Archive for the ‘Conspiracies and Hysteria’ Category

5 Ways the Tea Party Agenda Screws Tea Party Supporters

Monday, September 6th, 2010

sarahpalin-suicide

If people could be counted on to vote in their own best interests, there would be no Tea Party movement, for if the economic agenda embraced by Tea Partiers — a vastly pro-corporation, government-killing plan — Tea Partiers would find themselves among the people most hurt by it.

To hear Tea Party activists tell it, they seek to save future generations from the crushing demands of big government. Yet the agenda they advocate, dictated by the big-money players behind the muscular interest groups that keep the movement growing, will likely render the Tea Partiers themselves the economically squeezed subjects of a corporate state, one in which the elderly will be left to scrounge for crumbs, small businesses will be crushed by lack of capital, and their own ground-level online organizing supplanted by the networks built by giant, corporate-funded astroturf groups.

As George Lakoff and Drew Westen remind us, people don’t vote on the facts: they vote on emotion, according to Westen, and their notion of morality, according to Lakoff. The resentment of Tea Partiers toward liberals, East Coast elites, the poor and people who don’t look like them has been effectively marshaled in service of a “free market” ideology cleverly packaged as “freedom.” Never mind that free markets are anything but free for ordinary people. The packaging strikes the necessary emotional and moral chords: Free markets = freedom = liberty = endowed by the Creator, as written in the Declaration of Independence by the founders. It’s the perfect exploitation of the worldview of conservative middle-class white people — all in the service of enriching the super-rich at the expense of their unwitting, patriotic ground troops.

Casting themselves as an organic uprising in opposition to a federal government they see as the greatest threat to their freedom, Tea Party supporters conveniently look past the likely consequences of the no-holds-barred, anti-regulatory aims of Rupert Murdoch and David Koch, the billionaires whose dollars grease the skids on which the Tea Party movement rides. Murdoch leads News Corporation, the parent company of Fox News and the Wall Street Journal, the movement’s evangelists. Koch is a principal in Koch Industries, the second largest privately held corporation in the U.S., and heir to its fortunes.
The billionaires give the activists lots of entertainment to distract them from this reality, especially in the form of sideshows, such as Glenn Beck’s travesty at the Lincoln Memorial, designed to fan the flames of racial resentment while making Tea Partiers feel holy about it. At other times, the demonization or infantilization of the nation’s first black president serves up the same charge of adrenaline to the fearful, angry throngs who seek to blame their troubles on anyone other than the corporatist manipulators in whom they’ve placed their trust.

How else to explain the embrace of the billionaires’ agenda by the middle-aged, middle-class folks of the Tea Party movement — the very ones likely to find themselves screwed by it? Here we examine five positions advanced by Tea Party leaders, and what they would mean for Tea Party supporters.

1. Ending Social Security. Rep. Michele Bachmann, doyenne of the congressional Tea Party Caucus, has outlined a plan for an abrupt phase-out of Social Security. Speaking before an audience of Tea Party supporters at the RightOnline conference convened in July, Bachmann referred to Social Security and Medicare as “welfare” that had seen its day. The event was convened in Las Vegas by the Americans For Prosperity Foundation, whose board is chaired by David Koch. There, more than 1,000 Tea Partiers — the majority of whom are over the age of 45 — sat in rapt silence as Bachmann outlined a plan to end Social Security for all those who will be under the age of 65 at the time her potential dream Congress enacts the legislation.

The growth of the federal debt and deficit require a drastic cutback in federal spending, Bachmann said. “Spending comes first, so we have to cut it first,” she explained, speaking of her plan to devastate Social Security. “And in my opinion, it’ll take us about a long weekend to get that done, and then we’ll be fine.”

For those between the ages of 55 and 65 at the time Bachmann’s Kill Social Security Plan hypothetically passes into law, there would be a means-tested program for “those who truly need it — the truly disadvantaged, those who truly can’t go forward.” For everybody else, there would be unspecified “alternatives and adjustments.” Those under the age of 55 would apparently be squat out of luck, regardless of how truly disadvantaged they are. From the assembled Tea Partiers, not a discouraging word was heard, even as Bachmann outlined a plan to essentially rob them of the money they’ve been putting into the system all their lives.

According to a New York Times/CBS News poll conducted in April, 46 percent of Tea Party supporters fall into the 45-64 age group. (Untouched by the Bachmann plan would be the 29 percent of Tea Party supporters the poll cited as being over the age of 64.) The same survey revealed that among 47 percent of self-identified Tea Party supporters, either they or a member of their household was receiving Social Security retirement benefits. When asked whether the outlay for programs such as Social Security and Medicare are worth the taxpayer expense, 62 percent said they were.
What to do with all those freed-up dollars? Why not give them back to the corporations and wealthy individuals who bankroll the Tea Party movement? Segueing out of her nuking of the social safety net for the nation’s elderly — and stealing the payroll taxes of all those Americans who paid into Social Security over the course of their lifetimes but would never see a dime of their contributions come back to them under her plan — Bachmann launched into a pitch for a corporatist agenda that began with her call for a roll-back of the corporate tax from its current 34 percent to 9 percent, which, according to Bachmann, would make it “one of the lowest in the industrialized world.”
Actually, make that possibly the lowest in the world (excluding the handful of mostly broken nations that have none), never mind “industrialized.” I mean, even Kazakhstan and Burkina Faso have higher corporate tax rates than 9 percent. And India, where all the good jobs are said to be going? Try 43 percent.
Bachmann also called for zeroing out the estate tax — even for the very wealthiest Americans — and repeal of the Sarbanes-Oxley law, a bill passed in the wake of the Enron scandal that sets standards for corporate accountability. What would that mean for Americans under the age of 64 whose retirement savings would be entirely invested in the private sector after the demolishing of Social Security? That the same kinds of accounting tricks and corruption that destroyed the retirement savings of thousands in the Enron caper would become standard operating procedure. Sorry, Tea Partiers — you’re screwed.

