Archive for: April, 2011

Obama Makes Trump His Bitch At White House Correspondents’ Dinner

Apr 30 2011 Published by under Uncategorized

From the opening strains of Hulk Hogan’s theme song “Real American” to his pointed humor through out, President Barack Obama took a victory lap for killing the birther issue, and he wasted no time gutting Donald Trump.

Before the dinner Trump told ABC News that he didn’t think the President would address him in his remarks. Obama not only addressed Trump, but he also gave him a taste of big time politics.

Here is video of Obama’s speech from The Washington Post

After Obama played a clip from The Lion King which he called his official birth video, he said, “I wanna make clear to the Fox News table that was a joke. That was not my real birth video. That was a children’s cartoon. Call Disney if you don’t believe me, they have the original long form version.”

Obama later got into Donald Trump, “Now I know that he has taken some flak lately, but no one is happier no one is prouder to put this long firm birth certificate matter to rest than The Donald, and that’s because he can finally get back to focusing on the issues that matter, like did we fake the moon landing? What really happened in Roswell, and where are Biggie and Tupac?”

The President the mocked Trump’s executive experience, “All kidding aside obviously we all know about your credentials and breadth of experience. For example, no seriously, just recently in an episode of Celebrity Apprentice at the steak house the men’s cooking team did not impress the judges from Omaha Steaks, and there was a lot of blame to go around, but you Mr. Trump recognized that the real problem was a lack of leadership and so ultimately you didn’t blame Lil’ Jon or Meatloaf. You fired Gary Busey, and these are the decisions that would keep me up at night. Well handled, sir. Well handled.”

Obama used this lighthearted forum to introduce Donald Trump to the rough and tumble world of big time politics. Donald Trump was schooled by Obama on how to take out a critic, not with an F-Bomb, but a smile.

The President’s jokes this year were sharper and more pointed. Obama’s humor had an edge to it. He used his speech to answer his critics, and I think blow off some steam. He addressed the disappointment that some feel about his job performance, the birther nonsense, took plenty of political jabs at potential 2012 rivals, and mocked the people who are obsessed with his teleprompter.

This was President Obama gearing up for the 2012 campaign, and it was obvious that Donald Trump was in Obama’s house tonight. He was the guppy. Obama was the shark, and the President ate him alive.

Obama shattered the right’s delusions and dreams that Donald Trump is their savior, the man who will take Obama on.

Donald Trump is an amateur who was taken to the cleaners by the best pro in the business. Obama might have been joking, but his message to Trump was clear: I own this world, so do yourself a favor and stick to playing the tough guy on TV.

President Obama revealed what 64% of America already knew. Donald Trump does not belong anywhere near the White House.

Obama has always laughed at the birthers. Tonight, he laughed in Donald Trump’s face.

Donald Trump has a new daddy, and his name is President Barack Obama.

90 responses so far

Donald Trump Booed at White House Correspondents’ Dinner

Apr 30 2011 Published by under Uncategorized

The Nerd Prom got under way with fireworks Saturday night as the GOP’s very own Hollywood elite, Donald Trump, was booed walking away from the press to the White House Correspondents’ Association Dinner.

The Wrap announced that the Donald was booed tonight:

Trump arrived on the red carpet at Washington’s Hilton Hotel with his wife, Melania, shortly at 7:00 p.m. (ET). After giving a brief interview with a group of several of media outlets, Trump — who was invited to the event as a guest of the Washington Post — walked away to a chorus of audible boos from the media members on the press line. (And it wasn’t because they wanted to hear Trump talk more.)

Trump’s entrance briefly took the spotlight away from the other celebrity arrivals, including Mila Kunis, Scarlett johansson, David Arquette, Elizabeth Banks, Mira Sorvino, Jeremy Piven and at least one of the Wayans Brothers.

Video courtesy of Crooks and Liars:

What is the Donald doing at Nerd Prom anyway? He’s a reality TV show “star” famous for being married three times to women who get put through the Donaldator before or after matrimony.

