the mojowire

All Your Base Are Belong To Booker

My fellow libs and Dems need to chill out over the self-serving hype surrounding Cory Booker's intellectually-crippled apologia for Bain Capital.

At the end of the day he is just another in a long line of pre-indicted grifters to find politics in New Jersey only slightly more lucrative than mugging tourists at the Port Authority terminal.

I'm sure someday he will be regaling his fellow inmates at FCI Fort Dix how he took the rubes for all they worth before convincing them to elect him to his own little North Jersey fiefdom. Good times, man... good times...

 

mojo sends

The two most important posts you'll read today...

Get thee hence to Jack Balkin's salt mine of legal wisdom: Balkinzation and read up on the latest in American democratic republic fail. From there direct yourself to the provided link and read this post at Lawfare on the same topic.

Hint: these are about your rights to not be disappeared in the middle of the night by government security forces... rights that are quickly evaporating in our dangerously dysfunctional political climate.

 

mojo sends

Commence the circular firing squad: An answer to Matt Stoller

Matt Stoller calls out liberals abuse of Ron Paul:

Modern liberalism is a mixture of two elements. One is a support of Federal power – what came out of the late 1930s, World War II, and the civil rights era where a social safety net and warfare were financed by Wall Street, the Federal Reserve and the RFC, and human rights were enforced by a Federal government, unions, and a cadre of corporate, journalistic and technocratic experts (and cheap oil made the whole system run.) America mobilized militarily for national priorities, be they war-like or social in nature. And two, it originates from the anti-war sentiment of the Vietnam era, with its distrust of centralized authority mobilizing national resources for what were perceived to be immoral priorities. When you throw in the recent financial crisis, the corruption of big finance, the increasing militarization of society, Iraq and Afghanistan, and the collapse of the moral authority of the technocrats, you have a big problem. Liberalism doesn’t really exist much within the Democratic Party so much anymore, but it also has a profound challenge insofar as the rudiments of liberalism going back to the 1930s don’t work. 

This is terrible history.  It is exactly this sort of limited and often false theoretical approaches to history that anyone with pretensions to use history to grapple with difficult questions should avoid.  I'll get into some specific reasons why I find this method of problematic, but first I need to address this:

This is why Ron Paul can critique the Federal Reserve and American empire, and why liberals have essentially no answer to his ideas, arguing instead over Paul having character defects.  

The answer to his ideas is that they are wrong on the merits and will not solve any of the problems Paul claims they will solve.  In regards to the Fed, Paul's claims about the Federal Reserve and fiat currency are completely at odds with reality, and his economic history is objectively false and distorted.  His constant distortion of economic and political history is a habit of Paul's, and its on that basis that liberals who actually know what Paul's Austrian economic theories are based on regard him as a dangerous crank.  His critiques on American Empire would get a more sympathetic hearing from liberals if didn't also have some bizarre and again false historical arguments about our participation in World War II and World War I.  The fact that he is actually right when he attacks the expansion of executive power doesn't make those other elements any more palatable.  

Look Matt, if you want to critique the Federal Reserve, American empire, and liberalism in general, fine.  That is a perfectly reasonable set of targets to criticize.  I probably share some of those critiques.   But please do not pimp this utter pile of noxious crap that I have to stomach a single moment of the wretched garbage peddled by Ron Paul to make those critiques.   Those of us who were paying attention to the White Supremacy movement back in the day can tell you we knew decades ago Ron Paul was a racist hate monger, economic history crank, Neo-Confederate apologist, and outright loon way before he tickled your fancy attacking foreign wars and banking regulators.   And even if Ron Paul isn't personally a racist, he trafficked in the worst racist demagoguing this side of Nathan Bedford Forrest to enrich himself, which in my book is just as bad. I do not know what is in the mans heart, or whether he is a good person, but its clear Ron Paul's view of the Constitution or the economy should not be implemented, nor should Dr. Paul be allowed to exercise power as President.  Not if you value economic or social justice.  

