On the windborne devastation of Henryville: Mitch Daniels has made more homeless than all the recent tornadoes combined

Still don't believe in global warming folks? It's my opinion that this is a warning, like Joplin, Missouri last year, from the earth. We cannot keep using fossil-based fuels, we cannot keep using petroleum, period. A consensus is forming in the scientific community that 2017 might be the year of no return, however, with carbon dioxide emissions exceeding all predictions, and with the reaction in the atmosphere growing geometrically, that window might be closing sooner than we think. Do we really want to gamble on that? Everyone with their finger in the oil pie says yes. You sure? I know, I know, Jesus is coming.

Speaking of the Naz, crazy Pat Robertson made one of those predictable remarks one usually sees from slavering goobers when someone "takes the Lord's name (What's his name? We don't know) in vain: "Something's going to happen to you for that," always a popular comment at keggers. Yes, yes, Robertson was doing an "I told you so!" version of it when he said tornadoes wouldn't reap destruction "if we'd pray more" as a nation. This is true: there was no weather until the fall of  Man, the fossil record illustrates this clearly. Yesterday I was running the van on some remnants of Adam and Eve (not Adam and Steve, surely), it's true, I saw it, I smelled it. Souls have a smell, after all, especially American ones, which is why we shower so much. Speaking of stink...

How about that outgoing Republican asshole Governor, Mitch Daniels visiting the devastated Henryville, Indiana on Saturday? A journalist asked the small government asshole what he would tell the families of the town who were now homeless (OK to become homeless through natural disaster is acceptable, not so through man-made lay-offs, downsizing, etc.--your fault). Daniels had this empty comment which he feebly blurted out as though someone had told him he'd lost all of his money, or that someone had photos of...you know:

"Well... we love you...and we're with you. And... if it isn't already obvious... It's not just government, it's their neighbors here to help. I would just say to those families that we're going to do everything we can to get you back on your feet, to get you back in business and in your homes."

After being faced with his own general inhumanity because of the destruction around him, the Governor couldn't resist making his inappropriate political statement and experienced premature ejaculation.

Anyone could envision him having difficulty achieving a erection merely by his nebbish appearance. Goober was painting a neocon portrait of America that's never going to work, never did, common knowledge since the end of 2008. He knows better than anyone; it must be at the back of his mind at all times. Yes, in such events we get to see what people are really made of, Daniels being no exception. As predicted, he's comprised of ineffectual bullshit as all Republicans and Libertarians are. "Neighbors" will never be enough, and for the Ron Paul crowd (mooks), neither will churches.

"Well...we love you...and we're with you." Fuck you too, asshole. This scumbag has never cared about the fate of the homeless in this country, and then suddenly he does? What's he been doing for all of the unemployed during his unfortunate tenure as an officeholder? Working, as one example, with his fellow Republicans in the state house to end their unemployment benefits, actually hurting them, driving the economy down, destroying jobs. On his way out the door Daniels and the Indiana GOP have passed their right to work law, because "Well...we love you...and we're with you."Even in the aftermath of natural disaster, these people never let up, these lunatics, these criminals, these Republicans.

This guy is the "hope" of the GOP? They want to draft him to run for president? They've finally lost their minds. Expect the Republican Party to die soon, of a self-inflicted wound, so be it. The problem is that their "love" will be "with you" in the form of a shattered environment and economic malaise, maybe even social chaos. Do we ever learn? Of course not, this is America. How many times does it have to be said? Daniels was George W. Bush's budget chief. If we were to be honest, he's greatly responsible for the economic crisis we're in and likely will for years to come. He's made more families homeless than all the tornadoes combined. But he's not a total idiot like others.

Unlike Governor Kasich of Ohio, he took the help from FEMA, and the federal money, anyway. This time he had to dole out money to help people. There are limits to venality because, unless we're mentally ill or damaged organically, we all have an inborn sense or right and wrong. Not helping people after a natural disaster is our moral line in the sand. Why is it alright for government to neglect people rendered homeless as they were in Henryville, but not for everyone else who experienced the same through no fault of their own? That's why he made his little government comment--he was busted outright and he knew it. A good thing for him and what he represents that most Hoosiers and Americans are too stupid to notice it.

Of Mice and Not a Man:

http://consortiumnews.com/2011/05/14/mitch-daniels-architect-of-us-debt-crisis/
 

Are some of Louisiana Senator David Vitter's supporters domestic terrorists?

