HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » paulbibeau » Journal
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next »


Profile Information

Member since: Tue Jul 10, 2012, 05:40 AM
Number of posts: 642

About Me

I write a blog of dark humor - Goblinbooks.com

Journal Archives

Six Months Before The Planned Parenthood Video, Backer Described Goal To Shut Off Clinic Access

An investigation into Planned Parenthood is not the point. The videos don't show evidence of a crime, but that's not the point.

These videos are part of a shift in the strategy of the anti-abortion movement to shut down clinics and limit access. In a January 2015 interview, Troy Newman, one of the backers of the video project, described how he had stopped trying to change the law and was now adopting this new plan:

That abortionist has a real office... And so when we start thinking strategically and tactically on how we can focus in on that particular place and close it down. In other words, shutting off the supply side of the abortion industry.

Press reports about the Planned Parenthood videos state that the "sting" project took more than a year to implement. So while Newman was saying these things, he was aware the videos were coming. During that same month, Newman elaborated on the strategy in a clip for the conservative WorldNetDaily (video below):

We're excited about our gains that 75 percent of all the nations abortion clinics have closed. We're excited that there were once 2,200 abortion clinics, and there are now 550. But we will not relent, we will not stop speaking for the unborn children, until every abortion clinic like this one behind us is closed...

Politico details the growing effort by Congressional Republicans to cut hundreds of millions of dollars for Planned Parenthood as a result of the video:

Congress’ planned crackdown on Planned Parenthood is looking increasingly real.
Republican leaders are weighing a series of votes to defund Planned Parenthood - possibly beginning before the August recess...

And Roll Call has reported that Republican lawmakers knew about the controversy weeks before it would happen:

Rep. Tim Murphy, a member of the House Pro-Life Caucus and chairman of the Energy and Commerce subcommittee looking into the video, said at a Wednesday news conference he’d seen the clip weeks before. Asked afterward why he and others waited until this week to take action, Murphy struggled for an answer before abruptly ending the interview with CQ Roll Call, saying he should not be quoted and remarking, “This interview didn’t happen.”

The anti-abortion movement doesn't need Planned Parenthood investigated to see whether it committed a crime. They don't need to get to the bottom of this, because the trumped-up outrage will help kill the funding, and the funding is the issue. It's part of Troy Newman's larger vision for a country in which access to abortion is gone and Roe v. Wade is moot.

NOTE: There is disturbing evidence of criminal activity by the group behind the video. I wrote about it on my blog. Please read.

A Message From The Sun That Shines Out Of Scott Walker's Ass

Hi there! I'm a beam of golden light sailing down to warm the earth straight from the heavenly crack of Scott Walker's ass with a message of hope for America.

Don't worry, guys! Your troubles are over. Scott Walker's got this. God spoke personally to him to tell him he needs to run for the most powerful job in the world as part of the cosmic plan. You can't argue with that kind of logic, can you? So I'm here to radiate sparkling beauty throughout this plane of existence from deep within the holy anal sphincter of the governor of Wisconsin. Let the glory that issues from the rectal cavity of this Midwestern politician ease your anxieties. Take it easy, nation.

Many of you might be skeptical.

"Don't a lot of people from the GOP talk this kind of nonsense?" you might ask.

Don't they always seem to use religion to justify their desire for power in a way that's hypocritical and creepy? Shouldn't that kind of weapons grade arrogance almost disqualify anyone from a position where you could literally kill everyone on the planet in the space of a busy afternooon? Didn't we elect a guy like that, and didn't he really fuck the country up good and proper?

I understand. Your doubts are normal, for no human being could fully understand the plan. No one could look deep within Scott Walker's mysterious glowing meat-flaps and comprehend. Believe me, it would shake you to your core if you really knew what was in there.

Just know that my message of joy is for you, America. Scott Walker is talking to you through me. He's talking right out of his ass.

THE BLACK BOOK OF CHILDREN'S BIBLE STORIES is about faith and loss, and a haunted house hidden so well you didn't notice you'd been living there your whole life. BUY IT HERE.