Its not enough to simply decide that the enemy of my enemy is my friend.  Because Ron Paul attacks the drug war and criticizes institutions like the Fed and the Pentagon doesn't make him any less of a collaborator in the effort to overturn the Civil Rights Act and end, yes, permanently end the application of the protections and guarantees of the Federal Bill of Rights to the States.  You did know, Matt, that Ron Paul's views on the application of the Commerce clause, the 14th Amendment, and incorporation theory will lead to that, right?  That's actually more important to most liberals than whats currently up his or your ass about the Fed.  His argument about State vs. Federal power is almost exactly what opponents to the Civil Rights Act argued about the Commerce Clause and the application of the equal protection clause in the 14th amendment.  You and Greenwald may have strong arguments about the abuse of executive war powers by Bush and Obama, but those concerns should not trump legitimate concerns about Ron Paul's clear intention to eviscerate the nations civil rights laws.  You don't have to take my word for it, listen to the man on these topics.  He is clear as a bell on them.  

BTW, his attacks on Lincoln are not simply criticisms on an icon.  He is making the arguments that Neo-Confederate apologists have made about Lincoln since Reconstruction  because they want to tarnish his legacy, including and perhaps most importantly the Reconstruction amendments.  They have been aided in the past in that effort by Progressive historians who argued that the Civil War was only about the North imposing economic hegemony over the South.  Historians of that period have come to their senses about that Matt, and anyone familiar with the current scholarship on the Civil War recognizes that purely economic interpretations of historical events can lead to terribly wrong conclusions.  His argument that Lincoln started the war is a terrible slander and a pure falsehood that even someone with a cursory knowledge of the Civil War should know.  The South was threatening secession constantly for decades prior to the onset of hostilities, and they finally seceded because they refused to accept the outcome of a democratic election they did not like.  Pinning any of that on Lincoln is a nasty lie to further the ends of people who don't want to accept the fact that the war was fought, at least in part, over the claim made by the Confederacy they had the god given right to impose brutal enslavement on millions of people for their own economic and social benefit.  The basis for this claim was pure white supremacy untarnished by any recognition that the people they held in bondage were human beings and deserving of the same rights under the law they enjoyed.  Paul's dalliance with this is deplorable and not simply a minor oopsie of having your name attached to some newsletters churned out by a crank associate.  He openly declared his beliefs on the Civil War on Meet the Press.  I'm not shooting the messenger here, he shot himself.  

And correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem to have some sympathy for Paul's Gold Standard arguments.  Gold Standard economics is a system that favors the creditor (banks) as 19th century Populists were correct to point out.  Adherence to that system caused terrible deflationary shocks and speculation bubbles, far more brutal than any we have experienced since the Great Depression.  Anyone who demonstrates concern about concentrated economic power and financial elites will not find any help for those problems in the gold standard.  No matter how bad you think the Fed is, its role in managing the money supply, particularly lately, is preferable to what we experienced under the gold standard.  Paul is perfectly happy to blame every economic issue of the post war period on the Federal Reserve when it is in fact a better deal for anyone concerned with democracy to have a bunch of autocratic bankers appointed by Congress and the President managing the money supply than to subject workers to the mercies of the Gold Standard he envisions, which by the way is not the pound sterling system of years past or the IMF version.  Bernake is right to expand the monetary base even if helps douchebags on Wall Street, and he has supported efforts at Stimulus by the Government.  He should do more, but that's not really what Paul is arguing for. He thinks the Federal Reserve directly cause the crisis by its reliance on fiat currency.  That's is plainly wrong Matt, and while the Federal reserves cheap money policies under Greenspan contributed to the crisis, they are not the fundamental cause as Paul argues.  Its a critical distinction.  His version of the Gold Standard is predicated on ideas we know to be disastrous, and in no way will the gold standard help any liberal or leftist cause I am familiar with.  

And on the histiographic front, modern liberalism is not simply a mixture of Federal power and anti-war sentiment. That is purely an economic and political interpretation.  It is solely concerned with mechanisms and political aspirations.  The essential question it misses, or avoids,  is what do modern liberals believe and hope to achieve by these mechanisms, (Matt's definition of those mechanisms I think is problematic, but that's a fight for another day). It has  roots in the social movements of the 3rd Great Awakening, the populist movement of the 1890's, and the civil rights movements both for African Americans and women.  It is a political ideology concerned, in part, with social justice and equality.  It certainly harnessed Federal power to try to achieve those ends, particularly in the form of the judiciary and the application of the Bill of Rights to the states.  And that effort as social justice by applying the Reconstruction Amendments to the states and establishing civil rights laws is a deal breaker for liberals when dealing with Ron Paul.   I'm not challenged by Paul's views on executive power.  I recognize him for what he is, someone who has constructed a false historical narrative on social, legal, political, and economic fronts and has managed to avoid accountability for most of that by playing on the public's  general ignorance of his actual views.   I cannot imagine a worse ally for liberals than Ron Paul short of Dick Cheney, who probably is as much a racist and a homophobes as Paul's is, which is to say likely not that much.  We can do better

 

Vox Populi Saturday

Let's take another stab at a regular feature, shall we?

