UPDATE: The Young Turks really described the “wrath” part of this article really well.

I wanted to take the opportunity to let everyone know that I’m okay. My family and I all live up in Edmond, which is a considerable ways away from Moore, the town that was destroyed. Everyone I know and love has checked-in as alive and well, but the extent of the financial and psychological trauma dealt unto them is still unseen. Things have already been stressful lately for me, particularly emotionally, but now I’m not really quite sure what to think or where things are headed. I was already planning on making an announcement today that the website will be going down to one article a week, with maybe two on good weeks, but I don’t know if I’m in the mood this week at all for heated politics. With summer, the busiest time of the year for work, just around the corner, and my week-long plus vacation in July things are probably going to slow down quite a bit here, not to mention all my other writing projects like my column in LargeInCharge Magazine and some personal things I’ve been wanting to do for a long time now. I already know what I’d like to write for this week, and Lord knows we’ve still got a whole week of news to go through yet for further inspiration, but finding the time, and the will, to write this week may be difficult.

Already Republicans are trying to do whatever they can to make sure I stay enraged and write over their appalling behavior. Oklahoma’s own Senator Tom Coburn, the man we elected to represent the people of Oklahoma, is now actively fighting against federal relief money to go to Oklahoma on the grounds that it will add to the deficit.

PEOPLE. ARE. DYING. SENATOR COBURN. YOUR people that ELECTED YOU for reasons I don’t fucking comprehend to represent their interests and to protect them. Your opposition to relief funding is literally doing the exact opposite on both of those points. Right now the death count is up to 24, many of which were small children, and the financial devastation is incalculable with hundreds if not thousands of Oklahomans without even a home to live in any more, let alone clean water, food, and medical attention. It’s literally war-zone like conditions in Moore right now, AND YOU’RE WORRIED ABOUT THE FUCKING DEFICIT?!?! And you won’t support disaster relief for Oklahoma until we’ve cut even more spending to programs that benefit the poor and middle class?

And don’t you dare pretend like that’s not going to be where it comes from. Don’t pretend like the funding that would be “offset” by this spending wouldn’t come out of food stamps, unemployment, education, or some other vital service for the lower half of society, because that’s the first place Republicans always go to cut, even if you yourself do not want to cut from there, Mr. Coburn. More importantly than that though, what exactly do you expect to accomplish here? Let’s think about this logically; you think that by blocking emergency funding to your injured, dying, and destitute constituents, you’ll be able to get the entire country – both its people and its politicians – to flip and suddenly balance the budget? You honestly expect everyone to flip to “your side” of the argument, which is apparently making sure that we give China all the money we owe them and that we bailout the world’s biggest banks with taxpayer dollars rather than spend those exact same taxpayer dollars helping taxpayers who have lost everything they own in a tornado? You know as well as I do that this legislation has as much hope of balancing the budget as any other, yet its importance cannot be overstated.

Coburn is taking a pointless political stance atop the bodies of dead Oklahomans. I hope he’s proud of himself.

There’s no special interest or corporation supporting this effort, nor is Senator Coburn going to be running for re-election, so this isn’t some “proving his conservative principles” shtick. With no special interest compelling him, and no more campaigns to run, we now see, without a doubt, Mr. Coburn’s true morals. To him, making sure creditors are paid off is of much higher moral importance than making sure people barely clinging to life survive a few more days. To him, money is much more important than human life.

And bare in mind, this is all from a self-proclaimed “pro-life” politician.

Not everyone has multiple homes to return to, Mr. Coburn. Not everyone has millions of dollars to fall back on in disasters, Mr. Coburn. Not everyone gets to be among the privileged few making mock of the vermin in the lower zoo like you have today, Mr. Coburn. We Oklahomans pay our taxes like every other American, so when we are in need it is literally the entire purpose of the federal government to help us. It’s because of politicians like you, though, that the help is either held back, or never arrives at all.

Normally I am not so vicious or angry in my words, but if it does in fact exist as you seem to believe so firmly, I certainly hope there is a special place in Hell for you, Mr. Coburn.

I apologize for my tone this evening, but damn it I’m pissed now. I wrote myself into a fury.

Thank God Coburn is retiring in 2016. Anyone would be better than this monster. At least Senator Inhofe was compassionate enough to support the funding, even though he took an extremely distasteful, not to mention politically inconsistent, pot-shot at the victims of Hurricane Sandy in the process.

If you are unlike Mr. Coburn, though, and actually wish to help the people of Oklahoma to the best of your abilities, you can click this link to go to the Red Cross Disaster Relief page, or read this NBC News article to learn other ways you can help.

Thank you.

Okay guys, for those of you that don’t know this week has been crazy full. Things are changing at work, it was my wonderful partner Heidi’s birthday on Wednesday, we’re finally celebrating out mother’s day plans on Friday (had to re-schedule from last Saturday because of work) PLUS I’ve got a staff meeting for work, and it’s our friend’s daughter’s graduation and dinner on Saturday, then back to work on Sunday! Add a little emotional trauma to all of that and slow cook it over the course of a week and you’ve got the stress-casserole the universe is currently serving me.

Thankfully, this week really only had three big news stories, and all were scandals that involve Obama to some degree. Given that, I’m going to lighting round this bitch and get this one article cranked out so I can get back to my other dozen things I’m supposed to be doing.

I’ve ordered the three big scandals in least offensive to worst, so you can probably guess we’re starting with.

1. Benghazi, a non-scandal

Now, why do I say a “non-scandal?” It’s simple. Ask yourself this; what, exactly, is the Benghazi scandal? It’s that the Obama administration tried to cover something up. Okay, what? Was it the death of a US diplomat? No, Obama openly admitted that as soon as it happened. Was it that one of our embassies was attacked? No, Obama was honest about that too. Was it that Obama is refusing to increase funding for embassy security even after the attack? No, that would be Republicans. What was covered up then? The fact that this was a coordinated attack versus a random act of violence. In the beginning, Obama acknowledged it was an act of terror, but then changed talking points to that it was a random attack launched by protesters. Why? That’s a good question, but I can venture a guess.

BECAUSE HE’S A POLITICIAN AND IT WAS DURING A CAMPAIGN

So really, the only scandal here is that a politician running for President lied about something to look a little better in a campaign. Having a “terrorist attack” on his record may have hurt his re-election chances. He didn’t lie about the damage done, nor would his response to what happened be any different had he gone with the initial talking point of it being a terrorist attack instead of a protest. And really, we’re going to throw a shit fit and shout “SCANDAL” at the top of our lungs because a politician played politics during a campaign? Get over yourselves. Yes, it was a cover up, but tell me exactly how that cover up did even the slightest bit of damage (outside of the damage politicians do every day with their typical little white lies).

More than that though, there hasn’t been any real developments recently in the Benghazi story, so why is it suddenly in the news again? Because Republicans want it in the news. They thought of some new words to attack Obama with on this issue so they brought it back up. Keep in mind, this happened last September. That just goes to show you how much in the back pocket of the establishment the media is; the Republican establishment more so than the Democratic.

As for the actual rhetoric coming from the Republicans on this issue, I’ll let my good friend Jon Stewart explain why it’s hyperbolic bullcrap.

2. The IRS targeting right-wing groups, a low-moderate scandal

I ranked this scandal this way because, well, at least it’s a little better than Benghazi.

