Conservatives Revive Modern Witch Trials To Persecute ACORN

Andrew Breitbart Trying To Blackmail The Obama Administration With ACORN And Other Videos

In the latest video (really two videos of one encounter), Los Angeles ACORN employee Lavelle Stewart is shown talking to the undercover filmmakers, “abused prostitute” Hannah Giles and her “boyfriend” James O’Keef,e in a setting that is obviously not ACORN but in a hallway outside of an office called, “Program for Torture Victims” where Stewart thought Giles would be better served than at ACORN. There is a point where Stewart offers to help the pair, though I could not tell from the edited video what, exactly, she was going to help them do. But Stewart also made it clear she was acting on her own, not on behalf of ACORN. As the Los Angeles Times reported, Los Angeles ACORN has refuted the video, saying, “The tapes are clearly doctored and highly edited and it is our hope this will be responsibly reported on should this become a news story… It is hard to respond to this tape. It is so heavily edited that it may be constructed to conceal the reality of the interaction… We are going to reserve judgment on the actions of the former employee (Stewart no longer works for ACORN) on this tape until we see the full, unedited version of this interaction.”

The only thing missing is the stakes and stacks of straw where ACORN and its employees are burned after their trial by edited mash up tapes and trial by media insinuation. Our foundinf fathers would be so proud.

A genuinely smart man that had some rgeard for his country and his own honor would on occasion manage to get one fact straight. Not so for the far Right's conservative golden boy Glenn Beck, Beck advanced dubious claim that "[n]owhere in the Constitution can you find" authority for health reform legislation

The Truth Reviled - Hannah Giles, James O’Keefe, BigGovernment.com and Andrew Breitbart all partners in framing ACORN

Right wingers Condemn Attorney General Holder, Two Reasonable Conservatives Defend Him

Holder's reasonable decision

Mohammed is many things: an enemy combatant in a war against the United States whom the government can detain without trial until the conflict ends; a war criminal subject to trial by military commission under the laws of war; and someone answerable in federal court for violations of the U.S. criminal code. Which system he is placed in for purposes of incapacitation and justice involves complex legal and political trade-offs.

A trial in Manhattan will bring enormous media attention and require unprecedented security. But it is unlikely to make New York a bigger target than it has been since February 1993, when Mohammed's nephew Ramzi Yousef attacked the World Trade Center. If al-Qaeda could carry out another attack in New York, it would -- a fact true a week ago and for a long time. Its inability to do so is a testament to our military, intelligence and law enforcement responses since the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.

In deciding to use federal court, the attorney general probably considered the record of the military commission system that was established in November 2001. This system secured three convictions in eight years. The only person who had a full commission trial, Osama bin Laden's driver, received five additional months in prison, resulting in a sentence that was shorter than he probably would have received from a federal judge.

One reason commissions have not worked well is that changes in constitutional, international and military laws since they were last used, during World War II, have produced great uncertainty about the commissions' validity. This uncertainty has led to many legal challenges that will continue indefinitely -- hardly an ideal situation for the trial of the century.

By contrast, there is no question about the legitimacy of U.S. federal courts to incapacitate terrorists. Many of Holder's critics appear to have forgotten that the Bush administration used civilian courts to put away dozens of terrorists, including "shoe bomber" Richard Reid; al-Qaeda agent Jose Padilla; "American Taliban" John Walker Lindh; the Lackawanna Six; and Zacarias Moussaoui, who was prosecuted for the same conspiracy for which Mohammed is likely to be charged. Many of these terrorists are locked in a supermax prison in Colorado, never to be seen again.

In terrorist trials over the past 15 years, federal prosecutors and judges have gained extensive experience protecting intelligence sources and methods, limiting a defendant's ability to raise irrelevant issues and tightly controlling the courtroom. Moussaoui's trial was challenging because his request for access to terrorists held at "black" sites had to be litigated. Difficulties also arose because Moussaoui acted as his own lawyer, and the judge labored to control him. But it is difficult to imagine a military commission of rudimentary fairness that would not allow a defendant a similar right to represent himself and speak out in court.

In either trial forum, defendants will make an issue of how they were treated and attempt to undermine the trial politically. These efforts are likely to have more traction in a military than a civilian court. No matter how scrupulously fair the commissions are, defendants will criticize their relatively loose rules of evidence, their absence of a civilian jury and their restrictions on the ability to examine classified evidence used against them. Some say it is wrong to give Mohammed trial rights ordinarily conferred on Americans, but a benefit of civilian trials over commissions is that they make it harder for defendants to complain about kangaroo courts or victor's justice.

*Authors: Jim Comey, a deputy attorney general and U.S. attorney in Manhattan during the Bush administration, is general counsel of Lockheed Martin Corp. Jack Goldsmith, an assistant attorney general during the Bush administration, teaches at Harvard Law School and is on the Hoover Institution's Task Force on National Security and Law

If Sarah Palin Was Pinokio She Would Need a Truck to Haul Her Nose

The Odd Lies Of Sarah Palin: A Summary Before The Next Round
On the eve of Palin's latest version of reality, the Dish offers a recap of all the demonstrable lies she has told in the public record. We reprint the list as a public service and invite readers to run the new "book" through exactly the same empirical wringer, so we can compile an up-to-date and comprehensive list of the fantasies, delusions, lies and non-facts that Palin is so pathologically and unalterably attached to. Remember: we are not including contested stories that we cannot prove definitively one way or another or the usual spin that politicians use, or even hypocrisy or shading of facts. We are merely including things she has said or written that can be definitively proven as untrue, by incontestable evidence in the public record.

After you have read these, ask yourself: what wouldn't Sarah Palin lie about if she felt she had to?

Palin lied when she said the dismissal of her public safety commissioner, Walt Monegan, had nothing to do with his refusal to fire state trooper Mike Wooten; in fact, the Branchflower Report concluded that she repeatedly abused her power when dealing with both men.

Palin lied when she repeatedly claimed to have said, "Thanks, but no thanks" to the Bridge to Nowhere; in fact, she openly campaigned for the federal project when running for governor.

Palin lied when she denied that Wasilla's police chief and librarian had been fired; in fact, both were given letters of termination the previous day.

Palin lied when she wrote in the NYT that a comprehensive review by Alaska wildlife officials showed that polar bears were not endangered; in fact, email correspondence between those scientists showed the opposite.

Palin lied when she claimed in her convention speech that an oil gas pipeline "began" under her guidance; in fact, the pipeline was years from breaking ground, if at all.

Palin lied when she told Charlie Gibson that she does not pass judgment on gay people; in fact, she opposes all rights between gay spouses and belongs to a church that promotes conversion therapy.

Palin lied when she denied having said that humans do not contribute to climate change; in fact, she had previously proclaimed that human activity was not to blame.

