Liars of the Week - Right-wing Conservative Bloggers. Obama Did Not Offer to Apologize for Hiroshima

Obama Did Not Offer to Apologize for Hiroshima

Here we go again. Based on a (probably deliberate) misreading of a diplomatic cable released by Wikileaks, the right wing media are having yet another attack of the vapors. Linked at Drudge Report...

Leaked cables show Japan nixed a presidential apology to Hiroshima and Nagasaki for using nukes to end the overseas contingency operation known as World War II. Will the next president apologize for the current one?

    The obsessive need of this president to apologize for American exceptionalism and our defense of freedom continued recently when Barack Obama’s State Department (run by Hillary Clinton) contacted the family of al-Qaida propagandist and recruiter Samir Khan to “express its condolences” to his family.

There is only one tiny problem with Drudge, Investors and the right-wing nutbars who echoed the story above. The very cable these honorless serial liars are using from Wikileaks says no such offer of an apology was ever made. In fact the Japanese sated that should anyone in the administration be thinking of apologizing, don't.

It never stops. No matter how many Al Qaeda terrorists the Obama administration eliminates, these people just keep feeding the right wing base fairytales about Obama’s “weakness” and his “apology tours.”

Here’s the truth, not that it matters in the wingnut echo chamber:

    A senior White House official asserts to ABC News that there was never any plan for the president to apologize for Hiroshima.  The cable does not state that the idea was from the U.S. Rather, Roos writes that Yabunaka thought that following President Obama’s call earlier that year for a world free of nuclear weapons, anti-nuclear groups would speculate as to whether he would visit Hiroshima.

In other words, there’s absolutely no evidence that this “apology” was proposed by the Obama administration. None. Here’s the actual cable they’re freaking out about:

    VFM Yabunaka pointed out that the Japanese public will have high expectations toward President Obama’s visit to Japan in November, as the President enjoys an historic level of popularity among the Japanese people. Anti-nuclear groups, in particular, will speculate whether the President would visit Hiroshima in light of his April 5 Prague speech on non-proliferation. He underscored, however, that both governments must temper the public’s expectations on such issues, as the idea of President Obama visiting Hiroshima to apologize for the atomic bombing during World War II is a “non-starter.” While a simple visit to Hiroshima without fanfare is sufficiently symbolic to convey the right message, it is premature to include such program in the November visit.

The official U.S. line of apologizing for Hiroshima is that the U.S. will not apologize until the Japanese make several apologies that include Pearl Harbor, the March to Bataan and some other WW II atrocities. The Obama administration is sticking to those terms.

Ron Paul Calls Out Herman Cain For Lie Over Fed Audit During GOP Debate

Open Letter to that 53% Guy

Bachmann, Gingrich and WSJ agree: The financial crisis is poor people's fault. Maybe these right-wing freaks keep spreading the same falsehoods because they don't understand the truth.

Mitt Romney Might Be a Great Democrat President

Mitt Romney Might Be a Great Democrat President

Mitt Romney was more likable as a liberal. That, at least, was my conclusion after watching a devastating video put together by the Democratic Party’s best (and maybe only) strategist: comedian Jon Stewart. Before my eyes was an early Rombot model, circa 1994, that we’ve not seen since: emotional, passionate, lively. He sneered derisively at the “Reagan-Bush” years, bragged about being a political independent, and indignantly defended his “consistent” support of abortion rights. Romney was so proud of his pro-choice pedigree that he even tweaked his Senate opponent, Democrat Ted Kennedy, for equivocation. A few years later, when he ran for governor and was asked about support he’d received from a pro-life organization, he squirmed more uncomfortably than if he’d been forced to watch a marathon of “Mike and Molly.”