Huckabee Has Links To The Hate Group That Helped Radicalize Dylann Roof

The Daily Beast is reporting that Dylann Roof's manifesto has been found. In it, Roof claims the first website he found which radicalized him was owned by a hate group called the Council of Conservative Citizens.

The links between this group and the GOP are numerous, but they don't touch on many relevant players in the party of the elephant.

With one exception - an actual 2016 GOP contender, Mike Huckabee.

Making coded appeals to white racism is nothing new for Huckabee. Indeed, well before he was a nationally known political star, Huckabee nurtured a relationship with America's largest white supremacist group, the Council of Conservative Citizens. The extent of Huckabee's interaction with the racist group is unclear, but this much is known: he accepted an invitation to speak at the group's annual conference in 1993 and ultimately delivered a videotaped address that was "extremely well received by the audience."
This appeared in a HuffPo article in 2011.

Mike Huckabee shouldn't be in the race. You already knew that. But this ought to take him out.

Thugs: This May Day, let's remember who they really are.

There's been a great deal of talk about whether we can use the word "thug" in civil discourse. But I hope we never drop it from our political vocabulary. It's a powerful word. It's perfect as long as you remember what it really describes.

Florence Reece nailed it, describing the strikebreakers for the anti-union sheriff of Harlan County:

They say in Harlan County
There are no neutrals there
You'll either be a union man
Or a thug for J.H. Blair.

Her song, of course, was "Which Side Are Your On?" And it reminds us this May Day of one of the most important political lessons you can know:

Historically, thugs aren't people who break laws. Thugs are people who enforce the laws that never get written down.

You want to rig the system in favor of political and economic elites, but make it look like it's fair for all? You need to crack heads under cover of darkness then. Thugs will do that job for you.

Newly freed slaves are taking positions of power and threatening the old order, because the government recognizes their rights now? Send the thugs in.

You run a company, and you want to keep people from organizing? But you can't quite do it openly, because then they'll say this isn't really a free system? Thugs are the answer.

Maybe you own a multinational corporation and a democratically elected leader wants to nationalize its farms so you can't exploit workers and dominate their system. Or perhaps it's oilfields you're after. Either way, America will rent you out a force of thugs to make certain you prevail.

You need thugs, because you need to enforce the real laws secretly. The real laws are that some get to dictate how others live their lives. The real laws make everything they teach your kids in government class into lies. The real laws, if they were printed, would prove that large corporate-backed governments don't actually liberate anybody. They don't have legitimacy. They dominate. The real laws, if they were known, would show you that national and even ideological battles don't matter. There are only corporatist oligarchs and the rest of us. And it's clear who the thugs work for. Who they always worked for. Only the names change.

Doesn't it make you just want to burn something down?

Bush v. Clinton

Because the corporations don't want to have to go out and buy a whole new group of politicians.

Half Of Hillary Clinton's Top Donors Supported Romney

You've no doubt seen the list of Hillary Clinton's top donors (over the course of her career) compared to those of Bernie Sanders. Information on those companies is available at OpenSecrets. But the same source shows that half of her top 10 donors supported Mitt Romney over Barack Obama in the 2012 race.

I've presented the figures here, ranked in order of amount they've given to Hillary Clinton. I've bolded the ones which supported Romney and provided the ratio of money. Her top two donors supported Romney by a wide margin.

1. Citigroup, Inc. (Romney money/Obama money, rounded off to thousands): 491K/209K
2. Goldman Sachs: 1,045K/210K

3. DLA Piper: 151K/415K
4. JP Morgan Chase: 836K/306K
5. EMILY's List: 0/5K
6. Morgan Stanley: 913K/238K
7. Time Warner: 28K/448K
8. Skadden, Arps: 148K/282K
9: Lehman Brothers: NO FIGURES GIVEN
10. Cablevision Systems: 33K/11K

UPDATE: A lot of people seem to be responding by sticking their fingers in their ears and going, "La la la la, I CAN'T HEAR YOU! La la la la la!"

