Tag Archives: democrats

MRC-TV: Bozell Discusses Helen Thomas on ‘Hannity,’ Recent Primaries on ‘Fox & Friends’

If you ask the media, George W. Bush is to blame for everything from the BP Gulf of Mexico oil spill to Al and Tipper Gore’s broken marriage. What’s more, the media are insisting, it’s Democrat Hillary Clinton who deserves praise for paving the way for Republican women having success on Tuesday’s primaries, not Sarah Palin. That’s just skimming the surface of the loopy stuff the liberal media have churned out recently and which NewsBusters publisher Brent Bozell was brought on last night’s “Hannity” to address. Also discussed on the June 10 “Media Mash” segment, the media’s sensitive treatment of disgraced columnist Helen Thomas, who abruptly “retired” following a controversy regarding her suggestion that Israelis should “get the hell out of Palestine” and go back to Germany and Poland [MP3 audio available here ; WMV video for download here ]: BRENT BOZELL: If I were Helen Thomas, I wonder, what is she more offended by, conservatives who call her a socialist and a radical, or her liberal friends who’ve all gone on national television to say she’s senile? And if it is true that she is that senile, what was she doing in the White House all these years? Here’s a woman who has spent decades with this anti-Semitic vicious vitriol that she spews out. And here they are all marching behind her.  SEAN HANNITY: You guys also picked this up years ago, because there were other things that she had said. BOZELL: And she’s the grande dame of journalism. This is a woman, I think it’s time for her to go fishing. This morning, the Media Research Center president also appeared on “Fox & Friends” to discuss the strangest story to come out of the primary season thus far: Alvin Greene, South Carolina Democrats’ nominee for Senate who’s facing criminal lewd conduct [MP3 audio of the segment here ; WMV video of the segment here ]: BRIAN KILMEADE: There was a problem with this Alvin Greene and some charges about him that are unsavory. Brent, can you imagine if this was a Republican? BOZELL: Well, if it were a Republican,  it would be on the news every single night. Now, this is going to be news just because there’s some head-scratching going on [about how Greene even won the Democratic nomination]. And I think what’s also been happening here, it shows the lack of resources that the media have today. You know, once upon a time, everybody had a thousand reporters out there in the field and they knew the stories that were happening. There really was an oversight on this, because people aren’t, there aren’t boots on the ground covering these stories. But they’re not seeing this tsunami that’s growing out there. And I’ll tell you something else —   KILMEADE: What do you mean by that? BOZELL: They’re not seeing this Tea Party explosion.  They’re not reading it correctly. They’re not understanding just how big it is and how independent it is.

View original post here:
MRC-TV: Bozell Discusses Helen Thomas on ‘Hannity,’ Recent Primaries on ‘Fox & Friends’

Conservative-Bashing Hypocrites at WaPo Publish Smerconish Attacking Cable News for ‘Polarized Politics’

A month ago, The Washington Post editorial page was dropping rhetorical bombs on conservative Republican Ken Cuccinelli for investigating ClimateGate. The headline at the top of the paper’s May 7 editorial page (now scrubbed online) was “Mr. Cuccinelli’s witch hunt: Virginia’s attorney general declares war on academic freedom and climate reality.” It began: WE KNEW Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli II (R) had declared war on reality. Now he has declared war on the freedom of academic inquiry as well. We hope that Gov. Robert F. McDonnell (R) and the University of Virginia have the spine to repudiate Mr. Cuccinelli’s abuse of the legal code. If they do not, the quality of Virginia’s universities will suffer for years to come. That’s an unsigned staff editorial, not some fulminating columnist with a byline. But these very same Washington Post editorial page staffers offered space on Friday to alleged conservative Michael Smerconish to trash cable news bookers at Fox News and CNN for wrecking America with “polarized politics.”   The producer asked whether CNN could identify me as a conservative. “Well, if someone who supports harsh interrogation, thinks we should be out of Iraq but in Pakistan, doesn’t care much if two guys hook up, and believes we should legalize pot and prostitution is conservative, fine,” I replied. More silence… Another time, a Fox News producer invited me to appear on a program to discuss then-candidate Barack Obama. I was told they were “looking for someone who would say he’s cocky and that his cockiness will hurt him, if not in the primary, definitely in the general election against McCain.” I declined. A few hours later, the same producer made a new pitch: “What about a debate off the top of the show on whether or not Hillary is trustworthy? We have someone who says she is and we’re looking for someone who says she isn’t.” The message of both episodes is clear: There is no room for nuance. Either you offer a consistent (possibly artificial) ideological view or you often don’t get a say…. All of which leaves more elected officials beholden to the fringe elements of their parties, which in turn means less gets done. It’s a self-fulfilling prophecy, and it is robbing our televisions and radios of the substantive dialogue the country desperately needs, while leaving our politics a petty and unproductive mess. Other than favoring the legalized pot and prostitutes, Smerconish is often a supporter of cringing moderation, so cringing and opportunistic that you switch parties when your polls look bad. Recall Smerconish in April helping NBC proclaim a devastated Republican Party when Arlen Specter swapped parties: “The Republican Party in the aftermath of the presidential race should have come to him and tried to clone him. They need more Arlen Specters.” It’s Specter right now who looks like he’s leaving politics as a petty and unproductive mess.

