Tom Perkins: an honest motherf***er.

Yes, vulture capitalist Thomas Perkins is a motherf***er of the highest degree, one who f***s his own mother, his wife’s mother, their respective mothers, and indeed, any mothers he can lay his scummy little mitts on. Adding to that is the sense of entitlement to the mothers of the world, an outraged response to anyone who suggests that he leave all those mothers alone, and a proposal that he and others like him have laws passed reserving all American mothers for themselves alone. An honest motherf***er is he.

Mr. Perkins made an analogous proposal recently: that only taxpayers be allowed to vote, and that the richer you are, the more votes you can cast. Said it straight up and did not try to pass it off as a joke. And he has not yet walked it back as he did (partly, anyway) his comparison of people like you and me to Nazis. This is what the rich motherf***er really thinks.

And he isn’t the only one: five Supreme Court “justices” said pretty much the same thing when they imposed the Citizens United ruling on the nation. That ruling made money into speech, meaning that those with more money have a right to more speech. This is the wealthy trying to take over our government, and having some success at it.

But unlike Tommy Boy, most of the other motherf***ers don’t admit to being f***ers of mothers. They talk about “freedom”, and “unfettered capitalism” and other such buzzword-laden tripe, and pretend that their vision is not at all Orwellian. But they want the same thing he wants, make no mistake about it: a plutocracy, wherein the rich rule the rest of us.

But honest or not, he wants to f*** our mothers. And the rest of us. So f*** him.

(Next time: motherf***ers crying about being “attacked”.)

Mr. Blunt and Cranky

Foreigners are buying American elections, thanks to the Supreme Court.

Remember Citizens United? It was a Supreme Court ruling that allowed billionaires and corporations to buy elections. It also created a secret world in which politicos can be bribed with no way for us to bust them for being corrupt.

Oh, and remember how Obama warned that Citizen’s United could open the door to foreign money buying US elections, and the Chief Justice called the Prexy a liar? Well, golly gee whiz, it turns out that President Obama was right. As the linked article says:

In a first of its kind case, federal prosecutors say a Mexican businessman funneled more than $500,000 into U.S. political races through Super PACs and various shell companies. The alleged financial scheme is the first known instance of a foreign national exploiting the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision to influence U.S. elections.

It turns out that although Citizens United did not change the legality of foreign contributions in the U.S., it enabled the type of illegal schemes now being alleged by federal prosecutors.

“Before Citizens United, in order for a foreign national to try and do this, they’d have to set up a pretty complex system of shell corporations,” said Brett Kappel, a campaign finance expert at the law firm Arent Fox. “And even then, there were dollar limits in place. After Citizens United, there are no limits on independent expenditures.”

Got it? Either the Supreme Court intended for this to happen, or they were so shortsighted and pig-ignorant as to ignore the possibility. No matter which, the result is as predicted: foreign nationals are buying American elections and politicians. And this is only one that we caught. Who knows how many other cases there are, buried in the labyrinthian snakepit of American political “financing”?

Thanks to Presidents Reagan, Bush and Bush for stacking the Supreme Court with Raging Righties in Tightie Whities; because of the hyper-partisan Wingnuts on the Court; the integrity and independence of American government has been gravely damaged. Until Citizens United is repealed, none of us can ever know which of our politicians is actually in the service of a foreign national or even an unfriendly government.

Remember this, Gentle Reader: it is because of “Conservative” “Republicans” that our elections are being bought.And they ARE being bought. This could (and likely will) lead to a foreign takeover of our government if we don’t put a stop to it.

Mr. Blunt and Cranky

Hobby Lobby is a threat to your religious freedom. And your health. And your wallet.

One year ago, this writer wrote a prophetic post about Hobby Lobby’s attempts to use their personal religious beliefs to screw over their employees. Here’s a brief excerpt:

However, there is a very scary paradigm emerging amongst the Religious Right. Example: Hobby Lobby tried to claim a religious exemption in order to undermine the care that their employees could get under the ACA. They said that the owners of the company had a religious objection to certain kinds of gynecological care, and so should be able to opt out of providing them to their workers.