Oh, right- he’s playing at running for President of this great nation as a Republican. I guess he saw the other GOP candidates and figured if they could do it, so could he. Hey, GOP, the Donald is your fault!

This is what the Donald gets after weeks of race-baiting and playing to the lowest common denominator in a desperate attempt for media attention by competing for loudest creep in the Republican line up.

When the nerds fire you from legitimacy, it sounds like…..

Boo!

56 responses so far

Scott Walker Unveils His Wisconsin Food Stamp Starvation Scheme

Apr 30 2011 Published by under Uncategorized

Governor Scott Walker is creating a road to fascism in a hurry in Wisconsin. Not only does his “budget repair bill” hand over utilities to private industry but now this tea party conservative wants to privatize food stamp allocations.

This plan would allow a for profit corporation to decide who gets food and who doesn’t. On top of this 20 million dollars will be taken away from Wisconsin in Federal aid for help.

Walker’s proposed 2011-’13 budget would take this work from the remaining counties and centralize it with the state by using a private contractor to do much of the work. The Walker administration estimates that the proposal would save $48 million per year and eliminate 270 positions.

If this corporation makes a mistake, who does a person call? When a service is privatized that corporation is ONLY answerable to shareholders and depending on the contract the state signs, the corporation may have that job for 3, 5, or even 10 years before anything can be rectified.

In a recent report by The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel,

Gov. Scott Walker’s proposal to privatize work determining who is eligible for food assistance in the state would violate federal law and could expose the state to a loss of more than $20 million in federal money, federal officials say.

In an April 14 letter to state Health Services Secretary Dennis Smith and Children and Families Secretary Eloise Anderson, Ollice Holden, a Midwest administrator for the USDA’s Food and Nutrition Service, warned that the work of interviewing applicants and deciding who is eligible for the Wisconsin FoodShare program needs to be done by public workers who are essentially civil servants. If not, he said, the state could lose some of the federal funds supporting FoodShare, the successor in Wisconsin to the food stamp program.

In a statement released Thursday, U.S. Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack said, “Recent state agency privatization initiatives in Texas and Indiana have been complete failures, marked by technical difficulties, staffing shortages, and inadequate training of private call-center staff and resulting in adverse impacts on the state and its people.

“USDA will continue to work with Wisconsin to improve its program delivery and integrity so that the most vulnerable people in the state receive the nutrition benefits they need,” Vilsack said.

Walker’s proposal is just the latest strain on the state’s partnership with the federal government on FoodShare.

From Michigan to Wisconsin, these tea party Governors are allowing corporations to strangle our resources. Over in Michigan emergency managers are busy privatizing schools left and right.

Watch out, the next step may be privatizing the Great Lakes.

Image: Tennessee Guerrilla Woman

77 responses so far

You Come for Our Unions We Come for Your Corporate Mega Churches

Apr 30 2011 Published by under Uncategorized

AFL-CIO President Richard Trumpka gave a rousing speech this week about the need for a mobile, global labor movement to counter-act the attacks on workers around the globe. He pointed out that in a declining economy, politics become vicious and the viscous attack. And most importantly, he noted that the CEO backed Republicans attacked unions and collective bargaining because the unions are weak right now. The Republicans thought it would be an easy kill.

They were wrong.

But instead of just fighting to hang on, we need to fight for the rights of all workers, we need to fight to grow union labor and grow workers rights if we are to save the middle class. We need to grow an army of people dedicated to workers rights who can and will protest peacefully and memorably as they did in Madison at the drop of a hat. We need to take the Madison spirit, the Egyptian spirit, and the Tunisian spirit – and plant it, feed it, nurture it.

We need to be educating our fellow citizens and teaching our children about the importance of unions. We need solidarity to extend permanently, not just during a crisis. We need to come together for the battle of a lifetime. We need to unite all unions and middle class labor under the umbrella of human rights and we need to hold our elected officials from both parties accountable to labor. Fight for the people, represent the people, or get out. But we also need to go on the attack. We will not advance the cause of the middle class by mere defense of battle lines.

