Saturday, September 14, 2013

Douchebag Republican Sen.Tommy Tucker:

Rarely has a legislator expressed what he thinks of the public with such eloquence and and brevity as Republican Tommy Tucker, Chairman of the North Carolina Senate's State and Local Government Committee.
So honestly.
So powerfully.
Challenged by a reporter to record a voice vote on a bill that would allow city and county governments to post public notices, traditionally published in newspapers, in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying 'Beware of the Leopard' solely on government websites, so that the Committee's members would have to own up to their votes, how did Tucker respond?

I AM THE SENATOR.
YOU ARE THE CITIZEN.
YOU NEED TO BE QUIET.
Words fit to be engraved on a plaque, adorning a bronze statue of Tommy Tucker.
Words that should be written on the frieze of every State Capitol and Governor's mansion.
There was a belief, once, that America was a country governed by citizens, some of whom were chosen by their fellow citizens because of wisdom and good ideas, to represent all the rest in the legislature: Citizen legislators, wary of government, who would use their power sparingly because they would soon have to return home, and live under the laws they'd enacted, among people whose lives were governed by those laws.
To the extent anyone believes that today, especially in a once free State like North Carolina which now is infested with little emperors seeking to rule by decree rather than through a Constitution of ordered liberty, Senator Tucker has given the lie to that fantasy.
I AM THE SENATOR. YOU ARE THE CITIZEN. YOU SHOULD BE QUIET.
I AM THE SENATOR.
YOU ARE THE CITIZEN.
YOU NEED TO BE QUIET.
Senator Tommy Tucker should be given a medal by the the grateful citizens of Union County, North Carolina for the lesson in civics he has given them. The grateful citizens of Union County should remember Senator Tucker's words when he runs for reelection in 2014.
And, if they still maintain the quaint idea that they own their government, thank Senator Tucker accordingly.

Last 5 posts by Patrick Non-White



Douchebag Republican Sen.Tommy Tucker:
"I AM THE SENATOR.
YOU ARE THE CITIZEN.
YOU NEED TO BE QUIET."
http://t.co/Hk27LZdtv6

Benghazeeeee Rally on Capitol Steps Draws Tens of People


From Think Progress:
The “Justice for Benghazi” rally was meant to be a joint effort between the Patriots4America and Special Operations Speak — two groups that have for months now been hammering establishment Republicans for what they see as not enough action to unveil what really happened in Benghazi, Libya last year. Special Operations Speak was behind a series of ads and petitions demanding that Speaker of the House John Boehner appoint a special committee to investigate the Obama administration cover-up of the attack and the deaths of four Americans including Ambassador to Libya Chris Stevens. According to organizers, as many as 5,000 people were expected to show up on the Hill and make their voices heard.
...
Once the rally finally got under way, the true number of those present was revealed, showing themselves to be less than a hundred total. That didn’t stop the speakers from trying to get the crowd riled up, asking them what they thought of claims that Benghazi was a “phony scandal.” “Obama’s a phony president!” one crowd member yelled back in response, his lone voice highlighting just how quiet what was meant to be a massive rally was.
rally on capitol steps Benghazeeeee
Alternate view of today's Benghazeee rally
Shame on the GOP for making a mockery of today's solemn anniversary of 9/11/2001.
Check out this great article, also on Think Progress, on how GOP attempts to politicize Benghazi failed spectacularly:
(my bold)
CHANGE IS NEEDED

Conservative vs Liberal

Conservative vs Liberal

Homeless and Veteran and GOP








Forty Republican senators killed the disabled #veterans jobs bill http://t.co/IOR836cM2M

GOP Claims of Voter Fraud Continue to be Exposed as…Fraud

GOP Claims of Voter Fraud Continue to be Exposed as…Fraud


Posted by: Sky Palma in TEApublican Smack Downs


Adding to the mounting examples of why the GOP’s claims of voter fraud are…well…a fraud, a pair of investigations conducted by the Florida Department of Law Enforcement yielded only one arrest — of a person who was connected to a Republican firm.
The first investigation targeted a voter registration group called the Florida New Majority Education Fund. When the investigation was completed, the agency determined that no arrests were justified.
But raising a few eyebrows was the second investigation, which targeted a vendor for Florida Republicans called Strategic Allied Counseling. One individual that belonged to the group admitted to fraudulently filling out two voter registration forms.
Republican operatives have long disseminated fears that widespread voter fraud has been utilized by liberals in elections, claiming that voters are showing up at polls pretending to be people other than themselves. But time and time again, studies have shown this particular kind of phenomenon to be highly unusual.
In 2007, the New York Times reported that five years after the Bush administration began a crackdown on voter fraud, the Justice Department turned up virtually no evidence of any organized effort to skew federal elections, according to court records and interviews.
Although Republican activists have repeatedly said fraud is so widespread that it has corrupted the political process and, possibly, cost the party election victories, about 120 people have been charged and 86 convicted in the year before the NY Times ran its piece.





GOP Claims of Voter Fraud Continue to be Exposed as Fraud http://t.co/u3OTJVUAK0 #p2

Asshole Of The Day: Dave Carney





#AssholeOfTheDay Dave Carney says Wendy Davis "too stupid to be Governor". http://t.co/SA9euIJiCX http://t.co/T4ouQ6bpYu

Asshole of the Day, September 10, 2013: Ann Coulter

Asshole of the Day, September 10, 2013: Ann Coulter

by TeaPartyCat

Howard Cosell was forced out at Monday Night Football 30 years ago for referring to a black athlete as a monkey. While Howard argued he’d used the term before, and he was using it to refer to a diminutive athlete, it has pretty obvious racial connotations. And ever since, it’s a no-no when referring to African Americans. There’s no not knowing about this taboo.
So when someone known for inflammatory and insensitive statements wheels it out, it’s safe to assume they know what they’re saying. So it is with Ann Coulter, no stranger to controversy, in fact she and controversy are on a first name basis.
On Hannity yesterday, she and the host were trashing Obama for his handling of Syria, and then she said she believes Putin has made a “monkey” out of Obama on Syria.
She could have picked any words, but she picked Monkey.
I mean it’s not like Ann Coulter lacks for ways to say mean things. She’s not some simpleton who has to stick to the same three put-downs.
So we can only conclude that she CHOSE this racially charged term, for which she deserves Asshole of the Day. Surprisingly, her first win.
This is the third winner for comments related to Syria (Previous winners were Rumsfeld for saying Obama wasn’t “behaving like a commander in chief” and Jeff Sessions for saying “it wouldn’t have happened if Bush were still president”). There will probably be more.
Full story: http://www.mediaite.com/tv/ann-coulter-to-hannity-putin-is-making-a-monkey-out-of-obama-on-syria/
For some Syria related satire, you should check out the video Sarah Palin Explains Syria written by me, and also other Syria posts on Wink Progress such as today’s Brutal dictator agrees to give up chemical weapons, no thanks to Obama by TheDailyEdge.







