Benghazi - The Conservative Mind is Wasted

The Bizarre Attacks on Susan Rice by The Radical Anti-American Conservative Movement

SINCE THE Senate is solely responsible for the confirmation of Cabinet officers, it’s not often that members of the House of Representatives jump into a debate about the nomination of a secretary of state — particularly before there has been a nomination. That’s one of the reasons a letter sent to President Obama this week by 97 House Republicans, challenging his potential choice of U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice for the State Department job, is remarkable.

Another is blatant disregard of established facts. Drawn up by Rep. Jeff Duncan (R-S.C.), the letter alleges that “Ambassador Rice is widely viewed as having either willfully or incompetently misled the American public” about the Sept. 11 attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya. But as congressional testimony has established, Ms. Rice’s comments on several Sunday television talk shows on Sept. 16 were based on talking points drawn up by the intelligence community. She was acting as an administration spokeswoman; there was nothing either incompetent or deliberately misleading about the way she presented the information she was given.

Though the Benghazi attack involved clear failures of U.S. security, Republicans have concentrated on a dubious subsidiary issue: the alleged failure of the administration to publicly recognize quickly enough that the incident was “a terrorist attack.” In fact, Mr. Obama has acknowledged that “the information may not have always been right the first time.” But if there was a White House conspiracy to cover up the truth, Republicans have yet to produce any evidence of it — much less a connection to Ms. Rice, who had no involvement with the Benghazi attack other than those television appearances.

Nor was her account of what happened as far off the mark as Republicans claim. Though investigations are not complete, what has emerged so far suggests that the attack was staged by local jihadists, not ordered by the al-Qaeda leadership in Pakistan. Officials believe that it was inspired in part by demonstrations that took place that day in Cairo. That is not so far from Ms. Rice’s explanation that “this began as a spontaneous .?.?. response to what transpired in Cairo.” Republicans claim that Ms. Rice “propagated a falsehood” that the attacks were connected to an anti-Islam YouTube video. How then to explain the contemporaneous reports from Western news organizations quoting people at the burning consulate saying that they were angry about the video?

The oddity of the Republican response to what happened in Benghazi is partly this focus on half-baked conspiracy theories rather than on the real evidence of failures by the State Department, Pentagon and CIA in protecting the Benghazi mission. What’s even stranger is the singling out of Ms. Rice, a Rhodes scholar and seasoned policymaker who, whatever her failings, is no one’s fool.

Could it be, as members of the Congressional Black Caucus are charging, that the signatories of the letter are targeting Ms. Rice because she is an African American woman? The signatories deny that, and we can’t know their hearts. What we do know is that more than 80 of the signatories are white males, and nearly half are from states of the former Confederacy. You’d think that before launching their broadside, members of Congress would have taken care not to propagate any falsehoods of their own.

In addition to their multitude of sins against America and enlightened thought, we can add willful illiteracy to the list. And that is giving them some benefit of a doubt, since the other possibility is they really are as idiotic as they sound.

Freaky Republicans Line Up to See D'Souza Propaganda Film About Obama. Because As We ALL Know Everything You See In Movies Must be True

Freaky Republicans Line Up to See  D'Souza Propaganda Film About Obama. Because As We ALL Know Everything You See In Movies Must be True

The marketing materials for the upcoming film 2016: Obama's America claim that it "takes audiences on a gripping visual journey into the heart of the world's most powerful office to reveal the struggle of whether one man's past will redefine America over the next four years." If the movie is anything like its source material, we can expect it will be a mostly fraudulent journey.

The movie is based on Dinesh D'Souza's book The Roots Of Obama's Rage, which received high praise from people like Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh, neither of whom have shown any qualms about promoting outright lies, distortions, and outlandish claims in the past.

The New York Times reports that the film is partially financed by billionaire investor Joe Ricketts, who previously considered financing a multimillion dollar political ad campaign linking the racially charged rhetoric of Rev. Jeremiah Wright to President Obama.

The central thesis of the book is that Obama has some sort of anti-colonial world view, handed down to him by his ancestors, that acts as the motivation behind his actions and policies as president. It is just another form of birtherism, albeit a more highbrow variety of the ongoing conservative conspiracy theory. Appearing on Beck's Fox show, D'Souza explained:

    Obama is not anti-American in that he wishes ill on America. He wants what's best for America. He thinks it's really bad for us to be a colonial power. And therefore, in his view, he is doing right for America by pulling us out, by knocking us off our pedestal, by in a sense taking us from being the world's arrogant superpower. He wants us to share the wealth. He thinks he's gonna get a better America. The problem is, he's stuck in this theory, he's frozen in this time machine. In a sense, he's a captive of the ideology of a Luo tribesman from the 1950s. It's an incredible idea.

D'Souza boosts this ludicrous premise (Obama ran for the presidency because he hates colonialism ... just like America's founders!) using several claims that are simply not rooted in reality. A few examples:

    D'Souza claims that TARP and the federal bailout were programs that "Obama launched." Both programs began under the Bush administration.
    D'Souza claims Obama went by the name Barack to adopt his father's "African identity," but Obama has explicitly said his name change "was not some assertion of my African roots."
    D'Souza insists that references in Obama speeches to a "nuclear-free world" are evidence of "anti-colonialism," but Ronald Reagan made multiple references to the same concept.
    D'Souza claimed that Obama supported the release of the Lockerbie bomber because he sometimes "supports the release of terrorists who claim to be fighting wars of liberation against American aggression." But the Obama administration formally opposed the release in an official letter from the State Department.
    D'Souza claimed that Obama referred to BP as "British Petroleum" in a May 2010 speech. He never did.

And D'Souza just goes on and on, inventing incidents that never happened, making historical claims that don't match up to the facts, shoehorning these made-up stories into a false narrative of racial resentment.

It doesn't appear that D'Souza has corrected or amended his flawed premise. 2016: Obama's America is just repeating the same falsehoods with moving pictures.

The makers of the movie must have had editing tips from Mitt Romney. Yes it is true America, you can take bits and pieces of video and edit them to make the person you hate to begin with, look like a bad person.

What Does Mitt Romney Believe In? Obviously Not American Values, But Whatever Lie Will Make Him President

What Does Mitt Romney Believe In? Obviously Not American Values, But Whatever Lie Will Make Him President

I’ve been struck by the baldness of Romney’s repetitive lies about Obama — that Obama ended the work requirement under welfare, for example, or that Obama’s Affordable Care Act cuts $716 billion from Medicare benefits.

The mainstream media along with a half-dozen independent fact-checking organizations and sites have called Romney on these whoppers, but to no avail. He keeps making these assertions.

Every campaign is guilty of exaggerations, embellishments, distortions, and half-truths. But this is another thing altogether. I’ve been directly involved in seven presidential campaigns, and I don’t recall a presidential candidate lying with such audacity, over and over again. Why does he do it, and how can he get away with it?

The obvious answer is such lies are effective. Polls show voters are starting to believe them, especially in swing states where they’re being repeated constantly in media spots financed by Romney’s super PAC or ancillary PACs and so-called “social welfare” organizations (political fronts disguised as charities, such as Karl Rove and the Koch brothers have set up).

Romney’s lying machine is extraordinarily well financed. By August, according to Jane Mayer in her recent New Yorker article, at least 33 billionaires had each donated a quarter of a million dollars or more to groups aiming to defeat Obama – with most of it flooding into attack ads in swing states.

In early August, “Americans for Prosperity,” one of the nonprofit front groups masquerading as a charity, and founded in part by billionaire right-wingers Charles and David Koch, bought some $27 million in ad time on spots now airing in eleven swing states.

So Romney’s lying machine is working.