Palin lied when she claimed that Alaska produces 20 percent of the country's domestic energy supply; in fact, the actual figures, based on any interpretation of her words, are much, much lower.

Palin lied when she told voters she improvised her convention speech when her teleprompter stopped working properly; in fact, all reports showed that the machine had functioned perfectly and that her speech had closely followed the script.

Palin lied when she recalled asking her daughters to vote on whether she should accept the VP offer; in fact, her story contradicts details given by her husband, the McCain campaign, and even Palin herself. (She later added another version.)

Palin lied when she claimed to have taken a voluntary pay cut as mayor; in fact, as councilmember she had voted against a raise for the mayor, but subsequent raises had taken effect by the time she was mayor.

Palin lied when she insisted that Wooten's divorce proceedings had caused his confidential records to become public; in fact, court officials confirmed they released no such records.

Palin lied when she suggested to Katie Couric that she was involved in trade missions with Russia; in fact, she has never even met with Russian officials.

...........many more at the link.

Today's Reasons Why Conservatives Have Their Panties in a Wad

Why does Sarah Palin hate the United States of America judicial system, Palin Calls Decision To Try 9/11 Defendants In Federal Court ‘Atrocious,’ Wants To ‘Hang ‘Em High’

But the U.S. justice system apparently isn’t good enough for former Alaska governor Sarah Palin (who believes that the White House has a “Department of Law“). Last night she went on Facebook and posted a message calling the Obama administration’s decision “atrocious”

If Sarah would watch fewer soap operas and read more newspapers she might learn that the United States has prosecuted 145 terrorism cases in federal court. Most, if not all of whom will die in prison.

What else is bothering the fascist-lite crowd. What is not included in a movie, 2012 Offends Catholics, Dimwits, Ex-Cons

The huge new disaster movie 2012 opens this Friday. Everyone but HuffPost blogger John Cusack drowns, but not before a statue of Jesus crumbles, a crack opens in the Sistine Chapel roof -- right between the fingers of God and Adam -- and St. Peter's Basilica falls over on a lot of Italians. These images have offended the usual people in the I'm Offended Industry, but not for the reason you'd think.

The offense takers are offended because 2012 forgot to offend any Muslims.

They also did not destroy any ant hills, thus ants are offended. Conservatives could take some of their cash and make their own movies, but oops, they seem to spend it all on lobbyists to stop ordinary working Americans from getting health insurance.

Conservatives have a terrible case of tunnel vision the poor things. They imagine President Obama violating diplomatic protocols. The same violations which seemed to be OK when his holiness King George Bush did much worse - with pictures - Almost Everything You Need to Know About Conservatives and Bowing

The Mental and Ethical Break Down of Lou Dobbs

The Mental and Ethical Break Down of Lou Dobbs

Thanks to the crusade mounted against him by Media Matters for America, Presente.org and a host of other progressive and ethnic organizations, Dobbs is known most widely these days for his inflammatory attacks on illegal immigrants. Stoking nativist paranoia, he has blamed undocumented workers for problems both real and imaginary, from lost jobs and violent crime to increasing leprosy and conspiracies against U.S. sovereignty. On more than one occasion, he has encouraged far-right suspicions about Barack Obama's citizenship, allowing the "Birthers" to spout their theories on a network that had already discredited them (even on his own program). As those incidents were documented repeatedly and amplified by his critics, the tension between Dobbs and CNN executives inevitably rose toward a breaking point.

But in Lou's own mind, at least, there is more to the Dobbs brand than stoking white fears and resentments. Unlike Patrick Buchanan, a populist who more or less admits that he is a racist and Nazi sympathizer, Dobbs resents accusations of prejudice (and happens to be married to a Mexican-American woman -- with whom he lives on a 300-acre horse farm in New Jersey).

So, what really happened to Lou Dobbs?

Since CNN's Lou Dobbs first began spreading false, racially charged conspiracy theories about President Obama's birth certificate in July of this year, Media Matters for America has published 299 research items, video/audio clips, column, and blog posts about his misinformation and hate speech. Below are some of the most significant examples of work Media Matters has done -- this year and in the past -- to combat Dobbs' pernicious influence on the national dialogue.

The Drop Dobbs campaign and other efforts. Media Matters played a leading role in the Drop Dobbs Coalition (DropDobbs.com), which was launched to call attention to Dobbs' incendiary hate speech and falsehoods.

RNC Attacks Women's Rights to Full Health Coverage, The Kind the RNC Has

RNC employee health insurance plan covers abortion.

Last week, 176 House Republicans joined with 64 Democrats in voting for the so-called Stupak amendment, which could “could effectively stop many employer-provided health insurance plans from covering abortions for tens of millions of Americans” and restrict any private plan in the insurance exchange from offering abortion coverage. However, Politico reports today that the RNC’s own employee health care plan covers elective abortion — “a procedure the party’s own platform calls ‘a fundamental assault on innocent human life’”:

Federal Election Commission Records show the RNC purchases its insurance from Cigna. Two sales agents for the company said that the RNC’s policy covers elective abortion.

Informed of the coverage, RNC spokeswoman Gail Gitcho told POLITICO that the policy pre-dates the tenure of current RNC Chairman Michael Steele.

“The current policy has been in effect since 1991, and we are taking steps to address the issue,” Gitcho said. [...]

According to several Cigna employees, the insurer offers its customers the opportunity to opt out of abortion coverage — and the RNC did not choose to opt out.

Recently it was also revealed that the health insurance plan used by the right-wing, anti-choice organization Focus on the Family also covered “abortion services.”


Bush, probably a semi-sociopath in regards his ability to feel sympathy for the pain and suffering of others shows an outward display of sympathy after leaving office and other conservatives fall all over themselves talking about what a sensitive guy he is, Bush Feigns Sorrow at Ft Hood, Conservatives Swoon

The NYT and David Brooks Illustrate MSM's Self Delusions

Denying Responsibility for the Wars One Cheers On - The NYT columnist who has supported 4 wars on Muslims in 6 years decries the Islamic disregard for human life.

David Brooks' column today perfectly illustrates what lies at the core of our political discourse: namely, self-loving tribalistic blindness laced with a pathological refusal to accept responsibility for one's actions. Brooks claims there is a unique evil that one finds in the "fringes of the Muslim world":

Most people select stories that lead toward cooperation and goodness. But over the past few decades a malevolent narrative has emerged.

That narrative has emerged on the fringes of the Muslim world. It is a narrative that sees human history as a war between Islam on the one side and Christianity and Judaism on the other. This narrative causes its adherents to shrink their circle of concern. They don't see others as fully human. They come to believe others can be blamelessly murdered and that, in fact, it is admirable to do so.