#AssholeOfTheDay Ann Coulter for saying Putin is making a "monkey" out of Obama on #Syria http://t.co/QcBeq5FA8a http://t.co/cLWWbOiLkd

Cenk Uygur on Conservatives' Reaction to President Obama's Syria Speech

Cenk Uygur on Conservatives' Reaction to President Obama's Syria Speech

By Heather      



The Young Turks and Cenk Uygur put together a nice mashup of the right wing and Fox pundits' reaction to President Obama's speech on Syria this Tuesday and as Cenk noted, they're really pissed off that they're not going to get their bombing any time soon.
After getting criticism from all sides who did not necessarily agree on whether the United States ought to use air strikes in Syria or not, now that President Obama has given his speech saying he wants to give diplomacy a chance first, the right is all in agreement that it's a reason to attack him, call him weak and claim that his presidency is doomed. It seems the only way these wingers believe we can show we're not weak is by lobbing a few bombs on some more people's heads in the Middle East, because that's what tough guys do, don't ya' know.
Like Uygur, I'm so sick of these Republicans and the fact that the only thing consistent about their policies is that if President Blackenstein (as Bill Maher calls him) is for something, they're going to be against it, even if they were for it a year, or week, or even a day before.
Our government would function a whole lot better if we had some people running it who actually cared about what was good for their constituents who are not part of the one percent instead of governing by sabotage to make a Democratic president look bad, consequences be damned, with this goon squad on Fox cheerleading for them all the way.




Cenk Uygur on Conservatives' Reaction to President Obama's Syria Speech http://t.co/8gvuQShvJz

Stephen Colbert exposes libertarian hero Rand Paul's nonsense on Syria



Last night, Stephen Colbert exposed just what a fraud Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) is when it comes to anything coherent on Syria.
For more, let's get the Republican response from Senator Rand Paul, who made the rounds on the cable news shows last night after first delivering the traditional State of the Rand speech. Now, Paul has been opposed to military action from the beginning, so he was thrilled by Russia's diplomatic proposal.
SEN. RAND PAUL, R-KY (9/10/2013): I don't know whether to trust the proposal or not. ... The question is, are they serious? ... Can we trust the participants in this plan?
Right. You can't always trust. For instance, that thing on your head. You assure us that it's hair, but I have yet to be convinced it's not a slumbering wombat ready to strike at any time.
So you know what? I agree with Rand Paul. We cannot trust Russia or Syria. Killing civilians is bad, but it's not that bad. We shouldn't do anything.
SEN. RAND PAUL, R-KY (9/10/2013): It's a violation of every norm for someone to kill civilians, and I think Assad should be accountable.
Absolutely. Got to hold him accountable. Otherwise, what are we as a nation, Not-Accountable-Stan?
So I agree with Rand Paul. No, Jimmy, the second Rand Paul.

Thank you. OK. We must hold them accountable with the President's plan of limited strikes. Send a message.
SEN. RAND PAUL, R-KY (9/10/2013): They have said that the war would be "unbelievably small" and limited. To me that sounds like they are pre-announcing that the military strikes will not punish Assad personally or effect regime change. ... I think if Assad's responsible, he deserves death for this.
Death it is, regime change, shock and awe, bombs away!
SEN. RAND PAUL, R-KY (9/10/2013): I think if we bomb Assad, I think it will more likely that the country becomes more unstable. ... Just about any bad outcome you could imagine is made more likely by U.S. involvement in the Syrian civil war.
OK, I was wrong, this is the Rand Paul I agree with. Cuz think about it, if we take out the guy who gasses children, somebody bad might take over. So just to recap, Rand Paul says:1) no diplomacy,
2) can't do nothing,
3) but no to the President's plan,
4) and no to regime change.
I mean, taken all together, that's really....................................... huh.

You know what, I'm not sure how I would describe Rand Paul's response to the President. Um, you know what, Rand Paul, how would you describe Rand Paul?
SEN. RAND PAUL, R-KY (9/10/2013): I think he's been a little bit here, a little bit there, and a little bit everywhere. ... I don't think he makes any sense.
You know what? You could not have said it better yourself. (audience cheering and applause) We'll be right back.
Video below the fold.


Both Stephen and Jon led off their shows with coverage of the results of the New York City mayoral primary, with Jon paying special attention to Anthony Weiner's concession.



Stephen also looked at the latest insanity from Fox News about Obama being a secret Muslim.

Jon also looked at the recent trip to Egypt that Reps. Michele Bachmann (R-MN), Louie Gohmert (R-TX), and Steve King (R-IA) took, and the bullshit that spewed forth from their mouths.

Stephen had on Sheryl Crow, who performed "Give It to Me" and "If It Makes You Happy", and Jon talked with Bob Odenkirk and David Cross.
Watergate 2013: What sinister reason does Michelle Obama have for wanting Americans to drink water http://t.co/7CUiYpkj04

==================================================================
This mobile text message is brought to you by AT&T

This above all other factors is the true cause of America's high employment.

This above all other factors is the true cause of America's high employment.




This above all other factors is the true cause of America's high employment. http://t.co/bSyMrbdpAs

Syrian opposition elects moderate Islamist as prime minister

Syrian opposition elects moderate Islamist as prime minister


By Khaled Yacoub Oweis and Dasha Afanasieva


(Reuters) - The opposition Syrian National Coalition elected a moderate Islamist as provisional prime minister on Saturday, hoping to avoid being sidelined as world powers renew diplomatic efforts to end the civil war

The SNC has long sought recognition as a government in exile, but has been hampered by internal divisions and varying pressures from its Arab and Western backers. The election of 48-year-old opposition campaigner Ahmad Tumeh is meant to show it can fulfill that role.
Coalition sources said the decision to proceed with naming a provisional government went ahead despite opposition from the United States, which hopes to convene, along with Russia, a peace conference in Geneva that could come up with a transitional administration.
That follows a deal between Russia and the United States over President Bashar al-Assad's chemical weapons arsenal that could lead to efforts towards a wider settlement of the two-and-a-half year conflict.
Tumeh said his priority would be restoring order to areas of Syria no longer controlled by Assad.
"The priority of my government will be to restore stability in the liberated areas, improve their living conditions and provide security," Tumeh told Reuters after his election at an SNC meeting in Istanbul.
Tumeh addressed coalition members as "comrades on the path to freedom," and indicated that the SNC would not compromise on a deal that could keep Assad in power.
"The Syrian people carried their lives and marched for freedom, not to improve the conditions of their serfdom," Tumeh said, adding that he would name his cabinet shortly.
In a closed door briefing, Tumeh told the coalition that the provisional government would operate from northern Syria, members present told Reuters.
It will be a task fraught with risk, with al Qaeda-linked militants, with a significant presence in the north, ideologically opposed to moderates such as Tumeh, who has preached tolerance and democratic change during a long political career.
SHADOW
The SNC appointed its first provisional prime minister in March, but that bid to create a government-in-exile fizzled out.
SNC member Khaled Khoja said the new provisional government had to prove itself quickly or the coalition as a whole would be undermined, to the benefit of the more hardline Islamists.
"News of (the U.S-Russian) agreement cast a shadow over the appointment of the prime minister," Khoja said.
"I think the government issue is not on their agenda. They are not keen to see this government on board. They (the Americans) wanted to agree on a government through Geneva, not before," Khoja said.
Tumeh, a former political prisoner from the eastern province of Deir al-Zor, got 75 votes out of 97 cast in a coalition ballot in Istanbul. He is expected to choose a cabinet of 13 ministers in a deal reached after two days of talks.
Russia and the United States agreed on a new push to negotiate an end to the civil war on Friday by reviving an international plan for a "Geneva 2" conference.
The original drive for a political solution to the conflict dubbed the "Geneva" plan and calling for a transitional government with full power, went nowhere as Assad refused to cede power, and the opposition insisted that he could not be a part of any new political order.
Financing for the Tumeh government will mainly come from the Gulf, especially Saudi Arabia, which has emerged as the main backer of the coalition, opposition sources said. Khoja said the government would initially need at least $200 million a month.
Louay Safi, a senior member of the coalition said Tumeh would improve the coalition's standing inside Syria.
"Tumeh has an excellent relationship with a wide spectrum of Syrians. He has good reports internally. He's the right person for generating support for the government. The current situation is very chaotic - you need to bring law and order," Safi said.
Tumeh was imprisoned from 2007 to 2010 along with 11 opposition members who had demanded that Assad embark on democratic change in a country ruled by his family since 1970.
(Editing by Robin Pomeroy)

Syrian opposition elects moderate Islamist Ahmad Tumeh as PM - Reuters: http://t.co/yepYLCYpO3

GOP: Why can’t Obama be more like Putin?

