Showing posts with label Republican. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Republican. Show all posts

Saturday, April 30, 2011

William Bennett's Radical Dreams Become a Reality - Thom Hartmann: FLorida Public schools

In November 2008, right after the election of Barack Obama, the Republican Governors' Association Annual Conference met in Florida. I watched panels of Republican governors and their friends for 2 days on C-SPAN. What's shocking is that most of the governors sounded reasonable, until I heard William Bennett (former education secretary under Reagan) speak. You wouldn't know it to look at him; but, Bill Bennett is a very scary man with radical views regarding education.

With Bennett on one of the panels, discussions turned to how to change the culture/values/ideology/etc. to reflect right-wing values/culture/ideology. The most important, according to Bennett, is to indoctrinate children (using the: internet, media, classroom and text books) with conservative, right wing values, [with a right wing slant/re-write/whitewash].

Now we've found out, Bill Bennett and his Republican cohorts' dreams are about to come true.








Thom Hartmann: FL Public schools - the Wall of Separation is about to Crumble | Thom Hartmann - News & info from the #1 progressive radio show April 29, 2011


Texas Conservatives Win Vote on Textbook Standards - NYTimes.com March 12, 2010


2008 Election Cycle - C-SPAN Video Library November 12, 2008 (listen to William Bennett - about 52 minutes in)
I understood back then, that Republicans had found a way to regain power. They had to claim the majority of state governor seats. [and thanks to ill-informed citizens, they did it]

The Corporate State Will Continue its Inexorable Advance Until We're Locked into a Permanent Underclass | | AlterNet by Chris Hedges, April 29, 2011



-
-

Monday, October 11, 2010

CONSERVATIVES FAVORITE LIE ABOUT POOR PEOPLE AND THE ECONOMIC CRISIS

Conservatives love to blame government (esp. BIG GOVERNMENT) for everything, ... yes, I said everything (well, I guess you have to throw in "poor people" too). The next time one of them mouths off, tell them to stop running for a government office. Then tell them to stop funding military/defense/spying/military contracting operations all over the freaking place. Finally, tell them to stop every corporate welfare program including the "Bush Tax Cuts".

Saw this great article on Alternet yesterday ....

CONSERVATIVES PUSH ABSURD LIE THAT WALL STREET HUSTLERS WERE INNOCENT VICTIMS ... OF POOR PEOPLE. (by Joshua Holland)
-
"Deregulation allowed Wall Street to build a house of cards on America's mortgage industry, but many conservatives live in a parallel universe in which the banks are blameless.'

October 10, 2010, Joshua Holland's new book, The Fifteen Biggest Lies about the Economy (And Everything Else the Right Doesn't Want You to Know about Taxes, Jobs, and Corporate America).

An excerpt:

-
"Perhaps the most pernicious right-wing lie of late is that the Wall Street hustlers who came close to bringing the global economy to its knees in 2008 were just innocent victims of government-sponsored programs that forced them to lower lending standards in a misguided effort to increase home ownership among the poor (read: dark-skinned).

It’s an alluring story line for those who are ideologically predisposed to blame “inner city” people instead of MBAs in suits roaming the executive suite. It’s also patent nonsense—a Big Lie that has nonetheless become an object of almost religious belief for some on the Right.

Jeb Hensarling, a notably obtuse Republican back-bencher from Texas, wrote that “the conservative case is simple”:

The [Community Reinvestment Act] compelled banks to relax their traditional underwriting practices in favor of more “flexible” criteria. These subjective standards were then applied to all borrowers, not just low-income individuals, leading to a surge in lower-quality loans. . . . Blame should [also be] directed at Fannie [Mae] and Freddie [Mac], and their thirst for weaker underwriting to help meet their federally mandated “affordable housing” goals. . . . This distortion has had seismic consequences as market participants, wrongly believing GSE-touched loans were sanctioned by the government and therefore safe, began to rely on a government mandate as a substitute for their own due diligence.

This tale has everything a conservative could want—Big Government overreach, well-intentioned but out-of-touch liberals causing devastating unanticipated consequences with their social tinkering, and even their favorite bogeyman, ACORN, and other low-income housing advocates that have pushed for increased home-ownership among the poor.

The narrative gained steam with an influential op-ed in the Wall Street Journal by Peter Wallison, a fellow with the American Enterprise Institute (who, according to his bio, “had a significant role in the development of the Reagan administration’s proposals for the deregulation of the financial services industry”). Wallison found that “Almost two-thirds of all the bad mortgages in our financial system, many of which are now defaulting at unprecedented rates, were bought by government agencies or required by government regulations.”

The data shows that the principal buyers were insured banks, government sponsored enterprises (GSEs) such as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and the FHA—all government agencies or private companies forced to comply with government mandates about mortgage lending.

The sleight-of-hand here is pretty straightforward. The U.S. government regulates lenders and provides deposit insurance to banks, which means that a large chunk of all home loans—good, bad, and in between—have some connection to a government program. It’s like saying that the government is responsible for pollution because the EPA regulates industrial emissions.

Yet no bank has ever been “forced to comply with government mandates about mortgage lending.” There are no “government mandates,” and there never were. In order to qualify for government-backed deposit insurance—a benefit that banks aren’t forced to accept but enjoy having—the Community Reinvestment Act and similar measures designed to prevent discrimination in lending (to qualified individuals) only encourage banks to lend in all of the areas where they do business. And Section 802 (b) of the Act stresses that all loans must be “consistent with safe and sound operations”—it’s the opposite of requiring that lenders write risky mortgages.