This narrative is embraced by a small minority. But it has caused incredible amounts of suffering within the Muslim world, in Israel, in the U.S. and elsewhere. With their suicide bombings and terrorist acts, adherents to this narrative have made themselves central to global politics. They are the ones who go into crowded rooms, shout "Allahu akbar," or "God is great," and then start murdering.

But Brooks himself was a vehement, vicious advocate for the attack on Iraq, which caused this:

The 2003 US-led invasion of Iraq has resulted in the deaths of many Iraqi civilians . . . Many international organizations, governments and non-governmental organizations have counted excess civilian casualties using such methods; however all have reported different numbers. Reports range from 128,000 to 1,033,000.

That's at least 128,000 innocent human beings -- at least -- whose lives were eradicated by the war Brooks repeatedly cheered on. It also resulted in this: "More than 4 million Iraqis have now been displaced by violence in the country." But Brooks accuses Islamic fanatics -- but not himself -- of "causing incredible amounts of suffering."

Brooks also justified the Israeli attack on Gaza, including its worst excesses -- a war that wiped out the lives of 1,400 Palestinians (including 252 children under the age of 16) and that entailed "the shooting of [Gazan] civilians with white flags, the firing of white phosphorus shells and charges that Israeli soldiers used Palestinian men as human shields," all of which, according to a U.N. investigation, were "the result of deliberate guidance issued to soldiers." He also cheered on the Israeli bombing campaign of Lebanon and derided those calling for a cease-fire, even as the war wiped out more than 1,000 Lebanese people, at least 300 of whom were women and children, during which "Israeli warplanes also targeted many moving vehicles that turned out to be carrying only civilians trying to flee the conflict." And Brooks is now demanding escalation of the war in yet another Muslim country, this one in Afghanistan -- making it the fourth separate war on Muslims he's cheered on in the last six years alone.

So here's a person who is constantly advocating and justifying the killing, bombing, and slaughtering of Muslims, including well over 100,000 innocent civilians. And yet today he writes a column saying: Look over there at those radical Muslims; can you believe how degraded and inhumane they are? In fact, he says, "they" -- those Muslims over there -- "don't see others as fully human. They come to believe others can be blamelessly murdered and that, in fact, it is admirable to do so." That's from the same person who cheerleads for the endless deaths of Muslims and destruction of the Muslim world while thinking that it makes him strong, resolute, Churchillian, righteous and noble -- exactly that which he accuses "fringe Muslims" of doing. And even as he blames the U.S. for "absolving" radical Muslims for the "evil" of their choices, Brooks will never make the connection between what he does and its results because he believes he is free from accountability and that his righteousness justifies the killings he desires -- again, exactly that which he says today is the hallmark of Islamic monsters ("They come to believe others can be blamelessly murdered and that, in fact, it is admirable to do so").

The tribalistic narcissism and depraved refusal to accept responsibility for the consequences of one's actions on vivid display here is hardly unique to Brooks. The very same people who express such moral outrage and self-righteous horror over events like the Fort Hood shootings themselves have immense amounts of innocent human blood on their hands, but they simply avert their eyes from what they have caused or believe that they are too inherently Good to be responsible, let alone culpable, for what they unleash.

A Couple Different Perspectives on Ft. Hood

10 Suicides a Month at Ft. Hood -- War Stress Is Taking Soldiers to the Brink

Responding to the allegations in the media that the attack was based on his Muslim faith, Kern told IPS that he did not know of anyone on the base who felt this was the case.

"We all wear the same uniform here, it's all green. I've seen the news, but most folks here assume it's just a soldier that snapped," Kern explained. "I have not talked to anyone who thinks what he did has anything to do with him being a Muslim. There are thousands of Muslims serving with dignity in the US military, in all four branches."

Fort Hood, located in central Texas, is one of the largest US military bases in the world. It contains up to 50,000 soldiers, and is one of the most heavily deployed to both occupations.

Tragically, Fort Hood has also born much of the brunt from its heavy involvement in the occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan. Fort Hood soldiers have accounted for more suicides than any other army post since the US invasion of Iraq in 2003. This year alone, the base is averaging over 10 suicides each month - at least 75 have been recorded through July of this year alone.

In a strikingly similar incident on May 11, 2009, a US soldier gunned down five fellow soldiers at a stress-counseling center at a US base in Baghdad.

Admiral Mike Mullen, the chairman of the US military's Joint Chiefs of Staff, told reporters at a news conference at the Pentagon at the time that the shootings had occurred in a place where "individuals were seeking help".

Mullen added, "It does speak to me, though, about the need for us to redouble our efforts, the concern in terms of dealing with the stress ... It also speaks to the issue of multiple deployments."

Commenting on the incident in nearly parallel terms, US Secretary of Defense Robert Gates said that the Pentagon needs to redouble its efforts to relieve stress caused by repeated deployments in war zones that is further exacerbated by limited time at home in between deployments.

The condition described by Mullen and Gates is what veteran health experts often refer to as post-traumatic stress disorder, or PTSD.

While soldiers returning home are routinely involved in shootings, suicide and other forms of self-destructive violent behaviors as a direct result of their experiences in Iraq, we have yet to see an event of this magnitude on a base in the US.

To many, the shocking story of a soldier killing five of his comrades did not come as a surprise considering that the military has, for years now, been sending troops with untreated PTSD back into the US occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan.

Military retains religious zealot, boots gays

President Obama correctly stated that people should not "rush to judgment" regarding the motivation of Nidal Hassan -- the individual who killed 13 people at the Fort Hood military base. Unfortunately, the public often races to assign a collective narrative to extremely violent events. Typically, the earliest narratives rest on gross stereotypes and, consequently, miss the mark. For example, many commentators assumed that Arab terrorists bombed the Oklahoma federal building, until they learned that Timothy McVeigh -- a disgruntled, white, former member of the military -- committed the heinous crime.

Recent acts of mass violence have pitted liberals and conservatives against one another. Both sides have argued that the killers' ideologically laced statements prove the bankruptcy of the others' political views. Neither side, however, seems to understand or appreciate the deep psychosis that causes acts of mass violence.

While mass murderers often embrace extreme political or religious views, mental illness makes them susceptible to extremism in the first place.

Tea Baggers Go Too Far with Holoacaust Comparisons

Jewish Organizations Condemn GOP For Standing By As Tea Party Protesters Waved ‘Vile’ Anti-Semitic Signs

The National Jewish Democratic Council also criticized the “vile invocations of Nazi and Holocaust rhetoric” and called out GOP leaders who stood in plain view of the signs but ignored them. The Simon Wiesenthal Center demanded that the rally organizers “publicly repudiate the use of Nazi and Holocaust imagery.” Rep. Steve Israel (D-NY) made similar comments in a video he posted on YouTube, singling out the rally’s organizer, Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN):

I can’t believe that Congresswoman Bachmann would stand where she stood, and see those images, and not have the common decency to say, “I disagree with the use of those images.” I think that she owes the memory of those who perished in the Holocaust an apology. She owes us all an apology. And I’m waiting. We’re all waiting.