GOP: Why can’t Obama be more like Putin?

Tea Party Cat

 
Look, Republicans aren’t crazy people. They have completely legitimate concerns about President Obama being
I mean after reading all those linked stories, it’s only fair that conservatives are asking, why can’t Obama be more like that heart-throb Vladimir Putin?
 Why cant Obama be more like Putin

@WinkProgress: GOP: Why can't Obama be more like Putin? http://t.co/WnCR8tyjko

Video: Ron Paul Gives Speech on Civil War in Front of Giant Confederate Flag

Video: Ron Paul Gives Speech on Civil War in Front of Giant Confederate Flag

One of the remaining Republican Presidential candidates spouts Civil War revisionism, standing in front of a Dixie flag



Here’s Ron Paul in a video recently posted at YouTube by one of his fans, explaining why the South was the right side in the Civil War — in front of a huge Confederate flag.
Any more questions about Ron Paul?


Note: in the comments for the video at YouTube, I noticed that Ron Paul followers were urging that the video be deleted before it could damage Paul’s reputation any further — so I downloaded a copy just in case.
UPDATE at 1/20/12 5:05:50 pm
And another crazy new story about the Crazy Uncle: Ron Paul Was Implicated In Attempted White Supremacist Island Invasion | News One.
In 1981, a lawyer tried to subpoena Ron Paul to testify in the trial of Don Black, a Grand Wizard for the Ku Klux Klan who would later go on to found the white supremacist, neo-Nazi website, Stormfront. Black was charged along with two other Klansmen with planning to violently overthrow the small Caribbean country of Dominica in what they called “Operation Red Dog.” While a judge refused to subpoena Paul, Don Black would come back to haunt him many years later.
In 1981 a group of American and Canadian white supremacists lead by Klansman and mercenary, Michael (Mike) Perdue planned on taking over a small West Indian country called Dominica by overthrowing the government and Prime Minister Eugenia Charles and restoring its previous prime minister, Patrick Johns into power. The group planned to create an Aryan paradise in Dominica and make money through casinos, cocaine and brothels.
On the day the group of white supremacists were supposed to travel to Dominica, they were arrested by ATF agents and were found with over thirty automatic weapons, shotguns, rifles, handguns, dynamite, ammunition, a confederate flag and a Nazi flag. The plan would be dubbed “The Bayou Of Pigs” after the failed invasion of Cuba.
The leader of the group, Michael Perdue, would plead guilty to planning the coup and turned state’s evidence. Perdue would testify that several other people helped organize and fund the coup and that two Texas politicians were aware of the plan. Among those Perdue implicated were infamous white supremacist, David Duke, former Texas Governor, John Connally and Congressman, Ron Paul whom he claimed knew about the plot. Connally was credited with helping Paul win his first congressional election.
A judge refused to subpoena Paul and Connally despite the fact that Perdue had claimed that both of them were aware of the plot.
UPDATE at 1/21/12 9:40:08 am
The Ron Paul cult member who posted this video to YouTube changed the video to a different one showing Ron Paul interviewed on TV, without the Confederate flag.
So, just as I promised, I’ve uploaded my own copy and replaced it in this post.

Ron Paul argues the South was right in front of a giant Confederate flag: http://t.co/13rME6KjJf

Friday, September 13, 2013

More GOP Bullshit

More GOP Bullshit

Largest Gun Study Ever: More Guns, More Murder

Largest Gun Study Ever: More Guns, More Murder


guns1

The largest study of gun violence in the United States, released Thursday afternoon, confirms a point that should be obvious: widespread American gun ownership is fueling America’s gun violence epidemic.
The study, by Professor Michael Siegel at Boston University and two coauthors, has been peer-reviewed and is forthcoming in the American Journal of Public Health. Siegel and his colleagues compiled data on firearm homicides from all 50 states from 1981-2010, the longest stretch of time ever studied in this fashion, and set about seeing whether they could find any relationship between changes in gun ownership and murder using guns over time.
Since we know that violent crime rates overall declined during that period of time, the authors used something called “fixed effect regression” to account for any national trend other than changes in gun ownership. They also employed the largest-ever number of statistical controls for other variables in this kind of gun study: “age, gender, race/ethnicity, urbanization, poverty, unemployment, income, education, income inequality, divorce rate, alcohol use, violent crime rate, nonviolent crime rate, hate crime rate, number of hunting licenses, age-adjusted nonfirearm homicide rate, incarceration rate,and suicide rate” were all accounted for.
No good data on national rates of gun ownership exist (partly because of the NRA’s stranglehold on Congress), so the authors used the percentage of suicides that involve a firearm (FS/S) as a proxy. The theory, backed up by a wealth of data, is that the more guns there are any in any one place, the higher the percentage of people who commit suicide with guns as opposed to other mechanisms will be.
With all this preliminary work in hand, the authors ran a series of regressions to see what effect the overall national decline in firearm ownership from 1981 to 2010 had on gun homicides. The result was staggering: “for each 1 percentage point increase in proportion of household gun ownership,” Siegel et al. found, “firearm homicide rate increased by 0.9″ percent. A one standard deviation change in firearm ownership shifted gun murders by a staggering 12.9 percent.
To put this in perspective, take the state of Mississippi. “All other factors being equal,” the authors write, “our model would predict that if the FS/S in Mississippi were 57.7% (the average for all states) instead of 76.8% (the highest of all states), its firearm homicide rate would be 17% lower.” Since 475 people were murdered with a gun in Mississippi in 2010, that drop in gun ownership would translate to 80 lives saved in that year alone.
Of course, the authors don’t find that rates of gun ownership explain all of America’s gun violence epidemic: race, economic inequality and generally violent areas all contribute to an area’s propensity for gun deaths, suggesting that broader social inequality, not gun ownership alone, contributes to the gun violence epidemic. Nevertheless, the fact that gun ownership mattered even when race and poverty were accounted for suggests that we can’t avoid talking about America’s fascination with guns when debating what to do about the roughly 11,000 Americans who are yearly murdered by gunfire.


Largest Gun Study Ever: More Guns = More Murder. Period.
http://t.co/rBT5tbQypA

Change is past due

Brutal dictator agrees to give up chemical weapons, no thanks to Obama

Brutal dictator agrees to give up chemical weapons, no thanks to Obama

The Daily Edge



One of the world’s most brutal dictators has agreed to give up control of his chemical weapons, reports Fox News, despite feeling absolutely no pressure to do so from lily-livered appeaser President Obama.
“It’s just astonishing,” said Fox News’ Megyn Kelly. “Obama is such a big softy. I really can’t explain why Syria would agree to give up its weapons. We can only assume Assad felt sorry for him.”
Conservative pundits were united in condemning Obama for Syria’s decision to relinquish its WMDs without a shot being fired. Karl Rove tweeted: “Obama’s such a pussy.” And Donald Rumsfeld called for an immediate invasion of Syria in an effort to get Assad to change his mind.
Full story: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/10/syria-accepts-proposal-to-surrender-chemical-weapons_n_3898941.html
Addition Syria coverage at Wink Progress: http://winkprogress.com/?s=Syria


@WinkProgress: Brutal dictator agrees to give up chemical weapons, no thanks to Obama http://t.co/n7bTjOqXfT #Headlines


 

Thursday, September 12, 2013

Don't Feed the Trolls

Don't Feed the Trolls
Can The Conservative Mind Be Changed?
  