Instead of being on the defense, we need to be on the offense. Republicans present the notion that unions are to blame for the budget crisis while urging the parishioners of huge tax exempt mega churches to vote Republican. Mega churches have become political action committees for all intents and purposes, and as such, are on par with how Republicans see unions. If taking away collective bargaining rights is necessary under the guise of a fiscal emergency, what other rights are up for grabs? Perhaps the next right to be targeted should be a Republican PAC such as mega churches.

The Republicans’ attack on workers can be compared to the tactics of an abusive spouse attacking the less powerful member of the household, using physical and/or financial power to threaten and control the other. One of the tactics inherent in this power structure is the abuser kicks the victim and then demands more concessions in order to stop kicking them. The stunned victim will often give in, seeking to end the abuse. Our minds assume that if someone is attacking us they must have a reason; and so when we hear Scott Walkers of the world saying we have a fiscal emergency and that is why you must give up your rights, many of us assume there must be an emergency and it must be the fault of labor or why would Walker be seeking to end their power?

Of course, as we have learned, Governor Walker did not have a legitimate reason for pushing to kill collective bargaining. It gained him nothing fiscally. He merely wanted the power to kill the unions. Think of him as the abuser who wanted the power to hold the purse strings so he could abuse his powerless victim even more. A victim who can’t leave because they have no financial power is much easier to kick the next time.

And his victim isn’t just the unions – his victim is in fact all of the middle class.

The thing to do in this situation isn’t to merely fight the stated issue, but change the terms, create an atmosphere of instability for the abuser. The victim needs to redefine the playing field. While the unions are busy seeking to grow solidarity and membership and educating the public about the benefits to society, the rest of us need to be fighting the corporate power in other ways. We need to demand that our representatives stand for the people and not for corporations. We need to not only fight to maintain the power we still have, but we need to go after the institutions supporting and advocating for the attack on the middle class in new and unique ways.

An example of being on the offense would be a mass movement to take away the tax-free status of mega churches that are violating the electioneering rules — a coordinated effort across the country to go after these folks for taxes since they have been actively involved in politics and crossing state lines to do so for way too long.

Churches are tax exempt under the principle that there is no surer way to destroy the free exercise of religion than to tax it; but tax exemption is a privilege, not a right and by accepting the tax exemption, the entity agrees to some oversight. The 1954 federal Johnson Amendment prohibits a pastor from talking about candidates from the pulpit. Furthermore, under the Internal Revenue Code, all IRC section 501(c)(3) organizations, including churches and religious organizations, are absolutely prohibited from directly or indirectly participating in, or intervening in, any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. Contributions to political campaign funds or public statements of position (verbal or written) made by or on behalf of the organization in favor of or in opposition to any candidate for public office clearly violate the prohibition against political campaign activity. Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise tax.

Tax exemption is a voluntary agreement and presumes no electioneering from the pulpit, and yet we have seen wide-spread electioneering from the pulpit, in both national elections and state legislation (Prop 8 for example). In part, tax exemption for non-profits was also based on the notion that these entities were providing private support for public good (food for the hungry, shelter for the homeless, etc). The First Amendment does not specifically guarantee the tax exemption right either, though lawyers for churches have made the argument that it is implied or intended.

Tax exemption for churches is not specifically mandated in the Constitution; it was an agreement by governmental bodies in an attempt to protect free speech. Like any agreement, it was supposed to work two ways but in the last 40 years, we’ve seen egregious violations of the pulpit electioneering rules. Gee, we have a budget crises and everyone has to share the sacrifice and here we see the burgeoning wealth of these mega churches that are violating their agreements with the government. God is clearly telling us that they can not only afford to pay a bit into the system so that a teacher in Michigan can afford to feed their children, but that they want to pay into the system. They violated the agreement their tax exemption was based upon; now they can participate in shared sacrifices.