There are no penalties for noncompliance with CRA guidelines. The only “stick” hanging over banks that fail to meet those standards is that their refusal might be taken into account by regulators when they want to open new branches or merge with other financial institutions. What’s more, there are no defined standards for CRA compliance, and within the banking community, the loose guidelines are considered to be somewhat of a joke.

As Sheila Bair, the chairwoman of the FDIC, asked in a December 2008 speech, “Where in the CRA does it say: make loans to people who can’t afford to repay? Nowhere! And the fact is, the lending practices that are causing problems today were driven by a desire for market share and revenue growth . . . pure and simple.”

Fannie and Freddie: Tempted by Easy Profits

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were created by an act of Congress, but they are (or were, until being taken over in the wake of the housing crash) private, for-profit entities whose dual mandate was to increase the availability of mortgages to moderate- and low-income families, and at the same time turn a profit for their shareholders. Fannie and Freddie did end up with a very large portfolio of subprime loans, with a high rate of default, but they didn’t get into the market because the government mandated it. They dived in deep because there were profits to be made as the housing bubble expanded. As Mary Kane, a finance reporter for the Washington Independent, put it:

Neither the Community Reinvestment Act—the law most cited as the culprit—nor other affordable housing goals set by the government forced Fannie, Freddie or any other lender to make loans they didn’t want to. The lure of the subprime market was high yields and healthy profit margins—it’s as simple as that.

Contrary to the conservative spin, University of Michigan law professor Michael Barr told a congressional committee that although there was in fact quite a bit of irresponsible lending in low-income communities in the late 1990s and the early 2000s, “More than half of subprime loans were made by independent mortgage companies not subject to comprehensive federal supervision; another 30 percent of such originations were made by affiliates of banks or thrifts, which are not subject to routine examination or supervision, and the remaining 20 percent were made by banks and thrifts [subject to CRA standards].” Barr concluded, “The worst and most widespread abuses occurred in the institutions with the least federal oversight [italics added].”

That's not to say that millions of Americans didn’t bite off more than they would eventually be able to chew in the housing market. A lot of people looking to turn a quick buck by capturing the booming value of real estate in the mid- to late 2000s bought property with “teaser” loans that offered very low rates for the first few years; the investors assumed that they’d be able to turn a tidy profit before higher interest rates kicked in. Many of those individuals have since found themselves “under water”—owing more on their homes (and investment properties) than they’re worth.

Yet it’s worth noting that most of the experts also didn’t identify the real estate bubble as a problem, even as home prices far surpassed values that could be reasonably explained by the laws of supply and demand. Irrational exuberance was the theme of the day. In 2006, David Learah, the former head of the National Association of Realtors, wrote a book titled Why the Real Estate Boom Will Not Bust—And How You Can Profit from It: How to Build Wealth in Today’s Expanding Real Estate Market. The book made quite a splash at the time.

In 2010, former Fed chairman Alan Greenspan offered a bit of historical revisionism to a House committee investigating the causes of the financial crisis, telling lawmakers, “In 2002, I expressed concern . . . that our extraordinary housing boom, financed by very large increases in mortgage debt, cannot continue indefinitely. . . . I warned of the consequences of this situation in testimony before the Senate Banking Committee in 2004.”

Writing in the Washington Post, Dana Milbank offered a corrective with some of the highlights of Greenspan’s congressional testimony at the peak of the housing bubble. In 2005, Greenspan told lawmakers, “A bubble in home prices for the nation as a whole does not appear likely.” He added, “Home price declines . . . were they to occur, likely would not have substantial macroeconomic implications,” and explained that “nationwide banking and widespread securitization of mortgages make it less likely that financial intermediation would be impaired.”

In English, that last bit meant “Banks won’t get into serious trouble even if things do go to hell,” and we know how well that prediction turned out. If Greenspan could be so wrong and the smart people at the Washington Post and the New York Times couldn’t see this huge, dangerously inflated housing bubble, how was your average couple trying to get a place to live or the small investor looking for a few bucks in rental income supposed to make a rational decision about how much debt to take on? That’s not a defense of individuals who got in over their heads; it’s simply an important bit of context.

The narrative that the real estate crash and the subsequent recession were the fault of borrowers, especially poor and middle-income borrowers—while members of the financial community were innocent victims—is not only revisionism of the worst kind, but it’s an especially egregious lie.

The obvious sin of this claim is that it shifts responsibility for the mess away from those who created it, but what makes it even more disgraceful is that conservatives have long argued that efforts to increase home ownership among low-income families and communities of color was the “free market” thing to do (and have, to some degree, negated the need for a decent social safety net). It was George W. Bush, not Vladimir Lenin, who said in a 2002 speech, “We have a problem here in America . . . a homeownership gap,” and said, “we’ve got to work together to close [the gap] for the good of our country.” This was standard American Enterprise Institute–quality conservative fare.

Blaming individuals is easy—it’s not hard to understand how people could borrow a bunch of cash they were later unable to pay back. The real cause of the housing crash is, of course, a far more complicated tale. And it’s a story that ultimately represents the abject failure of conservative economic mythology."


