Lindsey Graham Wants War-- War Against American Civil Liberties, War In The Middle East

Lindsey Graham seems to be losing his mind. Thursday he claimed that American intervention in Syria-- supplying arms, enforcing a no fly zone-- is not to help the rebels but to end war before Syria can use chemical weapons against... the U.S. He put out an official press release with fellow warmonger John McCain in the hopes up drumming up some war fever and seeing Obama blunder into an unpopular and unnecessary war that could easily escalate into a war involving Israel, Iran, Turkey and Russia.

“The conflict in Syria has taken a dramatic turn for the worse. The United Nations reported today that the death toll in Syria is approaching 93,000. Hezbollah is all in. Iran is all in. Iraqi militant groups are flowing into Syria to fight for Assad. Russia continues to provide military and diplomatic support. Assad is dramatically increasing his use of airpower against civilians and opposition forces in Syria. A report today stated that Assad’s forces conducted at least 5,000 air-to-ground attacks last month alone.

“A decision to provide lethal assistance, especially ammunition and heavy weapons, to opposition forces in Syria is long overdue, and we hope the President will take this urgently needed step. But providing arms alone is not sufficient. That alone is not enough to change the military balance of power on the ground against Assad. The President must rally an international coalition to take military actions to degrade Assad’s ability to use airpower and ballistic missiles and to move and resupply his forces around the battlefield by air. This can be done, as we have said many times, using stand-off weapons such as cruise missiles.

“We cannot afford to delay any longer. Assad is on the offensive with every weapon in his arsenal and with the complete support of his foreign allies. We must take more decisive actions now to turn the tide of the conflict in Syria.”

As you may know, Blue America is trying to help South Carolina Democrat Jay Stamper defeat Graham next year. He told me he didn't think Graham could surprise him any longer. "But today, he did, with the absurd suggestion that arming Syrian rebels sympathetic to al-Qaeda will help prevent Syria from using chemical weapon against the United States. I have one question for Graham: how does helping radical Islamists overthrow a secular government in Syria make us any safer? How does helping the terrorist al-Nusra front gain power over Syria's chemical weapons stockpile make anyone safer? Whatever tortured logic Graham is employing seems to be geared toward reaching a justification for escalated U.S. involvement. He's grasping at straws in a desperate scramble to justify war. And can there be any doubt that his desired result is other people's son's and daughters being deployed on the ground in Syria." You can help him do that here. And you won't be alone. A prominent South Carolina libertarian website, FitsNews.com, run by Gov. Nikki Haley's lover, ran a guest post by Stamper on civil liberties well worth reading.

Jay Stamper: My Twitter Backlash

When I read about Edward Snowden’s disclosure of the NSA’s PRISM surveillance program, I had two immediate reactions: this guy looks like my cousin Brendan and this guy is a hero.

At great personal risk, Mr. Snowden broke the law in order to expose a much larger criminal enterprise: The Defense Department’s outrageous and unconstitutional mass-monitoring of domestic civilian communications. To my mind, his willingness to be branded a criminal and live as a fugitive makes his actions all the more heroic. And the irony that a champion of civil liberties was forced to seek refuge in the shadow of totalitarian China is more damning and embarrassing to us than to him.

So, as the news broke, I impulsively reached for my iPhone to tweet my support. Then I hesitated. Why take sides on such a divisive issue? Why not wait and see what happens? It’s not as if the media were beating down my door for a comment. There’s no hurry. And a tweet is forever. But then I was caught by surprise by a flash of embarrassment at my own lack of courage.

So, I tweeted:

The reaction from my small Twitter following was instant and almost universally disapproving. In short, it seemed that most of my progressive tweeps had gone all state security on me. People whose tweets were ordinarily peppered with terms like “choice,” “equality” and “civil rights” were now throwing around words like “treason,” “security” and “homeland.” It sounded like their accounts had been hacked by G. Gordon Liddy. I was getting a few messages of support-- from Republicans.

What was going on? Why were so many of my fellow Democrats flaking out on civil rights? What happened to being a card a carrying member of the ACLU? I’ve entertained a few theories. Maybe in the aftermath of the September 11 terrorist attacks, Democrats are still so irrationally terrified of being viewed as soft on terrorism that we feel the need to overcompensate, jumping at any opportunity to prove we’re just as mercenary as anyone else. But the real explanation turns out to be more obvious; and less disturbing than it is depressing. Though initiated under President Bush, PRISM was expanded (and exposed) under a Democratic administration. The backlash I experienced was probably just a case of Democrats protecting a Democratic administration. This theory is supported by the numerous emails I received from Democrats telling me to cool it on the hero talk because I was playing right into the hands of the Republicans.

As Democrats, we should not be trying to minimize the seriousness of genuine misconduct when it happens under a Democratic administration. On the contrary, Democrats-- not Republicans-- should be the most ardent critics of a Democratic administration that operates in a manner inconsistent with our values. After all, it’s our brand that’s being tarnished.

Unfortunately, the political landscape is so poisoned and polarized that many of us-- in both parties-- aren’t even aware we’re part of the problem. Too much time spent in the echo-chamber of partisan group-think has made us unbelievably smug and complacent. Demonizing the other side is easy, and seeing a good idea for what it is becomes impossible when it originates from someone with the wrong political credentials. A liberal number of my liberal Twitter followers unfollowed me after my controversial tweet-- a pretty illiberal thing to do if you ask me. Even if you do disagree with someone, why cut off the conversation? The Southern Poverty Law Center follows the KKK and I’m pretty sure they’re not fans.

I’m as frustrated as anyone with GOP political theater, the faux outrage surrounding non-scandals like Benghazi and other transparently cynical attempts to hobble the President’s second term agenda in advance of next year’s mid-term elections. But lets not sink to their level. If we view important issues through the lens of partisan self-interest, we are playing the game by their rules. We may gain momentary advantage but in the long term, we’ll be viewed as intellectually dishonest, we’ll lose credibility and we’ll end up defeating our own cause.

It’s like PRISM itself; it may have seemed clever at the time but the blowback just isn’t worth it.

If you'd like to help Jay end Graham's disgraceful career in Congress, here's the place.

Read More

Q & A With Jay Stamper... The South Carolina Democrat Challenging Lindsey Graham

You always know when someone is a DCCC candidate if you get into a Q&A with them. The DCCC candidates don't A the Qs-- not if they're substantive, let alone controversial. Jay Stamper isn't running for a House seat, so he'd never have any chance to be brain-washed by the DCCC anyway. Instead, he's running for the U.S. Senate seat that Lindsey Graham is holding in South Carolina. Jay is an outspoken, very independent-minded guy. He really does represent the best of his state's politics. And Blue America has endorsed him. He sat down for a Q&A with us and I've shared it, word for word, below. Please consider helping replace Lindsey Graham with Jay. Even $5 and $10 contributions-- here, on our Senate page-- are welcome... with enthusiasm.

