John Boehner (R-OH) Makes the Conservative Aligned Tea Baggers Look Like the Fake Populists They Are

John Boehner (R-OH) makes the Conservative Aligned Tea Baggers Look Like the Fake Populists They Are

This week, Senate Banking Committee Chairman Chris Dodd (D-CT) released the latest version of his financial regulatory reform bill, which aims to correct the deficiencies in the financial system that led to 2008’s economic crisis. The House of Representatives has already passed a comprehensive regulatory reform bill, and now that Dodd has given up on negotiating with recalcitrant Republicans, he is moving on an expedited timeline, with a markup scheduled for Monday.

It’s taken the Senate a year and a half after the financial crisis to even get to this point, but House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH) told “an enthusiastic crowd of bankers” today that, even if the Senate passes a bill, reconciling it with the House version will take another year. “If the Senate is able to produce a bill, I think it’s just as likely that we’ll be talking about the same issue a year from now as we are right now,” Boehner said at the American Bankers Association government relations summit.

Boehner then added that the bankers should be standing up for themselves against “those little punk staffers” trying to write new regulations:

“Don’t let those little punk staffers take advantage of you and stand up for yourselves,” Boehner said. “All of us are hearing from our friends and constituents on lack of credit, you can’t get a loan, the more your government takes and taxes, the more regulations you have to comply with the more cost you have there and less amount you are going to have available to loan to customers.”

The fact that he’s willing to let another year lapse without putting in place new rules for Wall Street shows exactly where Boehner’s priorities lie. But it should come as no surprise, considering what Republicans have been up to this year.

In February, Boehner met “over drinks” with JP Morgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon, where he “made a pitch” for Wall Street support by explaining that “Republicans had stood up to Mr. Obama’s efforts to curb pay and impose new regulations.” Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX), chairman of the National Republican Senatorial Committee, “said he visited New York about twice a month to try to tap into Wall Street’s ‘buyers remorse’” with Democrats. These pitches had some effect too; last year, “major Wall Street players began sending an increasing share of their donations to Republicans.”

Prior to Boehner’s speech, American Bankers Association President Edward Yingling urged delay in the financial reform effort, because “every day that passes gives more leverage to [Banking Committee Ranking Member Richard Shelby (R-AL)].” In his career, Boehner has received $3.4 million from the financial services industry, which is $1.2 million more than he’s received from any other industry.

Boehner and conservatives continue to show their real stripes - their future agenda is simply recreating the conditions of crazed unregulated financial shenanigans that lead to the Bush/Republican Great Recession. Maybe he and his tea bagger supporters are enjoying America's misery so much they just want to do it again and again.

Fox Chief Coward and conspiracy monger Glenn Beck Dodges Debate Over His Social Justice Attacks

Republicans Go Into Raving Loon Mode Over Health Care Reform

Right-wing media set sights on family of 11-year-old who spoke about his mother's death at health care event

Right-wing media have recently targeted 11-year-old Marcelas Owens and his family for attacks after he appeared at a health care reform event to speak about his mother, who reportedly died after losing her health insurance. These attacks follow a history of media conservatives attacking or mocking the uninsured, and previous attacks by right-wing media on the family of a 12-year-old who spoke in support of SCHIP.

11-year-old spoke about mother's death at health care reform event

Marcelas' mother reportedly "died of pulmonary hypertension ... after losing her health insurance because she could no longer work." According to a New York Times report, Marcelas Owens appeared at a March 11 press conference with Senate Democrats and spoke about his mother's death. The Times reported that Marcelas' mother, "Tiffany Owens, died of pulmonary hypertension in 2007 at age 27 after losing her health insurance because she could no longer work. Ms. Owens had been an assistant manager at a Jack in the Box restaurant." CNN.com further reported that Marcelas said at the event, "I came out here for health care, I got involved because my mom was a health care activist, she testified and participated in rallies. She wanted people to have health care and not wait till management level to be offered health care."

....Gateway Pundit (a Republican internet pundit and self described expert on everything from national security to kool-aid) attacks Slaughter's "sappy lib sob story of the day, hands down." On his Gateway Pundit blog, Jim Hoft linked to a video clip of Slaughter telling the story about the dentures under the headline, "Horror! Lib Dem Claims Her Constituent Wore Dead Sister's Teeth (Video)." After declaring the account the "sappy lib sob story of the day, hands down," Hoft wrote: "Will Obamacare buy me glasses and contacts? Will Obamacare buy me a gold tooth in the front of my mouth with a little heart on it?"

If Deem and Pass or “self-executing rule” is Unconstitutional Why Have Republicans Used it So Often

Fairly Unbalanced Fox Promotes Texas School Board Nuts Revisonist History

Steve Doocy And Texas Board Of Education Right Winger, Cynthia Dunbar, Advance “Textbook” Propaganda!