Welcome to the weekly open thread: Vox Populi Saturday.

Anything sticking in your craw? Horrible things you want to say about any of the editors? Current political, economic, social, cultural issues you want brought up? Have at it; just remember to have a take and do not suck.

Let's throw a couple of things out there to try to prime the pump:

1.  The new media narrative is that Mittens, who's had a recent surge in the polls, is already the nominee and the GOP primaries are now over. True?

2.  Given that Iran is making some overtly threatening gestures about closing the Persian Gulf for business and the U.S. Navy's response of "Yeah? You and what navy?" how real is this? Are we getting closer to a real Persian/American war?

3.  Tim Tebow; has the clock finally run out on St. Timmy of the Wobby Underthrow? Whence Juicebox Jesus? (h/t Tbogg for the gloss)

4. Lastly, RawStory clip o' the day: The Supremes are going to weigh in regarding redistricting in Texas. Dems are celebrating, but that could be grotesquely short-sighted. What are the legal and poltiical implications for California, given our state's bipolar and dysfunctional history of redistricting?

So remember, opinions are like elbows: everyone's got at least two -- or more if you live too close to a nuclear waste pit -- so don't be shy.

mojo sends

Wheels Coming Off The Mittens Traveling Medicine Show?

So if you haven't heard the latest jobs data, we have reason for a little optimism: the WSJ reports this morning that the jobless rate has fallen to 8.5 percent.

For Mitt Romney though that news might not be so good.

This was not just a rate decrease caused by people dropping out of the labor pool, but an actual healthy increase in non-farm payrolls. Combined with growth in durable goods sales and some other indicators of industrial ramp-up from the last couple of months, this is nominally good news.

And aside from the fact that it augurs well for those of us who would like to continue to have a place to live and food to eat this year, there are of course political implications.

The President and his surrogates have (so far) decided to let this news do the talking for them. A fairly wise move, I believe.

But Mittens... well he now has a bit or a problem on his hands, as we are learning today:

Romney makes two different, but implicitly entwined claims: That while working in corporate management he created over 100,000 jobs and that — by comparison — Obama his(sic) presided over millions of job losses.

[...]

Washington Post blogger Greg Sargent, and Washington Monthly blogger Steve Benen have been Romney’s (and the press’) most consistent critics on this issue. After bringing it to light, Post fact checker Glenn Kessler buttonholed a Romney spokesman about the first claim — and found it to be unsubstantiated. It’s true only if you don’t count Romney-managed companies that later hemorrhaged jobs."

And as usual, Mighty Krugthulu makes the point for Obama's unemployment situation even better.

Now it should come as no surprise to anyone paying the slightest bit of attention that Mittens is a mendacious tool, but it creates an interesting situation for the man seemingly frozen at about 25 percent in the polls in what has become a contentious and close race for the GOP nomination.

You see, as Brian Beutler over at Comrade Joshua's Salt Mine O' Truth points out, Mittens may have to abandon trying to create the cognitive frame of "Romney=Jobs, Obama=Unemployment." This would be a terrible shame for him, because it's been his non-stop pimping of this frame that has helped him maintain the less-than impressive mid-20s polling figures, rather than sliding into an utter also-ran free-fall.

My question is this: what happens when those voters who are going to "hold their nose and pull the lever for Romney" now start to think that maybe he can't beat an Obama Presidency in a resurgent economy when his own jobs record is shown to be nothing more than a cheap bottle of traveling carnival snake oil.

What about the undecideds in the in these early primary states... In New Hampshire, now only a few days away, the undecideds are still polling between 10 and 20 percent.

Did I mention that St. Frothy of Hippo has raised more than $2 million in the last 48 hours? Pretty good, given that he only spent 73 cents per vote, compared to Romney's $49 per vote in Iowa. I wonder how much longer those "undecideds" are going to remain undecided?