But what does all this tell us about the man who is running this lying machine? (Or if Romney’s not running it, what does it tell us about a man who would select the people who are?)

We knew he was a cypher — that he’ll say and do whatever is expedient, change positions like a chameleon, eschew any core principles.

Yet resorting to outright lies — and organizing a presidential campaign around a series of lies — reveals a whole new level of cynicism, a profound disdain for what remains of civility in public life, and a disrespect of the democratic process.

The question is whether someone who is willing to resort to such calculated lies, and build a campaign machine around them, can be worthy of the public’s trust with the most powerful office in the world.

For decades conservative have claimed they are the party of values. America - some of us were - should have asked what kind of values. Romney and Paul Ryan seem to have nothing but contempt for anything resembling an honest campaign. No matter how many times the lies in Romney ads are shown to be mendacious lies, he and his billionaire buddies running pro Romney PACS, just repeat the lies over and over. So a Romney presidency would be based on a foundation of moral corruption from day one.

Who Built That? Fox Hypes Romney Op-Ed That Touts Businesses Receiving Government Money

Conservatives are trying to sell Americans the bizarre notion that we're moving towards socialism. Anyone who has studied poiltical science and economics can tell you that this is not what socialism looks like,

Corporate Profits Rebound But Household Income Falls In Wake Of Great Recession

The Depravity of Rep. Todd Akin(R-MO) Is Shared By Paul Ryan (R-WI) And Other Conservatives

The Depravity of Rep. Todd Akin(R-MO) Is Shared By Paul Ryan (R-WI) And Other Conservatives

Republicans have been getting in trouble for asserting this since at least 1988 -- but anti-abortion politicians keep hauling out this old idea for a reason.

Here we go again. Trotting out the contemporary equivalent of the early American belief that only witches float, Rep. Todd Akin, the Republican challenger to Democratic U.S. Senator Claire McCaskill, told a local Missouri station in an interview that "legitimate rape" does not lead to pregnancy.

"First of all, from what I understand from doctors [pregnancy from rape] is really rare," Akin said in an interview with KTVI-TV that caused a furor online Sunday afternoon after being posted on TPM. "If it's a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down."
....The thing is, his comments were hardly some kind never-before-heard gaffe. Arguments like his have cropped up again and again on the right over the past quarter century and the idea that trauma is a form of birth control continues to be promulgated by anti-abortion forces that seek to outlaw all abortions, even in cases of rape or incest. The push for a no-exceptions anti-abortion policy has for decades gone hand in hand with efforts to downplay the frequency with which rape- or incest-related pregnancies occur, and even to deny that they happen, at all. In other words, it's not just Akin singing this tune.

Take Christian Life Resources, an educational site, for example. It reprints an 1999 article on the topic that seeks to make the same distinction between categories of rape as did Akin, and for the same reason. Wrote John C. Willke -- a physician who in the 1980s and early 1990s was president of the National Right to Life Committee -- in the piece, originally published in Life Issues Connector:

    When pro-lifers speak of rape pregnancies, we should commonly use the phrase "forcible rape" or "assault rape," for that specifies what we're talking about. Rape can also be statutory. Depending upon your state law, statutory rape can be consensual, but we're not addressing that here .... Assault rape pregnancies are extremely rare.

    .... What is certainly one of the most important reasons why a rape victim rarely gets pregnant, and that's physical trauma. Every woman is aware that stress and emotional factors can alter her menstrual cycle. To get and stay pregnant a woman's body must produce a very sophisticated mix of hormones. Hormone production is controlled by a part of the brain that is easily influenced by emotions. There's no greater emotional trauma that can be experienced by a woman than an assault rape. This can radically upset her possibility of ovulation, fertilization, implantation and even nurturing of a pregnancy. So what further percentage reduction in pregnancy will this cause? No one knows, but this factor certainly cuts this last figure by at least 50 percent and probably more.

An edited version of Willke's article appears on the website of Physicians for Life group under the headline, "Assault Rape Pregnancies Are Rare." The most medically ignorant paragraphs have been excised from this version of the story, though the headline has been strengthened to make the point plain.

The canard had been floating around the right long before Willke wrote his piece. In 1995, 71-year-old North Carolina state Rep. Henry Aldridge gained national notoriety after telling the N.C. House Appropriations Committee, "The facts show that people who are raped -- who are truly raped -- the juices don't flow, the body functions don't work and they don't get pregnant. Medical authorities agree that this is a rarity, if ever."

The Romney-Ryan campaign has issued a statement saying they do not agree with  Akin. The problem for Ryan is that he and Adkin have a documented history of thinking alike.

Ryan and Akin ... were co-sponsors of H.R. 3, the 2011 bill that would have limited the federal abortion coverage exemption only to victims of "forcible rape" and women whose physical health was in danger from her pregnancy, closing a supposed loophole in health-of-the-mother exemptions conservatives have been crowing about for years.

After massive vocal protest from women’s rights advocates, the sponsors dropped the "forcible rape" language from the bill, giving up their quest to redefine rape in the federal code with little explanation.

This is not about another conservative gaffe, another "rare' extremist" in the Republican ranks, this is the kind of evil deeply imbedded in the conservative movement.

Per the graphic at top, "We Haven't Run The Numbers:" A Startling Ryan Admission That's Getting Little Attention

New Romney Welfare Ad Cites Newspaper That Says Its Welfare Reform Claims Have ‘Been Debunked’

Undeterred by his own support for the welfare reform waivers he is now criticizing, Republican presidential hopeful Mitt Romney has released another ad slamming the Obama administration’s decision to give states greater latitude in how they administer the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program.

The ad cites a Richmond Times-Dispatch editorial to make the case that Obama’s welfare reform waivers are “nuts,” because, “If you want to get more people to work, you don’t loosen the requirement — you tighten them.” The newspaper’s editorial board did, indeed, pen that sentence in an August 15 editorial that defended the Romney campaign’s earlier ads and agreed with him that the work requirement had indeed been “gutted.” Now, though, the Times-Dispatch is admitting that its own claims — which are central to the Romney ad — have been “debunked“:

    The 30-second ad doubles down on the Romney campaign’s claim that Obama ended welfare’s work requirement “gutting welfare reform,” a charge that has been debunked by multiple independent fact-checkers.

Had they done their own reporting instead of relying on the Romney campaign’s advertisements, the Times-Dispatch’s editors wouldn’t have had to wait for three independent fact-checkers to realize that GOP claims that welfare reform had been “gutted” were a blatant lie. The directive outlining the waivers makes it clear that work requirements will remain in place, though states will have more leeway in determining how to get welfare recipients out of the program and into jobs.

The decision to issue waivers was made at the request of multiple Republican governors — Romney himself supported even farther-reaching waivers in 2005 — and is meant to address the program’s struggles. While the Romney ad cites a 1998 Washington Post piece calling TANF an “unprecedented success,” that too has been debunked: the 1996 welfare reform law has failed to help America’s neediest families, and the reduction in the number of people receiving welfare has come largely from kicking people off the rolls, not by getting them jobs.

Amazing that Romney is running the sleaziest most dishonest political campaign of the last 100 years and the media has not noticed or does not care.

Morally Corrupt Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan Spread $500 Billion Medicare Lie

Morally Corrupt Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan Spread $500 Billion Medicare Lie

Just one day after President Obama declared that the Republican budget proposed by Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) would “ultimately end Medicare as we know it,” his likely Republican opponent appeared at the Newspaper Association of America and threw the accusation right back at him. Obama, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney said, “has taken a series of steps that end Medicare as we know it” and “is the only President to ever cut $500 billion from Medicare”:

    ROMNEY: I’d be willing to consider the President’s plan, but he doesn’t have one. That’s right: In over three years, he has failed to enact or even propose a serious plan to solve our entitlement crisis.