The Internal Revenue Service field office in Cincinnati was caught applying extra scrutiny on right-wing organizations attempting to file for tax-exempt status (known as 501(c)4 groups). They’ve since apologized, and the acting commissioner of the IRS, Steve Miller, has been forced to resign by the Obama administration. Frankly, I’d have rather seen more localized punishment taken, if any at all, because this scandal seems completely contained to this single office. The President was not involved at all, and right now I can’t find any sources that say whether or not the Commissioner was involved either; he was just the sacrificial lamb over this “scandal,” which is a term I’m using loosely to describe this. Let me explain why.

The IRS started scrutinizing right-wing organizations with the words “tea party” or “patriot” in their title back in 2010, when Douglas Shulman was the IRS Commissioner. Shulman was appointed by George W. Bush in 2008, so if the Commissioner was involved in this scandal at all, it was a right-wing Commissioner that was applying this extra scrutiny, and not some liberal political bosses trying to squash their opposition. Steven Miller, the acting Commissioner, wasn’t even in the position six months when this “scandal” surfaced, and he was forced to resign.

And what did this “scrutinizing” involve, exactly? Were any groups denied their tax exempt status because of this? No, not a single conservative group has lost or been denied tax-exempt status since this “scandal” started. As a matter of fact, more liberal political groups have lost their 501(c)4 status than conservatives under the Obama administration’s watch. The scandal here is that some political organizations were delayed their tax exempt status (I want to say it was no longer than 27 days, but I’m having trouble finding a source to confirm that) so that the IRS could investigate them more thoroughly to ensure they’re qualified for the status.

So, like Benghazi, that’s it. Some Tea Party groups had to wait about an extra month before they were classified as tax-exempt because the federal government wanted to make sure there was no wrongdoing on their part. Keep in mind, 501(c)4 organizations are not allowed to engage in any sort of political activity as their primary purpose. When groups that identify as Tea Parties request the status, then, the government must take extra special care to investigate them and make sure they are adhering to the law and, you know, their political activities are going through all the right legal loopholes before they can be confirmed as tax-exempt.

Now yes, there are 501(c)4 groups on the left that abuse these same legal loopholes, and they were not given the same scrutiny as those on the right, but there is some logic in that decision. Which side of the political spectrum is opposed, often vehemently so, to the income tax? The right. Which side of the political spectrum is much more likely to evade paying taxes? The right. Which organizations seeking tax-exempt status, a status that is often abused by political organizations, were given extra scrutiny? Right-wing political organizations. To me, that makes all the sense in the world.

AND remember, Obama is not involved in this scandal at all. Immediately upon finding out about it he took action and eliminated the nearest scapegoat he could find, given that the people under which this “scandal” happened aren’t in office any more to begin with. Even if Obama does somehow turn out to be involved in this scandal, it’s probably the tamest use of the IRS by the President in years. Obama’s predecessor, George W. Bush, used the IRS to investigate direct political opponents. In 2004, for example, the NAACP’s chairman criticized President Bush for being the first President since Herbert Hoover to not address the organization. Right afterward, the group was audited by the IRS. Similar stories exist for organizations like Greenpeace and others that were genuinely non-political organizations qualified for tax-exempt status. Far worse than this scandal, though, Bush also went as far as to sic the IRS on seemingly liberal churches and religious institutions and not just political organizations.

So if you’re calling for Obama’s head over the IRS completely independently of the President investigating right-wing organizations seeking to abuse tax exempt status, but think what George Bush did with the IRS is totally fine and acceptable, then you really just need to stop talking, and never vote again. Seriously.

3. The Obama Administration obtained two months of phone records from the Associated Press – a huge scandal

Seriously, if you’re not angry about this you’re not paying attention. I’m running out of time so I’ll just let Ben Mankiewicz explain.

All of these scandals, despite how minor the first two were, translate to bad, bad news for President Obama. The problem is, though, that Republicans really wouldn’t have been any better. Democrats and Republicans are infamous for their agreement on civil rights violations right now, so there’s no question that the AP scandal still would have happened under a Republican President. We know for a fact that the Bush administration abused the IRS to investigate their political opponents much more harshly than has happened under this administration, and this administration didn’t even order the IRS to do so. As for Benghazi, it’s impossible to say it would have happened the exact same way under a Republican president, but keep in mind the only “cover up” involved in that scandal is the retroactive changing of talking points so that the President wouldn’t have to suffer the political backlash of another terrorist attack happening on his watch near the end of a presidential re-election campaign. If you honestly think a Republican wouldn’t change such a minor detail of a story to save face when running for President, you’re delusional.

Yet despite this, over which scandal are Republicans are now threatening impeachment? You guessed it; Benghazi, the least concerning of them all. It’s a non-issue over which to impeach a President, and a massive waste of time for Congress, but it’s still really bad for Obama. Remember, the reason Nixon was forced to resign was because he was about to be impeached and he had alienated his political base by establishing the EPA, traveling to China and repairing diplomatic ties with a communist country, and supported a whole host of liberal plans and legislation. This infuriated his conservative base, but liberals were still just as opposed to him as ever. Now, we have a Democrat that is threatening to cut Social Security, made the Bush Tax Cuts permanent, and wants to lower the corporate tax. Whether legitimate reasons for impeachment or not, Obama could be in a world of trouble as he finally suffers the consequences of alienating his liberal base.

Of course, at the same time, it could be wonderful news for Obama. When Republicans tried to impeach Clinton over absolutely nothing at all, the American people saw through their bullshit, realized they were wasting massive amounts of time, and booted them out of the House (Democrats gained seats in the 1998 Congressional elections). If Obama plays this right, it could actually be to the Democrat’s advantage.

Either way, my hat is off to Republicans. Benghazi may be a bullshit scandal, but at least they’ve found a better reason to impeach this president than the last time they tried.

At least at the federal level. A new study came out last week that has lead me over the course of the past few days to a series of realizations and reminders of older stories. With the puzzle pieces assembled here, they make a powerful case for why anyone who isn’t an absolute nut job really needs to stop voting for federal Republicans, including those of conservative ideology. While I may personally have a laundry list of reasons why not to vote for them on ideological grounds, there are far more important reasons why no one, not even conservatives, should.

Last week Raw Story had a piece with some disturbing poll numbers in it. According to the story, belief in a “second coming” of Jesus reduced the probability of someone supporting action to combat climate change by 20%. Simultaneously, 76% of Republicans believe there will be a second coming of Jesus. Translation: a little under half of this country is Republican, and an overwhelming majority of them (three-fourths) believe Jesus is coming back to save all of them… therefore, why should they have to care about the environment? We now see a disturbingly large segment of the population that will not budge, ever, on climate change or the environment because of religious convictions. It sounds like some rhetorical abstraction of conservative ideology, but the statistics are starting to prove this exact pattern of thinking.

But that’s not the primary point in the story that really made me decide to write this article. In the Raw Story piece, it had a 2010 quote from Congressman John Shimkus (R-IL). Shimkus stated his opposition to any legislation trying to prevent climate change because “the Earth will end only when God declares it to be over,” and washed his hands of the issue. That, my friends, is the definition of a blind follower.

Some of you are probably wondering why this one quote stood out so much to me given that I’ve cited Senator Inhofe’s infamous quote “the arrogance of the people to think that we, human beings, would be able to change what [God] is doing in the climate is to me outrageous” at least five million times. The reason why Shimkus’ quote is far more damning is because Congressman Shimkus is currently the chairman of the Subcommittee on Environment and the Economy. The man in the House of Representatives that is in charge of overseeing the House’s work in regards to the environment literally believes there’s no point or even need to take care of the environment whatsoever because the world is going to come to an end soon and there’s nothing we can do to stop it. Do you feel safe yet?