2. Ending Medicare: See No. #1, Ending Social Security. “Within seven [years], Medicare is dead, bankrupt, broke — broke,” Bachmann told the Tea Partiers. Her solution? End it for everybody but “the truly needy and the truly disabled.” (I shudder to think what constitutes “truly needy” in the Bachmann moral universe.) Her solution? You can buy your own health insurance policy on the private market with pre-tax dollars. Sure, you’re 70 years old: How much do you think an insurance company is going to charge you for your coverage? Pre-taxed or not, you’re going to need a whole lotta dollars to make that one work for you.

But Bachmann’s fans likely found comfort in her sunny optimism. “It is possible for every American to be able to retire a millionaire,” Bachmann told the Tea Partiers. “It’s entirely possible to do that if you plan early and you put away money — and there are alternatives that we can put forward.” Just what those “alternatives” might be were left to the audience’s imagination.

3. Opposition to Internet Freedom (aka Net Neutrality). Earlier this month, news media, ranging from mainstream to righty to lefty, breathlessly reported that leaders of 35 “Tea Party” groups signed a letter to the the Federal Communications Commission in opposition to any efforts made by the FCC to “regulate the Internet.” At issue is Internet freedom and potential regulations that could prevent Internet providers from saddling small-time Web sites unable to pay for an added jolt of Web juice with slower loading speeds for their sites than, say, big-money players like Google. (This is the crux of the issue in the Google-Verizon deal.) Now, Tea Party supporters fancy themselves to be rugged individualists, dedicated to the preservation of individual freedoms. But it wasn’t until the big-money groups that bankroll the national organizing of the Tea Party movement began garnering opposition to Internet freedom that you began to see any of those quaint, homely signs carried at Tea Party rallies dedicated to the subject.

Tea Party activists pride themselves on their movement’s apparent leaderless state, reveling in the homegrown, local character of ground-level Tea Party groups, which often organize on hastily organized listservs and homemade local Web sites. But should they succeed in halting the FCC’s net neutrality plan, they may find themselves with no decent option for Web-based organizing other than the big networking sites built by the national money groups that form the Tea Party Inc. uberstructure. So much for self-agency.

And what of those “35 Tea Party groups” whose leaders signed that letter to the FCC? Well, 24 of those entities are either part of or affiliated with Americans For Prosperity. Among the signatories was AFP president Tim Phillips, as well as the directors of 22 state chapters of Americans For Prosperity — each counted as a separate “Tea Party group.” In addition, the signature of AFP policy director Phil Kerpen (who is also a columnist for Murdoch’s FoxNation) appears with the affiliation, “director, NoInternetTakeover.com.” Also present was Linda Hansen, who leads the Wisconsin Prosperity Network and is the author of a “worker education” program that is a project of the Americans For Prosperity Foundation, and promoted by John Fund and Stephen Moore of Rupert Murdoch’s Wall Street Journal.

Others signatories aren’t leaders of Tea Party groups at all, but heads of the old corporatist, anti-government groups such as Grover Norquist of Americans for Tax Reform and David Keene of the American Conservative Union. There are even a couple of stalwarts of the old New Right: Phyllis Schlafly of the Eagle Forum and Morton Blackwell of the Leadership Institute.

Bottom line for Tea Partiers: deviate from the AFP/Ayn Rand line on any issue, and you could see your little homemade Web site begin to load verrrry slowwwly.

4. De-Funding Public Education. While it’s common knowledge that Tea Partiers hate all things government (except their personal Social Security checks and Medicare reimbursements), they hold a special contempt for public school teachers. This stems from a number of causes, but mostly from the fact that teachers are unionized government workers who have authority over one’s children for a good chunk of the day. The very fact of their unionization implies a different value system from that of the Tea Partiers, who fear that value system having an influence on their children. Teachers tend to be more liberal than the general population. And to the worker wed to the private enterprise system, a teacher’s deal can look pretty sweet by comparison: It generally comes with a pension, tenure and the prospect of early retirement.

That’s why even candidates like Sharron Angle, the GOP/Tea Party contender for Nevada’s U.S. Senate seat, can call for the elimination of the Department of Education and still be taken seriously by the Tea Party faithful. And that’s why calling the federal jobs bill passed last month a “teacher bailout” was an effective means of summoning Tea Party opposition to the bill that provided $26 billion in aid to cash-strapped states to maintain all manner of services and programs, including money to prevent some 300,000 teacher lay-offs.

For the billionaires of Tea Party Inc., gutting public education is just another way to grab more marbles for themselves by marginalizing unions and shrinking the overall size of government — not to mention the convenience of having a gullible and uneducated population to snooker down the road. They have little need for an educated workforce in the U.S., since they’ll offshore whatever jobs they can.

Yet, according to the New York Times/CBS News poll, 65 percent of Tea Party supporters with children under the age of 18 have those children enrolled in public schools. And although parents of school-age children account for only 20 percent of Tea Party supporters, it’s safe to assume that a sizable number of the older people who comprise the bulk of the Tea Party have grandchildren in public schools. The education those children receive will clearly suffer if schools are forced to lay off significant numbers of teachers but, for Tea Partiers, that fact pales beside the prospect of sticking it to the teachers they’ve been taught to resent. Better to short-change one’s own kids than to keep one more teacher employed, despite all the rhetoric about the Tea Party movement being the guardian of the legacy owed to those yet unborn.