    Instead, he has taken a series of steps that end Medicare as we know it. He is the only President to ever cut $500 billion from Medicare. And, as a result, more than half of doctors say they will cut back on treating seniors. He is destroying the Medicare Advantage program, eliminating the coverage that millions of seniors depend on and reducing choice by two-thirds.

    To control Medicare cost, he has created an unelected, unaccountable panel with the power to prevent Medicare from providing certain treatments. The result will be fewer treatments and services available to patients in need, and nowhere else to turn.


Romney rarely lets the facts get in the way of his rhetoric, but these oft-repeated accusations ring particularly hallow — and are hardly rare. The savings achieved in Medicare through the Affordable Care Act will help stabilize Medicare by eliminating overpayments to private insurers and slowly phasing in payment adjustments that encourage greater efficiency. As a result, the law extends the life of the Medicare trust fund by eight years and allows seniors to retain all of their guaranteed Medicare benefits. Medicare beneficiaries are already paying less for prescription drug coverage and receiving preventive care as a result of the law, while enrollment in Medicare Advantage has increased and premiums have fallen. The law, in other words, does exactly the opposite of Romney’s claim: it expands Medicare “as we know it.”

That doesn’t mean that it solves all of our health care cost problems. It doesn’t and Obama has proposed accelerating some of the law’s cost-control mechanisms to further lower the growth of spending. But Romney has labeled such efforts “rationing” and is offering an alternative “premium support” scheme that transforms senior’s guaranteed Medicare benefit into a voucher and significantly reduces the government’s contribution to the program. As a result, seniors will likely pay more for their health care, while the market clout and purchasing power of traditional Medicare — which has led on delivery reform and efficiencies — will shrink. So if the question is, which candidate ends Medicare for seniors, it’s hard to see how Romney’s plan to push future retirees into private insurance doesn’t fit the bill.

Are Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan men or gutter scum. Its hard to tell by how they display their values. Romney has recently said he is running on his Medicare plan and not Ryan's. Guess what, an analysis of the Romney plan shows that he would give seniors the shaft as well, Romney Budget Proposals Would Require Massive Cuts in Medicare, Medicaid, and Other Programs

Will Media Find Their Way to Discover Just How Radical Paul Ryan Is?

By contrast, Representative Ryan has an extreme right-wing agenda that predates both the Great Society and the New Deal. He has put forward plans that would cut and privatize both Social Security and Medicare. He has also called for essentially zeroing out most categories of federal spending.

While Ryan supports current levels of military spending, the Congressional Budget Office's (CBO) analysis of his budget shows that there will be essentially nothing left for anything else by 2040. The CBO analysis of the Ryan budget (prepared under his direction) shows that spending on all items other than health care and Social Security would fall to 4.75 percent of GDP by 2040 and to 3.75 percent of GDP by 2050.

The military budget currently is more than 4.0 percent of GDP. In the post-World War II era it has never been less than 3.0 percent. This means that Ryan's budget would leave nothing for running the State Department, the Park Service, the Food and Drug Administration, the Justice Department, the National Institutes of Health and the other areas that comprise the federal government as it now exists.

The government plays a major role in financing drug and medical research. Ryan, true to his dog eat dog roots would rather people die than benefit from the positive role government can play is an advanced economy.

The Anti-American Site The Daily Caller Pushes Fact Free Bin Laden "Bombshell"

The Anti-American Site The Daily Caller Pushes Fact Free Bin Laden "Bombshell"

The Daily Caller reported late last night that they obtained an exclusive first look at Richard Miniter's forthcoming book Leading From Behind: The Reluctant President and the Advisors Who Decide for Him, which contains the "bombshell" allegation (sourced to a single anonymous official) that in the first three months of 2011, President Obama thrice canceled the mission to kill Osama bin Laden. Miniter's and the Caller's reporting is contradicted by previous in-depth reports indicating that the plan for the raid wasn't delivered to the president until the end of March, and training for the operation didn't begin until mid-April, meaning that there wasn't yet a "mission" for the president to cancel.

The Daily Caller's David Martosko wrote last night:

    In "Leading From Behind: The Reluctant President and the Advisors Who Decide for Him," Richard Miniter writes that Obama canceled the "kill" mission in January 2011, again in February, and a third time in March. Obama's close adviser Valerie Jarrett persuaded him to hold off each time, according to the book.

    Miniter, a two-time New York Times best-selling author, cites an unnamed source with Joint Special Operations Command who had direct knowledge of the operation and its planning.

Miniter's reporting doesn't match up with the New Yorker's deep dive into the Bin Laden raid, published in August 2011, which offered a timeline of the planning process based on quotes and information from a variety of sources, named and otherwise.

According to the New Yorker, in late 2010 President Obama ordered Defense Secretary Leon Panetta to "begin exploring options for a military strike" against the compound in Abbottabad, Pakistan where Bin Laden was thought to be hiding, and that planning began in February 2011. At that point, according to the Caller's vague reporting, Obama is alleged to have already twice "canceled" the mission.

From the New Yorker:

    In late 2010, Obama ordered Panetta to begin exploring options for a military strike on the compound. Panetta contacted Vice-Admiral Bill McRaven, the SEAL in charge of JSOC. Traditionally, the Army has dominated the special-operations community, but in recent years the SEALs have become a more prominent presence; McRaven's boss at the time of the raid, Eric Olson--the head of Special Operations Command, or SOCOM--is a Navy admiral who used to be a commander of DEVGRU. In January, 2011, McRaven asked a JSOC official named Brian, who had previously been a DEVGRU deputy commander, to present a raid plan. The next month, Brian, who has the all-American look of a high-school quarterback, moved into an unmarked office on the first floor of the C.I.A.'s printing plant, in Langley, Virginia. Brian covered the walls of the office with topographical maps and satellite images of the Abbottabad compound. He and half a dozen JSOC officers were formally attached to the Pakistan/Afghanistan department of the C.I.A.'s Counterterrorism Center, but in practice they operated on their own. A senior counterterrorism official who visited the JSOC redoubt described it as an enclave of unusual secrecy and discretion. "Everything they were working on was closely held," the official said.

Obama convened his national security team in mid-March to review the "possible courses of action" devised by "Brian" and his team, at which point Obama ordered Admiral William McRaven, commander of the U.S. Special Operations Command, to begin planning the raid on Bin Laden's compound. That plan was delivered to the president on March 29, and the SEAL team began training for the operation on April 10. This means that, according to the Daily Caller, by late March the president had "canceled" three times a "mission" that didn't yet exist.

Again, from the New Yorker:

    On March 14th, Obama called his national-security advisers into the White House Situation Room and reviewed a spreadsheet listing possible courses of action against the Abbottabad compound. Most were variations of either a JSOC raid or an airstrike. Some versions included coöperating with the Pakistani military; some did not. Obama decided against informing or working with Pakistan. "There was a real lack of confidence that the Pakistanis could keep this secret for more than a nanosecond," a senior adviser to the President told me. At the end of the meeting, Obama instructed McRaven to proceed with planning the raid.

    Brian invited James, the commander of DEVGRU's Red Squadron, and Mark, the master chief petty officer, to join him at C.I.A. headquarters. They spent the next two and a half weeks considering ways to get inside bin Laden's house. One option entailed flying helicopters to a spot outside Abbottabad and letting the team sneak into the city on foot. The risk of detection was high, however, and the SEALs would be tired by a long run to the compound. The planners had contemplated tunnelling in--or, at least, the possibility that bin Laden might tunnel out. But images provided by the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency showed that there was standing water in the vicinity, suggesting that the compound sat in a flood basin. The water table was probably just below the surface, making tunnels highly unlikely. Eventually, the planners agreed that it made the most sense to fly directly into the compound. "Special operations is about doing what's not expected, and probably the least expected thing here was that a helicopter would come in, drop guys on the roof, and land in the yard," the special-operations officer said.