Consider a more extreme (but highly probable) scenario: the First Church of Christ, Scientist. These people do not believe in medicine: they are faith-healers. So if your employers were Christian Scientists, they could deny you any and all health care coverage. You’d get nothing. Except, perhaps, for a bunch of nimrods praying by your bedside as you died of appendicitis.

Now they have made it to the Supreme Court,  which seems sympathetic to the religious loons’ point of view. And that means there could be a ruling that would take away employees’ rights to birth control, and any other health care offerings that your employer may object to on religious grounds.

In addition, there is a deeper matter to consider: whether your employer’s religious beliefs are allowed to control yours. You see, Hobby Lobby doesn’t believe in birth control. And if you, as an employee, DO believe in birth control, well, tough rocks pal: your religious freedom is not as important as that of your employer.

Remember Animal Farm, where everyone was equal, but some were “more equal than others”? That is what the Supreme Court is all too likely to decide. Don’t scoff, they did it before with the Citizen’s United ruling, in which they decreed that while we all have the right to freedom of speech, rich people have more free speech than do the rest of us.

We are talking about a potential assault on the very principles on which our nation was founded, and on which our Constitution was based. The idea that your boss’s religious beliefs can overrule yours is not all that different from having your government’s religious beliefs likewise trump yours. This would completely take away our constitutional freedom of religion as hitherto guaranteed under the Establishment Clause.

The Supreme Court has the power via this ruling to take away your personal religious freedom, deny you access to health care, and potentially bankrupt you by taking away that access: pushing us further towards an Orwellian dystopia, all at a single stroke.

Not scared? Then you’re an idiot.

Mr. Blunt and Cranky

Finally, a State Outlaws Political Lying

Mr. Blunt and Cranky might just crack a smile. This is a rare occurrence, indeed. But if this ruling holds up, there might cause for at least a bit of happiness in one American state.

You see, Minnesota has passed a law that requires politicians to tell the truth in their campaign advertisements and speeches. No doubt it will be resisted by politicos of all sorts, because, well, how would politicians communicate if they couldn’t lie?

Three’ll get you five that it gets challenged on First Amendment grounds: the manky old wankers who “represent” us will try to get the courts to believe that lying to voters is protected as “free speech”. Let’s hope the courts don’t swallow that line of hooey.

If this survives court challenges and the like, then the Cranky Fam may just have to relocate to New Sweden. No way such a bill could be enacted in Ohio.

Mr. B & C

Most of Romney’s Campaign Money is Secret. Surprised?

Mr. Blunt and Cranky is not. From the start, Romney’s campaign (indeed, his very life) has been shrouded in secrecy, and when a bit is revealed, that bit is obfuscated or contradicted. So it makes sense that the money being used to buy his attempt at the Presidency would follow form.

A survey done by three organizations has provided, among other very revealing information about both parties, this handy little chart (more at the link below, which this writer hopes you will click):

Ad Spending By Outside Groups, April 10-Oct. 10

Party Affiliation	Amount Spent	Donor Status	Percent
Democratic	$20,032,460	Disclosed	86.6%
Democratic	$3,101,280	Undisclosed	13.4%
Total Democratic	$23,133,740
Republican	$69,112,620	Disclosed	44.4%
Republican	$86,600,860	Undisclosed	55.6%
Total Republican	$155,713,480

Source: Kantar Media CMAG

Notice the huge difference in amounts, but even more so the difference in secrecy. Most “Republican” money is hidden in the shadows, like cockroaches and other similar vermin. While the Dems do have their secret-keepers, they are by far the minority.

To sum up: you can choose to trust people who do not trust you, and receive the usual rewards of such foolish behavior. Or you can show them how you feel by not voting for them. At the end of the day, people who keep secrets are usually hiding something revolting, shameful, illegal, immoral, or suchlike.

In this case, they are keeping secrets from you because they are afraid you won’t vote for them if you find out their secrets. And that is reason enough to vote against Romney, Ryan, and anyone else whose elections are being bought by slimy, shadowy crooks like Rove and his ilk.