An interesting (unsettling) read: "A Voice from the Financial Industry: Go Find a Freaking Venture Capitalist"


Sunday, July 25, 2010

SHIRLEY SHERROD IS RIGHT. IT IS MORE ABOUT CLASS THAN RACE



UPDATED 2:12PM, AUGUST 15, 2010: See todays Hightower 's Shirley Sherrod article HERE:

 

ALSO UPDATED LINKS AND YVES SMITH VIDEO AT THE END OF THIS POST

 

You ever notice that … When a certain class of people engage in a certain behavior it is okay, while it is not okay if another class of people engage in the same behavior? For instance, if powerful or affluent people engage in the behavior it’s not so bad, or even bad at all; however, if the "not powerful" or non affluent people engage in the same behavior it is wrong. Remember that whole BillO’Reilly speech about the pregnancy of the daughter of Sarah Palin (a power, affluent conservative) beinga family issue (even though she was not married) while just weeks or months earlier he defamed girls (who were not affluent or powerful, [or were from a different political party]) for the same behavior.

 

-

The affluent and powerful have even created a different setof rules for the haves and have-nots. The pharmaceutical industry is an example of this difference. For instance, as long as you have a prescription for an addictive drug and/or a behavior/or mind altering drug it’s just fine and dandy; however, if you buy addictive and/or mind altering drugs “off the street” you must be punished (perhaps even imprisoned for a very long time). Both kinds of drugs have the potential to do all kinds of harm; however there is no punishment for buying with a prescription, but there is punishment for buying “off the street”.

 

-

Look, this is all about money and power … it’s okay for the affluent to do it, or do it to get richer or stay rich. Militarycontractors get away with murder; GoldmanSachs gets slappedwith a fine for engaging in tactics [very questionable legalfinancial schemes] that caused some people to lose their home and savings and perhaps their life or their health as a consequence of losing their savings.

 

-

Different set of rules for the affluent and powerful. They are above the law. I’ll say it again, …. They are above the law. Every now and then one of them gets sacrificed for their cause; however, you ever notice how these people won't pay much of a price, or won’t serve much time; or when they get out of prison they are welcomed back into the fold and even rewarded. Hell, the Mafia did this all the time. They’ll tell the *"sacrificial lamb” to “do the time” and we’ll take care of your family and/or reward you when you get out; or (Mr. sacrificial lamb) "takethe bullet" and we’ll take really good care of your family.

 

-

I don’t have to give you example after example because you know it’s true. They even know you know it’s true … it’s the reason why they constantly distract you. It's the reason they get you fighting over age, and race and gender and religion and ethnicity. They know these are hot button issues; but they exaggerate and define these issues … Hell, some issues they even dream up (Obamacare [specifically a standard “living will”] will kill grandma). There are numerous conservative blogs with this "Obamacare will kill grandma and Americans" crap. These conservatives won't tell you that the "good ole" health insurance companies deny you treatment every day, and give your personal and medical information to the MedicalInformation Bureau (MIB) for other health and life insurance company members to see. We certainly know these same health insurance companies denycoverage based on pre-existing conditions. Health insurance companies have real life and death policies. The game of the affluent and powerful is to distract you with lies and misinformation.

 

-

To hell with the truth. The (Haves) super rich and powerful and affluent willeven go to war to protect their way of life. They will even offer up some of their own children, ... but we all know what "class" the vast majority of the children (who will pay the price) will come from.

 

-

They don’t want to level the playing field … (their mission) just distract these insignificant people with their misery and have them point their fingers at each other …. Hook them on frivolous and dangerous things while they go about the business of amassing and keeping money and power no matter what the cost to the planet, or the environment or your life. They have no shame … no shame. They will murder, lie, rob, cheat and steal … whatever it takes to maintain their lifestyle and their seat at the” head of the table”.

 

-

ShirleySherrod said it … this is more about "class" than race. It’s about the Haves and Have-nots.She told the truth and we know it, and that’s why Shirley Sherrod will be dissected by the Haves and even some of the Have-nots for speaking the truth. We’ve already seen some of the have-nots in the Tea Party (and among some conservatives) vilify her (and distort her message) for telling the truth. Some have-nots would rather stay in denial and hate their own class, than do something about pushing the have-nots up, or leveling the playing field.

 

-

Some of the Have-nots have "sold out" because they think they will be rewarded by the "Haves"; and indeed some of them have been rewarded by the Haves. My dear friends, there are Judases everywhere … those (people) who are “bought and paid for” by the super rich, affluent and powerful. They are promised a small piece of the pie if they protect their way of life.

 

-

-

YVES SMITH ON THE WASHINGTON JOURNAL 8/7/2010/ READ YVES SMITH'S EXCELLENT BLOG - NAKEDCAPITALISM


-
j
-


VIDEO CAN BE VIEWED AT: http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/294958-5

-

-

RACERELATIONS IN THE USA - CSPAN JULY 25, 2010 (link corrected

-

Max Keiser: NSA, CIA and Secret America -Alex Jones Tv 1/6

link corrected -

-


-


-


-


-


TOP SECRET AMERICA
CAPITALISM

Thursday, May 7, 2009

HEALTH CARE REFORM - WHAT ARE THE ODDS?

I don’t trust the government (Congress/Senate) or private health insurance companies to help design quality, affordable universal health care.

I’m suspicious
that, no matter what they do, the average worker will not be able to afford health care.

Why?

The President is trying to create balance in the system, but Congress/Senate, Big Business and Health Insurance companies are creating road blocks.

As long as you have greedy management, greedy Wall Street, laws that allow businesses to pollute the air/water/earth, to screw the employee and not give them a fair wage, the average working American will still not be able to afford health care.