DWT: This is your first run for public office, so people don’t know a whole lot about you. I thought you could share some...

JS: Some info?

DWT: Yes. For instance, are you married?

JS: Yes. My wife Marnie and I were married in December of 2010.

DWT: Children?

JS: Not yet but I have a niece and nephew who would make great fill-ins when we do a tv spot. And we do have two Shih-tzu's named Georgie and Teddy who will never make it into a tv ad. I borrow my mom’s yellow lab Sunny when the occasion calls for a dog that resonates with voters. Everybody loves Sunny and I hope he makes it until 2014 so I can take him on the campaign trail with me. He has a little bit of a weight problem. I joke that he’s 50% Yellow Lab, 50% Siberian Butter Bear.

DWT: I read someone on twitter say you were a scam artist and con-man who cheated little old ladies out of their retirement savings, was run out of multiple states for securities law violations and was sentenced to 120 years in a Nevada state penitentiary.

JS: You forgot the thing about killing Kennedy. I guess we’ve concluded the human interest section of the interview.

DWT: Yes.

JS: OK. I’ll address this point by point, in reverse order of importance. First, it is true that little old ladies were involved. They don’t like being called that, by the way. Second, I have never been "run out of" a state. Or asked to leave. Or even asked not to leave town. I don’t think those things even happen in real life.

(Laughter)

JS: Third, I’m not a scam artist or con-man. Or charlatan, snake oil salesman or scalawag. I am arguably a carpetbagger, but I’m sure we’ll get to that.

DWT: Yes.

JS: Basically, in 2006, I made the colossal mistake of trying to raise investment capital on the internet through a securities registration exemption.

DWT: Federal Savings.

JS: Yes, Federal Savings. I retained securities attorneys to advise me on the possibility of selling what are known as Federal Covered Securities. They advised that I could use short term promissory notes and told me that they were exempt under the 1933 Securities Act and not subject to state registration requirements.

DWT: And you believed them?

JS: Why wouldn’t I? They were the experts. I did read the law and the plain language suggested they were right. So, that’s how Federal Savings LLC was born. We raised about $5 million from investors in 37 states but we were shut down almost immediately.

DWT: So the lawyers are to blame?

JS: They were to blame with regard to being wrong about the exemption. They were securities law specialists and one of the premier firms in the Pacific Northwest. But, to me, it also highlighted how complicated our laws have become to the point that top lawyers can’t even make sense of them.

DWT: Which you’ve already blogged about.

JS: Yes.

DWT: Well what about the con-man, scam artist thing.

JS: Well, I never lied or defrauded anyone and everyone made money except for me. I lost almost a million dollars. So, unless I’m masochistically scamming myself, no.

DWT: Your website looked a lot like a bank website.

JS: That it did. The web design firm we hired to create the website asked me for examples of websites that I liked to use as guidance for the design. I sent them links to a number of sites, including one for World Savings. Unfortunately, they pretty much copied the World Savings design, right down to the piggy bank and the elderly couple walking on the beach. I told them to redesign it, not because I was concerned that it looked too much like a bank but because I didn’t want to violate anyone’s copyright.

DWT: But wasn’t it misleading to call a company Federal Savings, have a website that looks like a bank?

JS: My intention at the time was to give the company a bank-like look and feel, but be conspicuous about it not being a bank. My attitude was “Hey, since I can guarantee everyone a good return on their money, how do we aggressively market this investment to the widest audience.” In retrospect, I was sailing too close to the wind.

DWT: What about the 120 years in prison.

JS: Well, that had nothing to do with the site looking like a bank. One day my lawyer called and said, “Nevada is charging you with selling unregistered securities, acting as an unlicensed broker-dealer, etc.” I was astounded and my lawyers couldn’t believe it because the charges were bullshit. Any idiot knows an issuer doesn’t have to register as a broker-dealer to sell its own securities.

DWT: How did you react?

JS: At first, I was just incredulous. And angry. Even though I wasn’t legally obligated, I was spending money out of my own pocket to repay investors because Nevada had wrongly frozen the bank account we used for reimbursements. Nevada was doing everything it could to delay investor reimbursements and now it was threatening me with 120 years in jail on completely ridiculous charges.

DWT: So were the charges dropped?

JS: They dropped the broker-dealer charge after we politely reminded them that an issuer isn’t required to register as a broker dealer. The other one wasn’t dropped because I guess it was just too embarrassing for them to charge me with all these things and then immediately withdraw the charges. They knew the selling unregistered securities charge wouldn't fly-- under Nevada law, you have to "willfully" commit the crime which I obviously hadn’t because I’d been advised by counsel that the securities were exempt.

DWT: So what happened?

JS: What happened was we would almost certainly have won at trial and the state knew it. They didn’t want the embarrassment of having the charges thrown out or losing at trial but they didn’t want the embarrassment of withdrawing their last charge against me either. They needed to save face. Basically, it was a game of chicken. They didn’t want a trial and neither did I. I wasn’t willing to risk even a .1% chance of spending the rest of my life in Nevada. So they agreed to zero years in prison if I would plead guilty and of course I jumped at the chance. I could have pled not guilty and taken my chances before a "jury of my peers," but as I’ve said, that would have qualified me for an insanity defense no one could contest.

DWT: What do you say to someone who says you’re not taking responsibility but blaming other people?

JS: I would say, on the contrary, I’ve actually taken way too much responsibility. I pled guilty in Nevada to a crime that even the State of Nevada knew I didn’t commit. Despite having no access to the investment proceeds, it was my priority to repay all securities as they became due, including interest. I spent hundreds of thousands of dollars of my own money on legal fees and to have a forensic accountant reconstruct bank records and track refunds. In all, I voluntarily spent over $1 million of my personal funds ensuring that all investors were repaid. You know, I was extremely cheeky in marketing that website. I take responsibility for that. But, on the whole, I’ve taken too much responsibility and left a trail of happy investors in my wake.

DWT: OK, on to a different topic.

JS: OK.

DWT: Anonymous detractors of yours claim on social media that you’re a carpetbagger from Seattle who moved to South Carolina just to run for Senate.

JS: I was born in Spokane, Washington. I’ve lived all over the country, Washington State, California, and now South Carolina. I went to college in Connecticut, lived in Boston, my dad’s a New York native, my parents lived in Idaho, where I spent summers working on a ranch, I was a ski instructor in Colorado and lived there right after college. I worked for Pro Air, based in Detroit, hometown of my grandfather. My ancestors are all either Irish immigrants or from Michigan by way of Kentucky by way of Virginia. I started The Delaware Company, which I later sold to a company in Wisconsin. I’m not sure there’s a single place in the U.S. where I wouldn’t be considered a carpetbagger. The way I respond to the term is, so what if I am? I’m committed to South Carolina and we’ve chosen it as our home. Voters want someone who will stand up for the people here in South Carolina, not someone who lives in Washington D.C. and stands up for the special interests that give him millions of dollars. By the way, Southern charm and hospitality are not myths; I’m constantly amazed by how friendly and welcoming people in Columbia are.