That, of course, is not the Mitt Romney running for president today. In fact the Republican’s encyclopedia-sized list of policy reversals makes 2004’s whipping boy, John “I voted for it before I voted against it” Kerry, look like an exemplar of political consistency. All of which raises a haunting question for the GOP as the clock ticks down to the Iowa caucuses: in a party whose potential nominees include Gary Johnson and Ron Paul, could the GOP’s “safe” choice actually be its most reckless gamble?

In 1994, Romney ran for the United States Senate as a “William Weld moderate” because that is what he believed it took to get elected in Massachusetts. On nearly every issue he was boldly to the left of the Republican mainstream. He labeled Newt Gingrich’s “Contract With America” too partisan, opposed capital-gains-tax cuts, vowed to encourage banks to give home loans to poor families, and, as The Washington Post put it, “stressed his support for universal health insurance and abortion rights.” At a debate with Kennedy in Boston, the paper noted, Romney “was more outspoken than Kennedy in arguing that the Boy Scouts should not exclude homosexual youths.” Romney once bragged that he voted for a Democrat, Paul Tsongas, in the 1992 presidential primaries, though he later tried to change his story and his rationale. Stewart pointed out that then-Governor Romney vowed to close “corporate loopholes” in the language now used by President Obama. And Romney’s ever-evolving position on his health-care proposal—which he once called a model for the nation—is notorious.

[  ]...Though Romney’s curious political conversion was well known to political operatives during his previous run for the White House, it was never fully examined. That’s because he was fortunate in his political opponents: his main rival, John McCain, was a notorious flip-flopper, and nobody ever paid much attention to anything Mike Huckabee said. This time, Romney won’t be so lucky. Already, Texas Gov. Rick Perry is reminding voters of Romney’s former Massachusetts-friendly views on the environment. And if Romney is the GOP nominee, the Obama campaign would be even more hapless than it already is expected to be if it doesn’t turn to the same strategy.

It’s not clear if there is an easy solution for Romney. Perhaps his best bet is to find something to become passionate or emotional about, to find opportunities to demonstrate that his political views are principled, on issues that are hard or even unpopular. Otherwise, voters will find themselves preoccupied with another question: do they really know the man named Willard, then Billy, then Mitt who came from Michigan, then Utah, then Massachusetts? The real trouble for the Romney campaign is that it’s not entirely clear if the candidate has a firm answer to that question himself.

Who knows, Romney is running this time round on the extreme Right, but if he returns to his moderate roots as president he might be more liberal than Obama. Romney might in fact be this season's stealth candidate.

Five Reasons Patriots Should Move Their Money From Bank Of America

Five Reasons Patriots Should Move Their Money From Bank Of America

As hundreds of people remain encamped on Wall Street in New York City, and thousands of people across the country are taking part in a 99 Percent Movement aimed at battling economic inequality spurred on by enormous income gains by the richest one percent of Americans.

One of the financial institutions being targeted by protesters is foreclosure mill and government bailout recipient Bank of America (BOA). In Boston, thousands of people marched against BOA’s greed and in Los Angeles, numerous people were arrested while staging a sit-in at a local branch.

While many Americans may feel powerless against this banking behemoth, the truth is that Americans have a simple way to protest its greed and corporate malfeasance: simply move your money out of the bank to one of its competitors, such as a local credit union. Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL) recently encouraged Americans to do just that.

ThinkProgress has assembled five reasons why American consumers could consider moving their money and striking a blow to this abusive banking giant:

    1. Bank of America Just Unveiled A Shocking New Debit Card Fee: Late last month, BOA announced that it would start charging a $5-a-month fee simply for consumers to use their debit cards for purchases. Although a few of its competitors have started using similar fees in recent times, BOA’s presence as America’s largest banking chain means that if it successfully enacts such a fee, it may be able to set a trend in the industry to make such charges the norm. More than 137,000 Americans have signed an online change.org petition protesting the fee. Most credit unions do not charge for using one’s debit card, and one credit unions, Delta Credit Union based in Atlanta, is even holding a “Switch Day” to encourage BOA’s customers to switch over to its services instead.