I’ve covered the fair wage topic in previous posts. I talked a lot about housing costs. I don’t need to even go into grocery, auto/home insurance, transportation costs, because housing costs will bankrupt you alone. Without credit cards and refinance [crush the life out of you/never get out of] debt, the average middle working individual/family cannot afford to live, much less afford health care. Period!

Congress/Senate must fight for higher wages, lower cost, clean renewable energy, low rent/lower interest rate mortgages, and if you have to have a few credit cards, make them fight for lower finance charges on those cards. In addition, businesses should not be able to lobby to influence legislation that impacts negatively on the average American [such as lobbying against the Employee Free Choice Act].

What are we finding? We are finding collusion between Big Business/Health Insurance companies and Congress/Senate.

In other words, the average American will not get quality, affordable universal health care. What you will see is some watered-down hybrid health care system that makes health insurance companies (management, stockholders) richer; as well as those people who designed the system.

You can forget Republican support for a fair system, because they’re out to make themselves and private insurers richer off the backs of the average American.

If we’re using tax payer money, design a single-payer government health care system. Make sure pre-existing conditions will be allowed and rates should be on a sliding scale, based on income minus housing costs (up to a maximum). Get rid of collusion and corruption by putting safeguards in place, and designing regulation that prevents abuses by business and officials in government.

I want to add one more issue. Republicans consistently use the following talking point to scare people regarding public health insurance:
They say government will be in your business, trying to tell you what procedures you can and cannot have, and using your private information for some nefarious plot. BULL!

There is more denial of treatment and non-payment for procedures from health insurance companies than government sponsored health insurance. Private insurers can also raise your rates whenever they want; and the people who administer and make the decisions regarding purchase of insurance and claims can share information even though it is private information. For instance when you go to purchase life or health insurance, that information is shared with the Medical Information Bureau (MIB) which acts as an information exchange on behalf of its members. If you apply to another Member company for life or health insurance coverage, or a claim for benefits is submitted to such a company, the MIB, upon request will supply such company with information it its files.

Please write your representatives to pass the Employee Free Choice Act, Cap and Trade (so people don’t get sicker), significant minimum wage increases, and support the President’s plan to overhaul the tax system (especially for wealthy individuals and Big Businesses that pay no or almost no tax because of tax havens and loopholes).

Punish the representatives who oppose the above by not re-electing them. That means especially watching almost all the Republican Senators and between 7-11 Democratic (blue dog type) Senators on how they vote on issues and legislation. Also watch what issues they bring up, legislation they propose and amendments they try to slip in.
-

-

Medical Insurance Bureau
-

Stand With Dr. Dean - Emergency Briefing, May 4, 2009

WORDS DESIGNED TO KILL HEALTH CARE REFORM
-
KEY TO AFFORDABLE UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE IS MEDICARE-FOR-ALL SAYS INSURANCE EXPERT
-
FROM A PHYSICIAN WHO IS NOW A LONG TERM PATIENT (in answer to a question from a Brit)
-
Another Dissatisfied Worker
-

Thursday, March 26, 2009

CNN TRYING TO GRAB HEADLINES AND STIR UP TROUBLE WHILE THE REPUBLICAN PARTY IS STILL THE PARTY OF NO

CNN's viewership must be off, because why would they try to stir up trouble by saying America's patience may be wearing thin with President Obama? His administration has been around, what, about 65 days. Come on CNN do you really think Americans are buying into your ridiculous rantings?


Another headline for everyone .... Guess what? .... come on guess ..... ok I'll tell you


The REPUBLICAN PARTY is still the Party of "NO"; and now it's the Party of RUSH; the Party of CHENEY; and the Party AGAINST THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.


Bipartisanship? Forgive me, but who keeps saying "NO" to the President's very popular agenda and THE AMERICAN PEOPLE? Yep, you've got it ... the REPUBLICAN PARTY!

-

Monday, March 16, 2009

SUPPORT FOR STIMULUS DWINDLING? BEWARE OF AMERICANS FOR PROSPERITY AND CONSERVATIVES!

Read recently that American support for the stimulus was dwindling. They sited a poll from the Pew Research Center. The Americans who are now questioning the stimulus have been brainwashed by the "chatter" of Republicans, the conservative Americans for Prosperity and others, and polls from "think tanks" like the PEW Research Center .
-
I don't want to call those Americans [who listen to chatter] ignorant, but anyone who listens to a Republican, whose entire mission in life is to embrace a laissez-faire attitude towards business (whether its oil, weapons, health insurance companies, financial services corporations, or corporations that pollute the air, etc.) and pass laws so that Big Business flourishes [and then they cripple labor by opposing fair labor laws], is being misled every step of the way.
-
Republicans are so concerned about government becoming too big and tightening spending, they never get around to addressing the deep-rooted problems facing every American and their children.
-
They never addressed global warming, which is now in crisis stage ... allowing Big Business to pollute our air ... giving them tax breaks even though they were and are killing us and our children.
-
Republicans screamed "hands off" when it came to health insurance companies; and therefore let abuses and greed go unchecked while American's health suffered and people died because they could not afford health insurance and/or medicine. If you couldn't afford health insurance or the high cost of your life-saving medicine, well too bad ... not their problem.
-
Republicans came up with laws that gave the financial services industry carte blanche ... and we see where that got us. [PHIL GRAMM, GRAMM-LEACH-BLILEY ACT] Democrats eventually went along with Gramm-Leach-Bliley.
-
Republicans hate regulation. They believe in letting the markets take care of themselves. This laissez-faire attitude allowed derivatives and credit default swaps to go unrestrained and unregulated. The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, which allowed corporations to get bigger and bigger, and the lack of regulation, allowed a company like AIG to spread and entrench their tentacles multi-nationally so that now we have little idea how to untangle this "multinational economic ticking time bomb".
-
And this is part of Republican ideology people ... and it can be a life threatening ideology. Whenever you hear someone oppose the President's plans, look at the companies and people behind the opposition.
-
The President wants this Nation to move into the 21st century and a "Green Economy" ... what everyone (world-wide) recognizes that this is the direction we have to go. The Big Oil/Natural Gas corporations don't want you to do this. So, I'm going to ask you to look at who's behind the PEW Research Center. Who do you see? Right, big oil ... Sun Oil. Who's behind Americans for Prosperity? Guess who's opposing "cap and trade" and their spurious reasoning behind it?
-
Wake up ... Wake up ... Wake up People!
-
-