Originally posted here:
Conservative-Bashing Hypocrites at WaPo Publish Smerconish Attacking Cable News for ‘Polarized Politics’

George Stephanopoulos Touts Democratic Talking Points, Urges Pawlenty to Denounce Tea Party Candidate

Good Morning America’s George Stephanopoulos on Friday parroted Democratic talking points while interviewing Governor Tim Pawlenty about the tea party movement. The potential presidential candidate mentioned the victory of several GOP women on Tuesday and Stephanopoulos pounced: ” You didn’t mention Sharron Angle, who’s going to be the Senate candidate up against Harry Reid. ” After playing a clip of the Nevada Republican candidate saying there’s “no such thing” as too conservative, Stephanopoulos listed off several of Angle’s positions and derided, “Are you concerned that some of your new candidates, especially those who have been backed by the Tea Party, may make it harder to win those seats in November?” According to Stephanopoulos’ spin, Democrats are “licking their chops” at the opportunity to run against Angle. Stephanopoulos must have ignored a new Rasmussen poll showing the Republican up 11 over Reid. The journalist’s critique followed closely to talking points released by the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee on Tuesday: “[Angle] cares more about promoting a strict social doctrine than helping grow the state’s economy. Sharron Angle’s rigid social agenda may generate national headlines, but Nevadans cannot afford it.” Considering the host’s past as a Democratic operative, this shouldn’t be too surprising. Twice this week, Stephanopoulos highlighted rumors against another Republican, Nikki Haley of South Carolina. Pressing the gubernatorial candidate on allegations of infidelity, the ex-Clinton aide brazenly demanded, “Can you assure South Carolina voters that they’re not going to be embarrassed if they elect you?” A transcript of the June 11 segment, which aired at 7:35am EDT, follows: GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: It was a big political week with the continuing fallout from the oil spill for President Obama. And a fresh batch of potential Republican stars, mostly women, coming out of Tuesday night’s primary elections across the country, which makes it a perfect week to kick off our series of conversations with the men and women who have their eyes on the biggest political prize of all, the White House. GOP Governor Tim Pawlenty of Minnesota, of course, has not announced yet. But, he’s a rising star in the party. And he’s starting to put in his time in places like Iowa. We’re so glad to see you hear this morning. MINNESOTA GOVERNOR TIM PAWLENTY: Good morning, George. Thanks for having me. STEPHANOPOULOS: So, let’s start out talking about the oil spill. You’ve been pretty tough on President Obama, saying the rig explosion happened on his watch. But, do you really think he could have done anything to prevent it? PAWLENTY: Well, we know a number of things. First of all, we have to get all the facts. But, one fact that’s important, in April of 2009, under this administration’s watch, the relevant federal agencies approved categorical waivers for environmental review for this operation. You know, that’s a significant decision. STEPHANOPOULOS: That was following the practice of past administrations. PAWLENTY: Yeah, we should be fair and say the notion that all administrations had these kind of operations going and they had no plan for really responding to this kind of disaster is horribly disappointing. A significant failure of government, broadly. But, we also know during this administration’s watch, they had the final say up or down on this operation. STEPHANOPOULOS: And does it make you rethink your support for oil drilling? Do you support, for example, the pause until we’re sure all of the rigs are safe? PAWLENTY: I do support the pause. We also need to make sure- this is an industry that’s operated 40 or 50 years, mostly without incident. But, you can’t have these things pumping oil on the bottom of the ocean floor without a plan and capacity to respond to a crisis like that. It’s pretty clear, they had no plan for what happens if a blowout preventer fails. STEPHANOPOULOS: Who should pay for all of this now? The Chamber of Commerce has said that it shouldn’t be all BP’s responsibility, that the federal government should pick up part of the tab. Do you agree with that? PAWLENTY: No. I mean, on what theory would the for be responsible for BP’s failure? The facts are still coming in. But, there were news reports coming in that there was a test for the blowout preventer. And it was delayed at BPs request. Now, what was behind that? Were they concerned because there was a malady or failure in the system? Why didn’t that come to the surface of the discussion earlier? There’s going to be questions and hopefully answers along those lines. STEPHANOPOULOS: Let’s talk about election night, Tuesday. Who was the big winner? PAWLENTY: Women. This is going to be, I think, in part, the year of woman. That’s a great thing. Particularly for my party, our party. My party needs to have more faces and voices that aren’t just middle-aged men. And so, I really applaud and celebrate the success of our women candidates. Susana Martinez down in New Mexico is going to be a fantastic candidate. Of course, you have got Meg Whitman and Carly Fiorina and others in California. I think it’s going to be terrific and I think, of course, the pendulum, we believe, is swinging back the other wary. STEPHANOPOULOS: You didn’t mention Sharron Angle, who’s going to be the Senate candidate up against Harry Reid. And I want to show you something she said on election night. SHARRON ANGLE: They said that Reagan was too conservative to win. There’s no such thing. STEPHANOPOULOS: Now, you know Democrats are licking their chops. They look at Sharron Angle’s record. They say she wants to do away with Social Security, the Department of Education, the Environmental Protection Agency, the IRS, make alcohol illegal. And they say that sure is too conservative. Are you concerned that some of your new candidates, especially those who have been backed by the Tea Party, may make it harder to win those seats in November? PAWLENTY: Well, each state is different. Each race is different. I don’t think you want to make a broad generalization that somebody is too conservative. What works in Nevada may be different than what works in Vermont. As a general rule, the Republican Party is a conservative party. The values and traditions that we have- STEPHANOPOULOS: Doing away with Social Security? PAWLENTY: Well, I’m not familiar with all of her record. But, you know, doing away with Social Security is not something I think most Republicans would support. We want to reform it and fix it and try to move it in a market direction. But I think most Republicans would say Social Security needs to be reformed, not abolished. STEPHANOPOULOS: So, I know, if you want to, you can tell us you’re going to run for President, if you want to take the opportunity. PAWLENTY: I’m going to, George. President of my hockey association. STEPHANOPOULOS: I knew- very good pause. Okay. Give us a window in how you’re thinking about it. How you’re thinking about looking at the race. And what would tip your decision one way or another? PAWLENTY: Well, a number of things. I’m very concerned about the direction of the country. I think I have ideas and experience, based on my time in Minnesota, a blue state. Conservative governor, reducing spending, holding line on taxes, reforming schools and public pensions and many other things. So, first of all, there’s a concern. I want to contribute to it and improve the outlook for the country in 2010. As to 2012, the way I look at it, if I can add value to the debate and be the one that delivers the message, I’d at least be open to continuing to public life in some fashion. But, maybe not. So, part of it is, is the message needed? Am I the one who should help deliver it? Or can I help in other ways? STEPHANOPOULOS: When you were thinking of running for governor of Minnesota, your wife Mary grabbed you by the lapels and said, “We need you. Minnesota needs you. You’ve got to do it.” What is she saying now?” PAWLENTY: [Laughs] My wife Mary, who I hope is watching this morning is wonderful. I hope you have a chance to meet her sometime. She has got great advice. But, she is very supportive to me continuing to play a role in public service, but is open to what that may be. You know, mostly to run for president these days, you have to be famous, have a lot of money or have novelty. I don’t have anything of that. But I have some good ideas and some good experience.