It’s not just Shimkus either though; Senator Inhofe himself served on the Senate’s Environment and Public Works Committee for many years, even though he similarly believes the environment is entirely in God’s hands and there’s nothing humans could possibly do to harm, or save, the planet and we should just resign ourselves to death and the end of mankind. Now ask yourselves; how did these men end up on these committees? This is not a question of too much government or too little in regards to environmental regulation; these men clearly have no interest in protecting the environment whatsoever. Who either appointed them or requested their positions on these committees? And why?

These people are blind followers both of their religion and of their party’s establishment. They will disregard everything to fulfill the demands of these two institutions at the determent of everything else; their responsibilities as a member of this committee, the will of the American people, and most of all, just human intelligence.

Speaking of intelligence, let’s not forget our friends at the humorously named House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, or just House Intelligence Committee (consider that your oxymoron of the day). I say oxymoron because let’s not forget this Committee’s most tragically outspoken member is Congresswoman Michelle Bachman. There’s no way I could list all the examples of her incompetence in a single article, but Mother Jones has a decent list, and I’ve complied my favorite eight here. All you really need to know about her is that she spouts so much utterly, inarguably false information that the Associated Press literally had to limit the amount of resources they would devote to fact-checking her. She actually overloaded the media’s bullshit machine (the mainstream media at that; they aren’t exactly known for being the most vigilant fact-checkers these days). When the media does actually press her on one of her lies, she literally runs away. And this woman serves on the House Intelligence Committee.

Let’s not forget her colleagues on the Intelligence Committee, though, specifically the chairman. Just as Shimkus was to the House Subcommittee on the Environment and the Economy, Congressman Mike Rogers (R-MI) is just as ironically the chairman to the House Intelligence Committee. First and foremost, Rogers was possibly the biggest supporter of CISPA in the House. If you don’t know what that is, which is probably a tragically high number of Americans, I highly suggest you click the previous hyperlink before continuing. Better than being the bill’s proponent, he seemed genuinely clueless as to why there was supposed opposition to it. His actual quote on the bill was “[CISPA] does something very simple: it allows the government to share zeroes and ones with the private sector.”

Oh, is that all? It allows any company to share any information it wants about its clients and customers with the government whenever either party finds it beneficial to them? Obviously, Rogers is either being sickeningly disingenuous, condescending, and extremely presumptuous about the intelligence of American voters,  or he himself is as hopelessly incompetent as such a presumption would require. Usually I’m inclined to believe the former, but then we get to his second quote when confronted about CISPA. Rogers doesn’t understand why there’s opposition to the bill or where such opposition is coming from because, and I quote, “we have yet to find a single United States company that opposes this bill.”

Well then, if it’s unanimous amongst American companies, why not make it law? I mean, it’s not like the actual American people should have a say in it. Rogers is apparently so incompetent, or at the very least brazen in his corruption and disinterest in serving his voters, that he completely forgot that he’s supposed to at least act like he represents people and not corporations.

We’re still not even done with the Intelligence Committee though. Rogers was actually pretty tame compared to most members of the Committee. Another name that jumped out at me serving on it is Congressman Peter King (R-NY). King became infamous back in late 2010 for becoming the new Senator Joseph McCarthy. King’s “Commie hunt,” however, was a Muslim hunt, wherein he held hearings as the Chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee into the “radicalization among American Muslims.” So in other words, if you are an American Muslim, King already suspects you of guilt and wrongdoing, and you have to prove your innocence in a very un-American guilty-until-proven-innocent fashion. His sentiment towards Muslims is no secret, as he is on the record completely fabricating statistics like 85% of mosques in America are controlled by Islamic fundamentalists and just making flat-out racist statements like, again, I quote, “there are too many mosques in this country.”

What’s worse about King than his flagrant prejudices, though, in sticking with our main theme, is the irony of his positions. King is no longer the Chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, but still serves on it, as well as the House Intelligence Committee, giving him significant oversight of the CIA and the war on terror. The irony in King’s positions may be the most directly dangerous of them all because Peter King is an outspoken supporter and funder of terrorism. Specifically, King has defended and raised money for the Irish Republican Army, who were responsible for the deaths of hundreds of civilians in their violent attempts to drive the British out of northern Ireland. He called the IRA a “legitimate force” to combat “British Imperialism,” and worst of all in 1985 said “if civilians are killed in an attack on a military instillation, it is certainly regrettable, but I will not morally blame the IRA for it.” He was so close to the IRA that the Irish government once boycotted the St. Patrick’s Day Parade in New York because King was chosen to be the Grand Marshall, and King has been thrown out of an Irish courthouse on the grounds that he was “an obvious collaborator with the IRA.”

And remember; this is the man that was chosen to be the chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee to help combat terrorism.

After King, like some horrible version of Six Degrees from Kevin Bacon, I noticed another name that serves with him on the House Homeland Security Committee; Congressman Paul Broun (R-GA). I’ve written about Broun before because he gives King a run for his money at the title of “most ironic” position within the Congress, and easily wins the most indirectly dangerously Committee appointment because of the long-term damage it could do. What’s more ironic than a terrorist supporter combating terrorism? Someone who does not believe in science being appointed to the House Committee on Science and Technology. At least Shimkus and Inhofe’s scientific ignorance seems to stop at climatology and evolution; Broun denounces all science; evolution, embryology, even the big bang theory, and “all that,” referring to science in general, as “lies straight from the pit of hell” (actual quote). Broun goes on to explain his beliefs, which would require him further denouncing paleontology, archeology, continental drift, and much more as well.

But Broun’s not alone on that committee, of course. Let’s not forget that former disgraced Congressman Todd “Legitimate Rape” Akin (R-MO) also served on it with Broun. Akin was infamous for his disbelief of evolution as well as his complete and utter ignorance of the absolute basics of human biology children learn in fifth grade (he said that it’s physically impossible for women who are “legitimately raped” to get pregnant, which is fundamentally untrue, earning him the nickname Todd “Legitimate Rape” Akin for the rest of time). More important than Akin, though, is the current Chairman of the House Committee on Science and Technology, Congressman Lamar Smith (R-TX) who just recently introduced a bill in Congress that attempts to change how the scientific process works through legislation. I’m not even kidding. The legislation would abolish the National Science Foundation’s peer-review process, which would eliminate the need for an independent expert to duplicate the results of an experiment or study before it can be accepted as a legitimate experiment or proven hypothesis. In other words, Congressman Smith is trying to make it law that as soon as they find one scientist or guy that’s willing to pretend to be a scientist that can kind of endorse whatever they want to prove (name it; global climate change isn’t real, off-shore oil drilling is good for the environment, evolution isn’t true, fracking creates baby unicorns, whatever) it will be legally acceptable as legitimate science without someone having to duplicate or review their work.

This man is the Chairman of the House Committee on Science and Technology. Who put him there? The Republican Party establishment.

When you vote for Republicans at the federal level, specifically in the Congress, you’re not voting for an individual politician. Instead, you are voting for the collective Republican Party establishment, which operates as a single organism. Keep in mind, at the end of the day, political parties are largely just private organizations that can manage themselves; they choose who gets leadership positions and committee appointments internally, not democratically. Earlier in this article I asked how people like those I’ve listed could be put in these positions, and why they are appointed to them. The answer should be obvious by now; these people are nothing but pawns that will do whatever the party establishment wishes, regardless of the damage it could do to this country or how contradictory it is to their position, their conservative values, or their responsibilities in the US Congress.