    2. Bank of America Has Spent Millions Lobbying To Gut Reforms With Your Tax Dollars: Despite being bailed out to the tune of billions of dollars by the federal government, Bank of America has still had the gumption to spend millions of dollars in Washington battling new reforms meant re-regulate the financial sector. It spent nearly $4 million hiring a double-digit number of lobbyists in 2010, mostly aimed at gutting legislation related to banking regulations. Meanwhile, it spent a million dollars on campaign contributions in the 2010 electoral cycle.

    3. Bank of America’s Practices Are At The Nexus Of The Foreclosure Crisis: Bank of America CEO Brian Moynihan raised eyebrows recently when he excitedly cheered for faster foreclosures of Americans’ homes. Despite being found to be a major user of error-ridden “robo-signing” foreclosure practices last year, the mega-bank only briefly halted its foreclosure proceedings nationwide. It is also facing lawsuits by multiple states over its mortgage practices.

    4. Bank of America Just Announced That It Was Laying Off 30,000 People: The “firm’s 30,000 job cuts are more than double what any other U.S.-based employer has announced so far this year, according to a employment tracking group.” The layoffs come after a decision by Bank of America, JP Morgan, and Citigroup earlier this year to “outsource IT and back office projects worth nearly $5 billion this year to India, as they seek to lower costs.”

    5. Despite The Poor Economy, Bank Of America Continues To Reward Its Executives With Multi-Million Dollar Salaries: Despite blaming economic woes for layoffs of employees and its new debit card fee, the mega-bank continues to deliver huge paydays to its executives. The bank just announced that two of its former executives, Sallie Krawcheck and Joe Price, will receive a salary of $850,000 and a payment of $5.15 million and a salary of $850,000 and a payment of $4.15 million respectively. Meanwhile, BOA maintained its CEO’s salary of $950,000 plus $9.05 million in performance-based stock awards this year.

Americans do not have to stand by and allow a mega-bank to continue to rip off its consumers, to develop and foster abusive mortgage practices, reward its executives lavishly, and shortchange own workforce. They can strike a blow against this institution by simply moving their money away from it, either to its major competitors or into the country’s large network of community banks and credit unions.

In order to facilitate this process, Rep. Brad Miller (D-NC) — shortly after meeting with Occupy Raleigh protesters in Bank of America’s hub city — has introduced the “Freedom and Mobility in Consumer Banking Act,” which would ensure that Americans “have the right to immediately close any account at any insured depository institutions on demand, without cost to the consumer, that consumers receive any balance in their account immediately, and for other purposes.” The Progressive Change Campaign Committee has launched a petition drive in support of Miller’s bill.

Americans who are afraid of the too big to fail merry-go-round should put their money into community banks and credit unions. It is one way not to have too big to fail financial institutions and another great recession in ten or twenty years..

Insane Republican Fool of the Week - Maine Gov. LePage dramatically changes his story on labor mural removal

Insane Republican Fool of the Week - Maine Gov. LePage dramatically changes his story on labor mural removal

There's a lot of competition for most evil among the governors elected in 2010; there's no competition for biggest buffoon. That is and always has been Maine's Paul LePage, and in this video clip, Brian Williams offers him the chance to burnish that reputation. Naturally, burnish he does.

Back when LePage was making headlines for having a labor history mural removed from Maine's Department of Labor, he offered a number of explanations for the decision—it was "one-sided," it made business owners uncomfortable, and so on. But all of his explanations made clear that the mural was removed because it depicted working people and their unions in a positive light.

Now, in response to Williams' question, he's claiming it's all about the funding:

    LEPAGE: I have absolutely nothing about organized labor. My objection to the mural is simply where the money came from. The money was taken out of the unemployment insurance fund, which is dedicated to provide benefits to unemployed workers. They robbed that account to build a mural, and until they pay for it, it stays hidden. [...] We are putting it under safe lock and key.