While labor defends the front lines, we need to be seeking to disempower the corporate beast from behind and the side – anywhere there is vulnerability. Much as Republicans planned and coordinated this mass attack on labor, women’s rights and seniors, we need to coordinate with all of the various constituencies that represent the people and fight the beast of the corporate take over of America.

We have dire financial issues facing us, but the answer to these crises is not to cheapen labor and the middle class, especially not when there is plenty of money to be found in taxing mega churches that violate their tax exemption agreements and in taxing corporations their fair share.

We need to stop the subsidies and welfare to corporations and political animals masquerading as churches. Let them pony up their shared sacrifices before we feed the people to the angry and relentlessly greedy GOP corporate beast. If they want the assistance they are getting from the federal government currently, they have to play by the rules like everyone else does. After all, what is the difference between a lazy welfare bum who isn’t really looking for work and a mega church that isn’t really avoiding violating the electioneering rules? Both are taking federal assistance based on an agreement. It could be argued that the only difference is a matter of perspective.

Image: Irregular Times

58 responses so far

Picking The Lock Boxes At Social Security And Medicare

Apr 30 2011 Published by under Uncategorized

Sociologist and author Margaret J. Wheatley once made the eminently sensible observation, “Everyone in a complex system has a slightly different interpretation. The more interpretations we gather,” she said, “the easier it becomes to gain a sense of the whole.” Sadly, Dr. Wheatley neglected to add a necessary exception to her otherwise serviceable rule—politics.

Consider Social Security and Medicare, arguably two of the most successful federal programs in our history. Once considered political “third rail” topics no politician dared broach except to pledge their undying devotion, these programs have been targeted by Paul Ryan and Bowles-Simpson as unsustainable fiscal black holes, emblematic of Washington’s profligate spending. Centrist budget “realists” such as Fortune senior-editor-at-large Shawn Tully and even putative Democrats like Alicia Munnell routinely fall into traps laid by right-wing pundits from every corner, and instead of clarifying, each new interpretation further muddies an already murky swamp of misinterpretation.

Simply put, most of the “facts” about Social Security and Medicare trust funds wedged in our heads are either false or profoundly misleading. The trust funds have been raided, we are told, stuffed with “IOUs,” and hurtling toward insolvency unless something drastic is done now. We can’t balance the budget unless benefits are slashed and eligibility ages raised. Our aging population is rendering both programs unsustainable Ponzi schemes which must necessarily collapse under their own weight. And so on.

The truth is that—even if nothing was done to alter Social Security—it would remain solvent and paying out full benefits under current retirement guidelines until 2037. Put that way, it doesn’t seem quite so urgent, does it? Not that we want to ignore a potential catastrophe just because it’s so far in the future, but aren’t you curious why our elected representatives—who rarely look beyond the next election—are hyperventilating about a problem that won’t fully materialize until 26 years hence?

And what about the “lock box?” Is it really empty? Have your hard-earned FICA dollars been raided and replaced with IOUs, thus rendering the trust funds fundamentally insolvent? In a word, “no.” The IOUs that critics habitually wail about are not trifling chits scrawled on the backs of a cocktail napkins; they are special issue government bonds backed by the full faith and credit of the United States government. If this doesn’t instill much confidence, keep in mind that these bonds are IOUs in the same sense as the federal and municipal bonds in your private retirement fund. They are promises to pay—with interest. If we weren’t talking about Social Security, these IOUs would be called by another name: investments.

Paradoxically, the charge that Social Security trust funds have been “raided” is really an admission that they actually are solvent. The raiding of these trust funds has been done by Congress, which exploited the trust funds as political cover for their own unsustainable budget policies. For three decades, supply side ideologues in both parties have ratcheted income tax rates down, choking off revenues to the general fund and in turn mushrooming our national debt. In addition to borrowing trillions from the Chinese and others, Congress has borrowed from the vast Social Security trust fund by issuing bonds, thus masking systemic problems elsewhere. Now, in a classic example of attempting to have their cake and eat it too, right wingers are portraying both Social Security and Medicare as mismanaged bureaucracies duped into trading the family cow for a fistful of magic beans. But the fact that the trust funds are used to plug budget holes elsewhere is an indictment of Congress, not of Social Security.