More here:
George Stephanopoulos Touts Democratic Talking Points, Urges Pawlenty to Denounce Tea Party Candidate

ABC’s Terry Moran Frets that ‘Republican Reformist’ Schwarzenegger Is Being ‘Squeezed Out’ of GOP

Nightline’s Terry Moran on Wednesday profiled Arnold Schwarzenegger as a “Republican reformist” and never once referred to him as a liberal. Instead, the co-anchor tagged the California Governor as a “lonely figure” in the GOP. Moran sympathized, “When you look at the way the Republican Party is going, here in California and around the country, rise of the tea party, candidates like Rand Paul, do you think there’s still room in the Republican Party for someone like you?” He then prompted, ” Or are you being squeezed out? ” Of course, most Republicans in California and nationwide would say that Schwarzenegger’s embrace of liberalism indicates someone who left the party, rather than being “forced out.” Although Moran noted the Governor’s massive unpopularity (his approval rating hovers around 23 percent), he never really explained why. The host also noted the state’s $19 billion deficit, but not the excessive spending. Instead, Moran spun, ” He sounds pragmatic, though many of his reform efforts have failed .” Throughout his two terms, journalists have often favored Schwarzenegger as an example of the ideal Republican. On November 20, 2006, CNN’s Bill Schneider enthused, “In California, Schwarzenegger carried independent voters handily. He reclaimed the center. Schwarzenegger did two things President Bush has never done. He flatly acknowledged his mistakes, and he changed course.” A transcript of the June 9 segment, which aired at 11:45pm EDT, follows: TERRY MORAN: Arnold Schwarzenegger. He rose from big screen action hero to Republican reformist in charge of governing California. But this real-life script hasn’t exactly enjoyed a Hollywood happy ending. Now he’s staring down his final months in office, and he’s going to end his term on something of a down note. So, what has he learned about politics and what’s next? I spent the day with Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger. On primary night in California last night, the big political stars of the state took center stage. But the guy who once dominated California politics, who seemed poised a few years back to usher in a new era in the Golden State, like Ronald Reagan before him, he was out of the limelight, strangely muted. These are difficult days for Arnold Schwarzenegger, and for a guy who has lived his life in the limelight, from his championship body building days immortalized in the documentary Pumping Iron, to his Hollywood career, built on indomitable action roles like The Terminator and Conan the Barbarian. [Clips from Schwarzenegger’s movies.] SCHWARZENEGGER: You see capital gains taxes going up. MORAN: The real world of politics has not been easy for California’s Governor, and for all his relentless self-confidence, he knows it. You’ve become a very unpopular governor. SCHWARZENEGGER: You know something, it’s perfectly fine. I understand the mood. I don’t blame the people for being upset about what’s going on. MORAN: What’s going on in California is a colossal grinding fiscal and political crisis with no end in sight. A $19 billion deficit in the state’s budget. A political system in such deep partisan gridlock it makes Washington look almost functional. It’s all a recipe for deep voter disgust. And a lot of that anger is aimed right at Schwarzenegger, who has seen his approval rating collapse to 23 percent, with seven in ten saying they disapprove with the way he’s done his job. But he is determined to keep pushing. We caught up with Schwarzenegger last week aboard the USS Midway Museum in San Diego, where he was unveiling Operation Welcome Home. It’s an ambitious effort to help returning veterans in the state. SCHWARZENEGGER: We want them to move smoothly from the battlefront to the home front. MORAN: The goal? Streamline the sometimes confusing process of coming home. SCHWARZENEGGER: We are saying to the veterans, you don’t have to run around anymore. You don’t have to get the runaround. No, you just go to one place, you call and we will pay attention. MORAN: It’s the kind of program tailor made for Schwarzenegger right now. It’s got bipartisan support. It doesn’t cost much. It’s doable. Because the last thing Schwarzenegger wants to talk about, even think