As Political Correction notes,

    LePage's new line accusing the department of 'robbing' the jobless to pay for a painting is smarter politically than his clearly stated original reasoning, but state officials say that "nobody lost any benefits to which they were entitled," according to the Portland Press Herald. Furthermore, the federal Department of Labor actually demanded that Maine return the money used to buy the mural if it is not going to be displayed any longer.

LePage getting some political sense will deprive the world of much-needed hilarity, but given that his recent forays into the news have included rejoicing over kids arriving at summer camp in private jets and signing a law easing child labor restrictions, it's not like he's about to become a political whiz en route to easy reelection.

A reproduction of the labor mural is on display at the AFL-CIO in Washington, D.C. until Oct. 11.

Lepage is a poster child for the conservative conviction that American who labor for a living - Labor being what Abraham Lincoln called the foundation for all capital - are all thugs. The thugs meme is repeated across the internet and in right-wing conservative junk mail. Conservatives think Americans who work for living and organize are radical Marxist thugs. Labor unions and labor built America. They didn't sit behind a desk barking demands and whine about how unappreciated they are, nope, labor just did what needed doing. All they asked for is lunch breaks, fire escape doors that work, a fair wage they could live on. Lepage and his fascist-lite cohorts in the conservative movement have nothing but contempt for those people - people who do real work.

Herman Cain’s weird opinion columns published by birther website


Confronting the Malefactors

There’s something happening here. What it is ain’t exactly clear, but we may, at long last, be seeing the rise of a popular movement that, unlike the Tea Party, is angry at the right people.

When the Occupy Wall Street protests began three weeks ago, most news organizations were derisive if they deigned to mention the events at all. For example, nine days into the protests, National Public Radio had provided no coverage whatsoever.

It is, therefore, a testament to the passion of those involved that the protests not only continued but grew, eventually becoming too big to ignore. With unions and a growing number of Democrats now expressing at least qualified support for the protesters, Occupy Wall Street is starting to look like an important event that might even eventually be seen as a turning point.

What can we say about the protests? First things first: The protesters’ indictment of Wall Street as a destructive force, economically and politically, is completely right.

A weary cynicism, a belief that justice will never get served, has taken over much of our political debate — and, yes, I myself have sometimes succumbed. In the process, it has been easy to forget just how outrageous the story of our economic woes really is. So, in case you’ve forgotten, it was a play in three acts.

In the first act, bankers took advantage of deregulation to run wild (and pay themselves princely sums), inflating huge bubbles through reckless lending. In the second act, the bubbles burst — but bankers were bailed out by taxpayers, with remarkably few strings attached, even as ordinary workers continued to suffer the consequences of the bankers’ sins. And, in the third act, bankers showed their gratitude by turning on the people who had saved them, throwing their support — and the wealth they still possessed thanks to the bailouts — behind politicians who promised to keep their taxes low and dismantle the mild regulations erected in the aftermath of the crisis.

Given this history, how can you not applaud the protesters for finally taking a stand?

Now, it’s true that some of the protesters are oddly dressed or have silly-sounding slogans, which is inevitable given the open character of the events. But so what? I, at least, am a lot more offended by the sight of exquisitely tailored plutocrats, who owe their continued wealth to government guarantees, whining that President Obama has said mean things about them than I am by the sight of ragtag young people denouncing consumerism.

Herman Cain's Regressive Anti-American Budget and Tax Plan

Herman Cain's Regressive Anti-American Budget and Tax Plan

Herman Cain's tax-overhaul plan is helping fuel a boomlet in the polls, but conservatives are divided over its proposed national sales tax while liberals worry that his proposal would penalize lower earners.

The Republican presidential candidate wants to scrap the current system—with its income-tax rates as high as 35% for individuals and corporations—and replace it with a system that combines a 9% personal flat tax, a 9% corporate flat tax and a 9% national sales tax.

The plan would eliminate the estate tax as well as current taxes on investment income....