Such misrepresentations aside, the current hysteria over the national debt seems to suggest that Social Security must suffer the budget axe along with every other sacred cow, right? But what exactly does that mean? Quite simply, it means that Congress intends to continue the current shell game with the trust funds, but with a new twist. By characterizing benefits as “handouts” and reducing them, they intend to replenish the trust funds for further “raids,” all under the guise of hard-headed austerity measures.

Although Dr. Wheatley’s observation on interpreting complex systems might not serve us well in our current budget debate, another of her many wise remarks seems particularly cogent and timely. She said, “Thinking is the place where intelligent actions begin. We pause long enough to look more carefully at a situation, to see more of its character, to think about why it’s happening, to notice how it’s affecting us and others.”

Therefore, don’t be misled by the so-called budget “realists” pitching the rollback of Social Security and Medicare as “shared sacrifice.” These programs are not only not contributing to our deficit spending, they have long been exploited to patch holes elsewhere in the budget. Although their obligations are great, both programs are robust and extraordinarily well-managed, and as the bulk of our comparatively threadbare American social safety net, they are also dramatically more stimulative to the economy than tax cuts. To lose sight of these fundamental truths is to lose all hope of ever gaining “a sense of the whole.”

13 responses so far

A Tale Of Two Town Halls: Republicans Get A Taste Of Populist Rage

Apr 30 2011 Published by under Uncategorized

During the contentious health care reform debates, Democratic lawmakers convened town hall meetings to answer questions and promote the idea that finally, after years of conservative obstruction, America was close to implementing a system that enabled nearly every American to have affordable health care coverage. The Democrats soon discovered that Fox News had convinced teabaggers that health care reform was a Socialist plot to kill Americans and the town halls became Inquisition chambers for the legislators. The protestors, spurred on by Dick Morris’s Gestapo-like tactics of screaming in unison, spontaneous renditions of patriotic songs, and random recitations of the pledge of allegiance, successfully disrupted the meetings and in the process, deprived the Democrats and public from engaging in real discourse that is necessary in deciding critical issues like health care reform.  The spectacle of citizens screaming at Democrats was deliberately orchestrated and televised on the nightly news and in spite of claims to the contrary, was not a grass-roots movement. Fast forward to 2011 and a similar scenario is being played out across the country.

When Republicans took control of the House in January, one of their primary tasks was dealing with the budget and controlling spending. The 2012 Path to Prosperity budget proposal by House Budget Chairman Paul Ryan (R-WI) is the Republican’s vision for the future of America and reveals the corporatist inclination inherent in conservative philosophy. The Republican proposal lays out a bleak future for Americans who have toiled under the illusion that hard work and shared sacrifice will pay off in old age as well as maintain America’s greatness in the world. The Path to Prosperity budget is co-opted by the Heritage Foundation, and they were at the forefront in promoting the budget immediately after Ryan submitted it for the media’s approval.

The budget proposal is alleged to change America’s course according to the Heritage Foundation, and to some degree, they are correct. However, the changes Ryan proposes are not new; they are a continuation of the slash and burn spending proposals Republicans have practiced for decades. Of course, tax cuts for the rich, education cuts, and corporate entitlements will not create jobs as the authors of the proposal contend and in fact, the Medicare and Medicaid cuts alone will be responsible for losing 2.1 million private-sector jobs over the next five years according to the Congressional Budget Office.  The Heritage-Ryan budget was passed in the House along party lines and the Easter recess gave Republicans time to go to their home districts to boast to their constituents about the impending course change for America. The Republicans would convene their own town hall meetings and answer questions and promote the Path to Prosperity they already passed in the House.