WorldNutDaily falsely claimed alleged Fort Hood shooter "advised Obama transition"

Fort Hood Looking Beyond the Stereotypes

Scholars contribute to the year of Darwin with publications in BioScience

To celebrate the 150th anniversary this month of the publication of On the Origin of Species, the American Institute of Biological Sciences (AIBS) is publishing open access two peer-reviewed articles about Charles Darwin and his historic insights into evolution.

Fort Hood Looking Beyond the Stereotypes

After an American soldier's tragic outburst of violence at Fort Hood, Texas -- the army's largest US post, with some 40,000 troops -- dominates the headlines, a fear-mongering hysteria concerning his supposed religious motivations is taking priority over questions regarding his mental health.

Although the facts, and clues about motive, are still being uncovered, we know that the alleged shooter, 39-year-old Major Nidal Malik Hasan, is an American-born medical doctor and licensed psychiatrist, who also happens to be a Muslim born to Palestinian immigrant parents.

When Hasan's Arabic name was revealed as the alleged shooter, the blogosphere and message boards lit up with the predictable assortment of anonymous bigoted bile vilifying Islam and questioning the loyalty of American Muslims.

Thankfully, most mainstream voices, such as Republican Senator John Cornyn of Texas, urged caution and moderation, stating: "It is imperative that we take the time to gather all the facts, as it would be irresponsible to be the source of rumors or inaccurate information regarding such a horrific event."

But some, such as Republican US Representative Michael McCaul of Austin, Texas, alarmingly responded with inflammatory histrionics: "Whether it was domestic or foreign, clearly when a US military base is attacked in this fashion, that is an act of terror in my book."

If it is discovered that this lethal rampage was motivated by an inexcusable and misplaced sense of religiosity, it would provide ammunition to those extreme right wing, minority voices in America who are convinced their Muslim neighbors are stealth jihadists ready to commit suicide bombings at a moment's notice. These proponents of modern day McCarthyism find their allies in members of the "Birther movement," who remain convinced President Obama is not an American citizen. Their esteemed colleagues include those who pontificate about Obama being a closet Muslim and an agent of socialism.

Reports of an image taken hours before the killings showing Hasan in a prayer cap seem to insinuate that a common article of clothing worn by many Muslims before they are about to pray somehow conclusively proves an religious intent behind the violence. A blog note attributed (though this is unconfirmed) to Hasan -- comparing terrorist suicide bombings to suicidal acts during war to protect fellow soldiers and inflict damage upon the enemy, such as Japanese kamikaze missions -- is being pointed to on the net as his potential justification for the alleged shootings.

It should comfort most Americans that mainstream Muslim American organizations, which often espouse a sense of victimhood and unnecessary rationalizations, unequivocally denounced Hasan's alleged actions as "heinous" and incompatible with Islam. The Council of American Islamic Relations issued a statement saying: "No political or religious ideology could ever justify or excuse such wanton and indiscriminate violence."

Ultimately, this use -- or misuse -- of fear and rumors over Hasan's Islamic faith should be moot in light of the record of the thousands of Muslim American soldiers who have served and made sacrifice -- such as Kareem Rashad Sultan Khan, awarded the prestigious Purple Heart and Bronze Star and praised by Colin Powell, who now rests in Arlington cemetery after giving his life to protect and serve his country in Iraq. There are currently 20,000 Muslims serving with honor in the US military, according to the American Muslim Armed Forces and Veterans Affairs Council. If Hasan's faith is ultimately proven to be the misguided inspiration for his violence, then the brave and patriotic service of thousands of Muslim American soldiers renders him an isolated and aberrant exception.

Sadly, although yesterday's violent outburst against fellow soldiers was the most deadly in US history, it was not the first of its kind. In May this year, five soldiers were shot dead at Camp Liberty in Baghdad by Sergeant John Russell. In February 2008, an Air Force sergeant diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) upon returning from Iraq fatally shot his son and daughter after a domestic argument with his ex-wife. Religion was not the common link between these soldiers; it was mental instability. Even if such individuals purported to be religious, their wanton acts of barbarism reflect rather their tenuous grasp on sanity.

60 Minutes Flobs Health Care Fraud Report

Loose with numbers: Medicare fraud report a fiction

I haven't watched CBS' "60 Minutes" in years. But it was one of those stories that stops you in your tracks: Medicare fraud is "a $60 billion crime."

[ ]...McCaleb and the attorney general were wrong, too. GAO has never estimated total Medicare fraud. It investigates targeted programs within Medicare, finding fraud in the millions, not billions. And it's not total federal expenditure that those estimates McCaleb referred to are based on. It's total public and private expenditure on health care. The National Health Care Anti-Fraud Association, a partnership between private insurers and the federal government, says that it "estimates conservatively that 3 percent of all health care spending -- or $68 billion -- is lost to health care fraud." The association bases that figure on 2007 total health care spending of $2.27 trillion in the United States. It's an unscientific, very dubious way of making estimates. But even if you go with it, well over half that spending is private sector.

Also, our deepest sympathies to the pathetic Glenn Beck, Sarah Palin, Michelle Malkin, former House Majority Leader Dick Armey (R-Texas) and GOP presidential hopeful for 2012 Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty that they endorsed a rightwing conservative nut job that lost and this special election was in no way a referendum on Obama or Democrats.

How to stop an economic recovery

How to stop an economic recovery
As unemployment continues to rise, deficit hawks are upping their efforts to use the economic crisis as a pretext for gutting basic social programs such as Social Security and Medicare. The idea keeps surfacing for a bipartisan deficit-reduction commission, supposedly insulated from politics, which would agree to mandatory caps on spending and perhaps increased taxes as well. Social programs would take the biggest hit. Congress would then take an up or down vote on the whole package.

The latest ploy to promote such a commission is to use the upcoming vote on increasing the national debt, scheduled for late November. Democratic deficit hawks such as Sen. Kent Conrad of North Dakota are working with Republicans such as Judd Gregg of New Hampshire, to condition an increase in the debt on creation of a panel. They have some allies in the White House such as Office of Management and Budget Director Peter Orszag, who has intermittently signaled support for such a plan. The Senate Budget Committee will be holding hearings on this idea in mid-September, according to The New York Times.

The whole approach is bad economics and bad politics on several grounds. First, there is no evidence for the premise that financial markets are anxious about the rising debt. As Dean Baker observes, they keep buying the Treasury's long-term bonds at a low 3.5 percent interest rate. If there were worry that the increased debt would spike inflation, investors would be demanding higher interest rates.