New Orleans, Louisiana--To put it mildly, whomever attempted to murder Brian Welsh--political adviser to porn star Stormy Daniels is trying to send him and the potential candidate a very obvious message: don't run against incumbent Republican Senator David Vitter. There's no other word but terrorism for this, domestic terrorism.

An act of domestic, political terrorism has happened once again on the streets of America and nobody's paying very much attention, if at all. This event happened the day before yesterday on the streets of New Orleans, but I have yet to see it get any play in the mainstream press. Yet, this is a very serious threat to the integrity of our political process, and the likelihood that this clown had sympathies with the Democratic Party are slim-to-none.

And so, this must come from the far right. Considering that it was probably a pipe-bomb, and that it was a solitary individual, the arrow already points decidedly to-the-right. Welsh stated yesterday:

“No one has seen anything like this before…not in such a dramatic fashion,” Welsh told ABC-26. “It’s too early for me to go pointing fingers. I’d like to hear officially what happened and then we can take it from there. If someone’s trying to send me a message like this, it’s not going to work.”

Daniels is considering a run for the Louisiana senate seat currently occupied by incumbent Republican David Vitter whose been linked to the “D.C Madam,” Deborah Jeane Palfrey. Vitter's cell phone number turned up numerous times in Palfrey's records. ("Political Advisor to Stormy Daniels Hit by Car Bomb," XBIX News Wire.com, 07.28.2009)

I'd agree that it's too early to point fingers at specific groups on the right, and I applaud his reaction of not being deterred, but they weren't doing this for the Democrats--there's no indication of this at all. But I do believe that this comes from the extremist right and that it's time to bring in the FBI, not that I care for the institution, but this is a high crime.

Welsh is wrong about "No one has seen anything like this before," this has happened, though not quite the same way, but it has been dramatic before; one just needs to recall the assassination of Bobby Kennedy, the violence of the Civil Rights era, or even the attempt on George Wallace's life in 1972. Then there's government-sponsored terrorism. Sometime around October 6, 1976, the anti-Castro Cuban terrorist group Alpha 66 (backed by elements of our government) placed a bomb on a Cuban airliner:

All 73 people aboard died in the Oct. 6, 1976 disaster, including 19 members of

Cuba's junior national fencing team returning from Caracas, most of them
teen-agers.

Two Cubans were jailed in Venezuela for masterminding the attack. One was
Orlando Bosch, a physician who left the United States after he was paroled from
a 10-year prison sentence for firing a rocket at a Polish ship anchored in Miami.

The other was Luis Posada Carriles, a former CIA agent who was trained as a
demolition expert for the Bay of Pigs.

Posada Carriles escaped from jail in Venezuela in 1985, reportedly disguised as a
priest. ("Bay of Pigs fiasco spawned anti-Castro plotters," CNN, 04.17.2001)

The CIA's great, but it's good to have friends in the Vatican too. These are just a few other examples, and there have been numerous others from the white supremacist movement over the years. No one would call anti-Castro Cubans leftists.

Alpha 66 was and still is allowed to operate from the swamps of Florida, incidentally. This is not to suggest that the New Orleans bomber was an anti-Castro Cuban (keep up with me, please), but to illustrate that there have been patterns of this criminal activity from the right many times before, and this isn't including the Oklahoma City bombing.

But the very recent murder by Scott Roeder (possibly inspired by the Army of God) of George Tiller, a Kansas abortion doctor, and the shooting-spree by white supremacist James von Brunn at the National Holocaust Museum were most certainly meant to instill fear in others and can be counted as acts of domestic terrorism from the far right. The key word here is "coercion," to prevent or to make someone do something that an individual or a groups wants as a result of the act. Yes, there is the possibility that this was some "lone nut" (either way, they were, let's be frank) who simply wanted to do it for personal reasons--certainly a possibility. Yeah?

Terrorism is known as a form of "asymmetrical warfare," in the parlance of counterterrorism, which jibes very closely with far right rhetoric and the formulation of the "lone wolf/lone-wolf fighter" approach advocated by such white hate luminaries as--once again--Tom Metzger and Alex Curtis. But who would benefit the most from a bombing that ended the campaign of a candidate running for the specific senate seat that porn star Stormy Daniels is setting her sights on?