Bolstered by an easy victory in passing the course-change budget, Republicans were anxious to hear their constituents praise them for privatizing Medicare and cutting taxes for the wealthy and corporations. However, the town hall meetings proved to be contentious, and unlike the health care town halls, the anger and rage aimed at Republicans was not orchestrated, but a true grass-roots movement. Apparently, Americans are not yet ready for the Republican course change, and Republicans find themselves in the untenable position of defending a wildly unpopular idea that, unlike health care reform, harms people instead of helping them.

There is a monumental difference between the health care town halls and the Path to Prosperity meetings. Democratic legislators took proposed legislation to their constituents for input and discussion before deciding whether to vote on such an important measure which is in keeping with democratic principles when making law. Many Democrats voted according to their constituent’s reactions to the proposed health law in spite of the benefits voters lost out on if the bill failed to pass. The objections and disruptions Democrats faced were from well-organized tea party operatives who were coached on how best to disrupt the meetings so there would never be questions or answers; in many cases, the legislators never had the opportunity to explain the bill’s features. Republicans and tea party leaders were very successful in stopping the discussions before they ever started and the effect was a public that never really understood what health care reform meant for them.

Republicans’ town halls were in their own heavily conservative districts and their constituents were not planted by the opposition, but were made up of Republicans anxious to hear for themselves what kind of budget the legislators already passed. The reactions to the budget and in particular, the Medicare privatization scheme gave the Republicans a taste of the anger and outrage Democrats faced during the health care reform debate. Audience members were irate that Republicans already voted to end Medicare at the same time they gave tax cuts to the wealthy and corporations. The budget’s co-author, Paul Ryan had questioners removed by police instead of having the courage to explain his actions, and one GOP freshman, Rep. Rick Crawford (R-AR) shut down the town hall meeting after difficult questions about privatizing Medicare. Needless to say, Republicans can dish out disruption at Democrats’ town halls, but they can’t take legitimate questions from their own supporters.

The town hall meetings on health care and Republicans’ budget showed two important differences in governing style that characterize the disparity in the two political parties. Republicans did not consult their constituents before voting on a budget that adversely affects every American except the extremely wealthy, and the opposition they faced was from their own supporters who wondered why they ended Medicare instead of raising taxes on the wealthy and corporations. Conversely, Democrats took a proposal to their constituents before voting on the bill and faced opposition from right wing plants, but didn’t have police evict the protesters. Democrats tend to adhere to principles of democracy and Republicans pass laws on their own in spite of the damage they cause.

It is good for Republicans to see that their governing style and policies are not what Americans want from their representatives. It’s also good to see that even Republicans’ supporters have a limited tolerance for being treated despicably before they say enough. One would think that Paul Ryan would have noticed the outrage at Scott Walker’s actions in his home state, but arrogance tends to blind people to reality when they get a taste of power and money from the Heritage Foundation. America is awakening from a drunken stupor that allowed Republican legislative malfeasance to send the economy into a ditch and they are voicing their anger at a change of course that will destroy the middle class and doom elderly Americans to poverty and life without health care. Perhaps between now and the lead up to the 2012 elections, Republican supporters will see that Republican governance is underhanded and contemptible, and choose to separate from the GOP because now they know the issues are not up for discussion. In fact, it is quite evident the Republicans, like dictators, make laws and jail dissenters for asking questions like they do in Iran, North Korea, and Saudi Arabia.

Image: Politico.com

19 responses so far

Pat Robertson says United States Becoming Sodom and Gomorrah

Apr 30 2011 Published by under Uncategorized

From God to You

The United States is turning into Sodom and Gomorrah. Yeah, good times…no, not so much says noted Christofascist Pat Robertson. Appearing on his show 700 Club, Robertson went off on what he sees as the many sins of Americans today, and about what he thinks his god is going to do about it. We just can’t seem to do anything right! Somewhere along the way we have not only forgotten that we’re supposed to be combating militant socialism but we forgot that we’re supposed to be spreading the gospel from America to the world. How did the Founding Father’s screw up so badly to leave all that out of our Founding Documents?