Think about it... you're a movement conservative but the idea of another four years wearing chains under the cruel yoke of the Seekrit Mooselim Socialist Kenyan is just more than you can bear. You wanted Perry or Bachamnn, but Liberal Media saw to that, didn't they...

So you think pragmatically, and decide that you have to vote for Mittens because at least he's a whiter shade of pale, even if he was Kommissar of Taxachussettstan and invented ObamaDeathCare, because at least he comes from the private sector with a record of creating American jobs.

Yeah... I wanna be there when that bubble bursts and suddenly it looks like Mittens is going to have his ass handed to him by Obama, regardless of your pragmatic gesture at the polls.

I suspect what will happen is that the fence sitters and conservatives looking for the "Guy-Who-Can-Beat-Obama," will revert to form and decide that they will go with their gut instead of their head in the voting booth and that could be a major lift for St. Frothy.

mojo sends

The War on Plurality: St. Santorum of Hippo Speaks!

Yeah, here is yet another whingy post about the neo-Stalinist right's war on plurality in America and why the crazy shit Santorum bloviates about AmericanValues^TM matters.

Since Ol' Frothy acquitted himself well in Iowa, some of his past remarks have been showing up in various forums I read, so I thought it might be a good time to review the bidding while we're all thinking about it...

Let's start with the basic principle I have been annunciating to friends on Facebook and other places around the web and in person for about four years now: What Santorum and others like him are interested in has nothing to do with, has never had anything to do with and never will have anything to do with "family values" much less "American morals."

Their sole interest is, ultimately, control of the individual; socially, politically, spiritually, culturally and any other way you can think.

The short hand is that any government that can prohibit abortion or contraception can also compel it! That is the bottom line.

So let's look at Santorum's remarks and see if we can observe any tells...

Sure there is the low hanging fruit, like Think Progress' Top-10-Oh-My-Ghod-Did-He-Really-Say-That-In-Public-Moments. 

For instance: he's "for income inequality," contraception is a license to do "things," obesity rates argue against the need for AFDC, health insurance companies should be allowed to discriminate against pre-existing conditions, but ObamaCare will kill his child...

Like I said: low hanging fruit.

But here's where it gets real. Linda Hirshman over at Salon has a pretty good break down on how Santorum is basically chaneling St. Augustine.

Her argument is that this is the kind of crap that happens when the Oligarchs start to feel like they're losing their grip on the masses and that they are somehow "behind the times." Santorum may or may not really buy into the medieval Roman Catholic sexual politics he endlessly vents about, but I promise you he is interested in making you and I do what he says.

And at the end of the day, that's all that counts for the culture warriors.

To my mind, the most salient point Ms. Hirshman makes is thus:

Western history since the Enlightenment has been peppered with such revolts against the modern world. Usually they are a sign of desperation and find their way, unassisted, to the dustbin of history. On the rare occasion when they take hold, however, they can be extremely dangerous."

Unfortunately, it's the last graf in the article, but it pretty well sums up the entire point: this is a pushback against the Enlightenment and what are considered some of its core ideals of personal empowerment, intellectual and academic freedom and the idea that no one is born inherently to rule or to serve.

So an immediate question leaps to mind here: "mojo, why would someone interested in such control over society -- as you posit -- be so vehemently against Big Government?"

As always, the answer is encoded in the question and its assumption. Santorum and his ilk are not opposed to "Big Government." Let me repeat that: Santorum and his like minded culture warriors are not opposed to Big Government.

They are opposed to "big government" based on and dedicated to those aforementioned Enlightenment princples and that enforces the idea of maintaining a relatively level playing field across all segments of society.

We will let Ol' Frothy make the point himself, via Ms. Hirshman's article. Here's yer money graf:

If family and moral values break down, government gets bigger and bigger. Social issues are central to every issue we deal with in America. Unless we get the moral issues right, we will never get the economic and foreign policy issues right.”

The "social issues." Cultural hegemony is central to their ability to control the state and it's basic apparatus, while maintaining an illusion of participatory democracy. I have said this again and again; these people don't want a theocracy. They want a society where theocracy would be redundant.

When he complains about moral relatavism making government grow, what he's doing -- apart from some low rent retail politics -- is really complaining that the more we recognize the legitimacy of citizens of all backgrounds and beliefs, the more we are compelled to make our government protect the rights of those citizens, particuarly with regards to their ability to participate in civil society.