about now, is the end of his career as governor. And this is really a major initiative of what are your last months in office, yeah? SCHWARZENEGGER: Well, it doesn’t matter if it is my last months in office, which it’s not. It’s my last year in office. But you know, this is irrelevant. I mean we continue on until the last. We sprint to the finish line. MORAN: Schwarzenegger, though, is sprinting on his own, a lonely figure on the state’s political landscape, and in the national GOP. When you look at the way the Republican Party is going, here in California and around the country, rise of the tea party, candidates like Rand Paul, do you think there’s still room in the Republican Party for someone like you? Or are you being squeezed out? SCHWARZENEGGER: I don’t feel like I’m getting squeezed out. I feel like I need reforms. It’s not the Republican Party. It’s not the Democratic Party. It’s the system that is wrong. What we want to do is create a system where you get rewarded for compromise, rather than get punished for compromise and rewarded for getting stuck in the ideological corners. CAMPAIGN AD: After Arnold, don’t we deserve a Republican? MORAN: Schwarzenegger was hammered this primary season by Republicans running away from him and Democrats trashing him. But, Arnold Schwarzenegger is far from the only incumbent politician getting trashed these days. [Video of tea partiers.] As President Obama struggles with a stumbling economic recovery and an environmental disaster in the gulf, Arnold sounds like he’s got some sympathy for him. As a governor, how do you rate President Obama and his administration’s response to the oil spill in the gulf? SCHWARZENEGGER: Well, I mean, I think that he’s doing everything that he can. And everything that he’s doing to his knowledge. There is no one in the political arena that is an expert it in, so we all rely on experts to tell us, you know, what is the thing to do. MORAN: As the oil continues to gush into the waters of the gulf, Schwarzenegger is blunt about the blame. SCHWARZENEGGER: I think one should not lose sight of one thing. Why do we have this problem? The problem is because we failed as a country to force the oil companies to have a safety device, which, European countries have. What’s the safety feature? What device do you have? Nothing, because they lobbied and Congress voted against it. MORAN: There are people who say that because of the scale of this catastrophe, BP should, essentially, be put out of business. SCHWARZENEGGER: Well, you know, that’s all easier said than done. You can’t go just now and say this is the worst company, let’s put them out of business when the fact is that 95 percent of our, you know, energy comes from fossil fuels. I mean it’s, I think, crazy talk. MORAN: He sounds pragmatic, though many of his reform efforts have failed . But yesterday, primary day, a triumph. A Schwarzenegger-backed ballot measure that would do away with party-controlled primaries in favor of open primaries, passed handily. SCHWARZENEGGER: You will see extraordinary change in a direction that California will be going and the kind of decisions that will be made here. MORAN: And then there are programs like Operation Welcome home, something that can get done for returning soldiers like Lance Yonker. LANCE YONKER (RETURNING SOLDER): Plastic surgeon put this ear back on and put my head together with 70 staples. And, you know, I had to learn how to walk again and do all that, and, you know, I’ve seen the worst of it, and Operation Welcome Home and everything that’s going on here has really helped me. MORAN: So, as the race to succeed him revs up, Arnold Schwarzenegger is looking to make a mark where he can. And given the state’s deep and intractable problems, a question, did California terminate the governator? The old body building competitor just won’t have it. SCHWARZENEGGER: You never have the surrender kind of attitude. I remember Munich, trying to break a record, I couldn’t. It was 500 pounds on the bench press. And I tried it many times after that, but the 11th time, I did it. So, people fail in sports, people fail all the time in many other things. That doesn’t mean that you give up. It means that you continue on and you keep saying, “I’ll be back.” That is the important thing. MORAN: He’ll be back. And Schwarzenegger told me he won’t think about what he’ll do next until the day he leaves office.