    On March 29th, McRaven brought the plan to Obama. The President's military advisers were divided. Some supported a raid, some an airstrike, and others wanted to hold off until the intelligence improved. Robert Gates, the Secretary of Defense, was one of the most outspoken opponents of a helicopter assault. Gates reminded his colleagues that he had been in the Situation Room of the Carter White House when military officials presented Eagle Claw -- the 1980 Delta Force operation that aimed at rescuing American hostages in Tehran but resulted in a disastrous collision in the Iranian desert, killing eight American soldiers. "They said that was a pretty good idea, too," Gates warned. He and General James Cartwright, the vice-chairman of the Joint Chiefs, favored an airstrike by B-2 Spirit bombers. That option would avoid the risk of having American boots on the ground in Pakistan. But the Air Force then calculated that a payload of thirty-two smart bombs, each weighing two thousand pounds, would be required to penetrate thirty feet below ground, insuring that any bunkers would collapse. "That much ordnance going off would be the equivalent of an earthquake," Cartwright told me. The prospect of flattening a Pakistani city made Obama pause. He shelved the B-2 option and directed McRaven to start rehearsing the raid.

UPDATE: The White House has flatly denied Miniter's allegation, telling USA Today that it is "an utter fabrication" and that White House senior adviser Valerie Jarret "wasn't read into super-secret plans for the raid that took place in May of 2011."

For those who may not remember Miniter, he was one of the parade of right-wing conspiracy mongers who tried to make the case that Saddam/and Iraq was connected to AL-Queada.  Crazies like Miniter are never punished by conservatives for their lie mongering, in fact they reward serial liars with jobs at media outlets they own and book deals, so they can lie some more. Conservatism continues its cult-like ways because paranoia, lies and radicalism are the only thing they truly stand for.

Florida's Criminal Governor Rick Scott (R) Preaches Austerity, Spends Big On Frivolous Lawsuits

Morally Bankrupt Republican Media Still Pushing Its Discredited Take On Obama And Small Business

Morally Bankrupt Republican Media Still Pushing Its Discredited Take On Obama And Small Business

Fox News is characterizing President Obama's response to the Fox-manufactured "you didn't build that" controversy as "damage control." This comes after Fox promoted its deceptively edited clip for days -- and after independent fact-checkers have discredited attacks on Obama based on the deceptive editing.

Fox Claims Obama Campaign In "Damage Control" Mode

On-Screen Text: "Obama Campaign Steps Up Damage Control Over 'You Didn't Build That' Remark." During the July 26 edition of Fox News' America Live, host Megyn Kelly reported that President Obama's campaign released an ad responding to Mitt Romney's distortion of Obama's "you didn't build that" comments. On-screen text during the segment read: "Obama Campaign Steps Up Damage Control Over 'You Didn't Build That' Remark.'"

[Fox News, America Live, 7/26/12]

Fox's Kelly Suggests That "The Damage" From Obama's Comments "May Be Lasting." During her report on Obama's response to attacks over his "you didn't build that" remarks, Kelly suggested that "the damage" from Obama's comments "may be lasting," citing a poll showing Obama's approval rating among business owners. From America Live:

    KELLY: It has been two weeks since the president made the now-infamous "you didn't build that" remarks, but the damage may be lasting. A new Gallup poll shows that nearly 60 percent of American business owners now disapprove of the president's job performance. Just 35 percent approve. To counter the new GOP war cry "we did build it," team Obama just released a new television ad featuring the president himself, in which he dismisses the attacks against him, accusing his opponent of slicing and dicing his comments. [Fox News, America Live, 7/26/12]

But Fox Has Pushed This False Narrative From The Beginning ...

    Fox & Friends Deceptively Edited Obama's Comments On Small Business. The morning show cut Obama's remarks in a way that made it seem like he was suggesting business owners didn't deserve credit for their success. In fact, Obama was noting that community support and public investment are important factors in business success. [Media Matters, 7/16/12]

    The Following Day, Mitt Romney Repeated Fox's Distortion. [Media Matters, 7/17/12]

    In The First Two Days Of Pushing The Story, Fox Spent More Than Two Hours Of Airtime Promoting The Falsehood. Coverage of the story ran on both Fox's "news" shows and its opinion programming. [Media Matters, 7/18/12]

    On Day 3, News Corp. CEO Rupert Murdoch Endorsed The Falsehood On Twitter. In a tweet, Murdoch wrote "Yesterday Obama went off script, showed real self ie government omnipotent, individuals secondary. Must be big damage." [Media Matters, 7/19/12]

    As Part Of "The Fox Cycle," The Network Attacked Nonpartisan Journalists For Ignoring The Made-Up Story. [Media Matters, 7/19/12]

    After More Than A Week, Fox Tried To Keep The Story Alive By Suggesting Obama Was "Doubling Down" On His "Insulting" Remarks. Fox & Friends used Obama's comments that "we did not build this country on our own. We built it together" as a pretext to revive the "didn't build that" smear. [Media Matters, 7/25/12]

    On Fox News Radio, Fox's Martha MacCallum Said Obama's Comment "Shock[ed] Me" And That They Show "Some Level Of Resentment" Toward Small Business. [Media Matters, 7/25/12]

    Fox & Friends Tried To Rebut Charge That Video Was Deceptively Edited With New Deceptively Edited Video. In this video, rather than play a video clip of Obama that includes all context context, the show played an extended video that still omitted the crucial piece of context: Obama's references to teachers, "this unbelievable American system," as well as government research, roads, and bridges. [Media Matters, 7/26/12]         

    Fox Hosted Karl Rove And His New Anti-Obama Attack Ad Repeating "Didn't Build That" Falsehood. Rove, cofounder of conservative super PAC American Crossroads, used a Fox appearance to promote the organization's new ad "Replay," which mimics Fox's misleading editing of Obama's remarks. [Media Matters, 7/25/12]

... Even As Independent Analyses Say The Criticism Is Bogus

Wash. Post's Kessler: "Focusing On One Ill-Phrased Sentence" Amounts To "Pretend[ing] That Obama Is Talking About Something Different." The Romney campaign released an ad that copied Fox's editing of Obama's remarks, and the candidate himself claimed Obama's remarks were akin to suggesting that "Steve Jobs didn't build Apple." The Washington Post's Glenn Kessler gave those comments three "Pinocchios." From The Washington Post:

    Obama certainly could take from lessons from [Massachusetts Senate candidate Elizabeth] Warren or [Franklin Delano] Roosevelt on how to frame this argument in a way that is less susceptible for quote-snipping. And Romney certainly could answer Obama's argument by engaging in a serious discussion about whether the wealthy should pay much more in taxes as a matter of social good and equity. That would be grounds for an elevated, interesting and important debate.

    But instead, by focusing on one ill-phrased sentence, Romney and his campaign have decided to pretend that Obama is talking about something different -- and then further extrapolated it so that it becomes ridiculous. That's not very original at all. [The Washington Post, 7/23/12]

FactCheck.org: "Taking Snippets Of" Obama's Speech "Ignores The Larger Context Of The President's Meaning." A FactCheck.org analysis detailed Obama's remarks and some of the attacks coming from Republicans. From FactCheck.org:

    There's no question Obama inartfully phrased those two sentences, but it's clear from the context what the president was talking about. He spoke of government -- including government-funded education, infrastructure and research -- assisting businesses to make what he called "this unbelievable American system that we have."