The Republican Party Establishment, for this reason, will always appoint people like this to their Committees and Chairmanships. People who don’t care about the environment will be put in charge of protecting it, people who support terrorism will be put in charge of fighting it, people who resoundingly reject science will legislate what is science and what is not, and people who just lack adult intelligence are put on the Intelligence Committee with oversight of our nation’s most sensitive material.

I would hope that anyone reading this, including the conservatives, don’t feel that the Michelle Bachmanns and Paul Brouns of the Republican Party represent their views or what they think the Republican Party should be. The problem is it doesn’t matter if you agree with these unquestionably moronic members within your party or not; they will always be the ones that get these sensitive appointments because of their blind willingness to do as they are told. A vote for a Republican representative is a vote for the Republican Establishment and nothing more.

This is in contrast with the federal-level Democratic Party. If you’re still afraid or unsure about voting for Democrats on ideological grounds, keep in mind that one of the greatest strengths of the party is also one of its greatest weaknesses. When it comes to ideology, the Democratic Party is the “big tent” party. There are people at all ends of the political spectrum in the Democratic party, even though this leads to great internal conflict on some issues (health care, gun control, green energy, to name a few). Like Mark Twain said, “I do not belong to any organized political party. That is why I am a registered Democrat.” Here in red states like Oklahoma, there are often primaries on the Democratic ticket between the progressive candidate and the conservative candidate, the latter of whom usually agrees with Republicans nine times out of ten anyway. Finding a Democratic politician you agree with is very much possible even for the farthest right of conservatives (that are still sane, of course).

No matter what you think of their ideology, Democrats will at least appoint people who actually care about the environment to the committees and positions dedicated to protecting it. They will at least appoint people who actually believe in science to those positions concerning science. And even if you don’t like a Democratic appointment, just keep in mind that all FOX News has to do is sneeze at one and Democrats will trip over themselves to see who can fire them first. So please, do this entire country a favor and stop voting for Republicans at the very least at the federal level. The only reason you have to continue doing so is because you literally don’t want to protect the environment at all or that you yourself oppose science, which I certainly hope isn’t any of my conservative friends.

Everyone and their damn dog seems to be talking about the Marketplace Fairness Act. I’ve been doing some thinking on it and it’s a pretty sticky wicket of a question, particularly from a much more politically philosophical level than most people give it credit. My ultimate decision on the issue, though, may shock the world.

The Marketplace Fairness Act, which has already passed the Senate, allows state governments to apply sales tax to internet transactions even if the company or provider of the goods is not in their state. Right now, states use a sales tax as a means of collecting revenue, often in conjunction with an income tax. Currently states can only demand that merchants with physical stores and chains within state lines pay the sales tax. This legislation would close this loophole and require online retailers to pay the sales tax of each transaction to whichever state government the buyer resides. Under the current law, consumers are supposed to report any online sales they make to their state government and voluntarily pay the sales tax for their online transactions… but everyone laugh along with me.

Across all 50 states, $23 billion in revenue was lost in 2012 because of this loophole, but that’s according to the National Conference of State Legislatures, so take it with a grain of salt (they would have a bias to get more money for their states). Specifically here in Oklahoma, the state loses out on anywhere from $185 million to $225 million in revenue because of this loophole each year, and that’s according to the Oklahoma Tax Commission who, if anything, have a bias to keep those numbers as low as possible given the state’s agenda regarding taxation (translation: the Tax Commission may have political interest in perpetuating the idea that the state doesn’t have a revenue problem but a spending problem so that state Republicans and Governor Fallin can continue to cut spending and taxes at the same time).

So really, in concept, this legislation is in fact about fairness. From a philosophical standpoint, why should transactions entirely within the state be taxed, but not those online? It’s still the consumer that’s paying the tax to their own state, so it’s not like a company in California is having to pay the Oklahoma sales tax; this law just makes it their responsibility to collect that tax from the consumer and return it to the state in which they reside. Plus, sellers that make less than $1 million annually will be exempt from this responsibility to protect small online sellers, and that may even go all the way up to $10 million annually with lobbying. The only legitimate argument one could really make against this bill requires arguing against the sales tax entirely as a means of generating revenue for the state, which is actually where my issue with the legislation begins.

It’s not secret that I’m a progressive, and therefore, I favor a progressive form of taxation. The income tax is an example of progressive tax because the more money you make, the more you’re expected to pay and contribute to society. The sales tax is an example of a regressive tax as it is a single, flat rate that all people pay, even though that means the poor are required to contribute a significantly larger portion of their income than the middle class or wealthy. Even still though, the sales tax does sometimes make sense. Generally speaking, the smaller the level of government imposing the tax, the more sense a sales tax makes. For example, a local government can level a sales tax on most transactions in the city and use the funding from that tax to pay for services that anyone in the town benefits from, be they permanently or temporarily residing here, or even just passing through, such as emergency response and law enforcement. There are some services, however, that only those living in the town benefit from, such as education, which is why a separate form of taxation (often property tax) is implemented. Many states do a balance of sales and income tax because there are some programs everyone in the state actively benefit from (law enforcement, emergency response, etc) while at the same time maintain many more programs that everyone living in the state may not be actively using, but still exclusively benefit from as a citizen of the state such as social safety nets and welfare programs. Whether they’re actively using them or not, those safety nets exist for us all, which is also why at the federal level the income tax makes all the sense in the world. The federal government’s spending programs, aside from pork-barrel spending, benefit all American citizens, even if not actively (i.e. even if you’re not using food stamps right now they still exist for you should you fall on hard times. We don’t let people starve to death in America; we’re supposed to be more civilized than that). In addition, the income tax looks out for the down-trodden American citizen by not requiring the very poor, retired, disabled, and so on, to pay taxes they just don’t have the money to pay. Under a sales tax system, the very poor still have to pay the tax, as do retirees, the disabled, veterans, students… the list goes on and on.

The problem we have here in Oklahoma right now is that Governor Fallin is abusing the crap out of the state sales tax. Like I said, the sales tax makes sense in some circumstances and to fund some state programs, but not all of them. Using the state sales tax as the primary means of revenue allocation means Oklahomans will be hit with a flat-rate, across the board tax and ultimately require the poor to pay significantly higher taxes than they would under an income tax system, be it through the actual sales tax or inevitable increases in fees and fines, which I’ve written about before. Naturally, if you couldn’t figure it out by now, since the sales tax increases the tax burden on the lower classes, it reduces it on the upper classes, ultimately translating to a tax cut for the wealthy. That is why Mary Fallin and the Republicans want to transition to a more sales-tax dependent system. Governor Fallin is currently aiming to completely abolish the income tax in Oklahoma and switch to a sales-tax driven system entirely. The poor pay more so that the rich can get richer.

The Marketplace Fairness Act will further enable Governor Fallin and state Republicans to better complete their plans to transition to this significantly less fair sales-tax driven system, even though, let’s face it, there’s little to nothing standing in their way as it is. The extra $225 million Oklahoma would get per year from this bill would almost immediately be lost again when Governor Fallin continues to cut the income tax rates, lowering the revenue of the state. At the very least, we know for a fact that money won’t go towards anything good like education or other state agencies that sorely need funding. It’s our particular state’s abuse of the sales tax that leads me to oppose this bill in the end, and not some philosophical principle about paying taxes on internet transactions (not to mention mostly opposing the state sales tax as too regressive). If there were some hypothetical circumstance in an ideal world and the sales tax was being properly applied and balanced with the state income tax then maybe it would be a different conversation and I may even be open to this legislation, but our world is far from ideal, let alone our state government.