See the original post here:
ABC’s Terry Moran Frets that ‘Republican Reformist’ Schwarzenegger Is Being ‘Squeezed Out’ of GOP

Did Politico Inadvertently Reveal Too Much Detail About Cynical Democrat Sales Pitch for Amnesty?

Illegal aliens. Eeek! I said the forbidden term. For the past few years the “preferable” but less accurate term to describe that group has been “illegal immigrants.” Even that modified term has been too harsh for advocates of amnesty who prefer the completely inaccurate term, “undocumented workers.” However, in order to cynically sell the public on amnesty, the Democrats are willing to temporarily swallow their pride and use “illegal immigrants” according to a Politico article written by Carrie Budoff Brown who reveals a lot more cynicism on the part of the Democrats than she probably intended: Long pilloried for being soft on illegal immigration, top Democratic officials have concluded there’s only one way they can hope to pass a comprehensive immigration bill: Talk more like Republicans. They’re seizing on the work of top Democratic Party operatives who, after a legislative defeat in 2007, launched a multiyear polling project to craft an enforcement-first, law-and-order, limited-compassion pitch that now defines the party’s approach to the issue. The 12 million people who unlawfully reside the country? Call them “illegal immigrants,” not “undocumented workers,” the pollsters say. I’m sure Ms Brown just wanted to demonstrate how “smart” the Democrats have become on the amnesty issue but in that attempt she has also revealed an incredible level of cynicism on their part. Here is more of Brown revealing how the Democrats are attempting to fool the public through the cynical use of nice sounding words: Strip out the empathy, too. Democrats used to offer immigrants “an earned path to citizenship” so hardworking people trying to support their families could “come out of the shadows.” To voters, that sounded like a gift, the operatives concluded.  Now, Democrats emphasize that it’s “unacceptable” to allow 12 million people to live in America illegally and that the government must “require” them to register and “get right with the law.” That means three things: “Obey our laws, learn our language and pay our taxes” — or face deportation.  Right about now I can almost hear Democrat officials hissing to each other about how Brown was way too upfront in revealing their attempt to sell the amnesty snake oil to the public. And now Brown names names: President Barack Obama uses the buzzwords. So does the congressional leadership. Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), author of the Democratic immigration plan, scolds advocates who refer to illegal immigrants as “undocumented workers.”  “Buzzwords.” Which means the folks who use them like Obama and Schumer are also amnesty snake oil salesmen. Thanks for that revelation, Carrie. However even these meaningless snake oil buzzwords are a bit too much for some of the liberals to swallow such as amnesty advocate Frank Sharry: Even then, the poll-tested words and phrases will only go so far if Democrats fail to exert discipline and unify behind the get-tough message. And at this point, not all immigration reform advocates have bought into the rhetorical hard line, which aims squarely at winning the political center. Even Sharry, who spearheaded the effort, declines the advice of pollsters to excise “undocumented workers” from his lexicon, saying it feels too much like it plays into conservative efforts to “dehumanize” immigrants. Of course, what article about the cynical manipulation of emotions via buzzwords would be complete without the input of the logic-denying Democrat advisor, Drew Westen ? “When [voters] hear ‘undocumented worker,’ they hear a liberal euphemism, it sounds to them like liberal code,” said Drew Westen, a political consultant who has helped Sharry hone the message through dial testing. “I am often joking with leaders of progressive organizations and members of Congress, ‘If the language appears fine to you, it is probably best not to use it. You are an activist, and by definition, you are out of the mainstream.’” Have you noticed how Democrats have begun mouthing words in support of border security before amnesty can be considered? All a poll driven act according to Brown’s revelation: …Podesta and Sharry assembled a roster of boldfaced Democratic pollsters — Stan Greenberg, Celinda Lake, Guy Molyneux — to figure out how the party would ever get away from one of the most devastating GOP lines of attack, that a comprehensive immigration plan amounted to “amnesty” for illegals. The results made Greenberg a convert. His surveys of swing districts in 2006 and 2007 concluded that Democrats took a political risk by discussing immigration. Greenberg thought frustration with immigrants would spawn an environment similar to the welfare backlash in the 1990s and that Democrats needed to get tough on border security before talking about citizenship.   But polling that Greenberg, Lake and Molyneux conducted in 2008 proved to Greenberg that Democrats could talk in a way that won over voters. It needed to sound tough and pragmatic, but not overly punitive, the pollsters said. The message beat the amnesty charge in their polling. Got that? The call for border security is just a poll driven act on the part of the Democrats?   More poll driven pretension: The most significant shift in language involves the path to citizenship. Pollsters determined that Democrats sounded as though they wanted to reward illegal immigrants , even though lawmakers almost always laid out that requirements and delays that would precede citizenship. “It comes back to this idea: We give permission; we set the terms; it’s under our control; and if you meet those conditions, you are us, welcome to America,” Westen said of the new frame . The “new frame” i.e. the “new act.”   So thank you, Carrie Budoff Brown, for revealing the incredible level of “fool the public” cynicism on the part of the Democrats on the issue of amnesty. It was probably unintentional on your part to reveal so much but thanks anyway.