    In summary, he said: "The point is ... that when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together."

    [...]

    We don't know what the president had in mind when he uttered those words, and his intent is not clear. Regardless, our conclusion is the same: Taking snippets of his speech ignores the larger context of the president's meaning that a business owner does not become successful "on your own." [FactCheck.org, 7/23/12]

Try to imagine one of these faux outraged business puppets for Romney on an island - they seem to imagine themselves an island already. Where do they get the materials to make a product, on what roads or shipping lanes would it arrive and who would protect the ships. Where are the people who make the products, where did they get their education. If the island is invaded who protects their business. Who do they sell services to - people who don't have an education? Who puts out the fires on the island. As Obama and Elizabeth warren has said, of course people who run businesses deserve credit, but they have never and will never operate a business without the complex connections and support of a nation with government that provides some of the essential ingredients. Romney camp features Tampa govt. contractors who say they don't need... government. Talk about being clueless.

Scott Brown (R-MS) is not a friend of working class America.

Obama, Contraception and Healthcare - Conservative Republican Members of Congress Benefit From Contraception Coverage

Obama, Contraception and Healthcare - Conservative Republican Members of Congress Benefit From Contraception Coverage

Republicans in Congress have gone to war over the administration’s new rule requiring employers and insurers to provide contraception coverage to women. Despite the fact that the regulation already excludes more than 335,000 entities, Republicans have introduced legislation seeking to expand the conscience clause protection to exclude even more religiously affiliated institutions from the requirement. The move, which is opposed by women’s groups, would significantly restrict access to affordable birth control by allowing Catholic colleges, universities, or hospitals to deny contraception coverage. As a result, these women would have to spend up to $600 a year buying birth control without the help of insurance.

But interestingly, members of Congress who seek to limit the availability of affordable birth control all enjoy contraception insurance as part of the government managed Federal Employees Health Benefits (FEHB). Members first approved the so-called “contraception equity” provision in 1998, through the FY 1999 Omnibus Supplemental Appropriations Act, H.R. 4328, PL 105-277, and have passed the measure ever since. The language “ensures that federal employees participating in FEHBP have insurance coverage of FDA-approved prescription contraceptives and related services.”

A ThinkProgress analysis reveals that 12 members of Congress who approved the conference report for the 1999 omnibus bill have signed on as co-sponsors of the current GOP-led measure to limit women’s access to contraception by changing the Obama administration’s rule. From the original FEHBP requirement:

    A new law requires FEHB plans to provide contraceptive coverage. For 1999, the Office of Personnel Management will require all plans to cover the full range of contraceptive drugs and devices approved by the Food and Drug Administration.

    A few plans will be exempt from this requirement, and they are noted below. Because the law was signed on October 21, 1998, after the FEHB brochures for 1999 were printed, the FEHB brochures you will receive during the Open Season do not reflect these additional benefits. You should use this notice when you read the brochures, so that you will have an accurate understanding of the benefits offered by plans that you are considering.

An official at the Office of Personnel Management, which administrates the program, has confirmed to ThinkProgress that all FEHB plans provide coverage for contraception, meaning that every single member of Congress opposing Obama’s rule now has the birth control coverage they’re seeking to deny to others.

Conservatism is just another name for pathological lair and hypocrite. It there any issue on which conservatives do not tie themselves into pretzels trying to have something relevant to say. Want to know what a 16th century authoritarian French Duke thinks about America and public policy? Just ask a conservative. Pretty much the same thing.

Newt Gingrich is a Living Saint That Would Never Lie About Obama and Food Stamps

Newt Gingrich is a Living Saint That Would Never Lie About Obama and Food Stamps

The former speaker made that claim Jan. 16 in a Republican debate in Myrtle Beach, S.C., and his campaign organization quickly inserted the snippet in a new 30-second TV ad that began running Jan. 18 in South Carolina.

Gingrich would have been correct to say the number now on food aid is historically high. The number stood at 46,224,722 persons as of October, the most recent month on record. And it's also true that the number has risen sharply since Obama took office.

But Gingrich goes too far to say Obama has put more on the rolls than other presidents. We asked the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food and Nutrition service for month-by-month figures going back to January 2001. And they show that under President George W. Bush the number of recipients rose by nearly 14.7 million. Nothing before comes close to that.

And under Obama, the increase so far has been 14.2 million. To be exact, the program has so far grown by 444,574 fewer recipients during Obama's time in office than during Bush's.

It's possible that when the figures for January 2012 are available they will show that the gain under Obama has matched or exceeded the gain under Bush. But not if the short-term trend continues. The number getting food stamps declined by 43,528 in October. And the economy has improved since then.

Obama's responsibility

Gingrich often cites the number of persons on food stamps to support his view that the U.S. is becoming an "entitlement society," increasingly dependent on government aid. And he has a point. One out of seven Americans is currently getting food stamps.

But Gingrich strains the facts when he accuses Obama of being responsible. The rise started long before Obama took office, and accelerated as the nation was plunging into the worst economic recession since the Great Depression.

The economic downturn began in December 2007. In the 12 months before Obama was sworn in, 4.4 million were added to the rolls, triple the 1.4 million added in 2007.

Day after day, year after year conservatives show utter contempt for many values, especially the truth. In matters of character and leadership how can a political movement based on a foundations of lies, smears, distortions and myths be trusted. When a political movement lies this much it historically means they are sleaze bags of one sort or the other.

What Liberal Media - CBS Echoes Right-Wing Talking Points Runs Error-Ridden Report On "New Solyndras"

What Liberal Media - CBS Echoes Right-Wing Talking Points Runs Error-Ridden Report On "New Solyndras"

In a misleading segment painting a skewed picture of the Department of Energy's clean tech investments, CBS News' new morning show purported to reveal 11 "New Solyndras" -- companies CBS said "are having trouble" or "have filed for bankruptcy" after receiving federal assistance. But CBS only identified 7 companies and included some that did not actually get federal funds.

CBS Fails In Attempt To Identify "New Solyndras"

CBS Provides Faulty List Of "New Solyndras." From the January 13 edition of CBS News' This Morning, which debuted this week:

    CHARLIE ROSE, CO-HOST: A CBS News investigation has found a pattern of the government pouring your tax dollars into clean energy. Investigative correspondent Sharyl Attkisson is here with the story that you will only see on CBS This Morning.

    [...]

    SHARYL ATTKISSON, CORRESPONDENT: We counted 12 clean energy companies that are having trouble after collectively being approved for more than $6.5 billion in federal assistance. Five have filed for bankruptcy: the junk bond-rated Beacon, Evergreen Solar, Spectra Watt, AES subsidiary Eastern Energy, and Solyndra. Others are also struggling with potential problems. [CBS News, This Morning, 1/13/12]

In addition to Solyndra, CBS named 7 not 11 companies during the report: Beacon Power, Evergreen Solar, Spectra Watt, AES, Nevada Geothermal, SunPower, and First Solar. CBS then misrepresented the facts about most of these companies. Throughout the segment, the on-screen text stated "New Solyndras: Taxpayer Money To 11 Troubled Companies."


Right-Wing Media Repeated The Flawed CBS Report. [Fox Nation, 1/13/12] [Human Events, 1/13/12] [Hot Air, 1/13/12] [Newsbusters, 1/13/12]
CBS Report Filled With Errors And Misleading Omissions

AES Coal Power Subsidiary Went Bankrupt -- Not The Project Funded By DOE. The Associated Press reported on January 3 that AES Eastern Energy, a subsidiary of the huge global power company AES Corporation filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection. AP noted:

    AES Corp., based in Arlington, Va., said the bankruptcy wouldn't impact its bottom line in 2011 and didn't revise its profit estimates for the year. It will report its fourth-quarter and full-year financial results in February.