Cain used to be corporate CEO. I'm not sure that his experience means he has no excuse for not running his numbers or that since he was a CEO that explains why he doesn't care if his numbers don't work. More here Herman Cain’s 9-9-9 Plan: Buy Less, Pay Less. Cain and his supporters apparently believe in the magic theory of economics. Yoy just invent things out of thin air and magically make them true. A Cain presidency, or Perry or Romney for that matter would be a return of the glory days of Bush-style economy management - which ended in driving the economy off the cliff the last time we tried it.

Andrew Breitbart is quite mad. Though like many mad millionaires his madness is taken for wisdom by his mindless genuflecting followers - Breitbart Smear: Obama (And Thousands More) "Marched With" New Black Panthers. More magic. It never happened but by cresting a narrative with some fuzzy pictures they can create the newest right-wing conservative urban myth.

Why Does Herman Cain Hate America and The Bill of Rights

Why does teahadist darling Herman Cain hate American values and the Bill of Rights - Herman Cain Defends His Sharia Conspiracy: ‘Call Me Crazy’

On ABC’s This Week, host Christiane Amanpour confronted Herman Cain about a comment he made to ThinkProgress. “There’s this creeping attempt…to gradually ease Sharia Law and the Muslim faith into our government,” Cain told us in March.

After showing Cain his quote, Amanpour asked him to respond to Chris Christie, who has said, “This Sharia law business is crap, it’s just crazy, and I’m tired of dealing with the crazies.” Cain responded:

    CAIN: Call me crazy. … Some people would infuse Sharia Law in our courts system if we allow it. I honestly believe that. So even if he calls me crazy, I am going to make sure that they don’t infuse it little by little by little. … American laws in American courts, period.

    AMANPOUR: American laws are in American courts. So the people of this country should be safe for the moment.

Watch it:

In July, Cain met with a small group of Muslims and said he was “truly sorry for any comments that may have betrayed my commitment to the U.S. Constitution and the freedom of religion guaranteed by it.” It’s therefore disappointing that Cain is still clinging to his anti-Sharia rhetoric.

The “creeping Sharia” threat, as CAP explained in our report “Fear, Inc.,” is the product of a hate campaign organized by a small number of Islamophobic actors who are trying to cast suspicion on the presence of all Muslims in America. In fact, Cain’s language of “American laws in American courts” is lifted directly from a right-wing lawyer named David Yerushalmi, who has been leading an effort to pass anti-Sharia measures in roughly two dozen states.

As the ACLU has explained in a thorough legal analysis, the “creeping Sharia” rhetoric is a mythical menace and a fabricated threat:

    There is no evidence that Islamic law is encroaching on our courts. On the contrary, the court cases cited by anti-Muslim groups as purportedly illustrative of this problem actually show the opposite: Courts treat lawsuits that are brought by Muslims or that address the Islamic faith in the same way that they deal with similar claims brought by people of other faiths or that involve no religion at all. These cases also show that sufficient protections already exist in our legal system to ensure that courts do not become impermissibly entangled with religion or improperly consider, defer to, or apply religious law where it would violate basic principles of U.S. or state public policy.

A Center for American Progress report on Sharia explained, “It’s important to understand that adopting” the creeping Sharia rhetoric “would direct limited resources away from actual threats to the United States and bolster an anti-Muslim narrative that Islamist extremist groups find useful in recruiting.”

Recall, in 2010, Oklahoma passed a “Save our State” ballot initiative that banned Sharia in its state courts. That amendment was halted from taking effect by a federal district court. District Court Judge Vicki Miles-LaGrange argued: “It would be incomprehensible if…Oklahoma could condemn the religion of its Muslim citizens, yet one of those citizens could not defend himself in court against his government’s preferment of other religious views.” The 10th Circuit court is now hearing the case.