ALEC and the Koch Brothers Show How Far They Are Willing to Go to Subvert Democracy


Koch-ALEC-NRA-trinity
It is a travesty that most Americans are unaware of the despicable machinations Republicans resort to in their drive to advance their special interests’ agendas in the states, and their ignorance and lack of interest is playing a major role in democracy’s demise. The GOP are giving the nation an indication of how far they will go to subvert democracy to protect the real powers behind the conservative movement; the National Rifle Association, the Koch brothers, and the American Legislative Exchange Council. On Tuesday two democratic state legislators in Colorado were recalled in a confluence of lies, voter suppression, and fear-mongering because they supported background checks for gun purchases and renewable energy standards the NRA, Koch brothers, and ALEC would not let go unpunished.
The two Democrats, State Senate President John Morse and state Senator Angela Giron were recalled after voting for Colorado’s new gun law that imposed universal background checks on gun purchases and limited magazines to 15 rounds. They also voted for renewable energy measures that contributed to the effort to unseat them and elicited an influx of money from the Kochs and their Super PAC Americans for Prosperity. Although the lion’s share of publicity for the recall surrounded background checks, an underlying source of discontent was the Koch brothers’ opposition to Colorado’s stronger renewable energy standards. It is noteworthy that in northern Colorado Republicans are working toward seceding to form their own state, and one of the effort’s main proponents, a recipient of Koch donations, said “the whole purpose of doing this is to preserve and protect the energy sector that we feel is very much under assault.”
However, the face of the recall was NRA-supported opposition to background checks that incited them to spend heavily in the recalls they won, and evidenced by their quickly released statement celebrating its victory. The NRA statement read, “A historic grassroots effort by voters in Colorado’s has resulted in the recall of Colorado Senate President John Morse. The people of Colorado Springs sent a clear message to the Senate leader that his primary job was to defend their rights and freedoms and that he is ultimately accountable his constituents, and not to the dollars or social engineering agendas of anti-gun activists.” It is typical rhetoric from the NRA that conflates background checks for gun purchases with “social engineering,” and that voting for them robbed Coloradans’ rights and freedoms.
The president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, Dan Gross, said the recall effort in Colorado was an anomaly, but that the real NRA goal was making gun safety activists nationwide aware of the risk they take in supporting commonsense laws such as background checks for gun purchases. Another political consultant supporting gun safety measures said “The unfortunate reality of the Colorado experience is that the NRA bullying tactics can still work,” and that “gun-control proponents should be sensitive to the power of the NRA and its ability to target districts.” After two of the nation’s worst mass shootings, there is evidence there was deep public support for background checks, but according to DNC chairwoman Debbie Wasserman-Schultz; voter’s voices were not heard and she strongly asserted that voter suppression tactics contributed heavily to the low voter turnout.
Wasserman-Schultz said that “The recall elections in Colorado were defined by the vast array of obstacles that special interests threw in the way of voters for the purpose of reversing the will of the legislature and the people. This was voter suppression, pure and simple. Colorado voters are used to casting their ballots by mail, but because of lawsuits filed by opponents of common sense gun reform, voters were not mailed their ballots in this election. Tuesday’s low turnout was a result of efforts by the NRA, the Koch brothers and other right wing groups who know that when more people vote, Democrats win.” Although, as potential Republican gubernatorial candidate and former Rep. Tom Tancredo said, the recall effort was really “a shot across the bow” to warn other legislators that opposing the NRA and Koch brothers has consequences that should alert Democrats their primary goal should be registering voters and engaging in aggressive information campaigns. Even though the NRA and Koch brothers won the recall effort, Democrats still control the Colorado legislature and Governor’s office, and the gun safety and renewable energy measures that passed by popular vote remain intact; at least until the 2014 midterm elections.
Regardless the Colorado recall effort did not tilt the balance of power to Republicans or repeal gun safety or renewable energy measures, it is a warning to Democrats that the NRA, Koch brothers, and ALEC still wield inordinate power over the electoral process in the states; even a Democratic-controlled state like Colorado. ALEC has been a fierce advocate for voter suppression tactics, and restricting mail-in votes is an important aspect of keeping voter turnout low. The Pueblo County Clerk and Recorder Gilbert “Bo” Ortiz said typically about 90% of votes are cast by mail, but NRA, Koch brothers, and other right wing groups’ lawsuits prevented voters from sending in their ballots.
The real danger to America’s democracy is that now that the NRA, Koch brothers, and ALEC have a recipe for success, they are certain to repeat them in next year’s midterm elections. Whether it is fear-mongering by the NRA that Democrats are coming for Americans’ guns, or the Koch brothers’ Americans for Prosperity PAC disseminating lies and misinformation about the dangers of renewable energy, with ALEC voter suppression laws in place in Republican states the time for voter registration drives and aggressive information campaigns is now; not a month before the 2014 elections.
ALEC has been busy passing voter suppression laws in Republican-controlled states and the NRA has an active fear-mongering crusade in place since the Newtown school massacre, and with unlimited and hidden campaign cash in hand the Koch brothers will spare no expense to repeat the events in Colorado in every congressional district in America. Unfortunately, with over a year to achieve their goal and Democrats snake bit about challenging the NRA, without a herculean effort to get out the vote, it will be more than just two state Democrats who will be recalled and defeated in 2014.
ALEC and the Koch Brothers Show How Far They Are Willing to Go to Subvert Democracy was written by Rmuse for PoliticusUSA.
© PoliticusUSA, Sep. 12th, 2013 — All Rights Reserved






ALEC and the Koch Brothers Show How Far They Are Willing to Go to Subvert Democracy http://t.co/8oYU2CtQXS via @politicususa

11 Questions You Should Ask Libertarians to See if They're Hypocrites

11 Questions You Should Ask Libertarians to See if They're Hypocrites

We aren’t suggesting every libertarian is a hypocrite, but there’s an easy way to find out.

