wherein capitalism and Socialism both exist and compliment each other. Which *I* am an adherent of). But Rand opposed Socialism, being something that encourages the "parasites and leeches" and is THEFT under this worldview.

But apparently "self interest" means whatever Les decides it means. And he's a fan of Rand even though Rand would consider him a collectivist pawn. So, what's my conjecture in regards to this? It's that Les does not explain himself because he can't (because he realizes he's a very bad Objectivist). That, or he's still having fun playing games with my delusional ass (actual quote: I've had fun playing games with your delusional ass).

More likely it's a combination of the two, and he's playing games with his readers concerning his perpetrating the good for Jeb (or at least not as bad for him) false "Iraq war mistake" narrative. Or maybe it's his ass that is delusional. I surely cannot say with any certainty. His clinging to Objectivism and Rand points to his being delusional, that's for certain. Especially in light of his support for the socialistic parasite-encouraging "benevolent capitalism" thievery.

As well as LOL-able claims of me "misquoting" him when I cut, paste and link to prior comments of his. Les said "Medicare as a model for universal healthcare, with some modifications (improvements to insure long term fiscal viability) may not be such a terribly bad idea" on another blog. I linked to this comment on his blog and that's when he (feigned) anger and the "misquoting" allegation occurred.

No doubt I'm misrepresenting him with this commentary. In his delusional mind, at least (Note: It is my opinion/conjecture that Les Carpenter is "deluded").

See also: George W. Bush didn't just lie about the Iraq War. What he did was much worse by Paul Waldman. The Week, 5/20/2015. [What was "much worse"? That what the Bush admin launched in 2002... may have been the most comprehensive, sophisticated, and misleading campaign of government propaganda in American history... the theory on which the WH operated was that whether or not you could fool all of the people some of the time, you could certainly scare them out of their wits. That's what was truly diabolical about their campaign].

SWTD #282, lDel #21.