DWT: Are you worried that these issues will hurt your campaign?

JS: It’s part of politics. I knew when I filed my candidacy that Lindsey Graham had an opposition research team that’s like J. Edgar Hoover and Mitch McConnelI combined. I have my issues. Lindsey has his issues. And then there are the real issues. I want to talk about real issues like protecting seniors and veterans from those in Congress who want to adopt the Chained CPI, a real scam targeting the elderly. I want to talk about the trillions we’re spending on wars while our own budget is in crisis. I want to talk about the obstructionism in Congress that’s sabotaging our entire democracy.

DWT: You seem to joke around a lot. Are you worried that people won’t take your campaign seriously.

JS: No, because most of my jokes aren’t funny to anyone except me.

Read More

Lindsey Graham's Homosexuality And... Syria

Lindsey Graham (R-SC) is, in essence, one thing above all else-- a self-loathing, closeted homosexual whose fear of exposure motivates everything else in his miserable life. Lindsey Graham should not be in the Senate or in government service at all. He is obsessed with his own homosexuality. His life in the dark, dank closet, trembling with fear that "the rednecks" will find out, has made him a practiced liar and has stoked a severe mental illness. He doesn't know the truth from the lies any longer. Last week we saw the tremendous damage this gay person is doing to the LGBT community in the hope of diverting attention away from himself.

I quoted from the apology to the LGBT community that rabidly homophobic closet case Senator Roy Ashburn (R-Bakersfield) made soon after he was arrested for drunk driving with a young male prostitute in his car. Ashburn came to grips with what went wrong in his life much faster than any outed Republican hate-monger I had ever seen. From his public statement:

Something happened that I guess caused me to realize that. When I was in sixth grade, the police had a raid in the sand dunes [near San Luis Obispo] and a bunch of gay men were arrested, probably charged with indecent activity. That sticks in my mind — the publicity and the shame around it. One of my teachers was one of the people. The talk among the kids, the talk among the adults, the talk in the community, the press — at that time the choice was pretty clear: If you were gay and open, it was a life of shame, ridicule, innuendo about molesting and perversion. It was a dark life. Given that choice of whether you come out or whether you're in secret, I mean, there really wasn't a choice.

...The best I can do is to say that I was hiding. I was so in terror I could not allow any attention to come my way. So any measure that had to do with the subject of sexual orientation was an automatic "no" vote. I was paralyzed by this fear, and so I voted without even looking at the content. The purpose of government is to protect the rights of people under the law, regardless of our skin color, national origin, our height, our weight, our sexual orientation. This is a nation predicated on the belief that there is no discrimination on those characteristics, and so my vote denied people equal treatment, and I'm truly sorry for that.

And that's, basically, what the deluded voted of South Carolina sends to the U.S. Senate to represent them.

Right now there's a battle over the future of Syria raging on many fronts. In Brussels, for example, Britain, Turkey and France want to arm the "moderates" (of which there are none to base a policy on, unless you define "moderate" as someone opposing Assad). The war-mongery British Foreign Secretary, an adjunct of the U.S. Military Industrial Complex, is arguing that arming "moderate" opposition forces would lead to less killing in Syria. Austria, the Czech Republic, Finland, the Netherlands and Sweden are being more logical and argued the opposite, saying that arms supplies would only escalate the conflict.

"How would the government prevent British-supplied weapons falling into the wrong hands, and how does supplying weapons help to secure a lasting peace?" asked Douglas Alexander, the shadow foreign secretary.

"Syria today is awash with arms and in the House of Commons this week, MPs on all sides expressed real concern about the identity, intent and tactics of some of the rebel forces. "In Washington, the prime minister clearly failed to convince President Obama of his case, so tomorrow in Brussels the UK's use of the veto would confirm that the prime minister had also failed to convince our European partners."

...Oxfam's head of arms control, Anna Macdonald, said: "Allowing the EU arms embargo to end could have devastating consequences. There are no easy answers when trying to stop the bloodshed in Syria, but sending more arms and ammunition clearly isn't one of them.

"Transferring more weapons to Syria can only exacerbate a hellish scenario for civilians. If the UK and France are to live up to their own commitments-- including those set out in the new arms trade treaty-- they simply must not send weapons to Syria."

So why is this relevant to a discussion of Lindsey Graham's sad life in the closet? As always, Graham is asserting himself on the side of endless war, hoping the phony-baloney macho demeanor will somehow throw people off the scent. Last month he was shrill in his demands that the U.S. get involved with another complex Middle Eastern War dating back to ethnic rivalries that began in the Bronze Age. On CBS; Face the Nation he predicted that without U.S. intervention in the Syrian civil war, the entire region will "fall into chaos" by the end of the year. Graham falsely claims that he fought in the Gulf War but, in fact, was an Army paper-pusher who never left the safety of South Carolina. He uses his bogus claims of military heroism and hardship to make himself seem "straight" (or the red neck conception of straight) and to bolster his flimsy credentials as a foreign policy expert. If skipping around Baghdad in the shadow of John McCain-- buying "darling little rugs" in a market-- makes Graham an expert, well that's the only thing that does. Lindsey Graham will never be elected president or vice president-- or anything outside of laughable South Carolina. He should stop pretending.

Republican Senators John McCain and Lindsey Graham are pounding their fists for intervention in Syria after reports of chemical weapons being used. They have called for bombing Syrian air bases, arming the rebels and readying an international force to secure chemical weapons stocks. McCain was quick to say, though, he did not want American boots on the ground because that would be “the worst thing the United States could do right now.”

Although McCain and Graham hide under the pretense of humanitarian intervention and securing national interests, they are paving the way for another war in the Middle East. Bombing Syrian air bases to create a no-fly zone would have little effect on saving civilian lives. The Syrian Air Force has 555 combat capable aircrafts, but they have not been used against civilians. Helicopter gunships have attacked civilians, but an NFZ would have to be far more extensive to protect against them. Unlike regular aircrafts, helicopters can quickly depart, attack, and land necessitating more surveillance and striking capabilities to remove them.

Moreover, as Micah Zenko of the Council on Foreign Relations explains, “the NFZ in Libya did not protect civilian populations; it was actually the use of close air support against Qaddafi regime forces on the ground.” Close air support (CAS) requires trusted intelligence agents and forward air controllers on the ground to protect civilians and attack regime assets. That is, Western boots would have to be on the ground to actually secure civilian populations.

Additionally, General James Mattis, head of U.S. Central Command, told Congress that Syria has advanced air defense weapons from Russia that would make it difficult to establish any NFZ. Also consider that Libya’s no-fly zone required a 7-month long bombing campaign. Syria’s army is much stronger than Libya’s was, and its cities are denser than Libya’s which increases the possibility of civilian collateral damage.