Photo Credit: SenRandPaul YouTube channel
 
 
Libertarians have a problem. Their political philosophy all but died out in the mid- to late-20th century, but was revived by billionaires and corporations that found them politically useful. And yet libertarianism retains the qualities that led to its disappearance from the public stage, before its reanimation by people like the Koch brothers: It doesn’t make any sense.
They call themselves “realists” but rely on fanciful theories that have never predicted real-world behavior. They claim that selfishness makes things better for everybody, when history shows exactly the opposite is true. They claim that a mythical “free market” is better at everything than the government is, yet when they really need government protection, they’re the first to clamor for it.
That’s no reason not to work with them on areas where they’re in agreement with people like me. In fact, the unconventionality of their thought has led libertarians to be among this nation’s most forthright and outspoken advocates for civil liberties and against military interventions.
Merriam-Webster defines “hypocrisy” as “feigning to be what one is not or to believe what one does not.” We aren’t suggesting every libertarian is a hypocrite. But there’s an easy way to find out.
The Other Libertarianism
First, some background. There is a kind of libertarianism that’s nothing more or less than a strain in the American psyche, an emotional tendency toward individualism and personal liberty. That’s fine and even admirable.
We’re talking about the other libertarianism, the political philosophy whose avatar is the late writer Ayn Rand. It was once thought that this extreme brand of libertarianism, one that celebrates greed and even brutality, had died in the early 1980s with Rand herself. Many Rand acolytes had already gone underground, repressing or disavowing the more extreme statements of their youth and attempting to blend in with more mainstream schools of thought in respectable occupations.
There was a good reason for that. Randian libertarianism is an illogical, impractical, inhumane, unpopular set of Utopian ravings which lacks internal coherence and has never predicted real-world behavior anywhere. That’s why, reasonably enough, the libertarian movement evaporated in the late 20th century, its followers scattered like the wind.
Pay to Play
But the libertarian movement has seen a strong resurgence in recent years, and there’s a simple reason for that: money, and the personal interests of some people who have a lot of it. Once relegated to drug-fueled college-dorm bull sessions, political libertarianism suddenly had pretensions of legitimacy. This revival is Koch-fueled, not coke-fueled, and exists only because in political debate, as in so many other walks of life, cash is king.
The Koch brothers are principal funders of the Reason Foundation and Reason magazine. Exxon Mobil and other corporate and billionaire interests are behind the Cato Institute, the other public face of libertarianism. Financiers have also seeded a number of economics schools, think tanks, and other institutions with proponents of their brand of libertarianism. It’s easy to explain why some of these corporate interests do it. It serves the self-interest of the environmental polluters, for example, to promote a political philosophy which argues that regulation is bad and the market will correct itself. And every wealthy individual benefits from tax cuts for the rich. What better way to justify that than with a philosophy that says they’re rich because they’re better—and that those tax cuts help everybody?
The rise of the Silicon Valley economy has also contributed to the libertarian resurgence. A lot of Internet billionaires are nerds who suddenly find themselves rich and powerful, and they’re emotionally and intellectually inclined toward libertarianism’s geeky and unrealistic vision of a free market. In their minds its ideas are "heuristic," "autologous" and "cybernetic"—all of which has inherent attraction in their culture.
The only problem is: It’s only a dream. At no time or place in human history has there been a working libertarian society which provided its people with the kinds of outcomes libertarians claim it will provide. But libertarianism’s self-created mythos claims that it’s more realistic than other ideologies, which is the opposite of the truth. The slope from that contradiction to the deep well of hypocrisy is slippery, steep—and easy to identify.
The Libertarian Hypocrisy Test
That’s where the Libertarian Hypocrisy Test comes in. Let’s say we have a libertarian friend, and we want to know whether or not he’s hypocritical about his beliefs. How would we go about conducting such a test? The best way is to use the tenets of his philosophy to draw up a series of questions to explore his belief system.
The Cato Institute’s overview of key libertarian concepts mixes universally acceptable bromides like the "rule of law” and “individual rights” with principles that are more characteristically libertarian—and therefore more fantastical. Since virtually all people support the rule of law and individual rights, it is the other concepts which are uniquely libertarian and form the basis of our first few questions.
The Institute cites “spontaneous order,” for example, as “the great insight of libertarian social analysis.” Cato defines that principle thusly:
“… (O)rder in society arises spontaneously, out of the actions of thousands or millions of individuals who coordinate their actions with those of others in order to achieve their purposes.”
To which the discerning reader might be tempted to ask: Like where, exactly? Libertarians define “spontaneous order” in a very narrow way—one that excludes demonstrations like the Arab Spring, elections which install progressive governments, or union movements, to name three examples. And yet each of these things are undertaken by individuals who "coordinated their actions with those of others" to achieve our purposes.
So our first hypocrisy test question is, Are unions, political parties, elections, and social movements like Occupy examples of “spontaneous order”—and if not, why not?
Cato also trumpets what it calls “The Virtue of Production” without ever defining what production is. Economics defines the term, but libertarianism is looser with its terminology. That was easier to get away with in the Industrial Age, when “production” meant a car, or a shovel, or a widget.
Today nearly 50 percent of corporate profits come from the financial sector—that is, from the manipulation of money. It’s more difficult to define “production,” and even harder to find its “virtue,” when the creation of wealth no longer necessarily leads to the creation of jobs, or economic growth, or anything except the enrichment of a few.
Which seems to be the point. Cato says, “Modern libertarians defend the right of productive people to keep what they earn, against a new class of politicians and bureaucrats who would seize their earnings to transfer them to nonproducers.”
Which gets us to our next test question: Is a libertarian willing to admit that production is the result of many forces, each of which should be recognized and rewarded?
Retail stores like Walmart and fast-food corporations like McDonalds cannot produce wealth without employees. Don’t those employees have the right to “coordinate their actions with those of others in order to achieve their purposes”—for example, in unions? You would think that free-market philosophers would encourage workers, as part of a free-market economy, to discover the market value for their services through negotiation.
Is our libertarian willing to acknowledge that workers who bargain for their services, individually and collectively, are also employing market forces?
The bankers who collude to deceive their customers, as US bankers did with the MERS mortgage system, were permitted to do so by the unwillingness of government to regulate them. The customers who were the victims of deception were essential to the production of Wall Street wealth. Why don’t libertarians recognize their role in the process, and their right to administer their own affairs?
That right includes the right to regulate the bankers who sell them mortgages. Libertarians say that the “free market” will help consumers. “Libertarians believe that people will be both freer and more prosperous if government intervention in people’s economic choices is minimized,” says Cato.
But victims of illegal foreclosure are neither “freer” nor “more prosperous” after the government deregulation which led to their exploitation. What’s more, deregulation has led to a series of documented banker crimes that include stockholder fraud and investor fraud. That leads us to our next test of libertarian hypocrisy: Is our libertarian willing to admit that a “free market” needs regulation?
Digital Libertarians
But few libertarians are as hypocritical as the billionaires who earned their fortunes in the tech world. Government created the Internet. Government financed the basic research that led to computing itself. And yet Internet libertarians are among the most politically extreme of them all.
Perhaps none is more extreme than Peter Thiel, who made his fortune with PayPal. In one infamous rant, Thiel complained about allowing women and people he describes as "welfare beneficiaries” (which might be reasonably interpreted as “minorities”) to vote. “Since 1920,” Thiel fulminated, “the extension of the franchise to (these two groups) have turned ‘capitalist democracy’ into an oxymoron."
With this remark, Thiel let something slip that extreme libertarians prefer to keep quiet: A lot of them don’t like democracy very much. In their world, democracy is a poor substitute for the iron-fisted rule of wealth, administered by those who hold the most of it. Our next test, therefore, is: Does our libertarian believe in democracy? If yes, explain what’s wrong with governments that regulate.
On this score, at least, Thiel is no hypocrite. He’s willing to freely say what others only think: Democracy should be replaced by the rule of wealthy people like himself.
But how did Peter Thiel and other Internet billionaires become wealthy? They hired government-educated employees to develop products protected by government copyrights. Those products used government-created computer technology and a government-created communications web to communicate with government-educated customers in order to generate wealth for themselves, which was then stored in government-protected banks—after which they began using that wealth to argue for the elimination of government.
By that standard, Thiel and his fellow “digital libertarians” are hypocrites of genuinely epic proportion. Which leads us to our next question: Does our libertarian use wealth that wouldn’t exist without government in order to preach against the role of government?
Many libertarians will counter by saying that government has only two valid functions: to protect the national security and enforce intellectual property laws. By why only these two? If the mythical free market can solve any problem, including protecting the environment, why can’t it also protect us from foreign invaders and defend the copyrights that make these libertarians wealthy?
For that matter, why should these libertarians be allowed to hold patents at all? If the free market can decide how best to use our national resources, why shouldn’t it also decide how best to use Peter Thiel’s ideas, and whether or not to reward him for them? After all, if Thiel were a true Randian libertarian he’d use his ideas in a more superior fashion than anyone else—and he would be more ruthless in enforcing his rights to them than anyone else. Does our libertarian reject any and all government protection for his intellectual property?
Size Matters
Our democratic process is highly flawed today, but that’s largely the result of corruption from corporate and billionaire money. And yet, libertarians celebrate the corrupting influence of big money. No wonder, since the same money is keeping their movement afloat and paying many of their salaries. But, aside from the naked self-interest, their position makes no sense. Why isn’t a democratically elected government the ultimate demonstration of “spontaneous order”? Does our libertarian recognize that democracy is a form of marketplace?
We’re told that “big government” is bad for many reasons, not the least of which is that it is too large to be responsive. But if big governments are bad, why are big corporations so acceptable? What’s more, these massive institutions have been conducting an assault on the individual and collective freedoms of the American people for decades. Why isn’t it important to avoid the creation of monopolies, duopolies and syndicates that interfere with the free market’s ability to function?
Libertarians are right about one thing: Unchecked and undemocratic force is totalitarian. A totalitarian corporation, or a totalitarian government acting in concert with corporations, is at least as effective at suppressing the “spontaneous order” as a non-corporate totalitarian government. Does our libertarian recognize that large corporations are a threat to our freedoms?
Extra Credit Questions
Most libertarians prefer not to take their philosophy to its logical conclusions. While that may make them better human beings, it also shadows them with the taint of hypocrisy.
Ayn Rand was an adamant opponent of good works, writing that “The man who attempts to live for others is a dependent. He is a parasite in motive and makes parasites of those he serves.” That raises another test for our libertarian: Does he think that Rand was off the mark on this one, or does he agree that historical figures like King and Gandhi were “parasites”?
There’s no reason not to form alliances with civil libertarians, or to shun them as human beings. Their erroneous thinking often arises from good impulses. But it is worth asking them one final question for our test.
Libertarianism would have died out as a philosophy if it weren’t for the funding that’s been lavished on the movement by billionaires like Thiel and the Kochs and corporations like ExxonMobil. So our final question is: If you believe in the free market, why weren’t you willing to accept as final the judgment against libertarianism rendered decades ago in the free and unfettered marketplace of ideas?