The answer is pretty obvious: David Vitter. Granted, Daniels doesn't have a real chance of winning, and her candidacy is satirical--to remind Louisianans that Vitter used the prostitution services of the late Deborah Jeane Palfrey (aka the "DC Madam")--but there's nothing wrong with that, and her right to do so is protected under the First Amendment rights to freedom of speech and assembly, never mind the democratic right to run for public office. Whomever put the bomb in Welsh's car is an enemy of the democratic process itself and should be arrested and put on trial for their actions.

"Political Advisor to Stormy Daniels Hit by Car Bomb," XBIX News Wire.com, 07.28.2009: http://www.xbiznewswire.com/view.php?id=111062

ABC26's interview with Brain Welch from yesterday: http://www.abc26.com/videobeta/watch/?watch=4521787e-8dab-4de5-b48b-028fd8c72ac3&src=front

"Bay of Pigs fiasco spawned anti-Castro plotters," CNN, 04.17.2001: http://www.latinamericanstudies.org/bay-of-pigs/plotters.htm

The C Street House: Was GOP Senator David Vitter ever an attendee?

Washington D.C.--The question should be asked: did Louisiana Senator David Vitter, serial-adulterer and whoremonger attend any "prayer" and counseling meetings at the now-notorious C Street House?

Considering the clowns who have already been unmasked, such as South Carolina's Republican Governor Mark Sanford, Sen. John Ensign (R-NV), and their inability to be men and simply resign, it would hardly be surprising. The C Street House hasn't been a total unknown within the beltway, but until the release of "The Family," by Harper's Jeff Sharlett, it was to the general public. Where might Vitter fit into all of this?

Vitter's lack of any real sense of shame or responsibility and his avoidance of accountability ring familiar.

The C Street House itself is allegedly there to "counsel" predominantly Republican politicians about misbehavior and general spiritual matters holding prayer groups, Bible studies, but something more akin to damage control for politicians within their fold. One has to wonder if blackmail is part of the equation. Ostensibly, then, the claim is that the people running the C Street House are attempting to hold these office-holders accountable, which is laughable considering its secrecy.

Yet, perhaps they are in their own minds to further their agendas.

Top Democratic leaders have also had involvement with the generally secret (to the public) prayer ministry, "The Family," who is alleged to run but not own the C Street House. Y.W.A.M. appear to be the owners, but it's still unclear exactly who owns the building.

The group--"Youth With a Mission of Washington D.C." and "The Family"--that owns the C Street House where GOP politicians apparently conspire to hide their sexual and criminal behaviors from everyone has an agenda: theocratic control of the entire world, calling it a "Seven Mountains Mandate," sounding far too much like a reference to the "Seven Hills of Rome," another pagan theocracy populated by degenerate men who avoided accountability at every turn.

What are the "seven mountains" these religious extremists want to conquer? A recently unearthed video shows that they want to control the world from America through infiltration of: business (seen as a key "mountain" to surmount/climb), education, family-units (good luck!), arts and entertainment, government, media, and religion. Pretty nutty, huh? I thought we were fighting religious extremism in the war on terror, yet here we have a homegrown subculture of them within our political and economic system. Who would have thought? Anyone with a pulse.

Funny, but this has all been done before, right? Correct: the Vatican and National Socialism. How's that working out for them today? Seven mountains. Why seven? It's a strange numerological fixation...

When you feel that you're one of God's chosen ones, you feel that you're beyond good and evil. This is the attitude of aristocrats, the main reason for the secrecy and the anti-democratic attitudes going in-and-out of the charnel house on C Street. Vitter is surely part of this subculture, and this writer predicts that he's going to be outed as a member, an associate at-minimum.


Postscript: I should add that in Why Just Her, Montgomery Blair Sibley makes the claim that Senator Vitter and his attorneys at the time threatened the DC Madam with attorney fees (Vitter's, she would have to pay them according to them) around February 25th, 2008. Three days later, Jeane wrote journalist Jason Leopold that, "The bastards aren't taking me alive," and forwarded it to me and my co-researcher. Did Vitter's legal threats push Palfrey to suicide? In my humble opinion, he contributed to it and should be made to pay.

"Paul, why do you persecute me?"

Because you're: a liar, a crook, a murderer of gods and men, an exploiter, a rapist, but worst-of-all, a hypocrite. Heal thyself.

