Category Archives: Vast Rightwing Conspiracy

Aaarrrrrggghhhh !

SARAH PALIN has offered her advice to President Obama as to how to deal with Mr. Putin and his intervention in Crimea:

“Mr. President, the only thing that stops a bad guy with a nuke is a good guy with a nuke.”

To think that this person would have been a heartbeat away from the Presidency if the Republicans had prevailed in 2008. Gives a deeper meaning to the old Dem saw, “Friends don’t let friends vote Republican”.

After posting the foregoing we found the following quotation from President Obama:

“We are not going to be getting into a military excursion in Ukraine,

“There is a better path, but I think even the Ukrainians would acknowledge that for us to engage Russia militarily would not be appropriate and would not be good for Ukraine either.”

No matter how disappointed we become with Mr. Obama on matters of policy, it cannot be denied that considering the alternatives, at least we have someone sane in the White House.


Koch Is Not Good for America

From the Blog of U.S. Senator Harry Reid —

1. The Kochs want to abolish Social Security.

“Documents and interviews unearthed in recent months by Brave New Foundation researchers illustrate a $28.4m Koch business that has manufactured 297 commentaries, 200 reports, 56 studies and six books distorting social security’s effectiveness and purpose.” 

2. The Kochs want to eliminate minimum wage laws.

“According to Charles Koch, the U.S. needs to get rid of the minimum wage, which he counts as a major obstacle to economic growth.”

3. The Kochs are against extending emergency unemployment benefits.

“It causes employers to face higher taxes, too, which discourages them from hiring new employees.” 

4. The Kochs spent $400 million on misleading attack ads in the last election cycle.

“A labyrinth of tax-exempt groups and limited-liability companies helps mask the sources of the money, much of which went to voter mobilization and television ads attacking President Obama and congressional Democrats, according to tax filings and campaign finance reports.” 

5. The Kochs want to put insurance companies back in charge of your health care.

“In Louisiana, the Koch brother’s Americans for Prosperity was blasted for running anti-Obamacare ads featuring paid actors to play Louisiana residents telling “their” stories about how Obamacare had harmed them.”

6. The Kochs are against measures that would reduce the gap between the wages women and men earn for the same work.

“IWF-affiliated writers have argued that the gender gap in income exists because of women’s greater demand for flexibility, fewer hours, and less travel in their careers, rather than because of sexism.” 

7. The Kochs want even more tax breaks for themselves.

“They are known for bankrolling conservative, Libertarian and Tea Party causes and became poster boys for corporate tax reform last year when an Obama Administration official suggested Koch is organized as an S Corp. and so pays no corporate level taxes.” 

8. The Kochs made improper payments to win contracts in Africa, India and the Middle East. And they sold millions of dollars of equipment to Iran, a state sponsor of terrorism.

“Internal company records show that Koch Industries used its foreign subsidiary to sidestep a U.S. trade ban barring American companies from selling materials to Iran. Koch-Glitsch offices in Germany and Italy continued selling to Iran until as recently as 2007, the records show.” 

9. The Kochs lobbied against recognition of formaldehyde as a cancer-causing carcinogen because it might be bad for their business.

“A prominent philanthropist, cancer survivor, and American businessman, David Koch, has given millions to the cause of cancer research, while his company—Koch Industries—has lobbied against formal recognition of formaldehyde as a carcinogen, The New Yorker reported in a piece published today.” 

10. The Kochs rank as one of America’s most toxic air polluters.

11.The Kochs have received over $88 million in government subsidies.

12. The Kochs have admitted they have “a radical philosophy.”

“Charles Koch seems to have approached both business and politics with the deliberation of an engineer. ‘To bring about social change,’ he told Doherty, requires ‘a strategy’ that is ‘vertically and horizontally integrated,’ spanning ‘from idea creation to policy development to education to grassroots organizations to lobbying to litigation to political action.’ The project, he admitted, was extremely ambitious. ‘We have a radical philosophy,’ he said.”




Don’t Hate Me for Being Beautiful





Fred Koch — The Nut Brothers’ Daddy


History’s Assholes: Fred Koch

Welcome once again to History’s Assholes, the column that travels back in time to flush out the assholes who made the world what it is today. This time on History’s Assholes, we look at Fred Koch, unique American asshole.

*  *  *  *  *  *

The two middle brothers, Charles and David, are the crazy ones. The other two, Frederick and William, are the loony ones. They are all billionaires and they are all doing what billionaires do when the least of their brethren are suffering: lobbying the government for tax cuts for the rich, opposing climate regulation, fighting social services for the needy, and fighting health care reform. (William Koch, arguably the least evil of the brothers, is nevertheless a poster boy for billionaires behaving badly: While Americans struggle to put food on the table, he is constructing his own private 50-building old-West town in Colorado that will not be open to the public, according to The Denver Post.)

Out of an empire built with the help of communists, we now have a libertarian conspiracy convincing America that pollution is good, that health care is only for the rich, and that President Obama is a socialist, thanks to Fred Koch, truly one of history’s assholes.

The foregoing excerpts are from an article published at LEO WEEKLY – We asked but did not receive permission to republish the post so we encourage readers to take a look at it at its original site.