11 Questions You Should Ask Libertarians to See if They're Hypocrites | Alternet http://t.co/ITvBrIldRQ

Wednesday, September 11, 2013

The Seven Most Extreme State Laws Proposed This Year

The Seven Most Extreme State Laws Proposed This Year

From treating fetuses as "rape evidence" to allowing guns in daycares, Republicans have come up with some truly awful ideas lately

September 10, 2013 4:20 PM ET
Since the 2010 election, a number of states under complete Republican control have passed laws meant to diminish the power of unions, greatly restrict abortion access and defund elements of the public education system and their states' social safety net programs.
Those efforts became even more pronounced after election day in 2012, when legislators no longer had a looming campaign to worry about. From the 2012 lame duck session in December through the 2013 calendar year, a number of states have offered truly extreme bills dismantling voting rights, defunding public schools and banning abortion before many women might even know they are pregnant.
And those are just a few of the better-known examples. Here are seven more of the worst bills proposed since November 2012 that you've probably never heard of:
1. North Carolina's "Establish an Official State Religion" resolution
North Carolina became known as the most extreme state of the union this year, with the legislature refusing to expand Medicaid, curtailing unemployment benefits, putting hurdles on the right to vote and even potentially closing almost every abortion clinic in the state. One thing they didn't quite manage to pull off? Establishing Christianity as the official state religion. However, that wasn't for lack of trying. House Resolution 494 would have allowed the state to establish an official religion. The bill went down when everyone realized it would be in direct violation of the Constitution. No worries, though – North Carolina passed an absurd "no Sharia law" bill instead.
2. New Mexico's "Rape Fetus as Evidence" bill
Republican State Rep. Cathrynn Brown swears that she never meant to throw a pregnant person in jail if she sought out an abortion after being impregnated as a result of sexual assault. But if HB 206 – a bill that would classify abortion after rape as "evidence tampering" – were signed into law, that's exactly what would have happened. Even if the victim wasn't punished with a prison sentence, she would still be forced to give birth to her rapist's child without her consent, a proposal that caused so much public outcry Brown eventually withdrew the bill.
Read Our Feature on How Far-Right Extremists Hijacked Kansas' State Government
3. Michigan's "Guns in Daycare Centers" bill
Last year, Michigan lawmakers passed SB 59, an expanded conceal-and-carry law that would allow permit holders to have a gun in bars, churches and even daycare centers. The bill passed both Michigan's House and Senate, but Republican Gov. Snyder vetoed the final bill just a few days after the Sandy Hook shooting. The bill was reintroduced in the State Senate in 2013, but stalled in committee.
4. Mississippi's "Who's Your Daddy?" cord blood testing bill
What do you do with a young, scared, pregnant teen who doesn't want to name the father of her baby? According to the Mississippi GOP, you make her take a DNA test to determine paternity. Proponents of HB 151 argued the info could be used to prosecute statutory rape or obtain child support, as well as drive down teen pregnancy rates. Opponents worry that teens could be driven into hiding and away from hospitals when it's time to give birth or miss out on prenatal care. Opponents lost; HB 151 was signed into law by Republican Governor Phil Bryant.
5. South Dakota's "No Weekends or Holidays" abortion bill
Waiting periods prior to obtain abortions are increasingly common, and South Dakota is one of two states to have a three-day long wait. But anti-abortion lawmakers went one step further with HB 1237, the "no weekends" bill. A previous law that was blocked by the courts would have required all women to visit a crisis pregnancy center for counseling before she could end a pregnancy. Even though that law wasn't in effect, HB 1237 was proposed so if it ever did become the rule, the religiously-based centers weren't inconvenienced by being forced to stay open on weekends just to accommodate those women. The bill passed both branches of the legislature and was signed into law by Republican Governor Dennis Daugaard.
See Our List of the 10 Dumbest Things Ever Said About Abortion and Women's Rights
6. Alabama's "Tim Tebow" bill
Alabama spent much of the 2013 session trying to kill off financial support to public schools under the guise of educational "freedom of choice." After already ruling that students should be allowed to take their voucher money and run to private schools instead, one group of lawmakers also wanted to see SB 186 become law. Dubbed the "Tim Tebow" Act, SB 186 would allow homeschooled students to take advantage of public school extra curricular programs – most notably their sports teams – without the students being forced to attend actual classes in the schools. Despite hours of back and forth, the bill finally died – much like Tebow's chances of playing in the NFL this year

7. Tennessee's "Cut Your Welfare If Your Child Fails a Class" bill
Tennessee Republican Stacey Campfield introduced a proposal to require students whose families were receiving TANF (Temporary Aid to Needy Families) benefits to not only stay in school, but receive good grades, too. (He thought this would help inspire low-income parents to be more involved in their children's education.) Other states have tied benefits to truancy, but SB 0132 also required "score[s] of proficient or advanced on required state examinations in the subject areas of mathematics and reading or language arts, demonstrating competency as determined by the state board of education on two end of course examinations, or maintaining a grade point average that is sufficient to ascend to the next grade . . ." Apparently, nothing helps a child struggling in school like cutting off the money that helps pay for his or her food. The proposal disappeared into committee and never passed the state house.