I also have to admit, though, I’m very curious to see what happens with this bill. Obviously, Governor Fallin and state Republicans are desperate to get this bill passed through the federal House of Representatives so that they can continue their plans to steal from the poor and give to the rich (basically). At the same time, though, both Oklahoma Senators Inhofe and Coburn voted against the bill on the grounds that it would raise taxes on Oklahomans, which it inarguably would. We’re yet to find out how Oklahoma’s members of the House plan to vote on the bill, but I’m curious to see if a catfight is just around the corner between Oklahoma’s federal Republicans and state Republicans, as they seem diametrically opposed.

Should this bill pass, which does seem the slightly more likely outcome, I’m also curious to know what exactly Governor Fallin does with her extra $185-$225 million in state revenue. As aforementioned, she’ll probably try to sweep it under the rug and hope we all forget about it so that she can lower taxes even more for the wealthy. Don’t let that happen. Fallin is up for re-election next year; if this bill passes we need to see tangible results such as funding for education, law enforcement, health care, or some other significant investment in the people of Oklahoma. If not, keep that in mind when campaigning starts about a year from now, and when it’s time to cast your vote for our next governor.

There are lots of conservative arguments I’m really tired of hearing. To name a few, I’m talking about the ones like guns don’t kill people people kill people, tax cuts create jobs, Social Security is about to run out of money, or 45% of Americans don’t pay taxes. Almost all of these arguments are very easily defeated. For example, the next time you hear a Republican say 45% of American’s don’t pay taxes, just counter by asking “so are you proposing we raise taxes on 45% of Americans?” and watch as their own policies rail against each other. Despite this, these arguments all share the same unearned tone of over confidence and arrogance. Few conservative arguments, however, are as condescending and arrogant as “if you can’t afford birth control or a baby, you shouldn’t have sex.”

This argument is primarily used against President Obama’s initiative to expand access to birth control in this country, and the United Nation’s resolution last year that birth control is a fundamental human right. It’s also used by self-proclaimed “pro-lifers” that fear monger on the idea of abortion becoming a primary form of birth control, which simply isn’t true. But we’re not just arguing against conservatives in this article; we’re arguing against social conservatives, a group whom reality has little impact.

Let’s just think about the philosophy behind this argument. For one, it establishes sex as something only to be enjoyed by those with money. A much more concrete consequence, though, is that it promotes the unequivocal failure that is abstinence-only.

Preaching or teaching abstinence just does not work, be it from the pulpit or the classroom. States that require abstinence-only education in their schools have the highest teen pregnancy rates. That’s a hard fact, but again, we’re negotiating with people who don’t care for them. What’s far more detrimental to society is what abstinence does to adults. First of all, going back to the classroom, where exactly do you believe adults are supposed to get their education about contraception, if not while still in school? People are being sent out into the world as adults who can legally have sex with absolutely no knowledge of how to protect themselves. That is why the very idea of abstinence-only education requires condemning all sex, regardless of age or even marital status, and perpetuates the archaic ideology that sex is purely for procreation. The only other alternative is that those promoting abstinence also promote unprotected sex between adults, which ironically increases the demand for abortions, not to mention creates a public health nightmare.

The failure of abstinence-only education in schools is shockingly obvious and stark when compared to the successes of comprehensive sex education, but even it must stand in awe of the failure of abstinence as preached by religion and other cultural dictators. Words and statistics can almost not describe the magnitude of the failure that is abstinence on this scale.

If you care to think of it this way, abstinence is literally the world’s oldest social experiment, and it is an inarguable, unquestionable, abject failure. People in power, be they monarchs, religions, or governments, have been pushing abstinence since the dawn of humanity. We’re all familiar with the role it plays in Christianity and the other primary western religions, but it goes back much further than that. Cultures like ancient Egypt, from which many of the traditions of Judaism and Christianity come anyway, also promoted abstinence for various members of society. The value of virginity, from the earliest pagan belief systems to the modern religions of today in eastern and western worlds, in and of itself is serves as a testament to the focus on abstinence that permeates history. Despite the best efforts of these various institutions to suppress human sexuality, global populations have only gone up and up and up at more and more rapid rates.

It’s been over 5,000 years. It’s time to admit it; abstinence has failed.

And everything I’ve written so far hasn’t even taken into account the effect sexual suppression has on individuals and inevitably society.

Sex is one of our most fundamental instinctual drives. It literally ranks up there with hunger, thirst, and security. Preaching abstinence, then, is like telling people not to eat when they’re hungry, no matter how hungry they get, and that the only purpose eating actually serves is to keep the body functioning. This brings me back to my first point, which was the intrinsic condescension of this argument.

Imagine if someone said that poor people shouldn’t get to eat. They should only consume the bare minimum amount of nutrients their body needs to survive in the form of cardboard and hay, even though they’re in a constant state of starvation because of such living conditions. Imagine someone who condemns others for indulging this “surplus hunger.”  Imagine if someone said that those who can’t afford food shouldn’t eat as some sort of moral principle. Imagine if this someone was a politician or lawmaker that was actually passing laws and policy based on this ideology, that indulging one’s own hunger was a luxury exclusively for those with money and that those without should just starve.

“If you can’t afford birth control, then don’t have sex.”

“If you can’t afford food, just don’t eat.”

But even putting aside the condescending, haughty nature of such an argument, just think about its insensitivity. Physical intimacy is a vital part of a healthy relationship and one of if not the fundamental experience in life. Sex is a beautiful thing to be shared between intimate partners. Be it for just one night or for a lifetime, it still holds its own beauty and powerful meaning to every single one of us. It is one of the few things that connect nearly every human. It’s one of the few desires that we all share, yet still there are people who argue others shouldn’t be allowed to experience it based on socioeconomic status. Honestly, I believe these people and such ideology should not be tolerated, let alone legislated.

Don’t get me wrong; I’m not saying go wild with sex or that we can’t question whether or not someone should be having sex. I’m just saying that “if you can’t afford birth control or a baby, you shouldn’t have sex” is no political argument, or any reason to oppose access to birth control, abortion, or proper sexual education. As a matter of fact, my entire point attests to the necessity of sexual activities to remain in the hands of individuals, and not governments or institutions.

So please, could we all just use some damn common sense and stay the hell out of other peoples’ business when it comes to sex?

(Side note: Due to a very odd work week and writing an article for LargeInCharge magazine, this will likely be my only article this week)

Remember last week when I told you about the unanimous decision to gut the STOCK Act that prevented lawmakers from abusing their access to insider information on the financial sector as its regulators and investigators for personal financial gain, also known as insider trading? And how Congress and the President crammed the proposition through in under a week? It took literally only ten seconds to get through the Senate, and Obama signed it into law late on a Friday in hopes the media circuit will miss it over the usual weekend buzz and talk about the upcoming vote on “gun control,” or lack thereof?

Well, the good news for Obama is 99% of the mainstream media did miss it. The bad news for Obama is that the 1% that did catch it was Jon Stewart and the Daily Show.

Have at ‘em, Jon:

Part 2:

Oh Jon Stewart… you make everything better.