Next, arming the rebels will only prolong the conflict and further ignite religious fragmentation. The Syrian army is well-equipped and has much better training than the rebels. If rebels gain heavy weaponry, Assad’s forces could escalate their own attacks or further drive moderates to pick a side. Weapons can also be traded from group to group. Attempts may be made to transfer weapons to "secular" or "moderate" groups, but they could easily end up in the hands of Jubhat Al-Nasra, an affiliate of Al-Qaeda in Syria. Previous disastrous experiences in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Somalia should be enough to swear off the idea of funneling arms to proxies.

Involving American forces in Syria will also antagonize Russia, who is providing arms and supplies to Assad. At a time when Iran is developing nuclear weapons and North Korea is more belligerent than ever, it would be diplomatically foolish to isolate a powerhouse like Russia.

Graham is a sick, bloodthirsty sociopath hoping against hope that he isn't exposed for his true nature. The Democrat running against him for the South Carolina Senate seat, Jay Stamper, never comments of the closet case thing. But he has been very vocal about Lindsey's warmongering.

[T]he main reason we should all care about retiring Lindsey Graham is the carelessness with which he advocates the use of American military force abroad. There is something disturbing about someone who has never seen combat being so consistently eager to deploy other people’s sons and daughters overseas. Maybe that’s why he has falsely and repeatedly claimed to be a Gulf War veteran.

I believe that Graham may be one of those people who appreciates our military’s capabilities and are frustrated when they aren’t being employed. It’s like having a brand new sports car in your garage all gassed up, the keys in the ignition, but not being able to take it for a spin.

Having voted to authorize the use of force in both Iraq and Afghanistan, was Graham not chastened when these two wars left over 100,000 civilians and U.S. soldiers dead or wounded and our economy on life support. Did he consider resigning, maybe to write a memoir in the hope that we could at least learn from his mistakes. At the very least, did he shy away from any future discussion of foreign policy. No-- not Lindsey. Instead, he’s weighing in on Syria. After reviewing all the facts, he’s come to a conclusion that we need boots on the ground and we need to bomb the country with cruise missiles.

There are so many ways this can backfire. Cornering Assad with U.S. force would make it more likely-- not less-– that he would resort to using chemical weapons out of desperation. The Arab proverb is “an enemy of my enemy is my friend” and intervening would make us friends with the Muslim Brotherhood and al-Nusra Front, Syria’s al-Qaida. We could end up spending money and American lives replacing a brutal dictatorship with a radical theocracy. Lindsey actually wants us to arm fractured rebel groups, many of whom have already committed war crimes. Their empowerment would risk the disintegration of any central government and could turn Syria into a sort of lawless failed state like Somalia, even more of a refuge for terrorists than it is currently. Not to know how wrongheaded it is to intervene is to ignore the lessons of Iraq and Afghanistan and also to ignore the complexity of the Syrian situation, which virtually guarantees undesired and unintended consequences.

Lindsey, can you look into the eyes of these troops, or their parents, and honestly tell them that deploying on a mission to Syria has a high probability of making Americans safer, advancing the interests of the United States or contributing to regional stability in the Middle East? In fact, intervening in the crisis will not do any of these things.

Can you look into the eyes of the veterans of past wars who are disabled and homeless and tell them they just need to wait longer to get the help they need because we need those billions of dollars to fight yet another war? And how can we claim to support the troops when we send them to war and forget when they get home, voting to cut benefits for people who risked everything to serve our country?

Has Lindsey Graham thought about how $1.4 trillion in war spending could have been used to improve people’s lives? We could have increased funding for the National Institutes of Health by 600% every year for the last 10 years, speeding the development of treatments and cures for cancer, AIDS, cystic fibrosis, MS, and countless other diseases that destroy more lives every year than any Islamic terrorist could dream of. We could have provided low-income healthcare to 70 million people for 10 years, or hired an additional 2 million public elementary school teachers for 10 years. We could have provided 17 million military veterans VA medical care for 10 years, or provided 4-year university scholarships to 40 million students.

Don’t let Lindsey Graham (or anyone else) question your patriotism because you disagree with his foreign policy views. This is a senator who single-handedly blocked President Obama’s popular choice for Defense Secretary-- not out of principled opposition-- but to gain leverage over the President on a completely unrelated issue. As a result, the United States was without a Secretary of Defense at a time of escalating tensions overseas.

If you'd like to lend a hand in helping replace Lindsey Graham with Jay Stamper, you can do it on the Blue America Senate 2014 page.

Read More

Jay Stamper on Lindsey Graham: "There Is Something Disturbing About Someone Who Has Never Seen Combat Being So Consistently Eager To Deploy Other People’s Sons And Daughters Overseas"

Lindsey Graham (R-Meet The Press)

If Lindsey Graham loses his Senate seat in 2014, it's probably not going to be because he's a self-loathing closet case. In the South, that's how they like their homosexuals-- self-loathing and in the closet. And it's probably not going to be because the DSCC spends $3,862,547 or their Majority PAC puts in another $3,711,835, like they did in Claire McCaskill's race against Todd Akin, or $4,150,132 plus $2,996,159 like they did for John Tester in Montana or even the "mere" $882,789 and $300,000 they spent against Scott Brown in Massachusetts to win back that seat. As of now, the DSCC isn't looking to South Carolina as a likely pickup and is more likely to squander their money on hopeless ConservaDems Mark Begich (AK) and Mark Pryor (AR) and trying to defend open seats in South Dakota and West Virginia. I might point out at this point Obama's losses in those 5 states. Oh, look which one was the least red:

• South Carolina- 44%
• Alaska- 41%
• South Dakota- 40%
• Arkansas- 37%
• West Virginia- 36%

But they're ignoring South Carolina in favor of these 4 redder states because... well, it can't be because Lindsey Graham is less well-known or less loathed among Democrats. Meanwhile, though, Blue America has endorsed the one Democrat brave enough to take Graham on mano a mano, Jay Stamper who pointed out on his own campaign blog why Graham can be defeated next year. Among the 10 reasons are that Graham's last opponent, right-wing Democrat Bob Conley, spent only $15,000 against Graham's $6.6 million and still got 42.25% of the vote. In 2010, despite Democrats suffering massive defeats nationwide and votes being siphoned off by a Green Party candidate, Democrat Vincent Sheheen won 47% of the vote to Republican Nikki Haley’s 51.4% in the gubernatorial race. Sheehan is taking on the unpopular Haley again next year. Meanwhile, to protect his right flank, Graham has moved way to the right to please teabaggers and theocrats (many of whom detest him) and that makes him even less attractive to mainstream and independent voters.

When we first heard from Stamper back in April, we were still vetting him as a candidate. He checks out and he's now on the Blue America Senate page. Today he has a guest post for us about the importance of this race, not just for South Carolina but for all Americans.

Why We Should All Care About Retiring Lindsey Graham
by Jay Stamper

The outcome of the 2014 Senate election in South Carolina will affect all Americans-- not just South Carolinians.

As one of the leading obstructionists in the U.S. Senate, Lindsey Graham has abused his filibuster power, holding legislation and important confirmations hostage for purely political reasons. His conduct is hurting our entire country.