Interestingly enough, but not surprisingly, El Rushbo, The Big Oxy, lept to St. Frothy of Hippo's defense yesterday morning and made the point even more succinctly:

But "big government" to the left means income redistribution, universal health care, union government workers, cradle-to-grave socialism. Those are things that Santorum vehemently opposes! Santorum by no means supports big government in that regard. The big government Santorum supports is a government that protects people by enforcing the law -- be it the right to life, be it the border and immigration or anything else...Be very careful, folks, not to fall for this big government stuff, because Rick Santorum... There is not a Republican out there that is "big government" in the sense that the left is "big government."

Parse some of that out. "Big Government in that regard." "There is not a Republican out there that is big government in the sense that the left is big government." (Seriously, read The Big Oxy's whole rant, it's a masterpiece of dada. Just make sure you haven't eaten first and don't go swimming for at least 30 minutes after.) That is some interesting equivocating, and I think it gets pretty clear that we are not talking about libertarians here in any modern political sense of the word.

Believe me, we will not have seen intrusive government until we live in a place that's run by these control monkeys. Previously, I referred to guys like Santorum as "neo-Stalinist rightists." I stand by that.

Their idea of big government would very much resemble a Stalinist state except where the real power in government -- instead of The Party -- would be an ad hoc collection massive corporate interests aligned in a truly unholy matrimony with old school culture warriors who nevertheless manage to somehow scam a seat on the excape saucers, once they understood that cultural hegemony can be pretty lucrative when you get in on the ground floor.

mojo sends

Reading the Stinking Entrails: AngryNewt Predicts Obama Will Kill, Eat Mittens UPDATED!

So... this is what Free Range Republicans on the campaign trail look like.

After calling Mittens a lying, poll-driven traitorous, robotic, thug, AngryNewt went on to claim that the Obama "machine" will kill and eat Mittens, mounting his head on the front of the President's platinum and diamond Cadillac El Dorado, bumping it up and down Pennsylvania Avenue while the 20s in the trunk pump out "Love Roller Coaster."

He does not curse Mittens... merely predicts.

So, Hulk like, AngryNewt is having his Bruce Banner moment: "don't make me mad, you wouldn't like me when I'm mad..." Well, too bad for the GOP, because that ship has sailed; for the love Amaterasu, AngryNewt is unironically using "Eye of the Tiger" for his campaign music...

AngryNewt's prediction for 2012? Pain!

But humorus hyperbole aside (and the way this is going, we're going to have to conserve our hyperbole stocks or we're going to be down to nothing but Thrid Reich and Lovecraft references soon), let's talk about the real winner of last night's coffee social: Rick Santorum.

Yeah, I threw up in my mouth a little bit when I realized that Ol' Frothy is the real ticket puncher out of Iowa. This is the guy, who just a month or so ago, was polling in mid-single digits, had no money, and was widely regarded as the next guy to be voted off the island.

And while I still hold to my prediction that he will get his ass waxed by Mittens and Paul in New Hampshire, it might be good to remember he actually won the South Carolina straw poll a while back -- handily -- with about 40 percent of the vote.

Another interesting thing even though Newt has now hulked-out into AngryNewt, he is still polling ahead in the national race and leads all comers in South Carolina and few other early and key states, in a couple places by double digits.

That may not last long with AngryNewt on the scene though. To continue with our Hulk metaphor, AngryNewt is capable of only eventually destroying that which he loves; he is a walking monument to self-destructive narcissism and solopsistic hubris.

As he crashes around the next few primary states crushing everything he touches, those voters escaping the rubble will turn to Ol' Frothy as their only fallback. Even if Ron Paul is trying to downplay his whole Auric Goldfinger thing, this racist, homophobic, nativist newsletter issue is not going away, not if Mittens has anything to say about it, so no joy there.

Also, it looks like Rick Perry may hit the eject button in the next 24 to 48 hours, even as Michele Bachmann pulls the plug on her slow motion political suicide as she decides to "stand aside" for the good of all that is decent and the party and the...foo and... uh whatever.

I can not tell you how much I will miss Bachmann and Perry. But, truly, The Man from FAIL's best day of the campaign was the day before he formally announced. But as previously noted, he could not refrain from stepping on his own taint in public at nearly every turn, so naturally by this point those voters had to turn somewhere, first to PizzaMan, then Paul (though not really), then Newt, and now to Ol' Frothy.