Canadian Film Tax Credit Legislation Stalled, Evangelist Charles McVety Laments

"It's not about Charles McVety. Who am I? I'm nobody. I am irrelevant in this process. But I have been someone--this evangelical that people can take a shot at...because of my faith and because of the religion that I belong to." --Rev. Charles McVety doing a very bad job playing the role of a religious minority and a victim this week. (The Globe and Mail, 04.17.2008)

Ottawa, Canada--It's unsurprising that evangelist activist Charles McVety--president of the Canada Family Action Coalition (CFAC)--is unhappy about the current version of legislation that would revamp Canada's Telefilm tax credit fund and how it's going to be distributed in the future. The vast majority of Canadian media are against the current version of the bill that would grant unprecedented powers to the federal Heritage Minister (an appointed position), allowing them wide-berth in defining what films violate "public policy," and deny tax credits to those productions. This could occur even after Telefilm approval of tax credits for a movie or television project, and banks could get cold feet over future domestic productions thanks to these provisions of the legislation.

McVety wants another version of the bill that would go drastically further in curtailing which films get made, and which ones won't. Yet he won't define what is and isn't a violation of public policy in Canadian media. Fortunately, his recent outbursts might be a sign he and his allies have been told that they won't be making any of those decisions as political appointments in the future. According to McVety, he's "not a lobbyist," yet he certainly acts a lot like one. McVety had likely spoken too soon on the legislation back in February, having taken credit (not a tax one) for the very existence of the current bill being debated in the Canadian Senate's banking committee. Now, he's flatly denying it.

Naturally, the Tories are still bullish on the idea of this bill passing, but with the recent RCMP raids on their national offices, it could get the backseat. The entire banking and commerce committee don't appear to like Mr. McVety or his dubious agenda of blanket censorship:

Dr. McVety did not appear to have supporters of any stripe around the committee table.
The Conservatives were cordial, but seemed preoccupied with refuting allegations that government lobbying on the part of Dr. McVety had prompted the legislation.

The Globe and Mail reported in February that Dr. McVety had claimed credit for the proposal after discussions with Public Safety Minister Stockwell Day and Justice Minister Rob Nicholson.

Dr. McVety backed away from that yesterday.

"We had no discussions about this legislation [Ed.-Called "C-10."] period. We didn't even know it existed. We didn't know it until The Globe and Mail called us the day after they had put this provision on the front page of their newspaper. We had zero knowledge of it. We had no specific meetings on this," Dr. McVety said. ("Film tax credit proposal falls short, evangelists says," The Globe and Mail, 04.17.2008)

The politicians on the liberal and conservative sides don't appear to want to have any impression that there is an association between themselves and "Dr." McVety, and the subject himself is trying to backpedal on his claims of virtual authorship of the current tax credit bill. Why is that? Because it's bad political theater.

Should we take Charles McVety at his word this week? Of course not. That's asking to believe much of anything he has to say outside of his circle of believers--believers in yet another false social prophet-cum-influence peddler. McVety sounds more like a Father Coughlin than a Jesus Christ. This week, almost all he could talk about was a controversial film that has yet-to-be-released in Canada: "Young People Fucking," and like many, it was funded partly through Telefilm and the Canadian tax credit. The reverend appears to be a little too obsessed with young people fucking, frankly. Like it or not, this is what Canada's media is great at.

If you know anything about Canadian cinema's success, it's that it's edgier than boorish American fare--it has its own niche, and it takes more creative-risks. As far as North America's concerned, it's the freest form of cinema left in an ocean of Hollywood conglomeration and meaninglessness-of-content. Interestingly, C-10 doesn't punish foreign movie and other media productions from receiving the same funds, irregardless of whether they violate "public policy."

Only Canadian productions fall under this provision of C-10, and it isn't hard to understand why this is so: monied American productions don't want to be affected, and the biggest ones don't want any Canadian competition. Enter creatures like Charles McVety, a Trojan horse if ever there was one. The Liberal Party's senators weren't buying what McVety was selling, and were practically belittling his testimony before them on Wednesday. This is how things are supposed to work, and it's obvious Canadian government is a little healthier than her American counterpart. But not much.