When Graham kills common sense background checks for criminals and the mentally ill, it doesn’t just affect South Carolinians. We’re all less safe-- no matter where we live.

When he supports cuts to Medicare and Social Security, seniors and the disabled are affected not just in South Carolina but in South Dakota, California, New York, Florida and everywhere else.

When he advocates warrant-less wiretaps, restrictions on free speech and suspending the bill of rights, our rights are threatened everywhere.

But the main reason we should all care about retiring Lindsey Graham is the carelessness with which he advocates the use of American military force abroad. There is something disturbing about someone who has never seen combat being so consistently eager to deploy other people’s sons and daughters overseas. Maybe that’s why he has falsely and repeatedly claimed to be a Gulf War veteran.

I believe that Graham may be one of those people who appreciates our military’s capabilities and are frustrated when they aren’t being employed. It’s like having a brand new sports car in your garage all gassed up, the keys in the ignition, but not being able to take it for a spin.

Having voted to authorize the use of force in both Iraq and Afghanistan, was Graham not chastened when these two wars left over 100,000 civilians and U.S. soldiers dead or wounded and our economy on life support. Did he consider resigning, maybe to write a memoir in the hope that we could at least learn from his mistakes. At the very least, did he shy away from any future discussion of foreign policy. No-- not Lindsey. Instead, he’s weighing in on Syria. After reviewing all the facts, he’s come to a conclusion that we need boots on the ground and we need to bomb the country with cruise missiles.

There are so many ways this can backfire. Cornering Assad with U.S. force would make it more likely-- not less-– that he would resort to using chemical weapons out of desperation. The Arab proverb is “an enemy of my enemy is my friend” and intervening would make us friends with the Muslim Brotherhood and al-Nusra Front, Syria’s al-Qaida. We could end up spending money and American lives replacing a brutal dictatorship with a radical theocracy. Lindsey actually wants us to arm fractured rebel groups, many of whom have already committed war crimes. Their empowerment would risk the disintegration of any central government and could turn Syria into a sort of lawless failed state like Somalia, even more of a refuge for terrorists than it is currently. Not to know how wrongheaded it is to intervene is to ignore the lessons of Iraq and Afghanistan and also to ignore the complexity of the Syrian situation, which virtually guarantees undesired and unintended consequences.

Lindsey, can you look into the eyes of these troops, or their parents, and honestly tell them that deploying on a mission to Syria has a high probability of making Americans safer, advancing the interests of the United States or contributing to regional stability in the Middle East? In fact, intervening in the crisis will not do any of these things.

Can you look into the eyes of the veterans of past wars who are disabled and homeless and tell them they just need to wait longer to get the help they need because we need those billions of dollars to fight yet another war? And how can we claim to support the troops when we send them to war and forget when they get home, voting to cut benefits for people who risked everything to serve our country?

Has Lindsey Graham thought about how $1.4 trillion in war spending could have been used to improve people’s lives? We could have increased funding for the National Institutes of Health by 600% every year for the last 10 years, speeding the development of treatments and cures for cancer, AIDS, cystic fibrosis, MS, and countless other diseases that destroy more lives every year than any Islamic terrorist could dream of. We could have provided low-income healthcare to 70 million people for 10 years, or hired an additional 2 million public elementary school teachers for 10 years. We could have provided 17 million military veterans VA medical care for 10 years, or provided 4-year university scholarships to 40 million students.

Don’t let Lindsey Graham (or anyone else) question your patriotism because you disagree with his foreign policy views. This is a senator who single-handedly blocked President Obama’s popular choice for Defense Secretary-- not out of principled opposition-- but to gain leverage over the President on a completely unrelated issue. As a result, the United States was without a Secretary of Defense at a time of escalating tensions overseas.

Even though you may not be able to vote for me, I’m running what amounts to a national campaign against Graham because it’s going to take the support of people from all over the country to defeat Lindsey and the millions of dollars that he's raised from special interest groups.

We will never be able to recoup the $1.4 trillion in war spending and we'll never be able to undo the unnecessary suffering of thousands of grieving families. But together we can make sure Lindsey doesn't get another 6 years to make the same mistakes all over again.

Read More

Tomorrow South Carolina Voters Decide Between Colbert's Sister And The Obsessive Sex Fiend

Actually, it's not all of South Carolina. We're talking about SC-01, along the coast, a district that's not as crazy and extremist as the up-country congressional districts where talk of secession is still a hot topic. It's next door to SC-06, into which the legislature managed to gerrymander every conceivable African American in the area. SC-06 gave Obama 70.9% of its vote in November and reelected Jim Clyburn without opposition. Of South Carolina's 6 other--basically all white-- districts Obama went above 40% in only two-- SC-05 (with African-American-majority Fairfield and Lee counties as well as Democratic-leaning Chester and Sumter counties) and SC-01, where Obama actually won Charleston County. Nevertheless, if Colbert Busch wins Tuesday, there would only be three Democrats in Congress representing redder districts: Mike McIntyre (Blue Dog-NC), whose district has a PVI of R+12, Nick Rahall (D-WV), whose district has a PVI of R+14, and Jim Matheson (Blue Dog-UT), whose district has a PVI of R+16. SC-01 has a PVI of R+11. The three of them-- particularly the two Blue Dogs, vote with the GOP on crucial roll calls far more frequently than they vote with Democrats. Boehner and Cantor know they can count on Matheson and McIntyre and, to a lesser degree Rahall, whenever push comes to shove. Judging by her campaign statements, Colbert Busch is more likely to fall in around Rahall than McIntyre and Matheson. Unlike them, she's socially liberal-- pro-marriage equality, pro-Choice, pro-immigrant, pro-background checks, for example-- and then goes all GOP when it comes to economic issues. She's made some pretty nasty anti-union statements: “I’m proud to live in and support a right-to-work state" and “This is a right-to-work state and NLRB had no business telling Boeing where they can locate" and she's managed to attack Obama on Chained CPI-- although you might interpret that as backing Bernie Sanders and Alan Grayson-- and on Obamacare, which she says needs "an enormous fix," which most progressives also agree with.

Sanford's campaign is all about trying to make voters forget he's a corrupt philanderer and a serial liar and think he's running against Nancy Pelosi. Colbert's sister is no Nancy Pelosi, not by a longshot. Nor is she some backward sleazy Blue Dog, willing to say anything to get elected. Polling hasn't been going her way lately. Late in April-- before the big right-wing money started pouring into the district (as well as the slimy smear campaign), she was clearing pulling away from Sanford and looked like a sure winner. She had a 9% margin and 56% of poll respondents had a favorable opinion of her-- as opposed to Sanford's 56% unfavorable rating. A more recent poll-- though not as reliable as the PPP poll cited above-- shows the race exactly tied, 46-46% with 7% undecided.