5. Opposition to Wall Street Reform and Financial Reform. Perhaps the most confounding aspect of the Tea Party agenda is its opposition to reform of Wall Street and banks. Even as Tea Party leaders and activists rail against the bailouts of U.S. automakers, and the minimal assistance offered homeowners with underwater mortgages, Tea Party leaders and those who follow them voice hostility toward any and all measures that would demand increased accountability from purveyors of financial instruments or the credit-card industry, like those contained in the financial reform bill passed by Congress in July (a bill that liberal critics regard as rather toothless).

In her speech to Tea Party supporters at the RightOnline conference, Michele Bachmann described the recently passed financial reform bill as nothing more than a punitive measure against Wall Street, when the real culprit in the nation’s financial woes was the Housing and Community Redevelopment Act passed in 1977. Another particular object of scorn by the Tea Party set is the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection created by the bill.

Financial reforms such as those signed into law by President Barack Obama last month are designed to benefit the middle class, where 50 percent of Tea Party supporters locate themselves, according the the New York Times/CBS poll. The reforms are expected to be especially good for small businesses, whose fortunes Tea Partiers often claim to care most about.

Failure of Logic, Rule of Emotion

So, how do they do it, those unscrupulous billionaires? How do they get everyday Americans to embrace an agenda that runs counter to their own interests? Their mouthpieces — people like Bachmann and Sarah Palin and Glenn Beck — couch it all in the language of heroic patriotism, with the Tea Partiers cast as patriots at war with people set to defile the founders’ dream of America. Do that, and a billionaire will find himself the general of an army of ground troops ready to do battle in his service, despite his unwillingness to share the spoils of his war on everyday Americans.

In her speech to the Tea Party faithful in Nevada, Michele Bachmann neither began nor ended her speech with her plan to rob the Tea Partiers (and the rest of us) of their Social Security. She began with a sustained attack on the nation’s first black president (who was portrayed as immature, greedy, incompetent and corrupt). Her plan was explained just before she wrapped up the speech, which she ended with the truly poignant patriotic story of the sinking of an Army transport ship, the Dorchester, in World War II. Bachmann recounted how four Navy chaplains went down with the ship after giving their life jackets to younger soldiers. She made a point of citing the last names of two of them: Washington and Goode.

In Bachmann’s telling, the brave chaplains gave up the lifeline that was rightfully theirs in order to save the younger generation. Kind of like giving up your Social Security to save your country for your grandchildren — except that your sacrifice is more likely to line the pockets of a billionaire than save your grandson from a life of debt, a possibility you just don’t consider.

Share/Save/Bookmark

Pam Geller, World-Class Shrieking Islamophobe, Goes Mainstream

Monday, September 6th, 2010

This post is by D. Aristophanes, and originally appeared at Sadly, No!
pamgeller
It is with some pride that we have observed the recent rise of Pamela Geller to respectable, mainstream status— after all, Sadly, No! has been covering the erstwhile Pam Atlas since at least early 2006 (and our commenters were clued in to her even earlier).
Why, it seems like just yesterday that Pam was palling around with Neo-Nazis at seedy gatherings on the ass-end of the European political fringe1, fighting an eliminationist civil war over the dwindling crumbs of post-Katrina stupid, and revealing to a skeptical world that Barack Obama just may be — just might be — Malcolm X’s love child.

Now, thanks to newly resurgent anti-Muslim rage amongst the teatards — and its usefulness to GOP electoral chances in November — Geller finds herself the talk of the town, a sought-after commentator on the national stage as desperate media outlets seek to uncover the mystery as to whybigoted bigots are acting really bigoted out of bigotry.

Until recently, only a handful of bloggers and their readers were privy to Pam’s daily deluge of cap-locked misinformation and shrieking xenophobia. But today, like a shooting star flashing across the night sky (if said comet took several years2 of flirtini-addled, spit-flecked stumbling to careen tits-first through our field of vision), she speaks to a much wider audience. Indeed, an entire nation can now read stuff like this:

ISRAEL IN OBAMA’S CROSSHAIRS: IMPOSING A DEATH SENTENCE ‘THAT ENDS AN ILLEGAL OCCUPATION WHICH BEGAN IN 1967′

‘The purpose of these talks is clear. These will be direct negotiations between Israelis and Palestinians. These negotiations are intended to resolve all final status issues. The goal is a settlement, negotiated between the parties, that ends the occupation which began in 1967 and results in the emergence of an independent, democratic and viable Palestinian state, living side by side in peace and security with a Jewish state of Israel and its other neighbors. That’s the vision we are pursuing.’ Presdeint Obama, September 1, 2010.

Spoken like a true antisemite. ‘Illegal’ occupation?

Well, no, ‘illegal’ was not a term used by Presdeint Obama in the supplied quote, though in fairness we don’t know what his doppelganger, President Obama may have said. It’s also worth noting that the ‘true anti-semites’ on the Israeli Supreme Court have ruled that the West Bank is ‘occupied’, but perhaps that’s a detail best puzzled over another day.
Or maybe you’d be interested to learn that Anti-Defamation League director Abe Foxman is actually a jihad-loving toady of Islamic supremacists? ‘Mighty classy, dhimmi,’ as Pam so politely punctuates the point.
In a victory for our national dialogue, more and more people can learn these things, thanks to Pam’s ascent to superstar status. And these days, she’s even got her own pet nebish!
Here’s to you, Pammy. You’ve come a Long Island way, baby!
geller-nude



1 Pam back in 2007 on hanging out with Vlaams Belang, originally the pro-Nazi Dutch Vlaams Blok party: ‘Who the hell wasn’t a nazi collaborator in Europe? Puhleeeeeze.’
Pam on George Soros a couple of months earlier: ‘Soros has sinister ties to anti-semites and Nazis.’
2Decades even — holy shit!