Read more here:
Did Politico Inadvertently Reveal Too Much Detail About Cynical Democrat Sales Pitch for Amnesty?

The Christian Fascists Are Growing Stronger

Tens of millions of Americans, lumped into a diffuse and fractious movement known as the Christian right, have begun to dismantle the intellectual and scientific rigor of the Enlightenment. They are creating a theocratic state based on “biblical law,” and shutting out all those they define as the enemy. This movement, veering closer and closer to traditional fascism, seeks to force a recalcitrant world to submit before an imperial America. It champions the eradication of social deviants, beginning with homosexuals, and moving on to immigrants, secular humanists, feminists, Jews, Muslims and those they dismiss as “nominal Christians”—meaning Christians who do not embrace their perverted and heretical interpretation of the Bible. Those who defy the mass movement are condemned as posing a threat to the health and hygiene of the country and the family. All will be purged. The followers of deviant faiths, from Judaism to Islam, must be converted or repressed. The deviant media, the deviant public schools, the deviant entertainment industry, the deviant secular humanist government and judiciary and the deviant churches will be reformed or closed. There will be a relentless promotion of Christian “values,” already under way on Christian radio and television and in Christian schools, as information and facts are replaced with overt forms of indoctrination. The march toward this terrifying dystopia has begun. It is taking place on the streets of Arizona, on cable news channels, at tea party rallies, in the Texas public schools, among militia members and within a Republican Party that is being hijacked by this lunatic fringe. Elizabeth Dilling, who wrote “The Red Network” and was a Nazi sympathizer, is touted as required reading by trash-talk television hosts like Glenn Beck. Thomas Jefferson, who favored separation of church and state, is ignored in Christian schools and soon will be ignored in Texas public school textbooks. The Christian right hails the “significant contributions” of the Confederacy. Sen. Joseph McCarthy, who led the anti-communist witch hunts of the 1950s, has been rehabilitated, and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is defined as part of the worldwide battle against Islamic terror. Legislation like the new Jim Crow laws of Arizona is being considered by 17 other states. The rise of this Christian fascism, a rise we ignore at our peril, is being fueled by an ineffectual and bankrupt liberal class that has proved to be unable to roll back surging unemployment, protect us from speculators on Wall Street, or save our dispossessed working class from foreclosures, bankruptcies and misery. The liberal class has proved useless in combating the largest environmental disaster in our history, ending costly and futile imperial wars or stopping the corporate plundering of the nation. And the gutlessness of the liberal class has left it, and the values it represents, reviled and hated. The Democrats have refused to repeal the gross violations of international and domestic law codified by the Bush administration. This means that Christian fascists who achieve power will have the “legal” tools to spy on, arrest, deny habeas corpus to, and torture or assassinate American citizens—as does the Obama administration. Those who remain in a reality-based world often dismiss these malcontents as buffoons and simpletons. They do not take seriously those, like Beck, who pander to the primitive yearnings for vengeance, new glory and moral renewal. Critics of the movement continue to employ the tools of reason, research and fact to challenge the absurdities propagated by creationists who think they will float naked into the heavens when Jesus returns to Earth. The magical thinking, the flagrant distortion in interpreting the Bible, the contradictions that abound within the movement’s belief system and the laughable pseudoscience, however, are impervious to reason. We cannot convince those in the movement to wake up. It is we who are asleep. Those who embrace this movement see life as an epic battle against forces of evil and Satanism. The world is black and white. They need to feel, even if they are not, that they are victims surrounded by dark and sinister groups bent on their destruction. They need to believe they know the will of God and can fulfill it, especially through violence. They need to sanctify their rage, a rage that lies at the core of the ideology. They seek total cultural and political domination. They are using the space within the open society to destroy it. These movements work within the confining rules of the secular state because they have no choice. The intolerance they promote is muted in the public assurances of their slickest operators. Given enough power, and they are working hard to get it, any such cooperation will vanish. The demand for total control and for a Christian nation and the refusal to permit any dissent are on display within their inner sanctums. These pastors have established within their churches tiny, despotic fiefdoms, and they seek to replicate these little tyrannies on a larger scale. Many of the tens of millions within the Christian right live on the edge of poverty. The Bible, interpreted for them by pastors whose connection with God means they cannot be questioned, is their handbook for daily life. The rigidity and simplicity of their belief are potent weapons in the fight against their own demons and the struggle to keep their lives on track. The reality-based world, one where Satan, miracles, destiny, angels and magic did not exist, battered them like driftwood. It took their jobs and destroyed their future. It rotted their communities. It flooded their lives with alcohol, drugs, physical violence, deprivation and despair. And then they discovered that God has a plan for them. God will save them. God intervenes in their lives to promote and protect them. The emotional distance they have traveled from the real world to the world of Christian fantasy is immense. And the rational, secular forces, those that speak in the language of fact and evidence, are hated and ultimately feared, for they seek to pull believers back into “the culture of death” that nearly destroyed them. There are wild contradictions within this belief system. Personal independence is celebrated alongside an abject subservience to leaders who claim to speak for God. The movement says it defends the sanctity of life and advocates the death penalty, militarism, war and righteous genocide. It speaks of love and promotes fear of damnation and hate. There is a terrifying cognitive dissonance in every word they utter. The movement is, for many, an emotional life raft. It is all that holds them together. But the ideology, while it regiments and orders lives, is merciless. Those who deviate from the ideology, including “backsliders” who leave these church organizations, are branded as heretics and subjected to little inquisitions, which are the natural outgrowth of messianic movements. If the Christian right seizes the legislative, executive and judicial branches of government, these little inquisitions will become big inquisitions. by Chris Hedges more on link http://www.commondreams.org/view/2010/06/07-4 added by: Stoneyroad