Seriously though, this gives me hope. Outside of FOX, whose hosts and hostesses act as one hive-mind collective force, the only individual member of the mainstream media that has ever had an effect on national politics is Jon Stewart. Back in late 2010, the Democrats introduced a bill that would provide health care to all emergency responders that saved lives on September 11th, but contracted health issues due to their acts of heroism (repertory problems, cancer, and other problems associated with working on ground zero for days and weeks). Republican Senators filibustered it and the bill died. Seriously. Why Democrats didn’t shame Republicans more on that is a mystery, especially considering why Republicans filibustered it. They gave the flimsy excuse that the spending for the program wasn’t off-set, which is still no reason to not do a bill of this importance in the first place, but what makes it even more intolerable is that the spending for the bill was off-set. The problem? It was paid for by closing some tax loopholes for foreign companies. Not American “job creator” companies; foreign companies, which is remarkable in and of itself that the government is spending taxpayer dollars on tax loopholes for foreign companies in the first place, but that’s another issue for another day.

So, quite literally, the Republicans filibustered a bill created by Democrats to provide health care to the emergency responders of 9/11 for the ailments they contracted while saving lives after the worst terrorist attack in US history because tax loopholes for foreign corporations were more important to their party.

Jon Stewart wasn’t having any of that. He dedicated an entire show to this bill, shining a light on it, and exposing the Republicans for the abominable, immoral act they had just committed. He was so effective he even got FOX News to turn to his side and attack Republican Senators for filibustering the bill.

I went and dug up this old video about what and how this exactly transpired if you don’t believe me. Watch it here:

It’s good to know we’ve got at least one guy that big and that deep in the mainstream media on our side. Jon Stewart; America’s ace in the hole.

So, something happened last November that most people don’t realize. Puerto Rico, a US territory (not quite a state, not quite an independent nation) voted to become a state. I don’t just mean they had an election with the question “Do you want Puerto Rico to become a state of the United States of America?” on the ballot; I mean the people of Puerto Rico voted YES to the question of becoming a state. So apparently last November America gained a 51^st state… but not a single person noticed.

Well, kind of… it’s… complicated.

The ballot question last November in Puerto Rico first asked how people felt about the current status of Puerto Rico in relation to the US government, and 52% of voters rejected the current status. The second question affiliated with the first asked Puerto Ricans what they would rather Puerto Rico be; a fully independent nation, a state, or a closely allied but still independent nation to the United States (all of which are separate from “territory” status… and don’t ask me to explain the difference, I’m barely following this as it is). 61% of Puerto Ricans voted to become the 51^st state!

Holy crap!

… Why is no one talking about this?

Because there’s some tricky legal mumbo-jumbo preventing it. In order to become a state, a majority of ballots cast must be in favor of statehood. 61% of all votes cast answering the second of the above questions favored statehood, but a sizeable portion of Puerto Ricans, for whatever reason, left the second of the above questions blank, even though most answered the first of the two, expressing dissatisfaction with their status as territory. When you count the non-votes as “no” votes against statehood, it’s only 45% of the population; not enough to become a state. To my understanding, however, this is more of a Puerto Rican policy regarding elections than an American one, because in America blank questions count neither here nor there and are not counted. So to Puerto Rico, 45% of people want to become a state, but to the US federal government, 61% of people want to become a state. It may be the other way around, so apologies if that’s wrong, but the fact is that depending on how you read the ballots, Puerto Rico may already be a state.

That’s exactly why this month President Obama proposed $2.5 million in the 2014 budget to fund a new Puerto Rican referendum to figure this problem out once and for all. I’m not sure exactly how it will be definitive, but the administration is saying it will be. I’d be willing to bet unanswered questions will not count either way towards or against statehood, but that’s just a guess.

So basically, this happened.

Federal government: So, wait… did what I think happen, just actually happen? Did Puerto Rico become a state?

Puerto Rico: ………………….. *shrug* I dunno. We don’t like being a territory, I know that.

Federal government: Damn it, Puerto Rico! You’ve been dodging this question too long. I’m settling this. Election. This year or next. Answer. Once and for all.

Keep in mind that this has been going on for a long time. Puerto Rico’s possible statehood has been in question at least since the 1950s when they drafted their own constitution. The funny thing is, at that exact same time questions were rising about Hawaii and Alaska’s statehood (we only had 48 states at the time). It just seems that Puerto Rico never really made it clear, or at the very least, never made a definitive choice of statehood or independence. Obama may be putting a stop to that. So we may have a 51^st state, and possibly as early as the end of next year.

Did you even know that Puerto Rico already has a Congressman in the US House of Representatives? Congressman Pedro Pierluisi represents Puerto Rico and is a member of the New Progressive Party (affiliates with the Democratic Party here in America, not unlike how Senator Bernie Sanders is an Independent, but caucuses with the Democratic Party [also, quick aside; one of their political parties is called the “Puerto Ricans for Puerto Rico Party,” which I find hilarious. Imagine an “Americans for America Party.”]). Granted, Congressman Pierluisi is a non-voting member of the House… but that could soon change! Puerto Ricans also have US citizenship, their own constitution, bicameral legislator, and governor, but they do not have the right to vote for the American President, except in primary elections, even though the President is considered their head of state. In addition, the United States Congress delegates Puerto Rico’s powers as a government, even though their government is not granted all the protections of a US state. On top of all that the people of Puerto Rico do not pay the federal Income Tax, but they do pay the payroll tax and various other federal taxes. Puerto Ricans, therefore, are entitled to some benefits of Social Security and Medicaid, but significantly less than they would if they were a state despite paying in the same amount that they would as a state.

Just researching and typing all of this is confusing the crap out of me. No wonder Puerto Ricans are just freaking tired of this system.

Honestly, I don’t have much more to say about this story; I just think it’s awesome. It’s been so long since anything changed on this scale in America. This could serve to be a refreshing reminder that America is not complete. America is not flawless or static. America as we know her is not always going to be the same. Change happens. We see that culturally every day in the “culture wars” often demonized by right-wing commentators, most noticeably in changes in public opinion over gay marriage. If Puerto Rico becomes a state, it could serve as a refreshing wakeup call that in addition to culturally, America is constantly changing politically and legally as well, and that even the longest standing precedents and traditions aren’t untouchable.

Do you even realize what will happen if Puerto Rico becomes a state? We’ll have 102 Senators, with the Vice President filling in as a tie-breaker vote for 103 total. More than that though… we’ll have to change the flag! Or did you forget that those 50 stars each represented a state? Pretty much anyone reading this right now grew up with the flag exactly as it is, because the last state to join the union was Hawaii in 1959. My own dad was eight years old the last time the flag had to be updated. How is this not exciting?

But the absolute best part of this becoming a new political issue is what’s going to happen when this becomes an actual story in the mainstream media. Eventually it’s bound to if Puerto Rico is this close to becoming a state. Try to wrap your head around just how much the heads of right-wingers in this country are going to explode when they hear we have a 51st state… and it’s Puerto Rico, where Hispanics are the majority race and Spanish is their official state language. Oh, and they’ve come to take away the American flag and replace it with a new one.

BE AFRAID, RIGHT-WINGERS; it’s like everything they’ve feared happening in their craziest conspiracy theories wrapped up into a single, real political issue.

You can go to the Huffington Post to see several suggestions of how we might change the flag, as well as Cenk Uygur’s reaction to each design here.

4-22-13 UPDATE: Man, New Zealand just keeps getting cooler and cooler. This video is one of the arguments made prior to the vote that approved gay marriage.

Many of you have heard that New Zealand recently became the 13th country to legalize gay marriage, but how many of you have seen the actual footage of the deciding vote in parliament? The guys you see on the left side of the video (when facing the front of the room) are the conservative opposition to the gay marriage bill. Note they mostly do not applaud or stand after the calling of the final vote tally, but keep an eye out for them when you see what happens at the 1:18 mark.

Enjoy a little boost in your hope for humanity.