Share/Save/Bookmark

First they came for the communists

Monday, September 6th, 2010

By Bishop Gene Robinson
falwell_onpageJerry Falwell, head of the Moral Majority, and other religious right leaders deliberately determined that gays would be the new “enemy” after the fall of the Soviet Union in the 1990s. Could Muslims be the religious right’s new target?

What is most disturbing about recent attacks by the political and religious right on Muslim Americans and their religion, Islam, is that it feels so depressingly familiar.
Christian and American conservative politicians and the religious right needed a new enemy that would mobilize their base in the 1990s when they were faced with the fall of the Soviet Union and the loss of “godless Communists” as the enemy of everything civilized. Televangelists needed a new “evil” to rail against—a threat dire enough to convince Social Security pensioners to send in their $5 and $10 checks and keep them on the air.
So gays became the new communists.
Jerry Falwell, head of the Moral Majority, and other religious right leaders deliberately determined that gays would be the new enemy. Their tactics are documented in a memoir, Stranger at the Gate, by Rev. Mel White, a former conservative who was Falwell’s ghost writer but lost his job after coming out as a gay man.
Rev. White writes:

During the 1990s, when the religious right shifted the focus of their fund-raising appeals from the ‘evil communist empire’ to the ‘homosexual agenda for the destruction of America’, I began collecting samples of their terrible lies against us. One of my early hate-mail ‘treasures’ was an emergency Jerry Falwell fund-raiser sent in an oversize envelope (five by fourteen inches) with a bold red banner across its face stating simply: ‘Declaration of War…Official Notice’. Jerry Falwell was officially declaring war against gay and lesbian people.

Since that time we’ve seen this scapegoating’s devastating effects on the gay community. There’s been incitement of hate and discrimination to the enactment of the Defense of Marriage Act, active opposition to reforms such as the repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” and well-funded efforts to forestall marriage equality.
Now, however, it appears that gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender people’s success in achieving equal rights in this country is impending and virtually assured. It makes me wonder, then, if a new “enemy” is now being chosen—Muslim Americans and Islam.
First, they came for the communists, then the gays—now the Muslims?
The search for scapegoats is as old as humankind. The word “scapegoat” itself comes from the ancient Hebrew practice of symbolically placing the sins of people onto a goat, and then sending that goat and its attendant sins into the wilderness on Yom Kippur, presumably to perish. Such a practice is always easier than taking responsibility for the sins that belong at home and making the behavioral changes necessary to undo them.
I’ve been searching for a rational explanation for the fierce and widespread opposition to the so-called Ground Zero Mosque, which is neither at Ground Zero nor principally a mosque. Combined with the outrageous tenacity with which many hold the clearly erroneous belief that President Barack Obama is himself secretly a Muslim, there has to be more here than political expediency.
I fear we are seeing the next mass target for scapegoating. Will the obsession with Muslims “too near” Ground Zero disappear with the midterm elections? Sadly, I think not. Have political operatives and religious right leaders decided that Muslim Americans and Islam are the next scapegoat? That they are a sure vehicle for getting conservative voters to the polls and for opening the wallets of religious right contributors?
I hate to get caught up in conspiracy theories, but the current hate speech against Muslims that portrays them as dangerous to America, our security, and values has the ring of intentionality to it that I cannot shake.
Demonizing all Muslims based on the irrational and despicable actions of violent extremists would be sad enough if it were only a domestic problem. But the fact is we are handing Al Qaeda the most effective recruitment tool they could ever hope for. We live in a wired world where mosque burnings, attacks on Muslim Americans, and hate speech against Muslims by national politicians and preachers are instantly seen by millions around the globe. These attacks serve to convince the Muslim world that despite America’s rhetoric, we really are waging war on Islam and we really do hate Muslims.
Americans of all stripes—religious and nonreligious—need to stand up for our fellow Americans who are Muslim. Embedded in the Bill of Rights is the right to practice our religion. Countless patriots have fought and died for this freedom. When religious freedom and tolerance is attacked for some, it is threatened for all. All of us must work tirelessly to undo the suspicion, hatred, and xenophobia directed toward our Muslim fellow citizens.

Bishop Gene Robinson is a Senior Fellow at the Center for American Progress.

Share/Save/Bookmark

Competence and Education is wrong?

Friday, September 3rd, 2010

Perhaps this is the message: If you humbly obey, you don’t need to think.

Share/Save/Bookmark

The right doesn’t understand statistics

Friday, September 3rd, 2010





Look up: The World’s Best Countries

Share/Save/Bookmark

Christine O’Donnell, Delaware Tea Partier, Criticized Masturbation On MTV’s ‘Sex In The 90s’ Show