Secondly, it is not "entitlements" that have caused the big increase in the deficit and the debt. The cause is plummeting tax collections as a consequence of the recession. Social Security will be surplus for another generation, and both the House and Senate versions of the health reform bill do not add to the deficit, but help cut costs.

Third, obsessing about debts and deficits when the economy is still losing jobs has it exactly backwards. We probably need bigger deficits for a year or two, to propel a strong recovery. Higher growth will then bring the debt back down to tolerable scale. In World War II, deficits averaged about 25 percent a year (compared to under 10% this year.) But all of that war spending rebuilt the economy and powered three decades of economic boom and the big wartime debt was soon paid off.

Finally, the idea that such a commission could be "above politics" is a deception. The politics--very conservative politics--would be baked into the cake. Republicans on it would resist higher taxes except perhaps for regressive ones such a national sales tax or value added tax. The skids would be greased for deep cuts in Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid--even before health reform took effect. This would gut all the promises candidate Barack Obama made for a more just America.

Instead of being Mr. Consensus, and trying to please both sides, President Obama needs to weigh in strongly against the idea of a commission before it gains further traction. The House Democratic leadership, mercifully, thinks the commission is exactly the wrong medicine, and has told the White House so.

Does Politico Have a Health Care Reform Conservative Bias

SHOCK: House health care bill saves $260,000 per word!

Right-wing media have run with the Politico's Jonathan Allen misleading calculation that the House's recently announced health care reform legislation costs "about $2.24 million per word." In fact, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimated that the America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 "would result in a net reduction in federal budget deficits of $104 billion"; therefore, using Allen's formula, the bill would actually save $260,000 per word.

Why does Joe Lieberman oppose healthcare reform? Ask his wife

Why does Joe Lieberman oppose healthcare reform? Ask his wife - Both Lieberman and Evan Bayh have spouses who have profited from the healthcare industry

If Democrats are disappointed by Joe Lieberman’s threat to filibuster any healthcare reform bill that includes a public option, they shouldn't be. Despite all of his past promises to support universal healthcare, nothing was more predictable than the Connecticut senator's fealty to the insurance and pharmaceutical lobbyists.

Much the same can be said of Sen. Evan Bayh, who emerged from hiding on healthcare to announce that he too plans to filibuster against reform with the Republicans, regardless of what his constituents and Americans in general plainly want. Like Lieberman, his state is home to powerful corporations that want reform killed -- and like Lieberman, his wife has brought home very big paychecks from those same interests.

As and Bs for Obama's foreign policy

Obama's foreign policy report card

Why can't the administration of President Barack Obama get the word out about its policy successes? President Obama campaigned on an ambitious platform of withdrawing from Iraq, engaging Iran on its nuclear program and persuading the Pakistani government to take on the Taliban and al-Qaida. Despite the charge by critics from both the right and the left in the wake of his winning the Nobel Peace Prize that he has accomplished little so far, in fact he has already set in motion significant change on several of these fronts -- despite the enormous domestic tasks that have inevitably preoccupied his administration. Yet you'd never hear about these successes from the mainstream media.

Professor Cole gets into the details at the link.

It hasn't been a good week for the Church of the Weird, Director Publicly Quits Church of Scientology Over Their Support For Calif's Prop 8

Something Else Obama Will Not Get Credit For

Early reports: Job gains signal stimulus impact
States have reported using stimulus money to create or save more than 388,000 jobs so far this year, buttressing the Obama administration's claim that the $787 billion plan has had a significant impact on the economy.

That total, based on a USA TODAY review of reports from 33 states and Puerto Rico, includes teachers, construction workers, and others whose jobs were funded by stimulus money awarded to states. The administration plans Friday to release reports from all 50 states, providing the broadest accounting yet of the stimulus plan's impact.

FORECAST: Jobs may rebound in 2010




It might not be pretty on the way there but liberals will have the last word on health-care reform.

Training Right-wing Extremists Your Tax Dollars at Work

Right-Wing Extremist Group on Active Military Duty?
By Rob Waters, Southern Poverty Law Center

Oath Keepers, the militia/“Patriot” extremist group made up of law enforcement officers, military personnel and veterans, has posted a photo on its site showing (it says) “an active duty Oath Keeper in Mosul, Iraq” wearing two Velcro-attached “tabs” or patches, one saying “Oath Keeper” and the other “Three percent.” The flag patch beneath them is also an insignia of the “Three Percenters,” an informal alliance of hard-line gun owners.

The Oath Keepers figured prominently in a recent special report by the Southern Poverty Law Center on the resurgence of the antigovernment militia movement. The report described the group as “a particularly worrisome example of the Patriot revival.” Oath Keepers is fully on board with all the standard right-wing conspiracy theories, as evidenced by its official list of 10 “Orders We Will Not Obey,” in which it vows to resist any government efforts to “disarm the American people” or turn cities into “giant concentration camps.”

In July, the SPLC also presented Congress with growing evidence that extremists are infiltrating the U.S. military and urged Congress and the military to take steps to ensure that the armed forces are not inadvertently training future domestic terrorists.

Some may remember that the Oklahoma City bombers were involved in the militia/Christian identity movement.

Who Declared War on Who. Fox's Attacks on Obama Started From Day One.

8 Reasons Fox Is Not a News Organization

Even before Barack Obama was elected to the presidency, Rupert Murdoch had declared war on him via the personalities of Fox News Channel, a subsidiary of Murdoch's media conglomerate, News Corp.

Since Obama's election, the cable channel's hosts and paid analysts have launched a full frontal assault on the president, smearing his nominees, calling him a racist and suggesting that his administration was trying to persuade disabled veterans to off themselves.

Now the fearmongers at Fox are crying foul since the president and his aides declared Fox not to be a news organization. Earlier this month, White House Communications Director Anita Dunn called Fox an "arm" of the Republican Party. Obama went even further, suggesting this week that Fox "is operating basically as a talk-radio format," and we know what that means: A format in which the most provocative opinions dominate the discourse and facts are optional.

Yet that's just the tip of the iceberg. Setting Fox apart from the two other cable news networks is its ownership by a corporation whose CEO and major shareholder is a mogul with an ideological agenda -- who operates his News Channel as a propaganda machine for his anti-government cause.

He even has his own community organizer, a fellow named Glenn Beck, who can turn out a mob on a dime at your local town-hall meeting. His big ratings-getter, Bill O'Reilly, is a professional bully, handsomely paid to physically intimidate progressive commentators -- on video -- and to vilify others.

Murdoch's agenda is simple: He's against regulation of any kind. Famous for smashing the unions at his U.K. properties, Murdoch also has a pronounced disdain for labor.

In essence, Murdoch's agenda tracks closely with that of the current GOP, that far-right rump of a party that once claimed to embrace a range of views under the canvas of a big tent. So he uses the Fox airwaves to raise funds for Republican political action committees.