UPDATE: I got the flamey icon. Whoo!

UPDATE: The flamey icon continues. And many people seem to be saying that because I haven't investigated every facet of Hillary Clinton's fundraising that we should ignore this completely. "Come back when you have more, Bibeau!" That's what they're saying. And to them I reply, "Don't worry about that at all. Oh, you can be fucking ASSURED of that."

UPDATE: The flamey icon burns brightly, and many of you are daring - absolutely DARING - me to write further about Hillary Clinton's relationship to donors who thought it would be a good idea to back a guy who wanted to write off half the country. Okay then.

UPDATE: One line of argument is that I am comparing apples to oranges - Hillary contributors over the course of her career against how these companies tilted in one specific race. That's an important caveat. It does mean my data here isn't the absolute last word. But it should give progressives some real misgivings. The top companies on her contact list - the people whose calls she must absolutely answer - backed a heartless plutocrat who wanted to write off half the country, and they did so by wide margins. That's something to chew on there. The other line of argument is that the donations coming from these companies are actually coming from the individuals working in those companies, and therefore not necessarily representative of the companies themselves. That line of argument depends on pretending that everything we know about campaign donations somehow doesn't apply to Hillary Clinton and all the people at Citigroup and Goldman Sachs lack the ability to coordinate their efforts to maximize a return on their investment. I like to pretend too. Sometimes, I imagine I'm a fucking Jedi.

UPDATE: I've started trying to find articles talking about the companies which backed both Romney in 2016 and Hillary Clinton over the course of her career. I will post them here.

Mother Jones has a piece on the ties between Goldman Sachs and the Clintons. That one is kind of an easy score.
ThinkProgress has a piece about Mitt Romney's ties to Goldman Sachs.

The Washington Post has a piece that mentions how Mitt Romney's energy plan was substantially copied from that of Citigroup. And here's a bit from Bloomberg about Hillary using the Citigroup corporate jet, along with the jets of other companies of course. And here's a piece from the Nation about how Citigroup wouldn't even exist if it weren't for Bill Clinton.

Business Insider's article about Wall Street firms backing Mitt Romney. Hey, those names seem familiar, don't they? And here's a piece from Politico called "Why Wall Street Loves Hillary" and gosh, there are those names again! Huh. Here is a CNN article about why Goldman Sachs supported Romney in 2012 - basically that the company originally supported Obama in 2008 by a wide margin and then turned against him, because his administration hit them with SEC charges. He was essentially an investment that didn't pay off, the article states. This matters because the CNN article was in 2010 and the piece about Wall Street's love for Hillary was in 2014. It's evidence that these firms still see her as reliable.

And Yahoo News has an article called Hillary Clinton Is Bashing CEO's - While Taking Their Money. And look at the companies those CEOs run. That's just... odd. It's almost as if, as if all of this were some kind of undeniable pattern that you could only ignore by an act of willful blindness so intense it might actually physically hurt you.

The NY Times has an October 2011 article about Romney's campaign lining up top JP Morgan executives for his financial team. Here's a NY Times article about how JP Morgan and Goldman Sachs "showered" Hillary Clinton with "lucrative speaking fees" after she left the State Department.

Truth-Out's article, "Five Reasons No Progressive Should Support Hillary Clinton" lists JP Morgan, Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley and Citigroup as some of her top political donors, quoting the info from OpenSecrets - but also mentioning their support for the Clinton Foundation and stating this: "In October 2013, Clinton received $400,000 to speak at two Goldman Sachs events and delivered what was described as a "reassuring message" to the assembled bankers. In all likelihood, a second Clinton administration would involve the appointment of industry insiders to regulatory posts in the perpetually revolving door between Wall Street and the federal government." And in addition, it links to a ProPublica article on donors to the Foundation, which includes - and I am not kidding - Blackwater.