Republican Cynthia Dunbar represents the extreme views of the conservatives on the Texas Board of Education. Her contention that liberals have unduly influenced the curriculum is a Texas sized cow chip because last year’s changes to the Texas science curriculum were done as a result of the conservatives who control the Board of Education. The National Center for Science Education deemed them a “setback for science education.” She homeschooled her children because she believes that education is “tyrannical” and “unconstitutional” and "a subtly deceptive tool of perversion." On the other hand, she believes that government should be guided by a “biblical litmus test.” She believes that Obama sympathizes with terrorists. She also doesn’t believe that the Founders wanted the separation of church and state. One of the new changes, approved by Dunbar and her Christian conservatives (not noted by Doocy) is to “question whether the Founders sought a separation of church and state.” Ergo, students will be taught that the government can show preference for one religion over the other. (That neither the Constitution nor the Federalist papers mentioned God is lost on these Texas Christians!) As noted by Brian Thevenot, of the Texas Tribune, Friday’s Texas School Board vote is a “hijacking of history.” The overwhelming reaction, by the non Texas reality based community (read educators – not creationist theocrats) has been swift and sharp. As noted by the NY Times (not mentioned by Doocy) one of the approved amendments says “that students should study “the unintended consequences” of the Great Society legislation, affirmative action and Title IX legislation.” Joe McCarthy has been rehabilitated and the Bible will be part of the hisotry curriculum. And let’s talk “white wash” – literally – of history. Texas has a large Hispanic population; but references to Hispanics are now being kept at a minimum. There will be no teaching about Dolores Huerta, co-founder of the United Farm Workers of America, because Dunbar’s pals say she is a socialist. Jeff Schneider has written an excellent debunking of the whole thing here.

In the never ending quest to find a Conservative with actual values, well sorry but today is another disappointment. In new "social justice" smear, Beck attacks mother of uninsured woman who died

Bush's Brain Karl Rove Rewrites History on Book Tour

Karl Rove brings his misinformation tour to Meet the Press

Rove falsely claimed it "was not" Bush policy "to go into Iraq and take their" oil revenues "to pay for the cost of the war"

Fact: Bush administration officials said "the bulk of the funds for Iraq's reconstruction will come from Iraqis," including "oil revenues"

Rumsfeld: "[T]he bulk of the funds for Iraq's reconstruction will come from Iraqis," including "oil revenues." In an October 2, 2003, news briefing, then-Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld discussed President Bush's request for $87 billion in funding for the "global war on terror," $21 billion dollars of which Rumsfeld declared was "to help Afghanistan and Iraq secure their nation's freedom." Rumsfeld added: "The $20 billion the president requested is not intended to cover all of Iraq's needs. The bulk of the funds for Iraq's reconstruction will come from Iraqis -- from oil revenues, recovered assets, international trade, direct foreign investment, as well as some contributions we've already received and hope to receive from the international community."

Wolfowitz: "We're dealing with a country that could really finance its own reconstruction." As Think Progress noted, then-Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz testified before Congress on March 27, 2003, that "the oil revenues of that country [Iraq] could bring between 50 and 100 billion dollars over the course of the next two or three years. Now, there are a lot of claims on that money, but that's --- we're not dealing with Afghanistan that's a permanent ward of the international community. We are dealing with a country that can really finance its own reconstruction and relatively soon."

Fleisher: Iraq "is a rather wealthy country" that has the "means" to "shoulder much of the burden for their own reconstruction." As Think Progress also noted, in a February 18, 2003, press conference, then-White House press secretary Ari Fleischer said of reconstruction costs: "Iraq, unlike Afghanistan, is a rather wealthy country. Iraq has tremendous resources that belong to the Iraqi people. And so there are a variety of means that Iraq has to be able to shoulder much of the burden for their own reconstruction."

State Department suggested Iraqi "oil revenue" could "finance reconstruction with development itself, given its oil revenue." In an October 4, 2002, press briefing then-Assistant Secretary of State for Public Affairs Richard Boucher was asked whether the Iraq "working groups ... include[d] a financial component on how it would be funded and talks about whether that would be something the US would fund or the donor community." He replied, "I'm sure as they face each of these challenges they have to talk about the financing challenges, and obviously in some areas it's more likely Iraq would be able to finance reconstruction with development itself, given its oil revenue; in some areas, there might be needs."

Rove also lied about health-care reform and the reconciliation process claiming is was not "normal". Which makes Rove a lying hypocrite since Republican used the reconciliation process more than Democrats ever have to pass major legislation.

Republicans Have Lied About Health Care Reform. Their Perverse Values Cannot Stand the Light of Honest Debate

The bogus Republican claim that Obamacare is a government takeover of one-sixth of

the economy.