Oh boy, are we PWNED now:

Robertson: And I believe that the anointing of the Lord has been here to fulfill the desire of those early settlers, to take the gospel from America throughout the world, and that’s what we’ve been here to do. But let me tell you, ladies and gentlemen, it doesn’t take a great scholar to tell you the United States has lost its moorings.

When you think that courts have denied children the right to pray in schools, that there’s a vendetta against religious belief, that now homosexuality has been made a constitutional right, that abortion has been made a constitutional right, the courts and judges have trampled on the early origins of our nation, they have distorted the meaning of the First Amendment. It’s all been done, and we’ve let it happen.

But I was reading today about a place called Sodom and Gomorrah, and a man named Abraham stood before God, and he says, “God, there’re righteous people in that city, would you kill them along with the wicked, must not the judge of all the earth do right?” And God finally promised, “If I can find ten righteous in that city, I will spare it,” just ten. Well the time came he could only find six, so they destroyed Sodom and Gomorra. But there’re many righteous here in America, and we need to band together and pray that God Almighty will spare this great land and reestablish in our hearts the vision of the pioneers.

Right away I see a problem here. Setting aside his persecution complex for a moment, and his free and easy way with facts, science, and the historical record, Pat Robertson is no Abraham, for one thing. Second, there is no evidence whatsoever that any divine agency was responsible for the destruction of any ancient city. People destroyed many of them, as did fires and earthquakes and other natural catastrophes. A third problem is Robertson’s math. An ancient city like Sodom or Gomorrah would have had a very small population. Finding 10 “righteous” people in a city of a few acres in extent is one thing but in a country the size of the United States Robertson’s god would have to allow for more than 10 to make it a meaningful exercise. Hundreds, or thousands at least. Surely there are enough Christofascists like Robertson to be found “righteous” by his god.

It’s kind of frightening to think people still think this way. I mean, is a good with a temper like this somebody you even want to bother worshiping? Really? I mean, if you had a parent who went around killing and destroying when he got pissed off, or terrorizing his children, you’d call the cops and the clown would be locked up. But instead, we’re supposed to love him and believe his assurances that he loves us in return? Really? Really?

Where is Jesus when you need him? The Religious Right, the forces of Christofascism, have entirely lost Jesus. They’ve taken Jesus and his message of love out of the message here; they’ve taken Christ out of Christianity and left us the Old Testament wrath. I don’t know about you, but I’d like to see some Christian credentials please, because I don’t know who these people are.

I mean, I thought Jesus died for our sins…Criminy!

 

19 responses so far

Sarah Palin Accuses Obama Of Stealing The 2008 Election

Apr 29 2011 Published by under Uncategorized

76 responses so far

The Right Approve of Trump’s F-Bombs Disagree With Building Schools

Apr 29 2011 Published by under Uncategorized

Conservatives have once again put their family values on full display, by voicing their approval of Donald Trump’s F-bomb laced Las Vegas speech, but opposing building more schools in Brooklyn.

Here is the video of Trump’s F-bomb laced tirade from ABC News:

Trump said, “We build a school, we build a road, they blow up the school, we build another school, we build another road they blow them up, we build again, in the meantime we can’t get a f***king school in Brooklyn.”

One would expect the family values conservatives to be outraged over Trump’s profanity, but instead their problem is with the idea of building more schools.

Here is Rush Limbaugh’s fill in Marc Steyn via Media Matters agreeing with F-bombs but disagreeing with building more schools:

Steyn said, “The problem is this. We don’t actually need another f***ing school in Brooklyn. We’ve got all the f***ing school in Brooklyn that we need. The problems in Iraq are not that building schools in Iraq is sucking up the US education business. This country wastes more money on education than anything else, so underneath the false swagger and bravado of that the f***ing school in Brooklyn stuff. The point is actually false. Ok?”

Only in the hypocritical world of conservative family values are F-Bombs good and building schools bad.

Here are some of the conservative Internet message board defenses of Trump’s F-bombs:
(Names and websites have been omitted, but you can find all of it and more with a quick Google search.)