    AES Eastern Energy operates four coal-fired power plants that were acquired from New York State Electric & Gas in 1999. Its business has struggled with low profit margins because of the high cost of coal and a decline in power prices. [Associated Press, 1/3/12]

    Loan Guarantee Went To A Separate Subsidiary Of AES For An Energy Storage System. The $17.1 million loan guarantee from the Department of Energy went to AES Energy Storage LLC, a subsidiary of AES Corp, to "support the construction of a 20 megawatt (MW) energy storage system using advanced lithium-ion batteries" in Johnson City, New York.  [Department of Energy, 12/23/10]

NRG Energy -- Not SunPower -- Is Responsible For The Loan. CBS reported that "Sunpower landed a $1.2 billion loan guarantee last fall ... On its last financial statement, SunPower owed more than it was worth." In fact, NRG Energy, Inc. bought the project, the California Valley Solar Ranch, shortly before the DOE loan guarantee was finalized. The Contra Costa Times reported that NRG is responsible for paying back the loan:

    Industry analysts say San Jose-based SunPower is struggling but nowhere near bankruptcy, and they describe the loan guarantee as low-risk for taxpayers. More significantly, Carlsbad-based NRG Energy, not SunPower, is on the hook to repay the loan, according to company representatives. NRG bought the project before the federal backing came through, although SunPower will design and build the solar farm in San Luis Obispo County. [Contra Costa Times, 10/18/11]

    Risk To Taxpayers Is Low Because The Solar Project Already Has A Buyer. The Contra Costa Times article further noted that "Pacific, Gas and Electric Co. signed a long-term fixed-price contract to buy the power" from the project. The article quoted independent energy analyst Daniel Ries, who stated: "The risk to taxpayers is very low ... This loan guarantee is for a specific project using known technology that has a cash flow to pay off the debt." [Contra Costa Times, 10/18/11]

First Solar Also Sold DOE-Backed Projects To Other Companies. CBS stated that "First Solar was the biggest S&P 500 loser in 2011, and its CEO was cut loose, even as taxpayers were forced to back a whopping $3 billion in company loans." In fact, First Solar sold those three projects "to NRG Energy, Exelon and NextEra Energy Resources and project partner GE Energy Financial Services," according to Electric Utility Week, which also stated that "The sale of the projects that recently received over $3 billion in loan guarantees from DOE means the utilities are on the hook to repay the loans." [Electric Utility Week, 10/24/11, via Nexis]

    The Projects Are Low Risk. As Dow Jones reported, "All those facilities have power purchase agreements with California utilities, which are required to use renewable power generation for one-third of the electricity they sell by 2020, as part of the state's 2006 plan to combat climate change." [Dow Jones Newswires, 12/7/11]

Evergreen Solar Received No Federal Money. Massachusetts-based Evergreen Solar filed for bankruptcy in August 2011. But Evergreen Solar did not receive a loan guarantee from the Department of Energy. Evergreen did receive $43 million in assistance from the Massachusetts government, but according to the New York Times, the company received no federal money. [Media Matters, 1/15/11]

Spectra Watt Did Not Receive A Loan Guarantee, But A Small Grant. In 2009, SpectraWatt was selected to receive a $500,000 grant from the U. S. Department of Energy's (DOE) National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) PV Technology Pre-Incubator program, not a loan guarantee like Solyndra. SpectraWatt later filed for bankruptcy. [Spectra Watt, 6/17/09]

Boston Globe: Beacon Power Selling Plant To "Quickly Pay Off" DOE Loan Guarantee. In an article titled, "As federal funds dry up, Beacon Power still has reason for hope," The Boston Globe reported:

    Beacon, which filed for bankruptcy protection last month, recently agreed to sell a first-of-its-kind energy storage plant in Stephentown, N.Y., to quickly pay off a $39.1 million loan balance it owes the US Department of Energy. The sale will leave Beacon Power with its technology and manufacturing capabilities, analysts said, but also with a question that many alternative energy firms may face as deep federal budget cuts loom as early as next year. Can the company attract enough private capital to stay afloat? [Boston Globe, 11/27/11]

Default Rate For Loan Guarantee Program Is Much Less Than What Government Budgeted For Losses. Bloomberg reported that the government "planned for defaults of as much as 12.85 percent" for the loan guarantee program, and that as of now, the default rate "is less than 3.6 percent. CBS did not mention this fact. [Bloomberg News, 11/10/11]

Most Of The Loans Guarantees Have Almost No Risk Of Default. To date CBS has not covered a Bloomberg Government analysis of the Department of Energy's 1705 loan guarantee program, which found that 87 percent of the value of all the 1705 loan guarantees (18 of the 28 projects) went to power generation projects, as opposed to manufacturing projects like Solyndra's factory. The flawed CBS report mentioned several of these projects among the purported "New Solyndras." The DOE required generation projects to secure a buyer before receiving a loan guarantee -- ensuring stable revenue and significantly reducing the risk of the investment. In fact, Shayle Kann, a solar power market expert at GTM Research, has said that these projects have almost no risk of default. [Media Matters, 12/6/11]

CBS Featured Pundit Misrepresenting Steven Chu's Background, Role. CBS apparently only interviewed conservative economist Peter Morici for the report. Morici said: "Tasking a Nobel price mathematician to make investments for the U.S. government is like asking the manager of the New York Yankees to be the general in charge of America's troops in Afghanistan. It's that absurd." [CBS, This Morning, 1/13/12]

    Chu Won The Nobel Prize For Physics, Not Math. Chu won the Nobel Prize in Physics and was "the Director of the Department of Energy's Lawrence Berkeley National Lab, where he led the lab in pursuit of alternative and renewable energy technologies." [Department of Energy, accessed 1/13/12]
    Actual Head Of The Loan Guarantee Office Was Former Venture Capitalist. Politico reported that Jonathan Silver, who was the head of the DOE loan programs office, was previously "was a managing director of Core Capital Partners, a early-stage investor in alternative energy technology, advanced manufacturing, telecommunications and software, which he co-founded in 1999." [Politico, 10/6/11]

CBS Forwards Claim That Solyndra Loan Was "Politically Motivated"

CBS Advances Claim That Solyndra "Was A Politically Motivated Investment." In her report, Attkisson stated that Solyndra "received a half billion in tax dollars and became a political lightning rod, Republicans claiming it was a politically motivated investment." [CBS News, This Morning, 1/13/12]

The Hill: "GOP Probe ... Has Not Uncovered Evidence" That The Loan "Showed Political Favoritism." The Hill reported:

    But the GOP probe -- which has uncovered about 185,000 pages of documents -- has not uncovered evidence that the decision to issue the loan guarantee or the early 2011 decision to restructure its terms showed political favoritism. [The Hill, 1/13/12]

NYT: "No Evidence Has Emerged That Political Favoritism Played A Role" In Solyndra Loan. The New York Times reported:

    While no evidence has emerged that political favoritism played a role in what administration officials assert were merit-based decisions, Solyndra drew plenty of high-level attention. [New York Times, 9/23/11, via Grist]

Politico: Solyndra Had "Close Ties To Both Political Parties." Politico reported:

    In fact, Solyndra's top brass, its board and its paid lobbyists bring close ties to both political parties.

    President and CEO Brian Harrison is a registered Republican. Billionaire George Kaiser, an Obama campaign bundler, was one of the venture capitalists who poured private funding into the clean technology startup.