The Seven Most Extreme State Laws Proposed This Year http://t.co/jlSE7joAoL via @rollingstone #p2 #ctl #UniteBlue

The GOP Remembers 9/11.




WASHINGTON, D.C. (WP) — Republicans aren’t shy about patriotic displays, so it’s no surprise that on September 11th, a day still very raw and emotional for many Americans, GOP politicians and pundits are out in front professing their great sorrow for the losses suffered by Americans on that day.
At the September 11th memorial service in Washington, D.C., today Sen. Ted Cruz began by saying, “9/11 is a sacred American holiday to remember the fallen victims, and swear to avenge their deaths in Benghazi.” When pressed by reporters, “don’t you mean Ground Zero or the Pentagon?”, he answered, that “No, I mean Benghazi. Ground Zero is ancient history. Bin Laden is dead, and it was never that big a deal really. Benghazi is the real American tragedy, perhaps the worst ever in our history, and certainly on this day. We must work tirelessly to make sure that the people responsible, whether through action or inaction, are brought to justice, just as we must work to make sure the the four who died that day are never forgotten.”
Rep. Darrell Issa, who organized the service on Capitol Hill defended his move to keep survivors from the Pentagon crash of flight 77 from speaking. “9/11 is about Benghazi, not some plane crash. Those people need to step aside and recognize the much greater losses of those four brave Americans in Libya, left to die. Look, Congress investigated the president in 2001, what’s his name, thoroughly after 9/11 and found that neither he, nor anyone in his administration, had overlooked intelligence or in any way allowed that tragedy to happen. That’s not the case with Benghazi, which is why I’m more determined than ever to see this through.”
Special guest Rush Limbaugh fired up the crowd by saying, “Bin Laden is dead, but the perpetrator of Benghazi is still alive, and occupying the White House. We can’t let that stand!”
Rep. Steve Stockman, who has sought impeachment over Benghazi, told the crowd that “We as a nation must move beyond what happened in 2001 and realize the much greater tragedy was the FOUR PEOPLE who died on September 11, 2012. Those four brave Americans are much more deserving than the measly three thousand who died eleven years before.”
And these leaders were reflecting the mood of their constituents. Over the weekend a Gallup poll of Republican voters found that 76% named Benghazi as the worst thing that ever happened on 9/11, with 64% not being able to name any other tragedy worthy of consideration.
Of course all this makes sense in the light of recent studies that show that most Tea Party voters can’t remember anything from 2001-08, and even struggle to name the president during that time, though 29% say “Obama”, whom they blame for the federal government’s response to Hurricane Katrina.
Liz Cheney, candidate for Senator from Wyoming, told Fox News, “Sorry, victims, and families of victims of 9/11 in New York and Washington, but the GOP doesn’t care about you any more. Maybe we never did. But it’s about Benghazi now, so move on.” She then added that “It shouldn’t be too surprising. We only ever cared about your suffering as a prop to beat liberals down, to keep them from criticizing Republican rule. Or to whip public opinion behind a war in Iraq. I mean, certainly you suspected when we denied first responders benefits for illnesses which resulted from prolonged time at Ground Zero, right? Or when we let those benefits be cut by the Sequester™?”
And, as has been the case in recent years, former president George W. Bush stayed home and made no statements, though friends say he’s painting a really nice picture of a puppy, so he might have forgotten today’s anniversary.


Americans dead 2001 vs Benghazi (2)

NSA Following Target Lead, sends out Happy Birthday Alerts

NSA Following Target Lead, sends out Happy Birthday Alerts




My Happy Birthday Email Timeline (PST)

2:30 am - AMAZON
3:35 am & 3:40 am - TARGET – (second account CANNOT be closed for some unknown reason)
5:11 am PST - MY OPTOMETRIST
5:45 am & 5:48 am - NEW YORK TIMES and THE WASHINGTON POST (Latter, NOW ALSO considered as another Amazon Birthday email)
7:10 am - MY GOD MOTHER – Thanks Aunt Geri & Uncle Rocky!
7:55 am - HUSBAND, PARENTS, SON – in person hugs AFTER reminding them that it is, in fact, my birthday. These happened AFTER I was reminded by those previous emails that is, in fact, my birthday.
??:?? am/pm – NSA – No Email received as of yet, but Fox News has reported that I should be very afraid.
Since the NSA has MUCH more access to my private information than Amazon, Target and Facebook, I am waiting for the inevitable, “Happy Birthday Comrade, from your Socialist/Capitalist Leader -Barack Obama”.
After all, I was sent an email to wish him ‘A HAPPY BIRTHDAY’!
Author Notes:
-Facebook ‘Happy Birthday’ Alerts were sent in April
-Actual birthday year has been kept confidential to protect author’s vanity.


@WinkProgress: NSA Following Target Lead, sends out Happy Birthday Alerts http://t.co/DoQPfnX8pG #Articles