Saturday, March 14, 2009

REPUBLICAN WEEKLY ADDRESS - SAME OLD SAME OLD STUFF

This afternoon I watched the Republican Weekly Address [Chuck Grassley] on C-SPAN. It was supposed to be a response to the President's weekly address; however, today the President talked about his pick for FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION and talked about keeping our food safe, etc.
-
What was the Republican response? There wasn't a response to the President's address, it was ... yep, you guessed it, same old stuff. They are consistent ... I'll give them that.
-
They talked about the same old tax policies; then I heard them gripe about spending as usual.
-
They didn't talk cost/benefit or cost/savings as either. So, does the Republican Party have any new ideas. NO! NO! NO!
-
FDA PICK
-
REPUBLICAN PARTY DEATH WISH
-

Sunday, March 8, 2009

COULDN'T RESIST THIS MICHAEL STEELE PARODY

Okay, I tried to resist putting this video on the blog but I just couldn't help it. I'm hooked on Hilarity today so enjoy.
-
-

-

Tuesday, March 3, 2009

THE GOP SPIN MACHINE GOES ON AND ON AND ON ...

God, I'm sick of Republicans. They keep talking about the President's taxing small business. That is ridiculous. The President will only tax those making above $250,000. Most small business owners make below $250,000. Those who make above that better have changed from self-employed to a corporate model (sub chapter S, whatever). If they have a good accountant, the accountant would have already told them what business structure to use.
-
Also to clarify, the roll back to taxes during the Clinton years, will only be done after the recession lifts. That is what the President has said. So get a grip people. Why are people listening to Republicans? If you read the previous post [The GOP's Anti-Obama Propaganda], you know all this crap is about obstruction.