We've seen the Fox News-branded hosts and pundits -- such as Michelle Malkin and John Stossel -- sent out gin up the fearful folk gathered by astroturfing groups funded by corporations that seek to derail government intervention of any kind, whether in the nation's dysfunctional health care system or in its increasingly compromised environment.

Murdoch saves money by farming out the investigative-journalism functions of his alleged news enterprise to Republican Party entities, whose error-laden press releases are passed off as original Fox News research.

When you watch Fox News Channel, what you see is the advancement of that agenda through a media organ that seeks to turn regular people against their own interests -- the better to enrich the coffers of Murdoch and his heirs -- and that actively organizes those whose paranoia it has fed with lurid and untrue tales.

How else would you turn their fear of a bitter economy and an unstable world into rage against a president who ran for office on an economic platform geared toward the needs of everyday people?

Here we list a few of the reasons why Fox News Channel is anything but a news operation in the hope of shedding light on what it actually is: a massive media campaign for the consolidation of wealth through unfettered markets.

Why Fox News is not a news operation:

1. Glenn Beck, the community organizer -- No other news operation in memory has ever hired its own community organizer, at least not one tasked with the mission of organizing paranoid people to march through the streets of the nation's capital with signs depicting the president of the United States as a mass murderer.

Through his 9-12 Project, which he promotes on his Fox News Channel program, that's exactly what Beck did, organizing with other right-wing organizations the 9-12/Tea Party march on Washington -- AlterNet reported marchers sported signs comparing Obama to Hitler and Stalin.

Beck was also instrumental in turning out angry mobs to disrupt this summer's town hall meetings, where members of Congress attempted to discuss health care reform with their constituents. After participants in a scuffle at a Tampa, Fla., town hall named their local 9-12 Project site as their inspiration, the national 9-12 Project site stopped accepting comments.

Despite the loss of some 80 advertisers from The Glenn Beck Show, thanks to a campaign by Color of Change, which targeted the show's sponsors after Beck claimed the president had "a deep-seated hatred for white people and white culture," Beck remains on the air at Fox. Could that be because he's more valuable to his boss-daddy as an organizer than as a conduit for advertising dollars?

After all, defeating government regulation of any kind could assure billions for Murdoch the investor, while advertising profits for a show with 3 million viewers would at most bring in millions. It's all about the zeros -- how many.

2. Fox's alliance with the corporate-funded astroturf group Americans for Prosperity -- We've scratched our heads trying to come up with an analogous relationship between a cable news channel and a corporate-funded group that organizes fearful people to disrupt public meetings, but we came up empty.

Americans For Prosperity, a group that received funding from Koch Industries, an oil-and-energy company and major polluter, also organized this summer's town hall disrupters. Although they kicked off their rabble-rousing campaign by galvanizing opposition to health care reform, their real target appears to be energy reform, especially the cap-and-trade provision that will make dirty industries pay a pretty penny to pollute.

At an AFP conference in Pittsburgh in August, we noticed that the roster of speakers was heavily populated by News Corp. personalities, including Fox News contributors Malkin and Jim Pinkerton, and Wall Street Journal columnists John Fund and Stephen Moore. (News Corp. also owns WSJ.) AFP Policy Director Phil Kerpen, who also addressed the crowd, has a column at FoxNews.com, and he was quick to use it to take credit for the resignation of White House adviser Van Jones, against whom he helped orchestrate a smear campaign in collusion with other Fox personalities, including Beck.

............the full article at the link. Unlike G.W. Bush, Obama has made a huge effort to reach out across party lines.

Before Buying “Tampering with Nature” for the Classroom, Know the Truth about John Stossel

Before Buying “Tampering with Nature” for the Classroom, Know the Truth about John Stossel
As unsuspecting teachers look to enlighten their students this fall, they just might pay the $29.95 for Tampering with Nature, from the collection of John Stossel Videos. The question for teachers is: do they know that John Stossel is playing them as chumps Look at how Tampering with Nature was deceitfully made and maybe instead of writing that check, teachers and parents will email ABC and John Stossel with indignation and contempt.

While in St. Louis in March of 2001, at a National Science Teachers? Convention, I stumbled upon Michael Sanera peddling a book titled Facts Not Fear. For those of you who don't know, Sanera is the anti-eco-education point-person for the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI), a think-tank funded by the likes of Dow Chemical, General Motors, Texaco, and those true friends of education and moral values, Philip Morris. Sanera has a forum in major newspapers from Seattle to New York from which he denounces the environmental movement. Amongst all those teachers of our children, Sanera was like a carnival hack. His manifesto was heavy on fear, and Rush Limbaugh-like on facts. Jeering at everything from ozone loss to species extinction, his was a transparent attack on ecological and environmental education for our nation?s children.

Intrigued, I looked up CEI on the net. There I found a reference to SaveJohnStossel.org. Stossel is a reporter with ABC news and the 20/20 news program. He is also a known critic of environmental regulations. CEI was dismayed at the tongue-lashing Stossel received when, incredibly, he reported that organic foods are no safer than foods sprayed with pesticide. As evidence for his claims, Stossel referred to test results, which an independent inquiry found not to exist! In defense of Stossel, CEI claims in their web page that he is entitled to his ?right to free speech?. They warn supporters that politically correct causes and special interests? are prepared to place that freedom in jeopardy. Excuse me, but what freedom are they referring to Are these charlatans discussing the freedom to lie when youre supposed to be telling the truth on national TV In my world, investigative reporters are held accountable to verifiable sources and factual reporting. Stossel neglected these.

As an environmental science teacher and concerned citizen, I try to stay current with what industry and government groups have in store for us. Early in 2001 I was forwarded an urgent email from RISE (Responsible Industry for a Sound Environment) beckoning its members to support Mr. Stossel and Mr. Saneras jihad against eco-education. RISE is affiliated with the American Crop Protection Institute, a trade group founded to defend urban usage of pesticides. The urgent email explained that Michael Sanera who was working with John Stossels 20/20 producers on a program to expose the ?evils? of environmental education had contacted RISE. In the email RISE beckons its members to find parents and their children who have been ?scared green? and are willing to be interviewed. The last line of the email is telling: Lets try to help Mr. Stossel. He treats industry fairly in his programs.

Just to see what would happen, my wife responded to the RISE email using her maiden name, stating that she is not sure about the environmental data our daughters are receiving in school. Soon we received an email back, giving us Michael Sanera?s phone number and urging us to contact him.

I was pondering all of this on April 9th, 2001 when, incredibly, producer Ted Balaker of ABC News called me out of the blue. He told me that ABC respected my editorials on environmentalism and they wanted to ask me questions about ecological issues. Point-blank I asked if there was a Sanera connection He told me he'd never spoken to Sanera. I asked did ABC call me to entrap me in a Scared Green environmental education piece, where Stossel could manipulate the truth? He said no, there was no such project.