    And another venture capital firm, Madrone Capital Partners, which is tied to the GOP-leaning Walton family, was one of 10 firms that helped Solyndra raise about $144 million in November 2008.
    In Washington, Victoria Sanville, one of the company's two in-house lobbyists, had previously worked for four House Republicans: Sam Graves of Missouri, Peter Roskam of Illinois, John Sweeney of New York and George Gekas of Pennsylvania.

    When it comes to campaign contributions, Solyndra officials gave much more to Democrats while still giving money to some Republicans, according to a POLITICO analysis of donation data compiled by OpenSecrets.org. [Politico, 9/14/11]

Bush Admin. Chose Solyndra As A Finalist For A Loan Guarantee. The Department of Energy's Loan Guarantee Program was created by the Energy Policy Act of 2005 and expanded by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. At a congressional hearing, Jonathan Silver, then-Executive Director of Department of Energy's Loan Programs Office, testified that the Bush administration selected Solyndra as one of 16 out of 143 submissions to move forward in the process. [Media Matters, 9/19/11]

Its another day and conservatives, withe help of the conservative leaning media lie to sell their anti-American/anti-progress agenda to America. They have to lie because that is what cowards do. If they had any guts conservatives would be progressives.

Why Does Mitt Romney Hate American Values, Like the Truth

Why Does Mitt Romney Hate American Values, Like the Truth

Mitt Romney appeared on Fox News last night and boasted, "Our campaign hasn\'t put up negative ads at this stage." I know that\'s not true. I\'ve seen the ads.

Likewise, Romney said on Thursday night, "This is a president who fundamentally believes that the next century is the post-American century. Perhaps it will be the Chinese century. He is wrong." I know that\'s not true, either. Kevin Drum noted in response, "Seriously, where does he get this stuff? It\'s just made up out of thin air. Obama\'s never said this or anything even close to it."

With these routine falsehoods in mind, I noticed Daniel Larison had a piece the other day with a headline that read, "Why Does Romney Lie?" The amusing thing about this, at least in a sardonic sort of way, is that I wondered to myself what prompted the headline and about a half-dozen examples from the last week or so quickly came to mind. (In this instance, it was an Andrew Sullivan item about Romney telling easily-disproven claims about his years in France as a Mormon missionary.)

Regardless, Larison posits a theory.

    Why does Romney ever tell bald-faced lies? After all, this is a man who has made the "non-existent tour" the rhetorical centerpiece of his presidential campaign. For some reason, he even managed to say something untrue about his real first name during the national security debate last month.

    It\'s tempting to say that he has reinvented himself so thoroughly that he can no longer remember what is true and what isn\'t, and he has absorbed and appropriated so many new positions over the years that it all gets jumbled together and re-mixed according to whatever the political need of the moment happens to be. It\'s easy to lose track after the fourth or fifth incarnation. More likely, he is so contemptuous of the people he tells these lies to that he never thinks he will be found out.

    

I suspect Larison and I agree on almost nothing when it comes to public policy or visions of government, but on the issue of Romney\'s discomforting hostility for the truth, we\'re on the same page. I\'ve found myself repeatedly wondering in recent months why Romney lies as often, and as carelessly, as he does, without the slightest regard for how easy it is to prove what his claims aren\'t true.

Indeed, as we talked about the other day, Romney and his team have demonstrated a willingness to lie -- blatantly and shamelessly -- with discomforting ease. We\'ve seen this in offensive campaign ads, routine talking points, policy arguments, and even personal anecdotes and characteristics.

And when pressed, Romney and his aides have freely admitted, more than once, that niceties such as facts, evidence, and reason just aren't that important to them. Dishonest "propaganda" should simply be excepted and accepted, they\'ve said.

I\'ve been watching national campaigns for quite a while, and I can\'t think of any comparable major-party campaigns acting this way, especially this far from the election.

Given all of this, I thought I\'d offer Larison\'s question as a discussion topic: Why does Romney tell "bald-faced lies"?

While conservatives have done a good job demonizing anyone who is not conservative, on the issues the American people are consistently left of center - pro Social Security, Medicare, against too much foreign interventionism, pro good public education, etc. So how can conservatives win? Lie all the time about everything. Romney knows how to play the game, he has just been in low gear. Now that things are coming down to the wire, all bets are off when it comes to twisting the truth. Its what modern conservatism is all about, a house of falsehoods. 

Karl Rove's America Hating Neo-Fascist Crossroads GPS Tries To Smear Elizabeth Warren

Karl Rove's America Hating Neo-Fascist Crossroads GPS Tries To Smear Elizabeth Warren

Elizabeth Warren Slams Karl Rove’s Dishonest Attack Ad As ‘Factually Wrong And Morally Wrong’ | Feeling the heat of consumer advocate Elizabeth Warren’s lead over Sen. Scott Brown (R-MA), Karl Rove’s Crossroads GPS unleashed an extremely disingenuous political ad that insinuated Warren was responsible for the 2008 bank bailout — a patently absurd claim given that the bailout was a Republican measure and that Warren was later chosen as the head of a panel providing much-needed oversight to the program. In fact, she has been a consistent advocate for greater accountability regarding the bailout funds. Warren blasted Rove for the ad, saying, “I can’t find the right words to describe how wrong that is. Factually wrong and morally wrong.” “Karl rove is not telling the truth,” she added. “I think anyone who is not telling the truth shouldn’t be running ads in this race.”

M's Warren is trying to run an honest campaign based on facts and advocacy for the average American rather than Karl's billionaire elitists who are financing the neo-fascist Crossroads. The only way conservatives know how to campaign is to run anti-American values smear campaigns. Its what they do. They couldn't be elected dog catcher if conservatives were forced to start being truthful.

Musing About Recusing - Why calls for Elena Kagan to recuse herself from the Obamacare case are ridiculous. If anyone should be recusing themselves it should be some of the rabid ideologues on the far Right who are on the court - Justices Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia, both of whom attended a fundraiser for the Federalist Society last Thursday, just hours after wrapping up a conference on the ACA(ObamaCare) litigation.

Goodbye National Treasures, Ron Paul Calls For Federal Public Lands To Be ‘Sold Off To Private Owners’

Goodbye National Treasures, Ron Paul Calls For Federal Public Lands To Be ‘Sold Off To Private Owners’

During a forum in Las Vegas Wednesday, Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) told the Republican audience he would like to see federal public lands in Nevada privatized.

Speaking at the Western Republican Leadership Conference, Paul declared that Nevada, which has a large percentage of federally-owned public lands, ought to become more like Texas, where “private owners” have “developed all the natural resources.” Paul went on to say “how wonderful it would be if land will be or should be returned to the states and then for the best parts sold off to private owners”:

    PAUL: Take a look at the state of Nevada. Do the people own the property in Nevada? No. Who’s the biggest landowner? It’s the federal government. I would like to see the development of this state the way that Texas had the privilege of developing. Before we went in the Union, it was owned entirely by private owners and it has developed all the natural resources, a very big state. So you can imagine how wonderful it would be if land will be or should be returned to the states and then for the best parts sold off to private owners.

Paul’s remarks fall in line with the attacks on public lands from conservative lawmakers and corporate front groups. For instance, Rep. Rob Bishop (R-UT) has been waging war on public lands from his helm as chairman of the House Resources Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and Public Lands, while the Koch Brothers have funded pro-oil events across the West.

For more information, read Center for American Progress President John Podesta’s article on defending public lands or a report from CAP’s public lands team on how public land conservation creates jobs.

Good old Ron is as wacky as ever. A libertarian who has spent most of his adult life in Congress getting rich off the people. he is a great example for American children. he has managed to amass have a super comfortable life without ever studying as issue or coming out with a well thought out solution. All of Ron's answers to everything can be found in a secret compartment he keeps where the sun never shines and he reaches up in there to pull out wacko solutions on demand. he hates government, so he does his best to make sure we have bad government, and hey kids he get about $174,00.00 a year for that little magic trick. 