Sunday, March 1, 2009

THE GOP's ANTI-OBAMA PROPAGANDA

The GOP's Anti-Obama Propaganda
By Robert Parry February 25, 2009
-
Today’s Republicans are thumbing through Newt Gingrich’s worn playbook of 1993 looking for tips on how to blunt President Barack Obama’s political momentum and flip it to their advantage. In doing so, they also appear to have dug in to what might be called the secret appendix.
-
The official history of what happened during Bill Clinton’s difficult first two years – which ended in a sweeping Republican congressional victory in 1994 – focuses on the GOP’s united resistance to his economic plan and Hillary Clinton’s failed health care reform. But there was a darker side to the political damage inflicted on the early Clinton administration.
-
Republicans and their right-wing allies disseminated what – in a covert operation – would be called “black propaganda.” Some exaggerated minor scandals, like the Travel Office firings and Clinton’s Whitewater real-estate deal, while other key figures on the Right, such as the Rev. Jerry Falwell, spread ugly conspiracy rumors linking Clinton to “mysterious deaths” and cocaine smuggling.
-
Sometimes, these multiplying “Clinton scandals” built on themselves with the help of their constant repetition in both the right-wing and mainstream news media. For instance, overheated accusations about some personnel changes at the White House Travel Office pushed deputy White House counsel Vincent Foster into a deep depression.
-
Then, on July 30, 1993, a distraught Foster went to Fort Marcy Park along the Potomac River and shot himself. The Right quickly transformed the tragedy into a new front in the anti-Clinton psychological warfare, with Foster’s death giving rise to a cottage industry for conspiracy theorists and a new way to raise doubts about Clinton.
-
Talk radio host Rush Limbaugh, among others, popularized the notion that Foster may have been killed elsewhere, with his body then transported to Fort Marcy Park. Repeated official investigations confirmed the obvious facts of Foster’s suicide but could not quell the conspiracy rumors. [For the fullest account of the Foster case, see Dan Moldea’s A Washington Tragedy.]
-
The “mystery” around Foster’s death also bolstered the “mysterious deaths” list, which mostly contained names of people who had only tangential connections to Clinton. The effectiveness of the list was the sheer volume of the names, creating the illusion that Clinton must be a murderer even though there was no real evidence implicating Clinton in any of the deaths.
-
As the list was blast-faxed far and wide, one of my right-wing sources called me up about the list and said, “even if only a few of these are real, that’s one helluva story.” I responded that if the President of the United States had murdered just one person that would be “one helluva story,” but that there was no evidence that Clinton was behind any of the deaths.
-
Other dark Clinton “mysteries” were spread through videos, like “The Clinton Chronicles” that Falwell hawked on his “Old-Time Gospel Hour” television show. Plus, salacious tales about the personal lives of the Clintons were popularized via right-wing magazines, such as The American Spectator, and the rapidly expanding world of right-wing talk radio.
-
The Right also generated broader conspiracy theories about “black helicopters” threatening patriotic Americans with a United Nations takeover. The paranoia fed the rise of a “militia movement” of angry white men who dressed up in fatigues and went into the woods for paramilitary training.
-
By fall 1994, Clinton’s stumbling performance in office and the public doubts created by the black propaganda opened the way for a stunning Republican victory. Recognizing the influence of talk radio in spreading the Clinton smears, House Republicans made Rush Limbaugh an honorary member of the GOP caucus.
-
However, the forces that the anti-Clinton psy-war campaign set in motion had unintended consequences. In the months after the Republicans gained control of Congress, one pro-militia extremist, Timothy McVeigh, took the madness to the next step and blew up the Murrah federal building in Oklahoma City on April 19, 1995, killing 168 people. [See Consortiumnews.com’s “
The Clinton Coup d’Etat?”]
-
Reprising the Smears
-
Now, 16 years since the start of Clinton’s presidency, the Republicans and their right-wing allies are again on the outside of Washington power and are back studying the lessons of 1993-94. Only a month into Obama’s presidency, there are some striking similarities in the two historical moments.
-
In both cases, the Democrats inherited recessions and huge budget deficits from Republican presidents named Bush. In both cases, congressional Republicans rallied against the economic package of the new President hoping to strangle the young Democratic administrations in their cradles.
-
And, as congressional Republicans worked on a more overt political level, their media allies and other operatives were getting busy at subterranean depths, reviving attack lines from the campaigns to sow doubts about the two Democratic presidents – and trying to whip up the right-wing base into a near revolutionary fervor.
-
So far at least, the Republicans are experiencing less success against Barack Obama than they did against Bill Clinton. According to opinion polls, Obama remains widely popular with an American public that favors his more activist agenda for reviving the American economy and confronting systemic problems like energy, health care and education.
-
Though Republicans scored points inside the Beltway with their opposition to Obama’s $787 billion stimulus bill – and their complaints that Obama "failed" in his bipartisan outreach to them – the GOP tactics appear to have backfired with the American people.
-
Gauging public opinion one month into Obama’s presidency, polls found that most Americans faulted the Republicans for rebuffing Obama’s gestures of bipartisanship, and a New York Times/CBS News poll discovered that a majority said Obama “should pursue the priorities he campaigned on … rather than seek middle ground with Republicans.” [
NYT, Feb. 24, 2009]
-
But the Republicans seem incapable of coming up with any other strategy than to seek Obama’s destruction, much as they torpedoed Clinton. The three moderate Republican senators who supported the stimulus package – Susan Collins, Olympia Snowe and Arlen Specter – were widely denounced by the right-wing media as “traitors.”
-
Indeed, the Republican Party arguably has become captive to the angry right-wing media that the GOP conservatives did so much to help create in the late 1970s, after the Vietnam War defeat and Richard Nixon’s Watergate debacle.
-
This Right-Wing Machine proved useful in protecting Ronald Reagan during the Iran-Contra scandal; undermining Clinton in the 1990s; dirtying up Al Gore in 2000; and wrapping George W. Bush in the protective garb of a full-scale cult of personality after 9/11.
-
But the machine wore down in its defense of Bush’s multitude of disasters and ultimately could not generate enough suspicions about Obama to elect John McCain. Still, it remains a potent force in the country and particularly among the Republican “base.”
-
It is also a machine that can run only on the high-octane fuel of anger and hate. If it tried to down-shift to a more responsible approach to politics, it would stall out, losing its core audience of angry white men who feel deeply aggrieved by their loss of status.
-
In turn, Republican leaders can’t disown the right-wing media infrastructure that has advanced their interests for so long. In the first month of Obama’s presidency, the congressional Republicans fell in line behind Rush Limbaugh’s openly declared desire for Obama to fail.
-
Now, the Republicans may see little choice but to bet on the ability of their Right-Wing Machine to continue spreading doubts and hysteria about Obama.More books and DVDs can be expected soon, recycling the 2008 campaign’s rumor-mongering on Obama – that he wasn’t born in the United States, that he’s a secret Muslim, that he’s in league with 1960s radical Bill Ayers, etc.
-
Rumbling Insurrection
-
Much like the Clinton-era militia movement’s fear of “black helicopters,” there already are rumblings about the need for an armed uprising to thwart Obama’s alleged “communist” agenda.
-
Ironically, right-wingers who defended George W. Bush when he mounted a radical assault on the Constitution – seeking to establish an imperial presidency while eliminating habeas corpus and other key freedoms – are suddenly seeing threats to the Constitution from Obama.
-
Fox News, in particular, has been floating the idea of armed rebellion. On Feb. 20 – the one-month anniversary of Obama’s inauguration – Glenn Beck hosted a special program called “War Room” that “war-gamed” various scenarios including the overthrow of an oppressive U.S. government when “bubba” militias rise up and gain the support of the American military.
-
The segment featured former CIA officer Michael Scheuer, retired U.S. Army Sgt. Major Tim Strong, and Gerald Celente, a prognosticator who began pitching the idea of an armed rebellion on Fox News shortly after Obama’s election last November.
“This is going to be violent,” said Celente, founder of Trends Research Institute. “People can’t afford it [taxes] anymore. The cities are going to look like Dodge City. They’re going to be uncontrollable. You’re going to have gangs in control. Motorcycle marauders. You’re not going to have enough police or federales – just like Mexico – to control the situation.”
-
Beck envisioned the uprising – theoretically set in 2014 – starting “because people have been so disenfranchised” leading to a “bubba effect” touched off by federal agents from the ATF or FBI arresting some rancher in Texas or Arizona who has taken the law into his own hands in defending his property.
-
“That’s totally possible,” ex-Sgt. Strong said. “You’ve got people who are going to do the right thing to truly protect the interests of the United States, to include their own. … Your second and third orders of effect are going to be your bubbas hunkering down and being anti-government.”
-
Beck, who was a longtime fixture on CNN’s Headline News before moving to Fox, then expanded on the justification for the bubba uprising against a federal government that was “coming in and disenfranchising people over and over and over again – and having the people say please listen to us.”
-
According to Beck, these oppressed Americans “know the Constitution. They know the writings of the Founders and they feel that the government – or they will in this scenario and I think we’re on this road – the government has betrayed the Constitution. So they will see themselves as people who are standing up for the Constitution.”
-
Beck then turned to ex-CIA officer Scheuer and asked, “So how do you defuse this, Michael, or how long even do we have before this becomes a crazy real scenario?”
“I don’t think you’d want to defuse it, Glenn,” Scheuer responded. “The Second Amendment is … at base not about hunting or about a militia, but about resisting tyranny. The Founders were very concerned about allowing individual citizens weaponry to defend themselves as a last resort against a tyrannical government.”
As the discussion edged toward advocacy of violent revolution, Beck sought to reel it back in a bit.
-
“Don’t get me wrong,” the host said. “I am against the government. And I think they’ve just been horrible. I do think they are betraying the principles of our Founders every day they’re in office. But I have to tell you this scenario scares the living daylights out of me because it is shaking nitroglycerine.”
-
Beck then got back to the point: “Do the soldiers come in and do they round up people or do they fight with the people for the Constitution? What does the Army, what does the military do?”
-
Scheuer answered: “I don’t think the military is ever going to shoot on the American people, sir. I think the military – of all people – read the Constitution every year, right through.”
-
Beck then suggested that Obama’s stimulus package might lead to this back-door federal tyranny.
-
“We just had in our stimulus package a way for if your governor says no to the money, the legislature can go around the governor and go right to the Feds,” Beck said. “It’s this kind of thing that would make the federal government say, ‘You know what? We can call up the National Guard. We don’t need your governor to do it.’”
-
Such insurrectionist musings on Fox News are not likely to be taken seriously by most people. Indeed, many Americans may find it amusing that Fox has developed a heartfelt concern about disenfranchising voters after its enthusiastic embrace of Bush's undemocratic "election" in 2000 or that Fox now feels a sudden reverence for the Constitution after eight years of defending Bush as he trampled it.
-
But this sort of Fox chatter runs the risk of feeding the well-nursed grievances of angry white “bubbas” and possibly inspiring a new Timothy McVeigh.
-
More significantly, today’s Republican leaders – finding themselves with little new to offer – appear to have turned to the well-worn pages of this earlier GOP playbook to choose the same game plan that set the nation on a dangerous and destructive course 16 years ago, a course that only now, finally, may be playing out.
-
Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories in the 1980s for the Associated Press and Newsweek. His latest book, Neck Deep: The Disastrous Presidency of George W. Bush, was written with two of his sons, Sam and Nat, and can be ordered at
neckdeepbook.com. His two previous books, Secrecy & Privilege: The Rise of the Bush Dynasty from Watergate to Iraq and Lost History: Contras, Cocaine, the Press & 'Project Truth' are also available there. Or go to Amazon.com.
-
Originating page:
-