Suspicious, I called Michael Sanera as soon as I was off the phone with Balaker, following up on my wifes email exchange with RISE. I told him my children brought home environmental education information from school and what should I do about it. Sanera was very enthusiastic, asking me if I would speak about this with ABC. He assured me that John Stossels producer from ABC would call me. The producer? name? None other than a Mr. Ted Balaker.?Balaker had lied to me and I had to find out why.

Corporate Web of Deceit: The Big Picture

The last several years have seen corporate America attempt to manufacture consent by flooding schools with dubious environmental materials. From MTV style videos to ?mono-syllabic fill-in sheets and activities that disparage everything from global warming to deforestation. These passive educational materials are a subterfuge designed to keep our youngest citizens comfortably numb. With critical thinking dulled, how could any warning about impending environmental woes be taken seriously, when children have been assured by the timber, chemical and tobacco industries that its all good

Games People Play

Those who procure children as pawns, which exploit their innocence for profit, and pervert truth for self-serving gain, are usually met with repulsion from society. Such abuse of children is at its worst when the victimizer is a supposed friend. But there is one class of citizens in our society that is apparently exempt from this community standard: corporate citizens.

Case in point: Media titan Disney Corporation, using its television outlet, ABC, is seeking to drive a stake through the collective heart of environmental education. Their strategy is simple: get some of the most notorious polluters to fund think-tanks to produce data and promote it as good science. Then stage events that show kids scared green by doomsday education. Let John Stossel, popular investigative reporter for 20/20, manipulate the kids, creating a prime time illusion, a proverbial TV moment.

by John F. Borowski - the complete article at the link. Since this article was published it has become well established that Stossel is a far right libertarian extremist.He says he is a crusader against bad science, but in fact peddles junk science paid for by corporations and right-wing think tanks.

O'Keefe does not dispute Philly police report filed after his visit to ACORN office

In "heavily edited" video rebuttal, O'Keefe does not dispute Philly police report filed after his visit to ACORN office

In a heavily edited video released on October 21, conservative filmmaker James O'Keefe purported to rebut statements made by Philadelphia ACORN worker Katherine Conway Russell about O'Keefe's and Hannah Giles' visit to the Philadelphia ACORN office, but O'Keefe did not dispute the authenticity of the police report ACORN filed with Philadelphia police following their visit. The filing of the police report by ACORN -- Russell can be seen holding a copy of it in O'Keefe's video -- indicates the Philadelphia ACORN office had no intention of helping O'Keefe and Giles conduct any illegal activities, and ACORN said the police report "proves our clear understanding of this scam that was being portrayed."

A Rumsfeld-era reminder about what causes Terrorism

A Rumsfeld-era reminder about what causes Terrorism or the librul press is a myth

The debate over Afghanistan -- or, more accurately, the multi-pronged effort to pressure Obama into escalating -- is looking increasingly familiar, i.e., like the "debate" over Iraq. The New York Times is publishing articles filled with quotes from anonymous war advocates. Permanent war-justifier Michael O'Hanlon is regularly featured in "news accounts" as he all but blames Obama for increasing combat deaths due to his failure to escalate the moment the military demanded it. The New Republic is churning out pro-war screeds. Every option is on the proverbial table except one: not fighting the war. And there's a widening gap between (a) public opinion (which sees Afghanistan as "turning into another Vietnam" and which opposes more troops, with 49% favoring a full or partial withdrawal) and (b) the virtual unanimity of establishment punditry which, as always, is cheerleading for the war. The only difference is that, with a Democratic President, there seems to be more Democratic and progressive support for this war (though there was, of course, plenty of that for Iraq, too).

The primary rationale for remaining -- and escalating -- in Afghanistan is the same all-purpose justification offered for virtually everything the U.S. has done since 2001: Terrorism. Apparently, the way to solve the Terrorist threat is by sending 60,000 more American troops into a Muslim country and committing to at least five more years of war there. That, so the pro-escalation reasoning goes, will make us safer.

In 2004, Donald Rumsfeld directed the Defense Science Board Task Force to review the impact which the administration's policies -- specifically the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan -- were having on Terrorism and Islamic radicalism. They issued a report in September, 2004 (.pdf) and it vigorously condemned the Bush/Cheney approach as entirely counter-productive, i.e., as worsening the Terrorist threat those policies purportedly sought to reduce. It's well worth reviewing their analysis, as it has as much resonance now as it did then

Glenn Beck Attacks Demonizes All of America's Volunteers

Glenn Beck Attacks Demonizes All of America's Volunteers

It takes a special man to attack volunteerism and community service as somehow un-American but Glenn Beck was more than up to the job yesterday (10/19/09). You might say he even relished the task as he mugged before the camera with his latest conspiracy theory – which looked a lot like his other conspiracy theories – that a television industry effort to promote volunteerism and service is somehow part of a communist plot by the Obama administration to stamp out capitalism and The American Way Of Life. With video.

“When you’re watching TV this week, you might notice a common theme on some of your favorite TV shows: service and volunteerism,” Beck sneered at the opening of the segment. He was referring to the same Entertainment Industry Foundation initiative that The O’Reilly Factor attacked last week in which more than 60 television shows will somehow showcase the benefits of volunteerism. “Not just public service announcements, but service and volunteerism will be worked into the plots...Your favorite character might volunteer at the dog shelter or at the park.”

“That’s great,” Beck added with disgust. “I just have one pesky question." Then he proceeded to ask a series of questions. "Are we running out of volunteers in this country?... Are we trying to fix a problem that doesn’t exist? Are we creating a problem that doesn’t exist? To have an emergency that doesn’t yet exist?” Then, in his “rodeo clown” voice, Beck said, “or is it just a coincidence that all of this falls into line with President Obama’s Corporation for National and Community Service.”

Beck didn’t seem to care enough to answer his own questions but I did, at least the last one. As it turns out, the Corporation for National and Community Service was created in 1993. By my math, that’s about 15 years before Obama was elected president.

Furthermore, Beck forgot to mention that, according to USA Today, the EIF program, called “I Participate” morphed out of a bi-partisan call to action by then-candidates Barack Obama and John McCain.

The Boy Scouts of America disagrees,

The Boy Scouts of America relies on dedicated volunteers to promote its mission of preparing young people to make ethical and moral choices over their lifetime by instilling in them the values of the Scout Oath and Scout Law. Today, nearly 1.2 million adults provide leadership and mentoring to Cub Scouts, Boy Scouts, and Venturers.

Through the dedication of these many volunteers, the Boy Scouts of America remains the foremost youth program of character development and values-based leadership training in America.

To these volunteers we would like to say thank you for your dedication to Scouting.