Howard Stern swears off "’F’ing Democrats" Forever!

Says Democrats are all “Communists” On his Sirius/XM radio show on Thursday, Howard Stern had some very harsh words for the Federal Communications Commission. From EyeBlast : “I got so crazy over this yesterday, so I called my agent. And my agent, he’s very liberal Democrat kind of guy. I go that’s it! You know what Don. I’ve voted Republican and I’ve voted Democrat. I have vowed I will never vote for a Democrat again. I don’t give a fuck. No matter who they are… The facts are these Democrats at the FCC are Communists… they’re for communism.” At issue is the FCC’s plan to allow some Wireless providers to interfere with satellite radio broadcasts. From SatWaves : Stern discussed the issue live on his show yesterday, quoting and reading directly from an article I wrote several days ago, titled “Will The FCC Interfere With Sirius XM Yet Again?.” With a tone of disgust that should be expected of anyone now familiar with the decade long issue, Stern rightly noted that the FCC seems to go after him no matter where he is, through whatever means possible… Of note, Stern ran briefly in 1994 for the nomination of the Libertarian Party for Governor of New York.

Excerpt from:
Howard Stern swears off "’F’ing Democrats" Forever!

America’s Response to the Cataclysmic Gulf Oil Catastrophe Is Pathetic — Where’s the Outrage? | | AlterNet