If money is going to decide the race, it's likely Colbert Busch will win. The NRCC, embarrassed by Sanford's ethical problems, pulled out and the DCCC and their House Majority PAC have invested very heavily. Colbert Busch outraised Sanford by around $400,000 but she burned through it faster, leaving Sanford with a $30,000 advantage of cash-on-hand in the final week.

Both campaigns had donors-- individuals and PACs-- from a variety of interest group areas, and both saw support from traditional backers of their respective parties. Lawyers and law firms were the top backers of Colbert Busch's campaign, giving her $38,250. She also picked up support from the education industry and industrial unions. Given her famous brother, it's no surprise to see that donors from the TV, movies and music industry chipped in $13,200.

Sanford received his greatest support from the securities and investment industry, which sent his campaign $54,000, followed by the real estate industry, which sent him $51,000.

Besides raising far less money than Colbert-Busch, Sanford is taking a huge hit when it comes to outside spending. According to OpenSecrets.org's profile of the race, outside groups have spent more than $929,000 on independent expenditures against Sanford. Conservative groups have spent only about $15,000 to help him. Meanwhile only about $4,600 has been spent by outside groups attacking Colbert Busch, while $1,500 has been spent upporting her.

The DCCC has chipped in $458,234 (of which $214,849 came in last week) and their SuperPAC, House Majority PAC put in another $425,851 (including $165,027 last week). Last week a right-wing anti-Choice "women's" group, Independent Women's Voice put down $96,584 slamming Colbert Busch (ad below), a candidate who is viewed with disgust and contempt by most women, regardless of political leanings. And FreedomWorks kicked down $1,614 last week. In teh last couple of days, wealthy Republicans have helped Sanford close the money gap and the last minute poll by PPP shows the race even-- with Sanford momentum.

PPP's final poll of the special election in South Carolina's 1st Congressional District finds a race that's too close to call, with Republican Mark Sanford leading Democrat Elizabeth Colbert Busch 47-46. The 1 point lead for Sanford represents a 10 point reversal from PPP's poll of the race two weeks ago, when Colbert Busch led by 9 points at 50-41.

Sanford has gotten back into the race by nationalizing it and painting Colbert Busch as a liberal. A plurality of voters in the district-- 47%- say they think Colbert Busch is a liberal compared to 43% who characterize her as ideologically 'about right.' Colbert Busch's favorability rating has dropped a net 19 points compared to 2 weeks ago, from +25 then at 56/31 to +6 now at 50/44.

While Colbert Busch is seen as too liberal, 48% of voters think that Sanford's views are 'about right' on the issues compared to just 38% who see him as too conservative. Sanford's also seen some repair to his image over the course of the campaign. Although he's still unpopular, sporting a -11 net favorability rating at 43/54, that's up a net 13 points from our first poll in March when he was at 34/58.

Alan Grayson (D-FL) asked his own donors to contribute to Colbert Busch's campaign and to support her efforts to beat Sanford. He was relieved she's at least pro-choice and pro-marriage equality, even if they don't see eye to eye on any number of issues. (Grayson, for example, is a major union supporter.) But his feelings are that if there's any chance to beat a Republican with a Democrat, it's worth the effort. "I'm going to ask you to support her campaign because the last thing that we need in the U.S. House of Representatives right now is another Republican. And the thing that we do need is more Democrats. Seventeen more Democrats, to be exact... Let's take back the House."

Read More

Tick, Tick, Tick... Will The GOP Actually Lose A South Carolina House Seat In Less Than A Week?

I suspect that Rand Paul was less reluctant about following Papa Paul in endorsing habitually dishonest South Carolina philanderer Mark Sanford than I was in endorsing Elizabeth Colbert Busch. After all, he's more of a party hack than I am and, after all again, the Tea Party Establishment has rallied 'round Sanford after opposing him in the primary. Tuesday the Koch brothers' FreedomWorks, one of the groups Rand is dependent on, got on board.

GOP congressional candidate Mark Sanford was formally endorsed Tuesday by Sen. Rand Paul, a Tea Party favorite whose support could help in the final days of the special election for South Carolina's 1st District seat. The senator's father, former Texas congressman Ron Paul, threw his support behind Sanford last week.

"More than anything, Washington needs strong and consistent voices for fiscal responsibility and liberty," the younger Paul said in a statement. "Mark has proven during his time in office that watching out for taxpayers and holding the line on spending are his top priorities."

Sanford, a former South Carolina governor, faces Democrat Elizabeth Colbert Busch in a May 7 election for his old House seat. Once the favorite in the race, Sanford has had to deal with renewed attention on his 2009 extramarital affair and the loss of support from the House GOP campaign committee.

The small-government, anti-tax Tea Party movement might be waning in some areas, but South Carolina has been one of its strongholds. It's also the site of the important "first in the South" presidential primary, and Paul has been trying to make inroads in some of these early states as he considers a 2016 White House bid.

Tonight, South Carolina's hugely unpopular governor, Nikki Haley, headlined a fundraiser for Sanford, her one and only event for her controversial ex-guru. (When she was running for governor, she scrubbed references to Sanford from her campaign website after his scandals became public.)

The event is Haley’s first with her one-time mentor in his race against Democrat Elizabeth Colbert Busch, a political newcomer and sister of TV comedian Stephen Colbert. The appearance by South Carolina’s first female governor comes as Sanford is trying to overcome a huge gap among women who favor Colbert Busch by 20 percentage points, according to a poll released last week.

The fundraiser is at the home of luxury car dealer Tommy Baker, according to a copy of the invitation obtained by the S.C. blog GOPwrite.com. The event costs from $250 a person to $2,600 for a couple to attend.

...Democrats said Monday that Sanford and Haley, who was cleared last year by two S.C. House investigations into allegations that she used her post as a Lexington state representative for her personal financial benefit, both are “ethically challenged.”

“Haley and Sanford are two peas in an ethically challenged pod, who have proved time and again that they can’t be trusted to act in the best interests of the people or our state,” the S.C. Democratic Party said in a statement Monday.

Read More

Colbert's Sister-- Next Tuesday

I'm rooting for Colbert's sister-- and not just because she's Colbert's sister. And not just because Mark Sanford is likely to be one of the worst members of Congress-- far worse, in fact, than he was when he was in Congress the first time. Colbert's sister, thoroughly embraced as she is by the DCCC, doesn't need any help from Blue America and there's nothing to make me think she would qualify for a Blue America endorsement any way-- the way these guys have-- but... I'm still rooting for her because there's a lot of room between someone as good as Alan Grayson, Keith Ellison and Donna Edwards and someone like Mark Sanford.