Mr. B & C

http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolitics/2012/10/15/162955073/study-secret-donors-significantly-fueling-pro-romney-tv-ads

Schrödinger’s Cash (The Supreme Court Has Created a Secret Parallel Universe)

As stated in a previous Schrödinger’s Court post, we cannot really know what is happening inside the Supreme Court, because their deliberations are (mostly) private.  From the way the “box” has been shaking and rattling of late, we know something is going on inside. It seems to be at worst (in the words of Miracle Max) “mostly dead”, and perhaps at best somewhat alive. Time will tell.

Having said that, Mr. Blunt and Cranky has noticed that there is a new box in town, created by this Court: let us call it “Schrödinger’s Cash”. Like the Court, we cannot see what goes on inside the box, but can see what happens outside of it as result of what is happening inside (yes, he knows that the physics analogy is breaking down here). The Court did not say that it was building a secretive new world of quasi-legalized Congressional and Presidential bribery, and indeed may not have intended to do so, judging on its writings. But that is what has been created by their Citizens United ruling.

In a virtual box made out of loopholes, hundreds of millions of dollars flow in and out; from and to hidden people in hidden places, beholden to hidden organizations with hidden agendas.  A few people are trying to open this box, and so far getting nowhere. Because, really,  the questions of what the box is, how big it is, where it is, how much is in it, and what is happening  in there are as opaque to us as are the most quantum of mechanics.

Secrets beget secrets: that is not a new observation, of course. And now we see the get of a secretive Court, and the part of the resulting spawn that hasn’t slithered its way inside the box is observably vile and corrupt. Leaving us to wonder, just how much more revolting is the part that is hidden? Pretty darned, one would expect.

This writer would like to end the Schrödinger-esque experiment by opening the box. He figures that would kill off whatever slimy critter lives therein.  After which he’d borrow a VW Quantum from a mechanic, and crankily run the box over, smashing it to bits so that it could never again be closed.

Mr. B & C

Why Citizens United Sucks, and Why You Should Care

A recap for those of you who aren’t in the loop on this matter (the rest of you, skip to the next paragraph): Not too long ago, the Supremes decided that anybody can spend anything they want to for any political purpose. They further decided that on a few occasions, said anybodies would have to tell everybody what they spent; but on most occasions, anybody can spend anything and tell nobody.  Also, just about anybody can say anything they want, even if it is a pack of lies, anywhere and anytime they want to. There are a few rules (easily circumvented), and not much in the way of real-time enforcement of those few rules. That’s where we are today. Got it? Good.

The net result of this is shaping up to be one huge Charley-Foxtrot (ask a military person what that means, if you don’t know); a butt-ugly, corruption-causing, vile and revolting perversion of the American electoral process.  Why does Mr. Blunt and Cranky say so? Faithful readers will guess that a list is coming up, and they are correct:

[Number A] The amount of money spent on advertising across multiple media platforms has exploded. This writer is adding ad-free channels to his Roku box so as to entirely avoid any TV channel with advertising already, and it is not quite June. Likewise he has sworn off some Internet sites that use ad revenue because the toxic, slimy bilge that oozes across those Web Pages has already turned his stomach one too many times.

[Letter 2] Citizens United being a “free speech” case, there is almost no restriction on what people can say, and no requirement for accuracy or truth in that saying. Recourse for the libeled/slandered is difficult to obtain, and will take until long after the election is done in any case.  That means that anyone with lots of money can get their lie out in the media, and by virtue of that money drown out the truth: unless the other side has more money and can drown out the liars.

[Thirdly] Anybody who really thinks that all this money spent on behalf of politicians will not influence the actions of those politicians once they are elected (and even if they are not) is living in a dream world and needs rehab and/or brain surgery. Christ on a pogo stick, people, come on.

[Fourth and most important] Citizens United means that money = free speech. That means those with more money get more free speech. Put another way, most of us have a little bit of money, and our voices will not be heard over the roar that is created by those with a lot of money. The wealthy extremists will drive the debate, and possibly decide the election thereby.

George Orwell once said that “some of us are more equal than others”. In this case, some of us now have more of a right to free speech than others. If you value your rights to speak and vote, you should care about this ruling. And you should let your “representatives” know that you care.

Mr. B & C