It’s not often I dedicate an entire article to simply reiterate the words, postings, and videos of other people, but the reactions to the Senate’s abject failure to pass any sort of gun control legislation are so perfect that it’s like the words were taken right off my page. I’m not talking about the assault weapons ban or the high-capacity magazine clip ban or even universal background checks. This bill would have expanded mandatory background checks to include gun shows and online purchases, but still contained several loopholes such as if the transaction took place in a rural area it would be exempt. Even that was defeated by a minority of dangerously incompetent conservatives in both Republican and Democratic parties. The bill received 54 votes, but Republicans filibustered it, as they do all legislation, and so it was defeated.

We’ll start with President Obama.

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

It’s not often I have praise for Obama’s words. Normally they’re tainted with political double-talk that, when decoded, translates into promises of selling out liberal principles. This is not one of those times. For once, I actually whole-heartedly approved of the President’s message. There were a few nit-picky things I would have done differently but, considering who Obama is, this is about as passionate, blunt, angry, and honest about how Washington really works as he gets. Everything he said was important to hear, especially when he pointed out that 91% of Americans and over 80% of Republicans supported making background checks prior to purchasing a gun universal for all sales. Despite this, the efforts in the Senate failed, and it’s entirely because of corruption in Washington, which I was actually a little shocked to see Obama talk about so honestly. The NRA bought our politicians, as all special interests do, and used their power over them to defeat this measure that nearly all Americans agreed upon. Seriously; I’ve never seen a majority like that on a political poll. So for once I am entirely sincere in my thanks to Obama for at least calling the situation out for what it was; a shameful failure of the American political system because of the corruption of special interest and big money.

But for a more passionate response, we have to go to my man Cenk Uygur. Buckle up.

To explain how the NRA and their bitch politicians managed to stop this bill with such a tiny minority of Americans and Senators, just watch his second video.

If a politician is willing to lie about something so brazenly, in order to do the will of a special interest group (any special interest) rather than carry out the will of their actual voting constituency, let alone do their job and defend them, why on Earth should we trust them on anything else that comes out of their mouth? If they are willing to lie on something that they can so easily be busted on, why trust them on more complex issues such as taxation, regulation, spending, worker’s rights, women’s rights, or anything else?

Senators Inhofe and Coburn were among the minority that defeated this extremely weak, watered-down bill and perpetuated these brazen lies. They’ve openly, inarguably lied to you, and yet I’d be willing to bet not a single conservative will hold that against them when election time comes. I wrote about this in an article where I tried to break politics down to a more minimalist, simplistic level for the politically simple-minded. If you’re unhappy with the way Congress is working right now, why do you keep voting for the same people?

This exact same sentiment was echoed by the final voice I have to evoke today; Gabrielle Giffords. Unfortunately, she still has great difficulty speaking (you know, because she was shot point blank in the head by a madman with an assault weapon), so it’s only the written word, but it was still a powerful, brutally yet necessarily honest, political and personal story. I won’t quote the whole thing in full hear even though I’d like to; I suggest everyone head over to her article in The New York Times and read it yourself when you have the time. I’ll still share with you some of her most poignant statements, starting off with what is very possibly the most powerful right-out-of-the-gate sucker punch I’ve ever seen come from a politician (save for maybe Alan Grayson).

SENATORS say they fear the N.R.A. and the gun lobby. But I think that fear must be nothing compared to the fear the first graders in Sandy Hook Elementary School felt as their lives ended in a hail of bullets…

On Wednesday, a minority of senators gave into fear and blocked common-sense legislation that would have made it harder for criminals and people with dangerous mental illnesses to get hold of deadly firearms — a bill that could prevent future tragedies like those in Newtown, Conn., Aurora, Colo., Blacksburg, Va., and too many communities to count…

I watch TV and read the papers like everyone else. We know what we’re going to hear: vague platitudes like “tough vote” and “complicated issue.” I was elected six times to represent southern Arizona, in the State Legislature and then in Congress. I know what a complicated issue is; I know what it feels like to take a tough vote. This was neither. These senators made their decision based on political fear and on cold calculations about the money of special interests like the National Rifle Association, which in the last election cycle spent around $25 million on contributions, lobbying and outside spending…

I am asking every reasonable American to help me tell the truth about the cowardice these senators demonstrated…

Giffords ended her article by reiterating an earlier statement she had made the day the legislation was defeated, and where she passionately makes the case for the exact point I just made.

Let’s keep something in perspective here, people; there are 535 members of Congress. You only have say in who three of them are. That’s literally half a percent of the total Congressional body. If you are truly dissatisfied with the failures of Congress, particularly because of the inherent corruption of the current system of power and incentive structure, then you have to stop voting for these guys. I don’t care if you primary them or vote for their opponent in the general election only as a punishment vote; when someone’s been around as long as some of our most corrupt politicians it’s much more likely they’re part of the problem than solution.

The rate of incumbency and the duration of a politician’s incumbency these days is enough to corrupt even the most honorable person. Our own Senator Inhofe has served in the federal Congress for 25 consecutive years. Okies continue to complain about the federal government, but continue to vote for the same old establishment politicians that have been around for a generation or more. Next year, Senator Inhofe is up for re-election once again, and I bet Oklahomans will just ignore all the brazen lies he’s told in the debate on gun control, amongst other issues (as if there weren’t enough reasons to vote him out already).

So please heed my words when I tell you the best way to fix a broken Congress is simple; THROW. THE BUMS. OUT. Be they Republican or Democrat; corruption and complacency know no party lines.

To be fair, there are a few politicians that would be worth keeping in Congress, even though they are a vast minority at this point. Just off the top of my head, a few names that come to mind are Senators Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), Bernie Sanders (I-VT), Rand Paul (R-KY), and maybe Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), as well as Congressmen Ron Paul (R-TX), Alan Grayson (D-FL), John Yarmuth (D-KY), maybe Keith Ellison (D-MN), and even Walter Jones (R-NC).

Sadly though, I’m not even so sure of even them any more because of S. 716. What is that, you might ask? Well, it revised an older bill known as the STOCK act which required lawmakers and high-ranking federal employees to publically disclose all “insider trading” and other financial dealings in an online database to prevent the abuse and exploitation of their exclusive access to financial sector information for personal financial gain. Lawmakers and their associating federal employees are privy to all sorts of “behind the scenes” financial information and tips about investing because of their positions and responsibilities in investigating, regulating, or just interacting with the financial sector. Insider trading is one of the most direct ways lobbyists can corrupt a politician or worse their staffers, who are the ones actually responsible for writing their legislation, scheduling meetings with lobbyists, collecting donations, and much more When the STOCK Act passed in 2012, Obama praised it as a much needed victory to help restore the “deficit of trust” between Washington and the rest of America. Well, last Friday, S. 716 was introduced to exempt all staffers working for lawmakers from this bill entirely, even though they’re privy to the same if not more information as the actual lawmakers. Not only did it pass, but it passed in record time. It only took 10 seconds to introduce, vote, and pass this bill through the Senate, 14 seconds through the House, and just four days later was signed by President Obama. Worst of all, this all happened unanimously. Every single member of Congress, including the ones I listed above, from Elizabeth Warren and Alan Grayson to both Ron and Rand Paul and even Senator Sanders all supported it.

That’s just really discouraging. Not only discouraging, but downright heart-breaking. But on top of all that, this was rushed through last week, and signed into law on a Friday afternoon in hopes that America would be too busy worrying about the upcoming background check bill to notice. Well, we noticed. We noticed your failure to provide transparency in the STOCK Act, and we noticed your even greater failure at defending the people by voting down the most common-sense, agreeable, popular piece of legislation that has come through Congress in a long, long time.