And my Michele... what can we say about her that will not get us sued into debtor's prison? Her performance art ramblings were only topped by PizzaMan's and she may have to be inducted as an emeritus member of the "St00pidest Things Ever Said" Hall of Fame... (will have to remember to poll the editors later on this.)

Joe Scarborough made a surprisingly cogent point yesterday on MSNBC when he broke down the three legged dog that is Republican Party electoral politics. Those three legs are the economic/establishment gold-plated leg, the backwards pointing leg of the social conservatives, and the eerie and mishappened appendage of the libertarians humping the dead bones of Barry Goldwater and Ayn Rand.

In the past, there has been one candidate who has been able to sew up at least two of those legs for their campaign and at least marginalize the third leg, but Joe points out that this year they are nearly equal in their ability to put troops in the field, get earned media, names on the ballot and money in the coffers, at least in the early going.

So at the end of the day, what does it all mean?

I could make some pithy predictions, Mittens walks away with New Hampshire, Santorum wins SC and splits Florida with Newt... but really, all I know for certain right now is that the High Weirdness is just spinning up.

Stay tuned sports fans, this is going to get good...

mojo sends

 

UPDATE 1.0: Apparently the Angry Sky Fairy of the Old Testament told The Man from FAIL to stay on the march after conferring with him last night. Looks like we will have Rick Perry to kick around for a little while longer, thank Freya!

The Mojowire Full Employment Act of 2012: The Return of the Mighty Wurlitzer

With a belch of poisonous greasy black smoke and a horrific atonal organ blast that made birds drop dead out of the trees the GOP's Mighty Wurlitzer is again befouling the land, trampling all good and growing things beneath its cruel iron treads.

Ye Ghods... about an hour ago, it looked like Ron Paul was running away with Iowa. Then it looks like Mittens is going to get it with about 30 percent reporting leaving Paul and Santorum to slug it out for second. Then Santorum squirts back into the lead with almost 50 percent reporting. Interesting thing though is that the three of them are almost within the margin, so frankly no one is running away with it (although Paul's fading a bit).

So there's your three tickets punched... Mittens, Paul and Santorum.

But what about the also-rans? Newt got MittensBoated in the last week, Perry just kept stepping on his own taint in public, PizzaMan was nothing more than just second rate clown act, Bachmann kept trying to make words emit from her piehole and that was just never going to work for her, Buddy who? and John Huntsman was just far too reasonable of an example of the GOP to ever seriously be considered.

And now the Mighty Wurlitzer is churning up fields on the way to New Hampshire and South Carolina with apocalyptic abandon.

Just remember: "What's Past Is Prologue" meaning stand by to stand by; this cheap traveling carnival and medicine show is just getting warmed up. We are now in Act One of what it would like if Jerry Bruckheimer or Michael Bay made political-drama movies.

mojo sends

"Ubeki-Beki-Beki-Beki-Stan-Stan?" Really?

Is Herman Cain running for the "President of Stoopid?" Or is he cynically punching his ticket with the red-state Jethros when he splorts shit like this:

When they ask me who is the president of Ubeki-beki-beki-beki-stan-stan I’m going to say, ‘You know, I don’t know. Do you know?’ Cain said, dismissing as irrelevant "knowing who is the head of some of these small insignificant states around the world."

You fscking people are seriously thinking of giving this ignorant boob the car keys?

Although, I may be looking at this all wrong. A rhetorical reality bender like this should have no problem getting the pissant Teabagger footsoldiers and assorted other rubes in Redneckistan whipped into a orbital freekout of Biblical proportions.

Even as he is promising to raise their taxes... right to their faces.

Seriously, this guy is almost as good as the "General Zod 2008" campaign. I'm just waiting for Cain to say something to the effect of: "My success in the polls is gratifying, continuing your adoration ensures that when my mechanical pizzanauts invade the surface world, many of you will survive."

Herman Cain may have raised the whole "politics as performance art" to a whole new level. And needless to say, his continued succcess would be tantamount to the "Mojowire Full Employment Act of 2012."

Where do we send our $20?

 

mojo sends

"Going Taliban?"

A Kentucky law maker says: “Turn out the lights on the Occupiers, I feel like going Taliban on them!!!”

Sure... so does that mean if you go all "Taliban" on them, they can get all "SEAL Team Six" on you?

Ain't hatin', just sayin'...

 

mojo sends