From what I can tell, if I lived in South Carolina's first congressional district, I'd go beyond rooting for Colbert's sister; I'd probably even vote for her a week from today. She's a normal, decent Democrat on social issues-- pro-Choice, pro-equality, etc-- and kind of like a New Dem type on the economic issues. Like I said last week, I don't know if Colbert Busch will wind up voting with Republicans half the time. But it's what I suspect from watching the campaign. Still, that's better than voting with Republicans 100% of the time, which is what we can expect from Sanford. She's already come out in favor of marriage equality and background checks and her approach to Chained CPI was pretty good as well: “Not only does President Obama’s plan fail to put our finances back in order, it would cut benefits for our seniors, which is wrong. I believe that our seniors earned their Social Security by putting money away every single paycheck for a lifetime-- knowing that they could count on Social Security when they retired... Simply put, Social Security doesn’t contribute to the deficit, and politicians should keep their hands off the trust fund." If she has to, for the sake of election in South Carolina, attack Obama from the right, it's cool she can do it from a populist anti-bankster perspective.

Right wing propagandist John Fund writes that even if South Carolina voters know too much about Sanford for comfort, they don't know enough about Elizabeth Colbert Busch and if the turnout is really, really low, Sanford still has a chance to win.

The local and national media haven’t delved into Colbert Busch beyond her platitudes, and so far she’s avoided being tagged with any liberal labels. Her success at flying under the radar may serve as a model for other Democratic candidates in 2014. She plans to participate in only one debate during three months of campaigning. Some 500 of her pre-campaign tweets have been airbrushed away but thanks to the nonpartisan Sunlight Foundation have been returned to the public record. In them, her favorite topics include “backing equal rights for our LGBT [Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender] friends” and supporting President Obama’s proposed hikes in the minimum wage. Regarding Obamacare, she mocks its Republican opponents: “GOP Logic: Providing health care to all Iraqis is sound public policy. Providing health care to all Americans is socialism.”

South Carolina is the least unionized state in the country, but Colbert Busch 1.0 was a big fan of unions, even tweeting that she wanted the support of the AFL-CIO. Unions opposed Boeing’s plans to build a new plant in right-to-work South Carolina, but Colbert showed no misgivings about seeking union support: She eagerly accepted donations from the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, who tried to use the National Labor Relations Board to block Boeing’s move. “The voices of the union and all unions need to be lifted up,” she declared in a video she sent to union leaders as she prepared to run. “Nobody is recognizing that, and I promise to be that voice for you. Know that I hear you. Know that I’m working closely with your team.” Tara Servatius, a talk-show host and columnist for Charleston’s City Paper, concludes: “Bottom line, Elizabeth 1.0, the deleted version, is a hard-core liberal Democrat.”

So, yeah... let the DCCC use their money ($458,000) to push her, but-- what the hell-- vote for her next Tuesday instead of watching Sanford win this blood red district. They both fought for the center in their one debate, which was last night. Here's a small piece from it-- not especially interesting.

Read More

South Carolina Closets

After he wrote Over-Lawed to explain a run-in with a complicated securities law, Jay Stamper's thoughts must have turned to whatever other skeletons he had in his closet. Actually, Lindsey Graham has a closet. A more apt metaphor for Stamper might be... the Parisian catacombs. There are a lot of skeletons but regrettably, for him, few involve women, another thing he has in common with Lindsey Graham.

Anyways, like most people in their late 20’s, Stamper had experimented with purchasing the domain names of Republican members of Congress and linking them to websites promoting cannibalism, nudism and mail order brides. As part of our vetting process while we're thinking about helping him in his race against Graham, I asked Stamper about his brush with Republican Party cannibalism. Years later, he probably wishes he never did it-- just my guess-- but he was still chuckling at his attempt at political satire.

Congressman and future CIA director Porter Goss was put in the awkward position of having to explain why his name led to a site promoting the conversion of human breastmilk into cheese.

Childish stunts? Pranks committed by someone with too much time on their hands? Incredibly satisfying. Check on all counts. I enjoyed baiting Republicans in the press and inventing elaborate motivations ranging from radical activism to moneymaking. My friends thought it was hilarious. In my more pretentious moments, I would put on a black turtleneck and think of myself an avante garde performance artist for the internet age. As usual, my motivations were multiple: genuine anger at a Republican Congress that had just impeached the president, the thrill of seeing my name in print for the first time, satisfaction at tweaking authority. I enjoyed the controversy. I even found a monetary angle, putting the names up for sale on Ebay. In the end, I’m not particularly ashamed of having done it but not overly proud of it either, mostly because it could have been so much funnier.

Funnier? Like this?

The Colbert Report
Get More: Colbert Report Full Episodes,Indecision Political Humor,Video Archive

Read More

Guest Post By Jay Stamper, Who's Running For The Senate Seat Lindsey Graham Is Occupying

Profiles in Courage and Cowardice
-by Jay Stamper

I’ve given a lot of thought to the courage of the Marathon runners who ran toward the blasts and then kept on running to donate blood to the injured.

I've also thought about less courageous moments.

In the days following the bombings, Lindsey Graham suggested that Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, a U.S. citizen, should be denied Miranda rights and tried as an enemy combatant in a military court. Graham must have been thinking that our anger and disgust at a horrific crime would make us forget about the Bill of Rights. Thank God he was wrong.

This isn’t the first time that Senator Graham has demonstrated a contempt or disregard for our constitutionally guaranteed civil rights. But his latest comments attracted unprecedented attention because they came the same week he opposed the Manchin-Toomey Amendment, a common-sense measure to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and the mentally ill on constitutional grounds. The Amendment didn’t propose to ban a single weapon or piece of ammunition. It would simply have required background checks for private sales at gun shows and on the Internet, two areas currently exempt from federal law. This was a bi-partisan compromise that went so far as to specifically exclude transactions between family members from the background check requirement. But it wasn’t enough for Lindsey Graham. He joined a minority of other Senators to defeat the Amendment, defying overwhelming public opinion.

When Lindsey Graham disregards the Constitution, I wonder if he reflects on how many sacrifices have been made by so many to protect the civil rights that form the core of our exceptionalism as a country. Does he think about all of the people who swore an oath to defend the Constitution and then went to war in order to do just that? I wonder if he realizes how easy it is for a zealot with a bomb or a bullet to erode our civil rights when our politicians lack courage in the face of a crisis. I wonder if he wonders what our country’s founders would think, having themselves risked so much.

In the case of at least one Founder, John Adams, we don’t have to wonder. 244 years ago, in 1770, there was another Boston massacre that tested our commitment to civil rights before there even was a Constitution. British soldiers killed five American civilians and were arrested on criminal charges. They were vilified and vengeance was demanded. Angry mobs didn’t want a military trial-- or a trial at all. They wanted a tree and some rope. The defendants couldn’t find a single lawyer to represent them. No respectable lawyer wanted to risk the damage to their reputation, or endure the scorn and ostracism from friends and family or harassment by the general public. There was no money in it and the men were clearly guilty anyways.

John Adams shared their fears. He had a lot to lose. He took the case anyway. He did it because he believed that everyone deserves a defense, that everyone has the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty. In the end, five of the defendants were acquitted.

After each of his last two elections, Lindsey Graham took an oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States. Whether he’s given a third opportunity is up to us.