Friday, September 3rd, 2010



Say you’re child and you have a father who gives you a precious present and when he sees how much you enjoy the gift, he says: “because you like it, get out of here and die at the street!” Creepy, isn’t it?
Long before she became the latest fascination of the political press and the cause-of-the-moment of the Tea Party movement, Christine O’Donnell (R-D.E.) was appearing on news outlets large and small extolling the sins of not just sex but masturbation.
The Delaware Republican, who is challenging Rep. Mike Castle in the state’s Senate primary and has earned the financial backing of a portion of the Tea Party movement, made an appearance in the MTV series “Sex In The 90s.” Entitled “The Safest Sex Of All,” the episode was ostensibly geared towards understanding the importance of abstinence. But O’Donnell’s guidance went a bit further. Masturbation, she argued, is not a moral substitute for sex. “The Bible says that lust in your heart is committing adultery. So you can’t masturbate without lust.”
“The reason that you don’t tell [people] that masturbation is the answer to AIDS and all these other problems that come with sex outside of marriage is because again it is not addressing the issue,” she extrapolated. “You’re just gonna create somebody who is, I was gonna say, toying with his sexuality. Pardon the pun.”
The president of Saviors Alliance for Lifting the Truth (SALT), O’Donnell was, at the time, just becoming a visible voice in the pro-”chastity” movement. Her organization, a youth-based group started in 1996 with a focus on establishing conservative Christian values in college-aged kids, made frequent appearances on television in addition to lobbying Congress. They did it all despite taking in just $2,000 in revenue.
SALT also helped mold and advocate a host of positions on sex education that, in the context of O’Donnell’s current Senate run, seem a bit doctrinaire. In November 1998, for instance, she wrote a piece for an outlet called the Cultural Dissident, discussing why simply being abstinent was not a lofty enough goal.

Yes, I am a Christian. Yes, I do seek to surrender my entire life to the will of our Father. That is precisely why I don’t talk about abstinence or secondary virginity when I am asked to speak about sex. Abstinence is a physical discipline, not a calling. It makes our physical condition the goal.

Years later, she was part of a group of outraged religious conservatives who criticized President George W. Bush for allowing continued research on 60 stem cell lines that had already been developed (Bush’s position was considered restrictive in its own right). More recently, she suggested that age-appropriate sex education, even for kindergarteners, could convince children that strangers with candy were “not so creepy.”
There is, indeed, an abundance of writing and television appearances from this time period of O’Donnell’s life that provide a window into her personal beliefs and politics. The fact that they haven’t surfaced is owed, primarily, to the fact that no one took her candidacy seriously until this past week. That’s now changing. The Castle campaign pledged on Thursday to launch negative advertisements against O’Donnell — a remarkable and undoubtedly unexpected use of funds from a candidate who was supposed to coast to victory.

Share/Save/Bookmark

President Obama blasts lies, disinformation

Tuesday, August 31st, 2010


President Barack Obama dismissed a recent poll showing that a third of Americans don’t know he’s a Christian — and blamed an online campaign of misinformation by his conservative enemies for perpetuating the myth that he’s a Muslim.
Obama, speaking with NBC “Nightly News” anchor Brian Williams on Sunday afternoon, was equally dismissive of conservative talk show host Glenn Beck — saying he didn’t watch the Fox host’s Saturday rally in Washington but wasn’t surprised that Beck was able to “stir up” people during uncertain economic times.
Williams, sitting under a tent in a rain-soaked New Orleans, where the first family commemorated the fifth anniversary of Hurricane Katrina, asked Obama why so many people were uncertain about something so fundamental as his faith. “I can’t spend all of my time with my birth certificate plastered on my forehead,” quipped Obama, who took a deep breath to gather his thoughts when asked if the poll reflected his inability to communicate with voters. “The facts are the facts. We went through some of this during the campaign — there is a mechanism, a network of misinformation that in a new media era can get churned out there constantly,” said a visibly annoyed Obama, referring to “birthers,” who have waged a guerrilla campaign questioning either the existence or the validity of his Hawaiian birth certificate. “I will always put my money on the American people, and I’m not going to be worried too much about what rumors are floating around there.”
A stunning 18 percent of Americans identify Obama as Muslim, according to a Pew poll released earlier this month. Only a third identify Obama, who speaks passionately about his faith in his autobiography, as Christian.
Obama, who just returned from a long vacation on Martha’s Vineyard said he didn’t watch Beck’s massive rally at the Lincoln Memorial on Saturday, adding that he was focused on the long term, not on the “Nightly News.”
“It’s not surprising that someone like a Mr. Beck is able to stir up a certain portion of the American people. … That’s been true throughout our history,” he said.
Obama doubled down on his support for a mosque and community center planned for a site two blocks north of ground zero in lower Manhattan — and denied reports that he tried to back away from backing the controversial project.
“I didn’t walk it back it all,” he said. “I was very specific with my team. … The core value and principle that every American is treated the same doesn’t change. … At a White House Ramadan celebration, I had Muslim Americans who had been in uniform fighting in Iraq. … How can you say to them that their religious faith is less worthy of respect? … That’s something that I feel very strongly about.” He added, “I respect the feelings on the other side.”
The president, a harsh critic of the Bush administration’s sluggish response to Katrina, bristled when asked if the BP Gulf oil spill was his administration’s Katrina — because of a failure to act quickly enough. “It’s just not accurate,” he told Williams. “The only thing in common with the Katrina response was oil spill Incident Commander Adm. Thad Allen. …We had immediately deployed thousands of vessels, tens of thousands of people.”
The spill has wreaked less havoc on the Gulf Coast “because of the sturdiness and steadiness” of his administration’s response, Obama added.