There have been lots of absurdities in the debate—such as it is—about health care reform. There's the hypocrisy of people

dependent on government-run health care complaining about government-run health care. And now comes the Republican canard that

the current health care reform proposal constitutes a government takeover of one-sixth of the economy. Here are Rep. Steve Buyer of

Indiana, Rep. John Fleming of Louisiana, and Sen. Jim DeMint of South Carolina making precisely that argument.


First, the proposed health care reform does not take over the system in any sense. Much to

the chagrin of progressives, the bills under consideration don't contain a public option and don't provide for a single payer. In fact,

they provide subsidies for millions of people to purchase private insurance.

Second, such statements reveal how pathetically little many of our policymakers and pundits understand American health care

spending. We're already halfway toward socialized medicine, but not because of Obamacare. (Here's a column I wrote about this in December 2006.)

Over the last couple of decades, as the private sector has done a miserable job controlling costs, as employers have felt less and

less compelled to offer health care benefits as a condition of employment, as the population has aged, and as the government

created new health care entitlements, the government has been slowly assuming a higher portion of health care spending in the United

States—or "taking it over."

Check out Table 123 in the CDC's big annual report. In 1990, health care

expenditures in the United States were split, 60-40, between the private and public sectors. By 2000, the ratio had fallen to 55.9-44.1.

In other words, in the 1990s, a period in which Republicans controlled the House for six years, the share of health spending

controlled by the government rose by 10 percent. The trend continued in the period from 2000 to 2008, when Republicans controlled

the White House and largely controlled Congress. The recession boosted the poverty rate, making more people eligible for Medicaid,

and led to the reduction of millions of payroll jobs, which led to losses in job-related insurance.* By 2008, according to the Centers

for Medicare and Medicaid Services, private health care expenditures had fallen to 52.7 percent and public had risen to 47.3

percent. In pretty much every year of the Bush administration, the government "took over" a greater

chunk of the health care sector. And many of the Republicans who are complaining about reform proposals today didn't utter a

peep. In fact, they helped the process along by voting for the Medicare prescription drug benefit in 2003. (Hat tip to Jonathan

Cohn of The New Republicfor the references.)

CMS also notes that thanks to these trends, public spending will soon outpace private spending—even in the absence of significant

reform. "As a result of more rapid growth in public spending, the public share of total health care spending is expected to rise from

47 percent in 2008, exceed 50 percent by 2012, and then reach nearly 52 percent by 2019."

So, to reiterate, we're already half way toward fully socialized medicine. The government has already taken over one-twelfth of the

economy—and more every day. That's the status quo the opponents of reform are defending.

Daniel Gross is also the author of Dumb Money: How Our Greatest Financial Minds Bankrupted the

Nation and Pop!: Why Bubbles Are Great For The Economy.

Conservative Torture Fetish Freak Marc Thiessen Makes Excuses for Stalinist Policies

Conservative Torture cheerleader Marc Thiessen Makes Excuses for Stalinist Policies

One op-ed, by former Attorney General Michael Mukasey, supports both sets of lawyers, and denounces the Liz Cheney "Keep America Safe" conspiracy theories about them. The other, by Washington Post columnist and torture cheerleader Marc Thiessen, enthusiastically backs Cheney's character assassinations. For Mukasey, criticizing either set of lawyers "is all of a piece, and what it is a piece of is something both shoddy and dangerous" -- criticizing lawyers for the arguments they make on behalf of clients. Thiessen, rejecting the charge that Cheney's group are McCarthyites, asks "Where was the moral outrage when fine lawyers like John Yoo, Jay Bybee, David Addington, Jim Haynes, Steve Bradbury, and others came under vicious personal attack?" Thiessen has no use for moral equivalence: for him, torture lawyers are good and detainee lawyers are the equivalent of mob lawyers. But, like Mukasey, he sees a parallel between the two sets of criticisms, and agrees that those who criticize the torture lawyers but not the detainee lawyers are using a double standard, probably for illicit political reasons.

That would include me, since I called the Cheney attacks McCarthyism and have criticized the torture lawyers for years.

But in fact, the parallel is completely bogus. What makes the Cheney attacks McCarthyism is guilt by association, wrapped in innuendo, and cynically appealing to paranoia: Because you represented a detainee, you very likely sympathize with Al Qaeda, and we need to smoke you out.

Nobody ever criticized the torture lawyers because of who they represented, and nobody questioned their loyalty. The criticisms were on three completely different grounds: first, that they made frivolous arguments to get around the law; second, that they violated their ethical and constitutional obligation to give candid, independent advice to the president; and third, that they facilitated a misbegotten plan to torture captives.