The Hate America First Crowd At Fox News Misleads Public About Jobs Bill

The Hate America First Crowd At Fox News Misleads Public About Jobs Bill

Conservative media figures are citing the discredited myth that the stimulus failed to argue that President Obama's jobs plan also will not help the economy. In fact, economic analysts have repeatedly said that the 2009 recovery act boosted the economy and increased employment, and economists estimate that Obama's jobs plan is likely to add millions of jobs.

Right-Wing Media: Obama's Jobs Plan Won't Create Jobs -- Just Like The Stimulus

Fox's MacCallum: "$447 Billion In New Money To Stimulate The Economy On Top Of 800 Billion In The Original Stimulus Plan That Didn't Work." Fox News anchor Martha MacCallum discussed Obama's jobs plan with Rep. Rob Andrews (D-NJ). MacCallum said that "one of the big questions that I think a lot of people were left with at the end of the speech last night was: $447 billion in new money to stimulate the economy on top of 800 billion in the original stimulus plan that didn't work, as evidenced by the employment numbers and every other indication of the economy that we've seen." She continued:

    MacCALLUM: So why would this $447 billion -- where are we going to get the money, and why should everyone be convinced that this time it will work? [Fox News, America's Newsroom, 9/9/11]

But Economists Say Obama's Jobs Plan Would Create Millions Of Jobs

Zandi: American Jobs Act Would Add Nearly 2 Million Jobs. UPI reported:

    President Barack Obama's $447 billion job-creation plan would likely add 1.9 million payroll jobs and grow the U.S. economy 2 percent, a leading economist said.

    The plan, which Obama outlined before a joint session of Congress Thursday, would likely cut the unemployment rate by a percentage point, Moody's Analytics Chief Economist Mark Zandi said as Obama prepared to tout the plan at Virginia's University of Richmond. [United Press International, 9/9/11]

Macroeconomic Advisers: American Jobs Act Would Be "A Significant Boost To GDP And Employment." From the blog of Macroeconomic Advisers LLC:

    We estimate that the American Jobs Act (AJA), if enacted, would give a significant boost to GDP and employment over the near-term.

        The various tax cuts aimed at raising workers' after-tax income and encouraging hiring and investing, combined with the spending increases aimed at maintaining state & local employment and funding infrastructure modernization, would:

        Boost the level of GDP by 1.3% by the end of 2012, and by 0.2% by the end of 2013.

        Raise nonfarm establishment employment by 1.3 million by the end of 2012 and 0.8 million by the end of 2013, relative to the baseline.

        The program works directly to raise employment through tax incentives and support to state & local governments for increasing hiring; it works indirectly through the positive boost to aggregate demand (and hence hiring) stimulated by the direct spending and the increase in household income resulting from lower employee payroll taxes and increased employment. [Macroeconomic Advisers LLC, 9/8/11]

EPI: American Jobs Act Would "Increase Employment By About 4.3 Million Jobs." Economic Policy Institute research and policy director John Irons provided a "preliminary breakdown of the package and a first pass look at the job impact" of Obama's jobs plan:

    Overall the package would increase employment by about 4.3 million jobs over the next couple of years. The new initiatives would boost employment by about 2.6 million jobs, while the continuation of the two temporary provisions (EUI and the payroll tax holiday) would prevent a backslide of over 1.6 million jobs.

Conservatives and their America hating friends in the conservative media want unemployment to continue to be high because as Michele Bachmann confessed high unemployment will help get crazy right-wing conservative such as her and Rick perry elected. The Republican party is a movement of rabid foaming at the mouth nationalists, not patriots. Pay attention to what they do. They always put their party first and America last.

Climate Science - Do The Right-Wing Reporters At Fox Have a Reading Comprehension Problem

Climate Science - Do The Right-Wing Reporters At Fox Have a Reading Comprehension Problem

Fox and other conservative media claim that CERN's study of cosmic rays "concluded that it's the sun, not human activity," causing global warming. In fact, at this point the research "actually says nothing about a possible cosmic-ray effect on clouds and climate," according to the lead author, and it certainly doesn't refute human-induced global warming.

Findings Say "Nothing" About Effect Of Cosmic Rays On Climate

CERN Studied Effects Of Cosmic Rays On Aerosols, Which Contribute To Clouds. From the press release about the study by CERN, the European Organization for Nuclear Research:

    In a paper published in the journal Nature today, the CLOUD experiment at CERN has reported its first results. The CLOUD experiment has been designed to study the effect of cosmic rays on the formation of atmospheric aerosols - tiny liquid or solid particles suspended in the atmosphere - under controlled laboratory conditions. Atmospheric aerosols are thought to be responsible for a large fraction of the seeds that form cloud droplets. Understanding the process of aerosol formation is therefore important for understanding the climate.

    The CLOUD results show that trace vapours assumed until now to account for aerosol formation in the lower atmosphere can explain only a tiny fraction of the observed atmospheric aerosol production. The results also show that ionisation from cosmic rays significantly enhances aerosol formation. Precise measurements such as these are important in achieving a quantitative understanding of cloud formation, and will contribute to a better assessment of the effects of clouds in climate models. [CERN, 8/25/11]

Lead Author: Paper "Says Nothing About" Effect Of Cosmic Rays On "Clouds And Climate." Nature reported:

    For a century, scientists have known that charged particles from space constantly bombard Earth. Known as cosmic rays, the particles are mostly protons blasted out of supernovae. As the protons crash through the planet's atmosphere, they can ionize volatile compounds, causing them to condense into airborne droplets, or aerosols. Clouds might then build up around the droplets.

    The number of cosmic rays that reach Earth depends on the Sun. When the Sun is emitting lots of radiation, its magnetic field shields the planet from cosmic rays. During periods of low solar activity, more cosmic rays reach Earth.

    Scientists agree on these basic facts, but there is far less agreement on whether cosmic rays can have a large role in cloud formation and climate change. Since the late 1990s, some have suggested that when high solar activity lowers levels of cosmic rays, that in turn reduces cloud cover and warms the planet. Others say that there is no statistical evidence for such an effect.

    [...]

    Early results seem to indicate that cosmic rays do cause a change. The high-energy protons seemed to enhance the production of nanometre-sized particles from the gaseous atmosphere by more than a factor of ten. But, [Physicist Jasper] Kirkby adds, those particles are far too small to serve as seeds for clouds. "At the moment, it actually says nothing about a possible cosmic-ray effect on clouds and climate, but it's a very important first step," he says. [Nature, 8/24/11, emphasis added]

Kirkby: The Study Adds A Piece To The Big Picture, "But In No Way Disproves The Other Pieces." Live Science reported:

    The research doesn't call into question the basic science of greenhouse gas warming, Kirkby emphasized, but rather refines one facet of the research. Climate models currently predict an average global temperature increase of 3 to 7 degrees Fahrenheit by 2100.

    The data generated by the CLOUD experiment (CLOUD stands for "Cosmics Leaving Outdoor Droplets") will feed into global models of aerosol formation, Kirkby said, which in turn will carry into global climate models.

    "It's part of the jigsaw puzzle, and you could say it adds to the understanding of the big picture," he said. "But it in no way disproves the other pieces." [Live Science, 8/24/11]

Rupert Murdoch's 24/7 America hating Fox News could at least try and sound like they know what they're talking about. No wait, they don't care if they spew a bunch of junk science because their viewers are science illiterates who swallows every piece of right-wing propaganda that Rupert Murdoch's fascist-lite network puts out.