And, to adults who are not currently Scout volunteers, we invite you to become a volunteer and share in the positive experiences of the Scouting programs.

The consequences of ocean acidification

Swimming in a Sea of Acid

My latest film is a beautiful, independent documentary called Acid Test that explores the urgent problem of rising ocean acidity caused by our burning of fossil fuels. The 22-minute film premiered in August on Discovery Planet Green and is now available online.

The website enables you to see the whole film, take action to reduce carbon dioxide pollution, see extended interviews with top ocean scientists, learn about the science of acidification, and request a free DVD and action kit for home screenings with friends and family. (I hope many people will take advantage of this. Acid Test is a fascinating, frightening but ultimately hopeful film, and a home screening is a great way to begin making a difference for our oceans.)

Scientists have known for decades that when carbon dioxide mixes with ocean water it creates an acid, but only recently did they begin to realize what this growing quantity of acid would mean for ocean life. As you can see in the film, this new understanding has some of the world's leading ocean scientists quite freaked out.

What they can say with assurance is that if we continue burning fossil fuels as we are now, we will double the ocean's natural acidity by the end of the century. What's less clear is how damaging that will be for ocean life.

Scientists believe many organisms may not survive so radical a shift in chemistry. And some of those organisms -- plankton and corals, for instance -- form the foundation of the ocean food web.

If they perish, what happens to the hundreds of thousands of species further up the chain?

Scientists just don't know. But their fear is summed up in the film by Dr. Ken Caldeira of the Carnegie Institution: "We're moving from a world of rich biological diversity, essentially into a world of weeds."

The scientists are freaked out, but they still have hope, as do millions of other Americans. Hope that our policy makers, will listen to the scientific facts, take them to heart and begin America's transition to a clean energy economy. An economy based on efficiency and renewable power that will build a workable future for all living things. What could be more important now than telling our policy makers to move quickly and boldly to adopt strong, clean energy legislation? You can do that right here. - Sigourney Weaver

Uncivilization - US Healthcare History

Uncivilization - US Healthcare History

Jenny Fritts was 24 years old. Jenny lived with her husband Sean for the past five years, and together they had a little girl named Kylee, 2. Jenny was seven-and-a-half months pregnant with her second child - a beautiful, baby girl.

Jenny is dead. Jenny's unborn baby is dead. They died because they were turned away for appropriate care at a for-profit hospital because they did not have health insurance. Sean rushed Jenny back to another hospital when her symptoms became even more severe, and he lied about having insurance to get her in the door. She was placed on a respirator in intensive care, but she didn't make it. She died. And so did her baby.

They become two more of the more than 45,000 Americans who die preventable deaths due to our broken healthcare system every year. Two more. Mother and child.

And the tragedy doesn't end there. Sean has been very depressed since he lost Jenny and their baby. The rest of his family and friends are worried about him. But he cannot get treatment either. He doesn't have insurance. (You can watch their story here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=td802aj-7Sc) Imagine how you might feel. Imagine.

These are our killing fields. In America. In October 2009. In Barack Obama's America. That land full of hope and promise for those who can afford that hope and promise. Yet few in our government offices react as one might think you would when hearing of Jenny and the baby and Sean and Kylee.

I read these stories every day on the guaranteedhealthcare.org website. I read them and clean up a spelling glitch or two and then post them for the world to see. The website belongs to the nurses of the California Nurses Association and the National Nurses Organizing Committee. Patients send their stories to the nurses in cascading waves of anger and frustration and desperation. They want someone to listen and to give a damn.

Does Greed Make Health Insurance Executives Dumb as a Rock

The audacity of greed: How private health insurers just blew their cover

The health-insurance industry has finally revealed itself for what it is.

Background: The industry hates the idea that's emerged from the Senate Finance Committee of lowering penalties on younger and healthier people who don't buy insurance. Relying on an analysis by PricewaterhouseCoopers, insurers say this means new enrollees will be older and less healthy -- which will drive up costs. And, says the industry, these costs will be passed on to consumers in the form of higher premiums. Proposed taxes on high-priced "Cadillac" policies will also be passed on to consumers. As a result, premiums will rise faster and higher than the government projects.

It's an 11th-hour bombshell.

But the bomb went off under the insurers. The only reason these costs can be passed on to consumers in the form of higher premiums is because there's not enough competition among private insurers to force them to absorb the costs by becoming more efficient. Get it? Health insurers have just made the best argument yet about why a public insurance option is necessary.

Right now they run their markets and set their prices, and pass on any increased costs directly to consumers. That's what they're threatening to do if the legislation attempts to squeeze, even slightly, the colossal profits they plan to make off of 30 million new paying customers.

They want every penny of those profits. They demand every cent. And if the government dares raise their costs a tad higher than they expected when they first signed on to support the bill, they'll pass those costs on to consumers in the form of higher premiums. They can carry out their threat only because they have unaccountable, untrammeled market power.

Its a popular myth that the U.S. operates under a wild west style free market system. Health insurance companies are an oligopoly. The reason they have an army of lobbyists in Washington is not to protect their earned profits, but to guarantee their profits.

Nobel Peace Prize Causes Rabies

Winger Madness: Obama Winning the Nobel Prize Proves that He's the Antichrist and the End is Near

MSNBC host Rachel Maddow called it "Obama Derangement Syndrome."

"President Obama's critics railed today that winning the Nobel Peace Prize is somehow an insult. That international hope and encouragement for success for an American president is something to be ashamed of," Maddow said. "The American president just won the Nobel Peace Prize. By any reasonable measure, all Americans should be proud."

But Maddow and other commentators are missing the undertones of religious fundamentalism, a major component to this story.

The people who consider themselves "Rapture ready" believe that a long list of events, as prophesied by the Bible, must occur before and after the Rapture. The Rapture itself is merely one event, at which the cream of the Christian crop is able to avoid seven years of hell on Earth ruled by the Antichrist and his pal the false prophet. The image of the Antichrist as charismatic and well-loved by the world, made very real-looking by movies and books such as Left Behind, Day of Deception and Vanished, easily fit into the "other" meme of Obama's presidency.

The Web site AreWeLivingInTheLastDays.com (hint: the answer according to them is a resounding yes) says this about the Antichrist (emphasis mine): "He will be super, not ordinary; everything about the Antichrist will be extraordinary. He will possess great eloquence, charm, wit, military genius, vision, and intelligence. He will be extremely influential, charismatic, a false champion of peace, and will possess strong leadership abilities. One could even say he's a rock star."

The conservative movement in the U.S. is generally very predictable. On hearing that something positive happened to America on a Democratic president's watch was sure to bring some rabid reaction. Its the looniness of the details that can be a surprise. No one in the real world actually sees Obama as a "rock star". Some of the most thoughtful criticism of him has come from liberals.