The 1st Amendment to the Bill of Rights guarantees every American to follow the religion of their choice. Cain is "crazy" to think there is some special law by any special religious group that can bypass the Constitution. In pursuing this special crusade against Muslims Cain is helping to create a cultural and legal atmospheric where state or the federal government can pick favorites among religious groups. Thus every American will have less religious freedom because of wacky paranoia over a phenomenon that is not occurring. Cain is running against both American values and American law. One thing Americans do not have to tolerant is the radical UnAmericanism of Herman Cain.

Economics of Austerity - Serious Conservatives and The Consequences

Economics of Austerity - Serious Conservatives and The Consequences

Martin Wolf is getting frantic, as well he should. The austerians have brought us to the brink of a vast disaster. A recession in Europe looks more likely than not; and the question for the United States is not whether a lost decade is possible, but whether there is any plausible way to avoid one.

Wolf directs us to a recent speech by Adam Posen (pdf), which opens with a passage that very much mirrors my own thoughts:

    Both the UK and the global economy are facing a familiar foe at present: policy defeatism. Throughout modern economic history, whether in Western Europe in the 1920s, in the US and elsewhere in the 1930s, or in Japan in the 1990s, every major financial crisis-driven downturn has been followed by premature abandonment—if not reversal—of the macroeconomic stimulus policies that are necessary to sustained recovery. Every time, this was due to unduly influential voices claiming some combination of the destructiveness of further policy stimulus, the ineffectiveness of further policy stimulus, or the political corruption from further policy stimulus. Every time those voices were wrong on each and every count. Those voices are being heard again today, much too loudly. It is the duty of economic policymakers including central bankers to rebut these false claims head on. It is even more important that we do the right thing for the economy rather than be slowed, confused, or intimidated by such false claims.

Indeed. Posen’s “unduly influential voices” are my Very Serious People. And it has been an awesome spectacle watching the VSPs search, obsessively, for reasons not to fight mass unemployment. Fiscal policy must tighten to appease the invisible bond vigilantes and please the confidence fairy. Interest rates must rise because, well, um, inflation, well, no, low rates cause moral hazard — yes, that must be it.

And we’re not (just) talking about ignorant politicians. This stuff has been coming from the European Central Bank, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, the Bank for International Settlements.

I don’t fully understand it. But a large part of it, it seems obvious, is the intense desire to see economics as a morality play of sin and punishment, where the sinners are, of course, workers and governments, not the bankers. Pain is not an unfortunate consequence of policies, it’s what is supposed to happen.

How obsessive are these people? So obsessive that when the financial doom they predict fails to materialize, they consider this a bad thing: punishment must be administered, so what are the markets waiting for? Here’s Alan Greenspan a while back:

    Despite the surge in federal debt to the public during the past 18 months—to $8.6 trillion from $5.5 trillion—inflation and long-term interest rates, the typical symptoms of fiscal excess, have remained remarkably subdued. This is regrettable, because it is fostering a sense of complacency that can have dire consequences.

Gosh, it’s regrettable that the markets aren’t confirming my warnings! And today Ronald McKinnon laments, yes, laments the failure of the invisible bond vigilantes to show themselves — they’re supposed to be “disciplining the government”, so why aren’t they here?

Just to reiterate a point I’ve made before, none of this reflects actual economic theory. Throughout this crisis, people like Adam Posen and yours truly have been basing our arguments on standard textbook macroeconomics, whereas the Very Serious People have been making up stories on the fly to justify their calls for pain. As Wolf, who really seems to have eaten his Wheetabix, puts it,

    The waste is more than unnecessary; it is cruel. Sadists seem to revel in that cruelty. Sane people should reject it. It is wrong, intellectually and morally.

And this cruelty rules our world.

We have never cut spending and taxes to turn a corner during a recession. No country has ever cut spending to the bone to recover from a economic downturn. America cannot cut spending as a way to recovery. Don't worry if you disagree, the serious people, the cruel people, the people who do not have clue, are winning and the world is likely yo to fall back into another bad recession as a result.