Friday, February 27, 2009

OPEN RESPONSE TO CNN

This morning you said a word that Republicans know Americans react negatively to. I’ve heard that word every time a Republican wants to stir up trouble and lie to the American people. That word is “welfare”.

You now have used that word and have become a “mouth piece” for the Republican Party. Shame on you.

The government has always extended a helping hand to those people in need. Always … whether it was under a Republican administration or a Democratic administration … and as we know, over the past 40 years, there have been more Republican administrations than Democratic.

The Madoff types have used ponzi schemes and Wall Street introduced shady financial instruments which helped bring down this Nation. The oil companies made huge profits, CEO's made excessively huge bonuses, stock options, etc. no matter what the company's profits were. Republicans have consistently given favors (welfare) to the rich. You don’t call that welfare … you CNN, and Republicans and a lot of brainwashed people call it farm subsidies, tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans, preferential treatment to corporations by enacting laws that benefit them, deregulation, etc., etc. Those words sound nicer than “welfare”.

The President will let the Bush tax cuts (that favor the wealthiest Americans) expire and reset those taxes to where it was during the Clinton administration … no longer favoring the rich (no longer providing welfare to those who don't need it).

For some reason, CNN, you always give more credibility to Republicans over Democrats. I wonder what media conglomerate (recipients of corporate “welfare”) you belong to?

If you continue to use those politically and negatively charged words, I will urge my blog followers, friends, family, and club members to watch C-SPAN or Discovery or History Channel or just turn off the television.