Hillary Clinton will be the best candidate in the GOP Primary of November 2016

It would be nice to put a couple of Democrats in the race before then, just to make things interesting.

But if we don't I'll still vote for the least insane choice.

Assuming that's all there is.

I'm going to spend the next year criticizing Hillary for not being liberal enough.

And I'm going to try to convince people we need someone more liberal. And then, assuming Hillary gets the nomination, I'm going to go down to the polls and vote for that corporatist warmonger, because she will absolutely be the least insane choice. And after she wins - and she will win - I'm going to spend the next 4 years criticizing her, then vote for her again, and then when she wins again - and she'll win then too - I'll spend 4 years after that criticizing her some more.

That's it. That's the best option.

As a liberal I will do what I can to change the discussion in this country. About the use of military force. About civil rights. About the security state. About protecting people from big businesses. There is a lot I don't like about Hillary. Hell, there's a lot I don't like about Obama.

But there is still a difference. Right now, Barack Obama continues to chase after whistleblowers and prosecute a drone war. But he's also trying to change our relationship to countries we've been enemies with for decades. The response of the Republicans has been clear, and very, very instructive.

Yes, there is a difference. And you can't pretend there isn't.

Also, it will give me some satisfaction to watch conservatives across America absolutely lose their minds when Hillary beats them. That's not the reason I'm voting for her, but it will be fun.

UPDATE: I wrote an OP that was - I thought - a series of completely noncontroversial statements, and now I have the little flamey icon. Oh well. Some people seem to be criticizing me not for the statements, but for actually writing those statements. The idea is that you shouldn't write or say certain things even if they're true, because that might "hurt the cause."


That's how you become Republicans. GOP candidates get up on stages, and they have a problem admitting that evolution is real, and that women are generally pro-choice, and that their party has a problem with people of color, and climate change is actually happening, and that regulation is sometimes necessary. This is the result of YEARS of not being able to admit simple, obvious truths to themselves. It is a MONUMENTAL strategic disadvantage, and one should do everything one can to avoid it.

The truth is the truth. It's easier to remember, and it doesn't collapse under inquiry. It's the greatest tool you have.

New Update: Just wrote an OP about how HRC was Republican Lite. Here is the response:

Oh my friends. Oh, the fun we're going to have this year.

Fuck Them: A Balanced And Considered Approach To Social Conservatism

I grew up among social and religious conservatives - the kind of people who like Duck Dynasty and Chick-fil-A. Many of them might have been supporters of Santorum or Huckabee, and the older ones might have grown up with Pat Robertson. As we discuss cultural conflicts in America today, I really feel like I can give many of my readers some insight into who they are, and how best to approach the delicate task of negotiating the parameters of our civic and economic engagement.

My position, in short, is this: Fuck them. Fuck them all. Those people are assholes.

Allow me to elaborate. And when I say "elaborate" I mean "repeat myself." Fuck them. Fuck them all. Those people are assholes.

Seriously. They are awful. They are the worst. Being fair to them isn't something you need to worry about.

I can guess your objections. Don't people have a right to be terrible to others? Absolutely and truly terrible? What about that Voltaire quote about defending to the death and somesuch? That's a good point, and I could understand how that might give you pause. So let me address it by saying you should almost never hunt these people for sport. I think that's going too far. You shouldn't hunt them for sport or lock them in a warehouse and force them to struggle with a series of lethal traps while being menaced by a clown puppet.

Yes, of course they do have the right to believe gay people are inferior. Everyone has that right. Just like everyone has the right to believe people of other races and religions are inferior. And you could argue about this in a theoretical way, which conservatives like to do, because a theoretical discussion distracts us all from the facts of our shared history in this country.

But the facts are clear. Social and religious conservatives have a well-documented record of denying rights to people. Of throwing people out of communities, refusing them service at lunch counters, and bullying them everywhere. Homophobia, like racism, and like sexism, has a death toll associated with it. It also has centuries of oppression and misery associated with it. These aren't theoretical considerations. This isn't a free speech issue. At stake is whether we give social and religious conservatives the power to continue marginalizing everyone who doesn't agree with them. Because yes, they will absolutely do anything and everything they can get away with to make life miserable for people who don't make their list. They have, they do, and they will. So it was in the beginning shall it be in the end.