“Is Trump POTUS or VPOTUS or a candidate? Nope. He’s a private citizen with no official “role”, unlike Barry and his clown Biden. And ya know… so what if he did drop the f-bomb in an official capacity, so what…. the leftists in the press gonna throw out some faux poutrage for us? People have had it with them looking down their leftist commie noses too.”

“Like I said adults cuss. Was he in a room full of kids? Did he get his point across? Are you actually offended?”

“I love the guy. Nobody else in the party, not even Bachmann has the testicular fortitude to say what he’s saying and how he’s saying it.”

“While some will be offended by the profanity I believe more will appreciate the straight talk and testicular fortitude. This next election might be closer to a UFC fight. Civility has left the building on both sides and I actually find that refreshing. I want someone who tells it like it is and instead of kissing babies he makes them cry.”

These are the same people who blow a gasket when President Obama blinks twice in their direction, but Donald Trump’s dropping of F-bombs is toughness. I love how Trump’s defenders are invoking the Sarah Palin defense. (Since Trump isn’t running for anything, he can say whatever he wants.)

Donald Trump is teasing at running for president, and these speeches are early the stages of the job interview process for the most important job in the world. Would you go into a job interview, and litter the room with F-bombs? If you did, would you expect to be hired?

Imagine how these same people would have reacted if before he announced his candidacy Obama gave a speech that said, “The f***king Republicans caused the housing bubble. The f***king Republicans keep giving your tax dollars to big oil while they are making record profits. The Republicans have left you f***king jobless, and f***king homeless, and now they want your vote.”

There would have been howls and shrieks from the Right about how Obama had gone Chicago gangster, whispers that he was showing his true blackness and going back to the hood. They would have screamed that this unstable man was not qualified to be president, but when white billionaire Donald Trump does it, he is being tough and telling it like it is.

Remind me again of how race has nothing to do with the right’s hatred of Obama?

22 responses so far

Only 30% of Americans Blame Obama For The Economy

Apr 29 2011 Published by under Uncategorized

A new McClatchy/Marist poll found that Americans still aren’t blaming Obama for the economy. 63% of those surveyed said that Obama inherited the economy, while only 30% blamed him.

The McClatchy/Marist poll found that a majority of registered voters are dissatisfied with how Obama has handled the economy. 57% disapprove of how Obama has dealt with the economy and only 40% approve. Dissatisfaction with Obama’s economic leadership has caused his approval rating on this issue to drop by 12 points among Democrats to 71%. 63% of Independents disapprove of the President’s handling of the economy.

These numbers appear to be bad news for Obama until this little stunner is thrown into the mix. Only 30% of registered voters blamed Obama and his policies for the economy. 63% of those surveyed still believe that he inherited the crisis from George W. Bush. In a nutshell, this one little number explains why the Republicans are going struggle to defeat Obama in 2012 based on the economy.

It is rather shocking that almost three years later notoriously short attention span voters are still blaming George W. Bush and the Republican Party for the current condition of the economy.

It is going to be difficult for the Republican presidential nominee to argue against Obama’s handling of the economy when a vast majority of voters still believe that it was the Republicans who got the country into this mess in the first place. The GOP nominee will bash Obama on the economy, but if that nominee goes on to advocate a solution that is nothing more than a return to the Bush era policies, and voters will say, “But that’s how we got here,” and then flock back to Obama.

No matter how much the Republicans try to make America forget, the lingering presence of the Bush years still hangs over the heads of many voters. The dilemma for Republicans is that they must find a way to capitalize on the displeasure with Obama’s economic performance without reminding voters of in any way of George W. Bush. Any Republican solutions that were already tried during the Bush era are going to open up the GOP nominee to comparisons to George W. Bush.

The Republican nominee is going to have to first run against his/her own party’s history of economic destruction before he/she can challenge Obama’s.

The American people haven’t forgotten what the Republican Party did to the economy, and if this election becomes a referendum on the recession, believe it or not. Obama will be in pretty good shape.

Image: Discovery News

18 responses so far

Older posts »