Shame on us. A calamity is unfolding before our eyes – the greatest oil spill in history – and America's response is little more than a big yawn. Bob Herbert writes: The vast, sprawling coastal marshes of Louisiana, where the Mississippi River drains into the gulf, are among the finest natural resources to be found anywhere in the world. And they are a positively crucial resource for America. The response of the Obama administration and the general public to this latest outrage at the hands of a giant, politically connected corporation has been embarrassingly tepid. … This is the bitter reality of the American present, a period in which big business has cemented an unholy alliance with big government against the interests of ordinary Americans, who, of course, are the great majority of Americans. The great majority of Americans no longer matter. America is selling its soul for oil. Where is the outrage? Where are the millions marching in the streets, where is the round-the-clock roadblock coverage tracking every moment of the crisis, every effort to plug the leak, every desperate attempt to mitigate the damage? Where is the White House? Where are Republicans? Where are Democrats? Where is the left? Where is the right? Where is the “fierce urgency of now?” Prominent oceanographers [are] accusing the government of failing to conduct an adequate scientific analysis of the damage and of allowing BP to obscure the spill's true scope. The scientists assert that the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and other agencies have been slow to investigate the magnitude of the spill and the damage it is causing in the deep ocean. In the movies, pretend heroes like Bruce Willis and Will Smith save the planet while the whole world watches with breath and belief suspended. In real life, a global catastrophe is treated like a mere annoyance, mismanaged by a rapacious oil company, while drill-baby-drillers double down on their folly and the White House puts out defensive fact sheets about how they were on it from “day one.” Is this really the best we can do? America is capable of greatness — but our reaction to this unprecedented event is anything but great. In some parts of the country, the sight of oil drifting toward the Louisiana coast, oozing into the fragile marshlands and bringing large parts of the state's economy to a halt, has prompted calls to stop offshore drilling indefinitely, if not altogether. Here, in the middle of things, those calls are few. Here, in fact, the unfolding disaster is not even prompting a reconsideration of the 75th annual Louisiana Shrimp and Petroleum Festival. “All systems are go,” said Lee Delaune, the festival's director, sitting in his cluttered office in a historic house known as Cypress Manor. “We will honor the two industries as we always do,” Mr. Delaune said. “More so probably in grand style, because it's our diamond jubilee.” Granted, some scientists are telling us the truth, some reporters are digging up unpleasant facts, some citizens are rising in anger, some federal agencies are doing what they are tasked to do. People are working to fix this. But by and large, America's collective response to this crisis is disproportionately anemic. More at the link: added by: Monkey_Films

Rep. Alan Grayson Introduces the "War Is Making You Poor" Act | | AlterNet

The bill would cut the DoD's budget and use that money to make the first $35,000 each American earns tax-free. May 23, 2010 | Last week, as Congress prepared to pass yet another “emergency” spending bill to cover America’s costly operations in Iraq and Afghanistan — to the tune of $159 billion this time around — Rep. Alan Grayson, D-Florida, introduced a bill that would force the Pentagon to pick up the tab out of its ample regular budget. The War Is Making You Poor Act is elegant in its simplicity. Instead of financing these longstanding conflicts outside of the regular budgeting process, where they’re not factored into deficit projections, Grayson’s bill would make the DoD work within its means, and the money would instead be used for an across-the-board tax cut that would make the first $35,000 each American earns tax-free. “The purpose of this bill,” wrote Grayson last week, “is to connect the dots, and to show people in a real and concrete way the cost of these endless wars.” It’s not just the costs of active shooting wars; with hundreds of bases overseas, as far as the defense budget is concerned Americans have been on a permanent wartime footing, to varying degrees, since Pearl Harbor was attacked in 1941. “War is a permanent feature of our societal landscape,” wrote Grayson, “so much so that no one notices it anymore.” The bill already has several co-sponsors, including at least two Republicans (albeit maverick GOPers Ron Paul of Texas and Walter Jones of South Carolina). But since the Pentagon would have to take money out of its regular budget — largely from the budget for newfangled hardware — the DoD and influential defense contractors will no doubt fight it tooth-and-nail. But the War Is Making You Poor Act might have a major impact on our national dialogue regardless. It highlights in a visceral way what Americans lose by privileging money for guns over butter. “The costs of the war have been rendered invisible,” wrote Grayson. “There's no draft. Instead, we take the most vulnerable elements of our population, and give them a choice between unemployment and missile fodder. Government deficits conceal the need to pay in cash for the war.” Grayson’s measure might just shine a bright light on those “opportunity costs.” Budgeting is all about priorities, and the bill can raise public awareness of that fact. The Right has done a remarkable job convincing the American public that tax dollars used for programs that help the middle class or the poor are dollars “taken out of your pocket,” but no such consideration is given to the trillions spent on financing our military operations. That was apparent during the recent debate over the Affordable Care Act, when Republicans, Blue Dog Democrats and most of the media focused relentlessly on the costs of the bill, and its likely impact on future deficits. No such discussion took place when the invasion of Iraq was being debated. Grayson’s bill makes the same appeal to self-interest the conservatives have used to often devastating effect to oppose everything from Medicare to public education. It says: “We can pay for these wars, or we can make them take it out of the defense contractors’ hides and get our first $35K tax-free.” added by: Monkey_Films

The Most Loathed Candidates Running in Today’s Primary Elections [Polidicks]

It’s election day! And as we all know, elections are about voting out politicians who we hate—especially this year, when a bunch of “establishment” candidates could lose. Let us help you figure out who you should hate today. More