Again, shame on you.
-
I want all you "fat cats", Republicans, CEO's, management of large corporations, the "2% who control 80% of the wealth" in this country ... all of you to wake up and realize that the American people voted for Democrats ... defenders of low-income and middle-income workers, the poor and the sick (those Americans who represent the majority of Americans).

Thursday, January 29, 2009

REPUBLICAN STRATEGY TO DERAIL STIMULUS PACKAGE AND FIRE UP THEIR BASE

-
Ok readers ... our group has set forth a strategy. We're not going to let you know what it is right now; but, we'll let you know if it works.
-
Did you notice that the Cato Institute [a conservative think tank], fueled by right-wing Republicans and some conservative groups, has a big spread this morning talking about more tax cuts being the way to improve the economy and they're running tons of ads trying to convince you they are right. Well, in case you don't remember, Republican economic policy (which included tax cuts) along with Republican foreign policy and lack of regulation and oversight has driven us into this mess. Remember? That's why you voted for change.
-
That said, tax policy that allows for tax credits and tax incentives [not tax cuts] for businesses is much healthier.
-
Now, if you combine massive infrastructure spending with tax credits and tax incentives for businesses, we're headed in the right direction.
-
Let's see if our government does the right thing. Hey people, government is us ... speak up!
-
-
-
-

Wednesday, January 28, 2009

REPUBLICANS CONTINUING TO MISLEAD THE PUBLIC ABOUT THE CBO, JAPANESE STIMULUS PLAN AND TAX CUTS

-
First let me give a Kudos "shout out" to "Morning Joe"'s frequent guest, Dylan Ratigan and to CNBC's Maria Bartiromo for their insightful and enlightening remarks this morning. We need more people getting angry with what's going on in the financial world, in corporations, and in the Congress and the Senate. You guys keep up the good work; and I urge citizens/consumers to keep a "watchful eye" on these entities and hold them accountable.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Rolling Stone" writer claims no one came forward to address corruption regarding Blagojevich. Not true ... Jesse Jackson Jr. did speak to certain federal investigators when the Governor asked for a donation of $25,000 from Jesse in exchange for hiring his wife. Kudos to Jesse.
-
------------------------------------------------------------------------
-

Yesterday, I sent quite a few emails to the House and the Senate dealing with myths, lies and half-truths.
-
-
1. Republicans state study by CBO shows vast majority of money in stimulus package won't be spent until after 2010.
-

The facts:
-
"Reports of a recent study by the Congressional Budget Office, showing that the vast majority of the money in the stimulus package won't be spent until after 2010, have Democrats on the defensive and the GOP calling for a pullback in wasteful spending.
Funny thing is, there is no such report.
-
"We did not issue any report, any analysis or any study," a CBO aide told the Huffington Post.
-
Rather, the nonpartisan CBO ran a small portion of an earlier version of the stimulus plan through a computer program that uses a standard formula to determine a score -- how quickly money will be spent. The score only dealt with the part of the stimulus headed for the Appropriations Committee and left out the parts bound for the Ways and Means or Energy and Commerce Committee.
-
Because it dealt with just a part of the stimulus, it estimated the spending rate for only about $300 billion of the $825 billion plan. Significant changes have been made to the part of the bill the CBO looked at. ..."

-
See entire 1/23/08 post at:
-
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
-


2. Republicans claim that stimulus didn't work with the Japanese therefore it won't work now.
-

The facts:
-
The Journal [conservative "Wall Street Journal"] editorial listed stimulus policies enacted by Japan between 1992 and 1999 and concluded that "Japan's economy grow [sic] anemically over that decade, but as the nearby chart shows, its national debt exploded ... Now we're told that a similar spending program -- a new New Deal -- will revive the U.S. economy. How do you say 'good luck' in Japanese?"
-
Contrary to the Journal's suggestion that stimulus spending was ineffective in Japan, Adam Posen, deputy director of the Peterson Institute for International Economics, wrote in his September 1998 book, Restoring Japan's Economic Growth, that "the 1995 stimulus package ... did result in solid growth in 1996, demonstrating that fiscal policy does work when it is tried. As on earlier occasions in the 1990s, however, the positive response to fiscal stimulus was undercut by fiscal contraction in 1996 and 1997."
-
He concluded:
Similar contractions undertaken both openly and by hidden means in 1994, 1996, and 1997, with reference to announced but unimplemented spending, had destructive effects. Future government packages must recognize that when the Japanese government paid for fiscal stimulus in 1995, it got economic growth, and that when it mistakenly pursued fiscal austerity in most of the remainder of the 1992-97 period, it got economic contraction.
-
A 1999 budget brief from the Japanese Ministry of Finance demonstrates that the consumption tax was indeed increased from 3 to 5 percent in 1997. Other economists and media figures agree with Posen that the positive effects of the mid-decade stimulus packages were curtailed by these attempts to scale back spending and increase sales taxes.
-

For the entire December 22, 2008 article:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
3. John McCain says broadband spending will not stimulate the economy.
-

The facts:
-

Rachel Maddow caught John McCain stating (during the campaign) that spending on broadband would stimulate the economy. She even played the video with those words flowing out of his mouth.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-

4. Republicans claim that (supply side, etc.) tax cuts help stimulate the economy more than spending. They have even front loaded up the Internet search engines directing you to blog posts and articles (that were non existent a few days ago) that repeat distorted/misleading assumptions, trying to sway you to their side.
-
-

The Facts:
-
Go to:



-
 
-

-
-
-
-
Tune into GRITtv with Laura Flanders
-
-
-