Share/Save/Bookmark

The Billionaires Bankrolling the Tea Party

Tuesday, August 31st, 2010

2010-08-31-10h24_40Charles G. Koch
Another weekend, another grass-roots demonstration starring Real Americans who are mad as hell and want to take back their country from you-know-who. Last Sunday the site was Lower Manhattan, where they jeered the “ground zero mosque.” This weekend, the scene shifted to Washington, where the avatars of oppressed white Tea Party America, Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin, were slated to “reclaim the civil rights movement” (Beck’s words) on the same spot where the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. had his dream exactly 47 years earlier.
Vive la révolution!
There’s just one element missing from these snapshots of America’s ostensibly spontaneous and leaderless populist uprising: the sugar daddies who are bankrolling it, and have been doing so since well before the “death panel” warm-up acts of last summer. Three heavy hitters rule. You’ve heard of one of them, Rupert Murdoch. The other two, the brothers David and Charles Koch, are even richer, with a combined wealth exceeded only by that of Bill Gates and Warren Buffett among Americans. But even those carrying the Kochs’ banner may not know who these brothers are.
Their self-interested and at times radical agendas, like Murdoch’s, go well beyond, and sometimes counter to, the interests of those who serve as spear carriers in the political pageants hawked on Fox News. The country will be in for quite a ride should these potentates gain power, and given the recession-battered electorate’s unchecked anger and the Obama White House’s unfocused political strategy, they might.
All three tycoons are the latest incarnation of what the historian Kim Phillips-Fein labeled “Invisible Hands” in her prescient 2009 book of that title: those corporate players who have financed the far right ever since the du Pont brothers spawned the American Liberty League in 1934 to bring down F.D.R. You can draw a straight line from the Liberty League’s crusade against the New Deal “socialism” of Social Security, the Securities and Exchange Commission and child labor laws to the John Birch Society-Barry Goldwater assault on J.F.K. and Medicare to the Koch-Murdoch-backed juggernaut against our “socialist” president.
Only the fat cats change — not their methods and not their pet bugaboos (taxes, corporate regulation, organized labor, and government “handouts” to the poor, unemployed, ill and elderly). Even the sources of their fortunes remain fairly constant. Koch Industries began with oil in the 1930s and now also spews an array of industrial products, from Dixie cups to Lycra, not unlike DuPont’s portfolio of paint and plastics. Sometimes the biological DNA persists as well. The Koch brothers’ father, Fred, was among the select group chosen to serve on the Birch Society’s top governing body. In a recorded 1963 speech that survives in a University of Michigan archive, he can be heard warning of “a takeover” of America in which Communists would “infiltrate the highest offices of government in the U.S. until the president is a Communist, unknown to the rest of us.” That rant could be delivered as is at any Tea Party rally today.
Last week the Kochs were shoved unwillingly into the spotlight by the most comprehensive journalistic portrait of them yet, written by Jane Mayer of The New Yorker. Her article caused a stir among those in Manhattan’s liberal elite who didn’t know that David Koch, widely celebrated for his cultural philanthropy, is not merely another rich conservative Republican but the founder of the Americans for Prosperity Foundation, which, as Mayer writes with some understatement, “has worked closely with the Tea Party since the movement’s inception.” To New Yorkers who associate the David H. Koch Theater at Lincoln Center with the New York City Ballet, it’s startling to learn that the Texas branch of that foundation’s political arm, known simply as Americans for Prosperity, gave its Blogger of the Year Award to an activist who had called President Obama “cokehead in chief.”
The other major sponsor of the Tea Party movement is Dick Armey’s FreedomWorks, which, like Americans for Prosperity, is promoting events in Washington this weekend. Under its original name, Citizens for a Sound Economy, FreedomWorks received $12 million of its own from Koch family foundations. Using tax records, Mayer found that Koch-controlled foundations gave out $196 million from 1998 to 2008, much of it to conservative causes and institutions. That figure doesn’t include $50 million in Koch Industries lobbying and $4.8 million in campaign contributions by its political action committee, putting it first among energy company peers like Exxon Mobil and Chevron. Since tax law permits anonymous personal donations to nonprofit political groups, these figures may understate the case. The Kochs surely match the in-kind donations the Tea Party receives in free promotion 24/7 from Murdoch’s Fox News, where both Beck and Palin are on the payroll.
The New Yorker article stirred up the right, too. Some of Mayer’s blogging detractors unwittingly upheld the premise of her article (titled “Covert Operations”) by conceding that they have been Koch grantees. None of them found any factual errors in her 10,000 words. Many of them tried to change the subject to George Soros, the billionaire backer of liberal causes. But Soros is a publicity hound who is transparent about where he shovels his money. And like many liberals — selflessly or foolishly, depending on your point of view — he supports causes that are unrelated to his business interests and that, if anything, raise his taxes.
This is hardly true of the Kochs. When David Koch ran to the right of Reagan as vice president on the 1980 Libertarian ticket (it polled 1 percent), his campaign called for the abolition not just of Social Security, federal regulatory agencies and welfare but also of the F.B.I., the C.I.A., and public schools — in other words, any government enterprise that would either inhibit his business profits or increase his taxes. He hasn’t changed. As Mayer details, Koch-supported lobbyists, foundations and political operatives are at the center of climate-science denial — a cause that forestalls threats to Koch Industries’ vast fossil fuel business. While Koch foundations donate to cancer hospitals like Memorial Sloan-Kettering in New York, Koch Industries has been lobbying to stop the Environmental Protection Agency from classifying another product important to its bottom line, formaldehyde, as a “known carcinogen” in humans (which it is).
Tea Partiers may share the Kochs’ detestation of taxes, big government and Obama. But there’s a difference between mainstream conservatism and a fringe agenda that tilts completely toward big business, whether on Wall Street or in the Gulf of Mexico, while dismantling fundamental government safety nets designed to protect the unemployed, public health, workplace safety and the subsistence of the elderly.
Yet inexorably the Koch agenda is morphing into the G.O.P. agenda, as articulated by current Republican members of Congress, including the putative next speaker of the House, John Boehner, and Tea Party Senate candidates like Rand Paul, Sharron Angle, and the new kid on the block, Alaska’s anti-Medicaid, anti-unemployment insurance Palin protégé, Joe Miller. Their program opposes a federal deficit, but has no objection to running up trillions in red ink in tax cuts to corporations and the superrich; apologizes to corporate malefactors like BP and derides money put in escrow for oil spill victims as a “slush fund”; opposes the extension of unemployment benefits; and calls for a freeze on federal regulations in an era when abuses in the oil, financial, mining, pharmaceutical and even egg industries (among others) have been outrageous.
The Koch brothers must be laughing all the way to the bank knowing that working Americans are aiding and abetting their selfish interests. And surely Murdoch is snickering at those protesting the “ground zero mosque.” Last week on “Fox and Friends,” the Bush administration flacks Dan Senor and Dana Perino attacked a supposedly terrorism-tainted Saudi prince whose foundation might contribute to the Islamic center. But as “The Daily Show” keeps pointing out, these Fox bloviators never acknowledge that the evil prince they’re bashing, Walid bin Talal, is not only the biggest non-Murdoch shareholder in Fox News’s parent company (he owns 7 percent of News Corporation) and the recipient of Murdoch mammoth investments in Saudi Arabia but also the subject of lionization elsewhere on Fox.