Abby Martin Banned on Wikipedia!

Have you ever heard of ABBY MARTIN?

Abby is a journalist with her own program on the RT network. RT is sponsored  by the Russian government and provides a perspective which can be described as the polar opposite of that of Fox News. Many commentators, libertarian, populist and progressive, who are not provided media access in corporate media outlets, are provided an opportunity to talk on RT and on Abby Martin’s program “Breaking the Set”.

Abby is also an artist who maintains an online gallery. Last year she co-directed segments of an independent documentary titled “99%: The Occupy Wall Street Film”.

In short, Abby Martin is an interesting person with a considerable track record in the arts and media. It would not be unusual for a reader, for a citizen, to want to learn more about this person. The casual consumer of information might well turn to Wikipedia for the brief “Whosit”-style article so typical of the digital encyclopedia. Indeed, until recently one could find such a note on the Wiki website.

But not anymore. No, the “supereditors” at Wikipedia have determined that someone with a network news and opinion program, who has participated in the making a documentary film, and produced artworks of note, lacks the “notability” one must possess to earn a note on Wikipedia.

Really? Every dunderhead on Fox News gets his or her own citation. Every pornostar who has turned a trick on camera rates a Wikipedia entry. Defunct publications get articles. Nobodies who have had 15 minutes of fame and no more are written up on Wikipedia. But not “Abby Martin”.

Is it because she is not notable or is it really because she IS notable as one who enables unsanctioned news and opinion to be known? Wikipedia, like such comparable cultural institutions as Amazon and Google, have grown and prospered as outside-the-mainstream trustworthy icons but really are mere tools of the Establishment.



RT TV Network

RT Youtube Channel

Abby Martin’s Breaking the Set Program

Abby Martin’s Facebook Page

Abby’s Artwork


FOLLOW UP: We’ve attempted to accommodate most substantive comments (click on the “Comments” hyperlink at the foot of the post). Several comments take issue with the post and offer a defense of Wikipedia.

One argues that the Dissenting Democrat was incorrect to call the deletion of the “Abby Martin” a banning. Apparently, Wikipedia uses this as a term of art to identify those contributors who have their privileges to post withdrawn. By that standard, the Abby Martin entry was not banned. However, we do not use Wikipedia in-house jargon, we use plain English. The meaning of “ban” or “banning” is to forbid the use of something or the reading of something. Essentially, Wikipedia banned the reading of the formerly approved entry about Abby Martin by deleting it.

Another comment asserts that Wikipedia does mention “Abby Martin” and therefore the Dissenting Democrat was misinformed. Rather the commenter misunderstands the controversy.The original post points out that there once was an article on Abby in Wikipedia and that this article was deleted for the stated reason that it lacked “notability”. The fact that Abby’s name is included in a list of RT on-air personnel is not the same as reading an article about her.

We believe that Abby Martin more than meets any objective standard of what should be “notable” for inclusion in a digital encyclopedia. She hosts a televised news and opinion program, she has produced a substantial gallery of art, and she has participated in the production of a significant documentary film.

We believe that this could well be the result of a bias against persons of progressive tendencies. It may in the alternative be attributed to sheer ignorance.

Although Wikipedia would have us believe that it is the cooperative endeavor of many heads and hands equally responsible for the work product, this is the mythos of the institution. Behind appearances the reality is less romantic. Among the many, many participants, some are more equal than others. These “supereditors”, like the character “Sheldon” on the Big Bang Theory, are very intelligent and well-informed in one or another field but grossly ignorant in others. However, with the over-confidence of the learned, they believe they know everything. They really do believe that if they don’t know something then it must not be important. They make their editorial judgments accordingly.

Francis: “The culture of prosperity deadens us . . .”

Pope Francis I has restored the Church’s historical commitment to the poor. In the United States we are conditioned by our Corporate media to avoid structural questions about our economy and society. We assume, because we are told to assume, that we live in the best of all possible worlds. Injustice, oppression and abject poverty are dismissed as things that “just happen”, the result of the normal functioning of a value-free natural market. Francis reminds us that such things are not value-free, that we choose to tolerate poverty and can choose to alleviate it.

In the most recent papal encyclical, Francis counters the ideology of the Republican Right in this country:

In this context, some people continue to defend trickle-down theories which assume that economic growth, encouraged by a free market, will inevitably succeed in bringing about greater justice and inclusiveness in the world. This opinion, which has never been confirmed by the facts, expresses a crude and naïve trust in the goodness of those wielding economic power and in the sacralized workings of the prevailing economic system. Meanwhile, the excluded are still waiting. To sustain a lifestyle which excludes others, or to sustain enthusiasm for that selfish ideal, a globalization of indifference has developed. Almost without being aware of it, we end up being incapable of feeling compassion at the outcry of the poor, weeping for other people’s pain, and feeling a need to help them, as though all this were someone else’s responsibility and not our own. The culture of prosperity deadens us; we are thrilled if the market offers us something new to purchase. In the meantime all those lives stunted for lack of opportunity seem a mere spectacle; they fail to move us.

Viva Papa!