In the words of President Obama himself, many conservatives and gun-advocates are considering this devastating loss a victory. A victory for who? A victory for what? 91% of Americans supported expanding background checks. 54% of Senators supported expanding background checks. That alone is a good enough example of how poorly our representatives actually represent us, but even then despite a majority of Senators supporting it, it still failed. So I really want to know, conservative friends, who really won here? Is this progress? Is this how a representational democracy is supposed to work in your mind? Are Americans safer today than they were before this bill was defeated? Let me add to it my question from before; how can you continue to vote for someone who so obviously and brazenly lied to you? How can you vote for someone who so obviously and openly represents the will of special interest and their donors over the will of their own voting constituency? For nearly all politicians voting against this bill, this is the sad reality that has now reached a point where it can no longer be denied, which is perhaps the one good thing to come out of this. The curtain has been drawn back and we can see the feeble men behind the Great and Powerful Oz for all the sad sell-outs they are and nothing more. I only hope more people can open their eyes and see it now, because thanks to the NRA and their bought-and-paid-for whores, it’s more obvious now than ever.

What happened this week over this bill not to control guns, not to make a federal registry, not to ban assault weapons, not to ban high-capacity magazines, not to make background checks universal for all gun purchases, but just to slightly expand the current background check system was an absolute travesty of democracy.

It’s wrong.

It’s shameful.

It’s un-American.

Members of Congress are not doing their job to represent and protect the American people.

I have no choice but to hand out the greatest insult I have yet discovered to the Senators, pundits, lobbyists, and other politicians that opposed this measure.

UPDATE: Since writing this story the FBI may have a suspect and will make an announcement later today.

I’m sure by now everyone has heard of the tragedy in Boston. Two people are dead and hundreds more were wounded from minor injuries to life-threatening ones that have left them in critical condition. I know two dead is a tragedy, but after seeing the footage of the bombing I can’t help but feel extremely grateful that only two people died. I hesitated to make this post at first because it seems too soon to give commentary given the investigation is still pending, but now several other events, as well as some unfortunate coincidences, compelled me to make a brief post. It’s obviously too early to say anything conclusive, but I just had to point out these connections that I tend to discover that most people I know don’t see.

The bombing happened on April 15th; tax day. Throughout modern American history, anti-government, right-wing extremist aggression has been expressed towards taxation. Two years ago, a man named Joe Stack crashed his plane into the IRS building in Austin, Texas because for him it symbolized the American government, and he was very anti-government. The Oklahoma City bombing happened on Patriot’s Day, just a couple of days after tax day, and was inarguably a right-wing terrorist attack. The Waco assault also happened on Patriot’s Day, shortly after tax day, and it too was an example of right-wing, anti-government, domestic terrorism. In conjunction with that, right-wing terrorism has been on the rise in America. That may sound like some partisan bullshit, but the only reason you don’t know about it is because the media isn’t reporting on it, likely out of some fear of appearing biased.

The stories of right-wing terrorism that I’ve heard go as far back as early 2010 with an organization known as “Repent Amarillo” based on Texas. They are a right-wing extremist, evangelical organization and are openly considered a hate group because of their repeated harassments of homosexuals, liberal Christians, environmentalists, Muslims, Pagans, and people of alternative lifestyles. This organization got so extreme that they would follow people to their houses, jobs, take down their license plate numbers, obtain as much personal information as possible, and use it all to intimidate and, really, to terrorize these people. Some victims even lost their jobs as a result of the harassment. This group is also known as “The Army of God,” which is tragically hilarious because that literally translates to “Hezbollah” in Arabic.

Far worse than that though, and more recently, has been the resurgence and terrorist attacks of the Aryan Brotherhood in America. No, you didn’t misread that; there have been three attacks specifically against government officials in America carried out by the Aryan Brotherhood since the beginning of the year. Total, four people have died in these attacks. The first was Texas District Attorney Mike McLelland, who was shot twenty times. His wife was also shot in this attack. Shortly thereafter another Texas District Attorney Mark Hass was killed by the Brotherhood, as was Colorado prison chief Tom Clements. Perhaps most disturbing of these attacks is that they are working; a Texas prosecutor working on an Aryan Brotherhood case recently quit his job out of security concerns. That is unprecedented for America. It’s just as the Mexican drug cartels have done to the Mexican government. Now, the Aryan Brotherhood is successfully doing the same in America.

On top of that, the day after the Boston bombing, US Senator Roger Wick and President Obama had mail sent to them laced with the highly toxic substance ricin. This story is still developing.

You would think with events like this the federal government would get more involved, but the exact opposite is true. The Bush Administration, at the very end of their time in office, prepared a report about how right-wing extremism was on the rise.  It was completed and released shortly after Obama took office, and entirely because it came out after Obama was sworn in, right-wing media figures flipped out and accused Obama of “going after” his political opponents. These media figures like Rush Limbaugh and the commentators at FOX have no connection to these extremists of course, but they will take whatever opportunity they could to paint Obama as some sort of tyrant or evil, even if such criticism could lead to major security risks. Obama, being a coward that’s terrified of being called names by the right-wing media, caved to their pressure and cut the Department of Homeland Security’s manpower significantly. The division tracking domestic and right-wing terrorism was brought down to a single person early in Obama’s first term. This is in stark contrast to the division tracking Islamic terrorism, which is staffed by twenty-five people.

This is also why I really don’t appreciate when my more conservative friends talk about Obama’s death or provoke violence against him, even if in a joking fashion. For an increasing number of Americans, those jokes are being taken seriously.

Since the early 90s, a majority of the terrorist attacks in America have been domestic, home-grown, and often right-wing extremists. Yes, there have been devastating ones from Islamic, foreign terrorists, but they are much rarer. Considering everything that I’ve just presented and connecting it all together, I find it unlikely that this attack won’t have some connection to right-wing terrorism. I’ll even admit that connection may be nothing more than a framing attempt to throw off investigators, but for all of this to just be coincidental is just a bit too farfetched for me. I still obviously have no idea who is actually behind it, but I couldn’t help but draw these connections.

At the same time though, my mind can’t help but draw another, far darker connection. I follow the news and politics daily. I hear about soldiers being killed in Afghanistan, children being bombed in Yemen after being specifically targeted by the US government, horrible human rights abuses in Gitmo and other off-shore detention facilities, and honestly, I don’t feel significantly different about those tragedies and miscarriages of justice than what happened in Boston. Don’t get me wrong; I am outraged by them, and they are all tragedies, but I feel to care more about a child dying from a terrorist bomber in the middle of Boston than a child dying from a US drone strike in Yemen is selfish, cruel, and above all unfair. Despite this, most everyone I know lost their minds when Boston happened but just don’t care about the deaths we’re causing in foreign nations with whom we are not at war nor are even considered warzones.

Then I remembered this.

This past Monday there was a bombing in Boston that killed two people from an unknown source. Four months ago there was a United States air strike in the town of Al-Majala, Yemen that killed twenty-one children and dozens of other innocent civilians. They’re both tragedies, and both deserved to be weighed in the eyes of both legal and social justice equally. Maybe it’s just my mindset, which is more global than most, for all its benefits and its flaws, that’s making me feel this indescribable way about the Boston bombing and the American response to it, but at the very least I hope this incident can remind people that there are tragedies of this magnitude and greater that happen every day, and often at the hands of the US government or other people from whom we expected more. In the words of Martin Luther King Jr., injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.