No less a Murdoch factotum than Neil Cavuto slobbered over bin Talal in a Fox Business Channel interview as recently as January, with nary a question about his supposed terrorist ties. Instead, bin Talal praised Obama’s stance on terrorism and even endorsed the Democrats’ goal of universal health insurance. Do any of the Fox-watching protesters at the “ground zero mosque” know that Fox’s profits are flowing to a Obama-sympathizing Saudi billionaire in bed with Murdoch? As Jon Stewart summed it up, the protesters who want “to cut off funding to the ‘terror mosque’ ” are aiding that funding by watching Fox and enhancing bin Talal’s News Corp. holdings.
When wolves of Murdoch’s ingenuity and the Kochs’ stealth have been at the door of our democracy in the past, Democrats have fought back fiercely. Franklin Roosevelt’s triumphant 1936 re-election campaign pummeled the Liberty League as a Republican ally eager to “squeeze the worker dry in his old age and cast him like an orange rind into the refuse pail.” When John Kennedy’s patriotism was assailed by Birchers calling for impeachment, he gave a major speech denouncing their “crusades of suspicion.”

And Obama? So far, sadly, this question answers itself.

Share/Save/Bookmark

It’s Witch-Hunt Season

Tuesday, August 31st, 2010

By Paul Krugman
story
The last time a Democrat sat in the White House, he faced a nonstop witch hunt by his political opponents. Prominent figures on the right accused Bill and Hillary Clinton of everything from drug smuggling to murder. And once Republicans took control of Congress, they subjected the Clinton administration to unrelenting harassment — at one point taking 140 hours of sworn testimony over accusations that the White House had misused its Christmas card list.
Now it’s happening again — except that this time it’s even worse. Let’s turn the floor over to Rush Limbaugh: “Imam Hussein Obama,” he recently declared, is “probably the best anti-American president we’ve ever had.”
To get a sense of how much it matters when people like Mr. Limbaugh talk like this, bear in mind that he’s an utterly mainstream figure within the Republican Party; bear in mind, too, that unless something changes the political dynamics, Republicans will soon control at least one house of Congress. This is going to be very, very ugly.
So where is this rage coming from? Why is it flourishing? What will it do to America?
Anyone who remembered the 1990s could have predicted something like the current political craziness. What we learned from the Clinton years is that a significant number of Americans just don’t consider government by liberals — even very moderate liberals — legitimate. Mr. Obama’s election would have enraged those people even if he were white. Of course, the fact that he isn’t, and has an alien-sounding name, adds to the rage.
By the way, I’m not talking about the rage of the excluded and the dispossessed: Tea Partiers are relatively affluent, and nobody is angrier these days than the very, very rich. Wall Street has turned on Mr. Obama with a vengeance: last month Steve Schwarzman, the billionaire chairman of the Blackstone Group, the private equity giant, compared proposals to end tax loopholes for hedge fund managers with the Nazi invasion of Poland.
And powerful forces are promoting and exploiting this rage. Jane Mayer’s new article in The New Yorker about the superrich Koch brothers and their war against Mr. Obama has generated much-justified attention, but as Ms. Mayer herself points out, only the scale of their effort is new: billionaires like Richard Mellon Scaife waged a similar war against Bill Clinton.
Meanwhile, the right-wing media are replaying their greatest hits. In the 1990s, Mr. Limbaugh used innuendo to feed anti-Clinton mythology, notably the insinuation that Hillary Clinton was complicit in the death of Vince Foster. Now, as we’ve just seen, he’s doing his best to insinuate that Mr. Obama is a Muslim. Again, though, there’s an extra level of craziness this time around: Mr. Limbaugh is the same as he always was, but now seems tame compared with Glenn Beck.
And where, in all of this, are the responsible Republicans, leaders who will stand up and say that some partisans are going too far? Nowhere to be found.
To take a prime example: the hysteria over the proposed Islamic center in lower Manhattan almost makes one long for the days when former President George W. Bush tried to soothe religious hatred, declaring Islam a religion of peace. There were good reasons for his position: there are a billion Muslims in the world, and America can’t afford to make all of them its enemies.
But here’s the thing: Mr. Bush is still around, as are many of his former officials. Where are the statements, from the former president or those in his inner circle, preaching tolerance and denouncing anti-Islam hysteria? On this issue, as on many others, the G.O.P. establishment is offering a nearly uniform profile in cowardice.
So what will happen if, as expected, Republicans win control of the House? We already know part of the answer: Politico reports that they’re gearing up for a repeat performance of the 1990s, with a “wave of committee investigations” — several of them over supposed scandals that we already know are completely phony. We can expect the G.O.P. to play chicken over the federal budget, too; I’d put even odds on a 1995-type government shutdown sometime over the next couple of years.
It will be an ugly scene, and it will be dangerous, too. The 1990s were a time of peace and prosperity; this is a time of neither. In particular, we’re still suffering the after-effects of the worst economic crisis since the 1930s, and we can’t afford to have a federal government paralyzed by an opposition with no interest in helping the president govern. But that’s what we’re likely to get.
If I were President Obama, I’d be doing all I could to head off this prospect, offering some major new initiatives on the economic front in particular, if only to shake up the political dynamic. But my guess is that the president will continue to play it safe, all the way into catastrophe.