Read More

Monday Bits-- Colbert's Sister Going To Congress? Will Nestlé And Wall Street Ever Be Held To Account?

PPP shows Elizabeth Colbert Busch opening a more significant lead (16% as of this afternoon) over disgraced ex-Governor Mark Sanford in the first district congressional special election. Voting is on May 7th in the carefully gerrymandered red district, who's voters gave Obama 40.2% in November, while right next door in the 6th district-- into which the state's racist legislature dumped every African-American voter they could find-- Obama won 70.9%. Although John Boehner endorsed Sanford on April 9, less than a week later the NRCC, which he controls, announced that due to Sanford's on-going behavior issues, it would no longer support him or invest in his race, despite the hundreds of thousands of dollars being poured into the district by the DCCC and their House Majority PAC. The new DCCC as:



I don't know if Colbert Busch will wind up voting with Republicans half the time. but it's what I suspect from watching the campaign. Still, that's better than voting with Republicans 100% of the time, which is what we can expect from Sanford. She's already come out in favor of marriage equality and her approach to Chained CPI was pretty good as well: “Not only does President Obama’s plan fail to put our finances back in order, it would cut benefits for our seniors, which is wrong. I believe that our seniors earned their Social Security by putting money away every single paycheck for a lifetime-- knowing that they could count on Social Security when they retired... Simply put, Social Security doesn’t contribute to the deficit, and politicians should keep their hands off the trust fund."

Our Contest Ended Today

Nick Ruiz (FL) wound up with 50 donors so he won the $1,000 PAC check from Blue America. Daylin Leach (PA) had 40 donors, Carl Sciortino (MA) had 38 donors, Andy Hounshell (OH) 31 donors and Ken Sanders (TX) 29. The average donor contributed approximately $53. And the Saving Social Security page now has $9,140 on it. We randomly selected one contributor to thank with the 311 platinum award disc. And that winner is Joyce Bullock from Glenside, PA, who contributed $12.


Wall Street And It's DC Allies Will Enslave Us All... If We let Them

Jeffrey Sachs isn't a radical. He's a kind of mainstream economics professor at Columbia University. The audio on this video was shot April 17 at a conference, "Fixing the Banking System for Good." It sounds like he's almost come around to a less corporate/establishment point of view about how corrupt and criminal Wall Street is, even to the point of advocating out loud the need for "separating the politicians from the (Wall Street) crooks, but maybe that's so close together that they can't actually be separated; maybe it's just the same community." Maybe?

I meet a lot of these people on Wall Street on a regular basis right now. I’m going to put it very bluntly. I regard the moral environment as pathological. And I’m talking about the human interactions that I have. I’ve not seen anything like this, not felt it so palpably. These people are out to make billions of dollars and nothing should stop them from that They have no responsibility to pay taxes, they have no responsibility to their clients, they have no responsibility to people… counterparties in transactions. They are tough, greedy, aggressive, and feel absolutely out of control, in a quite literal sense. And they have gamed the system to a remarkable extent and they have a docile president, a docile White House and a docile regulatory system that absolutely can’t find its voice. It’s terrified of these companies.

...[T]he financial markets are the number one campaign contributors in the U.S. system now. We have a corrupt politics to the core, I’m afraid to say… and both parties are up to their necks in this. This has nothing to do with Democrats or Republicans. It really doesn’t have anything to do with right wing or left wing, by the way. The corruption, as far as I can see, [is] everywhere...

And Speaking Of Antisocial, Nihilistic Greed... Nestlé

Nestlé has been claiming for some time that it invented the medical uses of herbs that have been used medicinally for centuries. And they want patents.

The world’s largest food company, Nestlé, is seeking a patent on the use of Nigella sativa to prevent food allergies, claiming the plant seed and extract when they are used as a food ingredient or drug. Commonly known as habbat al-barakah in Arabic, and frequently called “black seed,” “black cumin” or “fennel flower” in English, Nigella sativa is an ancient food and medicinal crop.

The Swiss giant’s claims appear invalid, as traditional uses of Nigella sativa clearly anticipate Nestlé’s patent application, and developing country scholarship has already validated these traditional uses and further described, in contemporary scientific terms, the very medicinal properties of black seed that Nestlé seeks to claim as its own “invention."

It was already being used in King Tut's time, when the Swiss were still sheltering and shivering around open fires in Alpine caves, gnawing on bones.

In claiming use of Nigella sativa against food allergies, Nestlé’s scientists have not innovated beyond what was already known in traditional medicine from Egypt to India and beyond. Moreover, prior to Nestlé’s claim, researchers in those countries used formal scientific methods to demonstrate the efficacy of traditional use of black seed to treat allergy symptoms.

Those simple facts, however, have not deterred Nestlé from advancing its claim. In November 2011, Nestlé’s patent application in Europe was published. Other national (or regional) applications may exist but have yet to be published. Recently, the Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT) released a search of scientific literature related to the application, and found problems with Nestlé’s claim to have made an invention, citing some of the same research that is noted in this report. The PCT opinion, however, is not binding on national patent offices, and Nestlé may submit modified claims. Thus, while the opinion is a blow to Nestlé’s application, it doesn’t mean that the claims are dead.

Like well-known biopiracy cases before it, such as patents on uses of neem, Nestlé’s unashamed attempt to appropriate traditional knowledge reflects an ethical lapse and shows profound problems with the company’s intellectual property practices. It can be hoped that Nestlé’s claim will be turned down by patent authorities, but the fact that patent claims over traditional knowledge that preceded it have result in patents shows that intellectual property offices sometime share industry’s disrespect for traditional knowledge. Indeed the fact that a corporation with the resources of Nestlé would pursue a patent on such an obviously pilfered “invention” at all is indicative of the need to improve patent review standards so that such applications are not worth filing in the first place.

Fighting for people over profits is how the blog SumOfUs introduced Nestlé’s ambitious claims.

In a paper published last year, Nestlé scientists claimed to “discover” what much of the world has known for millennia: that nigella sativa extract could be used for “nutritional interventions in humans with food allergy."

But instead of creating an artificial substitute, or fighting to make sure the remedy was widely available, Nestlé is attempting to create a nigella sativa monopoly and gain the ability to sue anyone using it without Nestlé’s permission. Nestlé has filed patent applications-- which are currently pending-- around the world.

Prior to Nestlé's outlandish patent claim, researchers in developing nations such as Egypt and Pakistan had already published studies on the same curative powers Nestlé is claiming as its own. And Nestlé has done this before-- in 2011, it tried to claim credit for using cow’s milk as a laxative, despite the fact that such knowledge had been in Indian medical texts for a thousand years.

Don’t let Nestlé turn a traditional cure into a corporate cash cow.

We know Nestlé doesn’t care about ethics. After all, this is the corporation that poisoned its milk with melamine, purchases cocoa from plantations that use child slave labor, and launched a breast milk substitute campaign in the 1970s that contributed to the suffering and deaths of thousands of babies from poor communities.

Read More