I've worked with these people, I've gone to school with them, and I've lived in their neighborhoods, and they are more psychotic than a Scientology video. They believe in a God who will spend eternity torturing the majority of human beings - the majority - in the worst ways you can think of, and that this God will do that hideous thing as an expression of His perfect love. They believe this nation belongs only to them, and that they have a duty to bring it to obedience. They don't respect the rights of women, because they really don't think women are equal, or that their bodies belong to them. When the cameras are videoing, they might slip and say they might feel uncomfortable with gay marriage - but when the cameras are off, they will say that being gay really should be a crime, and that God uses disease and natural disasters to punish this country for our tolerance. Hell, many of them have said such things publicly.

No, they don't want equal rights. That's a stupid thing to believe. Every election we have one or two candidates who represent those people, and they make it quite clear what they want.

I want a country where they have exactly the same level of respect as racist skinheads. Exactly that. No one gets to throw a rock through their shop windows, but everyone agrees that they're pretty vile. Gay kids are killing themselves because of the crap these people believe. They are pretty vile.

Will they look like the underdogs in my liberal dystopia? Will they whine about their mistreatment? Will they complain that it isn't fair?

Yes. Of course. Good.

Because fuck them.

THE BLACK BOOK OF CHILDREN'S BIBLE STORIES is about faith and loss, and a haunted house hidden so well you didn't notice you'd been living there your whole life. BUY IT HERE.

"I'm Going To Punch A Foreign Leader And See What Happens," By Sen. Tom Cotton

My name is Tom Cotton, and I'm the junior US Senator from Arkansas. You may not understand this, but Congress is a coequal branch of our government. We share some important foreign policy duties with the president. That's why I'm about to wander through the streets of the capital until I find a foreign official, and then I'm going to punch that person as hard as I can, just to see what happens next.

I bet it'll be cool.

The president can make agreements with other nations. But the US Senate performs an important role to advise and consent with him. It's right there in Article 2! Barack Obama thinks he's the only one who gets a voice. But we need to remind him he's not the boss. That's why I don't know who it is yet, but the person I punch will be at ambassador level or higher. I'm not just going to deck the export minister of some crap-bag country no one cares about. It'll be a major nation, and the guy I take down will be someone you recognize on TV. It's about respecting the office.

Plus I don't want to brag, but I have military training and I work out. If I whale on some soft, middle-aged dude who's not even expecting it, because he probably thinks I just want to meet him for a photo op or a junket, he doesn't stand a chance.

I might even do this throat-strike thing I saw in a movie once. The people who put me here don't deserve any less. We count too, you know! I want to make sure I act as a check on the president. So I'm going to put someone in the hospital, cause an international incident, and derail decades of painstaking diplomacy. Just like James Madison would have wanted.

Republican voters gave me a mandate to make sure Barack Obama is responsible to all Americans. That means he's not supposed to negotiate with foreign countries by himself. Or even respond to national emergencies or act as Commander in Chief, or any of the other stuff he wants to do, because folks like me are going to shut the government down so they can't put you in FEMA camps or force you to get gay-married to Frenchmen. I've been up since 4 am, pounding Red Bulls and reading the Constitution, and when I'm done one of those blond Fox women will interview me.

I'm from Harvard. Did I say that? That's right. Fucking Harvard, okay?

I know the law. I know my rights. I represent a major political party of a great nation and the proud state of Arkansas. Plus I've been practicing my moves in the mirror. Believe me, they are sweet.

THE BLACK BOOK OF CHILDREN'S BIBLE STORIES is about faith and loss, and a haunted house hidden so well you didn't notice you'd been living there your whole life. BUY IT HERE.
Go to Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next »