Charles McVety isn't just obsessed by "young people fucking," however, but by homosexuals: another film called "Breakfast with Scot" was another object of attention by the evangelist during his testimony before the suffering Senate banking and commerce committee. This shouldn't be a surprising tactic on-the-part of the evangelist and the shadowy interests he presumably represents, and was used to dramatic effect in the 2004 elections here in the United States. It's the politics of division and minority-baiting. McVety on "Breakfast with Scot":

Breakfast with Scot, released last fall, is about a gay ex-hockey player and his partner caring for a young orphan who displays less-than-masculine tendencies.

"(It) is about an 11-year-old boy who is being raised by a homosexual Toronto Maple Leaf to be a homosexual," said McVety. "... This is not something that the government should be (funding)."

Toronto-based filmmaker Laurie Lynd said he was "appalled" by McVety's description of his movie.

"The film is a gentle family comedy about self-acceptance and loving your child for whoever he or she is," Lynd said in an interview. He added that losing public financing just before production "could have killed the film completely."

McVety would not say how he would define entertainment that is "against public policy," instead listing titles such as The Masturbators and Young People F------.
("Activist decries tax break for gay comedy," The Toronto Star, 04.17.2008)

Like all would-be censors, Charles McVety wants us to believe that he knows best, and that he knows smut when he sees it within his own mind. Indeed he does, and he's far-and-away more obsessed by so-called "smut" and "pornography" than the rest of us here in North America. But are any of these films genuine "pornography"? No. This isn't the case, and these reactionary elements know this. Statutes already exist under Canadian law that bar public funding of pornographic productions.

McVety's congregational rank-and-file likely don't know this, and it's even money that they've all been told not to ever watch the aforementioned films. A Canadian-blog named "Slap Upside the Head" adds some pertinent insight into the McVety take on "Breakfast with Scot":

McVety—who previously claimed responsibility for Bill C-10, but has since backpeddled—summarized Breakfast With Scot as a film about “an 11-year-old boy who is being raised by a homosexual Toronto Maple Leaf to be a homosexual.”

Ignoring, for a moment, that the notion that someone can be raised to be homosexual is rejected completely by the psychological, medical, and academic community, I’m amazed by this misclassification. Either McVety has never seen the film, or he is lying about what he saw. ("Lobbyist: No Tax Credits for Adorable Gay Comedy," Slap Upside the Head, 04.18.2008)

Well-connected activists like McVety appear to have very robust sexual imaginations, but have they even seen these movies? Why do they have such easy-access to politicians? These kinds of acts of political theater are familiar to Americans looking across-the-border at the Canadian versions. They fall-short, and the strings are showing. It's likely that they extend from the corporate boardrooms, Hollywood, right-wing think tanks, and the evangelists congregations of America. Canadian autonomy is being assaulted on all fronts.

Fat, smug demagogues like the Rev. Charles McVety are the avatars of this push, and they and their unfortunate supporters should be resisted aggressively .

"Activist decries tax break for gay comedy," The Toronto Star, 04.17.2008: http://www.thestar.com/News/Canada/article/415391

"Film tax credit proposal falls short, evangelists says," The Globe and Mail, 04.17.2008: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/freeheadlines/LAC/20080417/FILM17/national/National

"Lobbyist: No Tax Credits for Adorable Gay Comedy," Slap Upside the Head, 04.18.2008: http://www.slapupsidethehead.com/2008/04/no-credits-for-gay-comedy/

GIVE ME LIBERTY, OR GIVE ME METH (AND DEE WIMMEN)

It had to be said, and I thank 'SME' at Huffington Post for it. Gimme that old time sodomy (for others, not me), my preachers must be as queer as a three-dollar-bill. It always struck-me that Church wimmen folks were the biggest fag-hags ever. Just look at Tammy Faye Bakker.

She cries a lot, but this is an expression of compassion and empathy that is lacking in most Americans (especially young people). Who was it who cried on the PTL Club for gays afflicted with AIDS in the early 1980s? It was Tammy. Hey, it was FUN watching her pussy husband crying as he was lead away in chains by the cops, so maybe it's time for women to be priests?

At least if they touch a boy, it's not as shocking. Since women are mothers, I kinda doubt it will be as frequent. And let's get women into political office, men are generally fuckheads in politics. OK, the women who have been in there are too, but not as bad (excepting Hillary, she's awful--500,000 Iraqi-children were murdered by her husband and she did nothing). Gimme that old-time religion, yes indeed, the kind with no Churches.

Tammy:

www.tammyfaye.com