Share/Save/Bookmark

NSNBC: Beck calls on help from God

Sunday, August 29th, 2010


Transcript:
>>> if all goes according to plan and the blackboard operations, it will rival this nation’s seminal moments, the flag raising at iwo jima, the flag planting on the moon. had those events included port-o-johns and other opportunities. beck calls this the wost case scenario here.
>> but imagine that somewhere on the edge of the crowd, the black panthers start to march in, okay? imagine, because there’s going to be video cameras everywhere, everywhere. the worst case scenario is that there is an infiltrator in there who is coordinating and they’re like, oh, you bunch of “n” words, whatever. the black panthers start brawling. that’s the worst case scenario, right? this audience isn’t going to do that.
>> presumably after the audience gives any possible perps the care bear stare –
>> you’re going to see the spirit of god unleashed unlike you have probably ever seen it before. at least in a public function.
>> and then god will do magic tricks. for further crowd pumping one can check out prebeckoning field trips. glen admiring the architecture. what’s that, a roof? and the resting place of president woodrow wilson. he hates that guy. sorry. scroll down a little further and you’ll stumble on to a neutrw ralo promo. beck’s owner would like a word with you.
>> are you here looking for free clips and everything? there’s nothing free in life, my friend. well, except for the following clip, brought to you by goldline. 866-go 866-gold-line. thank you, goldline.
>>> every great achievement in human history has started with one person, one crazy idea. when confronted by the oppression of fear and conventional wisdom, the bravest always chart a new course to a new world. the american experiment. men guided by their own reason. anything is possible. through failures and success.
>> the top half of abraham lincoln’s face brought to you by goldline.
>>> the becker head army getting reinforcement from dick army. “the new york times” saying corporately funded tea activists are learning how to run phone banks. what’s that called, community something, community organizing? “rules for radicals” by saul alinsky. they will be joined by the koch family. they you offered an online rebuttal which talked about their donations to the tea party. the koch family and their foundations have been publicly devoted to making the world a better place. one group who claims not to be on the bus, the republican national committee, communications director doug hyde, telling the washington post, i’ve got to be honest with you. i don’t know about any glen beck. joining me now, somebody who does, eric byrnes. how can somebody at the rnc say with a straight face they don’t know anything? they claimed little or no knowledge of the event. is everybody going to be out of town this weekend of.
>> look, we know about it. michael steele’s done nothing but rave about glen beck for months. the rnc and the republican party’s brand has been so badly damaged by 20 years of failed policy, george bush, the reign of terror of by tom delay, they don’t want to get in the way of the tea party successful branding of itself. it’s really what this entire rally is all about. theis effort by glen beck to rebrand the conservative movement and wrap themselves in the flag and of course the honor of american soldiers. let’s remember — one thing that’s not talked about very often, the republican party’s approval ratings are half that of the democrats. we all know that the democrats are struggling right now.
>> time magazine has reported that beck’s charity, the special operations warrior operation required speakers at the event to sign an agreement to not talk politics. sarah palin is going to be speaking. how does that work? i you mean, if she doesn’t say only the words republican or democrat, does that qualify as nonpolitics?
>> maybe in glen beck’s book it will. i find it hard to believe one of the leading presidential hopefuls is not going to talk politics. you mentioned americans for prosperity, freedom works will be registering voters and teaching people how to do geotv. the national rifle association will be there. if by chance glen beck is true to his word, there’s no politics and it’s all just about this charity that helps take care of the children of veterans who have lost their lives, then min that’s glen beck turning over a leaf. that would be wonderful. i’m not going to hold my breath.
>> are we expecting him to see part the reflecting pool?
>> i think he thinks he may be parting the reflecting pool. he’s talked about chaneling the holy spirit. he’s built up expectations. it speaks to the fact so much of this is about glen beck really elevating himself and his delusions of grandeur about who he is. not only has he tried to co-opt martin luther king’s legacy but tried to present himself as a george washington and abraham lincoln for the modern day.
>> lastly, dick army using saul alinsky as a textbook. this would be funny if they hadn’t tried to turn saul alinsky into every evil known to man.
>> it’s really not funny. glen beck is dangerous and speaks to the fundamental dishonesty, not of this rally and its real intent but of what glen beck does every day. they vilify alinsky but use those tactics to train their operatives. he claims the legacy of martin luther king for himself. a middle-aged white man who’s a multimillionaire but trashes everything king ever believed in.
>> eric byrnes, if we don’t talk to you again before the rapture, thanks a lot. it’s been nice knowing.
>> i should tell you, we have identified the “he” beck hopes will be talking through him. we’ve turned him as the spies say. we will have him wired as he gives those skreecret messages. obviously we can’t reveal this until after the speech happens. we will bring it to you on monday. set the vcr right now.

Share/Save/Bookmark


link: to Home Page with sidebar