Tuesday, September 10, 2013

Transcript: President Obama's Address To The Nation On Syria


Text of President Obama's Sept. 10, 2013, speech on Syria, as provided by the Associated Press. Source: Federal News Service
My fellow Americans, tonight I want to talk to you about Syria, why it matters and where we go from here. Over the past two years, what began as a series of peaceful protests against the repressive regime of Bashar al-Assad has turned into a brutal civil war. Over a hundred thousand people have been killed. Millions have fled the country. In that time, America has worked with allies to provide humanitarian support, to help the moderate opposition and to shape a political settlement.
But I have resisted calls for military action because we cannot resolve someone else's civil war through force, particularly after a decade of war in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The situation profoundly changed, though, on Aug. 21st, when Assad's government gassed to death over a thousand people, including hundreds of children. The images from this massacre are sickening, men, women, children lying in rows, killed by poison gas, others foaming at the mouth, gasping for breath, a father clutching his dead children, imploring them to get up and walk. On that terrible night, the world saw in gruesome detail the terrible nature of chemical weapons and why the overwhelming majority of humanity has declared them off limits, a crime against humanity and a violation of the laws of war.
This was not always the case. In World War I, American GIs were among the many thousands killed by deadly gas in the trenches of Europe. In World War II, the Nazis used gas to inflict the horror of the Holocaust. Because these weapons can kill on a mass scale, with no distinction between soldier and infant, the civilized world has spent a century working to ban them. And in 1997, the United States Senate overwhelmingly approved an international agreement prohibiting the use of chemical weapons, now joined by 189 governments that represent 98 percent of humanity.
On Aug. 21st, these basic rules were violated, along with our sense of common humanity.
No one disputes that chemical weapons were used in Syria. The world saw thousands of videos, cellphone pictures and social media accounts from the attack. And humanitarian organizations told stories of hospitals packed with people who had symptoms of poison gas.
Moreover, we know the Assad regime was responsible. In the days leading up to Aug. 21st, we know that Assad's chemical weapons personnel prepared for an attack near an area they where they mix sarin gas. They distributed gas masks to their troops. Then they fired rockets from a regime-controlled area into 11 neighborhoods that the regime has been trying to wipe clear of opposition forces.
Shortly after those rockets landed, the gas spread, and hospitals filled with the dying and the wounded. We know senior figures in Assad's military machine reviewed the results of the attack. And the regime increased their shelling of the same neighborhoods in the days that followed. We've also studied samples of blood and hair from people at the site that tested positive for sarin.
When dictators commit atrocities, they depend upon the world to look the other way until those horrifying pictures fade from memory. But these things happened. The facts cannot be denied.
The question now is what the United States of America and the international community is prepared to do about it, because what happened to those people, to those children, is not only a violation of international law, it's also a danger to our security.
Let me explain why. If we fail to act, the Assad regime will see no reason to stop using chemical weapons.
As the ban against these weapons erodes, other tyrants will have no reason to think twice about acquiring poison gas and using them. Over time our troops would again face the prospect of chemical warfare on the battlefield, and it could be easier for terrorist organizations to obtain these weapons and to use them to attack civilians.
If fighting spills beyond Syria's borders, these weapons could threaten allies like Turkey, Jordan and Israel.
And a failure to stand against the use of chemical weapons would weaken prohibitions against other weapons of mass destruction and embolden Assad's ally, Iran, which must decide whether to ignore international law by building a nuclear weapon or to take a more peaceful path.
This is not a world we should accept. This is what's at stake. And that is why, after careful deliberation, I determined that it is in the national security interests of the United States to respond to the Assad regime's use of chemical weapons through a targeted military strike. The purpose of this strike would be to deter Assad from using chemical weapons, to degrade his regime's ability to use them and to make clear to the world that we will not tolerate their use. That's my judgment as commander in chief.
But I'm also the president of the world's oldest constitutional democracy. So even though I possessed the authority to order military strikes, I believed it was right, in the absence of a direct or imminent threat to our security, to take this debate to Congress. I believe our democracy is stronger when the president acts with the support of Congress, and I believe that America acts more effectively abroad when we stand together.
This is especially true after a decade that put more and more war-making power in the hands of the president, and more and more burdens on the shoulders of our troops, while sidelining the people's representatives from the critical decisions about when we use force.
Now, I know that after the terrible toll of Iraq and Afghanistan, the idea of any military action, no matter how limited, is not going to be popular. After all, I've spent four and a half years working to end wars, not to start them. Our troops are out of Iraq, our troops are coming home from Afghanistan, and I know Americans want all of us in Washington, especially me, to concentrate on the task of building our nation here at home, putting people back to work, educating our kids, growing our middle class. It's no wonder, then, that you're asking hard questions. So let me answer some of the most important questions that I've heard from members of Congress and that I've read in letters that you've sent to me.
First, many of you have asked: Won't this put us on a slippery slope to another war? One man wrote to me that we are still recovering from our involvement in Iraq. A veteran put it more bluntly: This nation is sick and tired of war.
My answer is simple. I will not put American boots on the ground in Syria. I will not pursue an open-ended action like Iraq or Afghanistan. I will not pursue a prolonged air campaign like Libya or Kosovo. This would be a targeted strike to achieve a clear objective: deterring the use of chemical weapons and degrading Assad's capabilities.
Others have asked whether it's worth acting if we don't take out Assad. As some members of Congress have said, there's no point in simply doing a pinprick strike in Syria.
Let me make something clear: The United States military doesn't do pinpricks.
Even a limited strike will send a message to Assad that no other nation can deliver. I don't think we should remove another dictator with force. We learned from Iraq that doing so makes us responsible for all that comes next. But a targeted strike can make Assad or any other dictator think twice before using chemical weapons.
Other questions involve the dangers of retaliation. We don't dismiss any threats, but the Assad regime does not have the ability to seriously threaten our military. Any other — any other retaliation they might seek is in line with threats that we face every day. Neither Assad nor his allies have any interest in escalation that would lead to his demise. And our ally Israel can defend itself with overwhelming force, as well as the unshakable support of the United States of America.
Many of you have asked a broader question: Why should we get involved at all in a place that's so complicated and where, as one person wrote to me, those who come after Assad may be enemies of human rights? It's true that some of Assad's opponents are extremists. But al-Qaida will only draw strength in a more chaotic Syria if people there see the world doing nothing to prevent innocent civilians from being gassed to death. The majority of the Syrian people and the Syrian opposition we work with just want to live in peace, with dignity and freedom. And the day after any military action, we would redouble our efforts to achieve a political solution that strengthens those who reject the forces of tyranny and extremism.
Finally, many of you have asked, why not leave this to other countries or seek solutions short of force?
And several people wrote to me, we should not be the world's policeman. I agree. And I have a deeply held preference for peaceful solutions. Over the last two years my administration has tried diplomacy and sanctions, warnings and negotiations. But chemical weapons were still used by the Assad regime.
However, over the last few days we've seen some encouraging signs in part because of the credible threat of U.S. military action as well as constructive talks that I had with President Putin. The Russian government has indicated a willingness to join with the international community in pushing Assad to give up his chemical weapons. The Assad regime has now admitted that it has these weapons and even said they'd join the chemical weapons convention, which prohibits their use.
It's too early to tell whether this offer will succeed, and any agreement must verify that the Assad regime keeps its commitments. But this initiative has the potential to remove the threat of chemical weapons without the use of force, particularly because Russia is one of Assad's strongest allies.
I have therefore asked the leaders of Congress to postpone a vote to authorize the use of force while we pursue this diplomatic path. I'm sending Secretary of State John Kerry to meet his Russian counterpart on Thursday, and I will continue my own discussions with President Putin. I've spoken to the leaders of two of our closest allies, France and the United Kingdom. And we will work together in consultation with Russia and China to put forward a resolution at the U.N. Security Council requiring Assad to give up his chemical weapons and to ultimately destroy them under international control.
We'll also give U.N. inspectors the opportunity to report their findings about what happened on Aug. 21st. And we will continue to rally support from allies, from Europe to the Americas, from Asia to the Middle East who agree on the need for action.
Meanwhile, I've ordered our military to maintain their current posture, to keep the pressure on Assad and to be in a position to respond if diplomacy fails. And tonight I give thanks again to our military and their families for their incredible strength and sacrifices.
My fellow Americans, for nearly seven decades the United States has been the anchor of global security. This has meant doing more than forging international agreements. It has meant enforcing them. The burdens of leadership are often heavy, but the world's a better place because we have borne them.
And so to my friends on the right, I ask you to reconcile your commitment to America's military might with a failure to act when a cause is so plainly just.
To my friends on the left, I ask you to reconcile your belief in freedom and dignity for all people with those images of children writhing in pain and going still on a cold hospital floor, for sometimes resolutions and statements of condemnation are simply not enough.
Indeed, I'd ask every member of Congress, and those of you watching at home tonight, to view those videos of the attack, and then ask: What kind of world will we live in if the United States of America sees a dictator brazenly violate international law with poison gas and we choose to look the other way? Franklin Roosevelt once said our national determination to keep free of foreign wars and foreign entanglements cannot prevent us from feeling deep concern when ideals and principles that we have cherished are challenged.
Our ideals and principles, as well as our national security, are at stake in Syria, along with our leadership of a world where we seek to ensure that the worst weapons will never be used. America is not the world's policeman. Terrible things happen across the globe, and it is beyond our means to right every wrong. But when, with modest effort and risk, we can stop children from being gassed to death and thereby make our own children safer over the long run, I believe we should act. That's what makes America different. That's what makes us exceptional.
With humility, but with resolve, let us never lose sight of that essential truth.
Thank you. God bless you, and God bless the United States of America.

Transcript: President Obama's Address To The Nation On Syria http://t.co/WD3YZiTOnG