Lawyers, Treason, and Deception: A Response to Andrew McCarthy

Consider McCarthy’s basic argument that lawyers who represented detainees “aided the enemy in wartime,” and should normally be guilty of treason. If that’s true, isn’t the federal judiciary, and aren’t the Justices of the Supreme Court, also guilty of treason? In fact, aren’t the judges the kingpins of this treasonous plot to “hurt the war effort”? After all, lawyers only make arguments to judges. It doesn’t actually help detainees to make argument courts reject. It’s up to the judges to rule one way or the other. If the lawyers are aiding the enemy, they’re only minor players: It’s the judges, and especially the Justices, who are the real guilty parties, as they’re the ones that actually help the detainees by ruling in their favor. Does McCarthy think the Justices of the Supreme Court are guilty of aiding the enemy, and that (if we treat them like everybody else) they should be “indicted for coming to the enemy’s aid during wartime”?

Second, McCarthy’s claims about the right to counsel strike me as just wrong. The Bush Administration had initially taken the view that Yaser Hamdi, detained as an enemy combatant, did not have a right to counsel. The Administration caved when the case got to the Supreme Court, though, and the Supreme Court had this to say about Hamdi’s right to counsel:

Hamdi asks us to hold that the Fourth Circuit also erred by denying him immediate access to counsel upon his detention and by disposing of the case without permitting him to meet with an attorney. Brief for Petitioners 19. Since our grant of certiorari in this case, Hamdi has been appointed counsel, with whom he has met for consultation purposes on several occasions, and with whom he is now being granted unmonitored meetings. He unquestionably has the right to access to counsel in connection with the proceedings on remand. No further consideration of this issue is necessary at this stage of the case.

Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 542 U.S. 507 (2004) (emphasis added). Hamdi was a U.S. citizen, but lower courts have concluded that Gitmo detainees who are citizens of other countries also have the right to counsel. See, e.g., Al-Joudi v. Bush, 406 F.Supp.2d 13 (D.D.C. 2005) (ordering the government to inform detainee counsel about information relating to Guantanamo detainees in light of the detainees “right to counsel, which requires that counsel be able to communicate with them”).

Wacky Glenn Beck Thinks Social Justice is a Devious Plot

Socially conscious Christians take the fight to Glenn Beck

Socially conscious Christians take the fight to Glenn BeckTalk show host Glenn Beck has made some enemies in a corner of American society where most Fox News pundits would prefer to have friends: The Christian community.

Beck has upset the socially-conscious, activist side of the Christian movement with comments last week that listeners should "run" from churches that talk about "social justice" because they are espousing ideas that came from communists and Nazis.

On his radio show last week, Beck told his audience that churches which use the expression "social justice" are following an extremist agenda.

"I'm begging you, your right to religion and freedom to exercise religion and read all of the passages of the Bible as you want to read them and as your church wants to preach them ... are going to come under the ropes in the next year," Beck said. "I beg you, look for the words 'social justice' or 'economic justice' on your church Web site. If you find it, run as fast as you can. Social justice and economic justice, they are code words. Now, am I advising people to leave their church? Yes!"

Then, on his Fox News TV show, Beck explained why he felt so strongly about the issue.

"Both the communists, who are on the left -- they say -- you know, these are communists. And the Nazis are on the right," Beck said. "That's what people say. But they both subscribed to one philosophy, and they flew one banner. One had the hammer and sickle; the other was a swastika. But on each banner read the words, here in America, of this -- 'social justice.' They talked about economic justice, rights of the workers, redistribution of wealth, and surprisingly -- I love this -- democracy."

Beck's linking of socially conscious churches to communism and Nazism hasn't sat well with some Christian groups.

Bread for the World, a Christian group devoted to eradicating world hunger, has started a petition to demand that Beck stop spreading "misinformation and fear" through his radio and TV broadcasts.

"Economic and social justice are central to the gospel of Jesus Christ," the petition reads. "Quit using your bully pulpit to spread misinformation and fear by comparing faithful Christians who care 'for the least of these' to Nazis and communists."

The New Evangelical Partnership for the Common Good, a group advocating -- among other things -- nuclear disarmament and responsible environmental policies, has started a campaign to raise money towards a video rebuking Beck's assertion.

"We are launching a campaign to reclaim love of neighbor, especially the least, last, and lost, as an Evangelical Christian value. We believe love is central to everything Jesus taught, and we think Glenn Beck needs to hear about it," the group stated on its Web site.

Beck has been railing against "progressive" churches for some time now. Last December, he said churches where preachers supported health care reform had been "infiltrated" by un-American ideas.

"If you see things that are now being preached about from the puplpit in many churches about health care, warning. Warning. Many churches have been infiltrated with this line of thinking that is absolutely against the freedoms that our founding fathers designed," Beck said.

Like most modern Conservatives Beck has a perverse view of history and the struggle of the common man for justice - social, judicial and economic. He would have everyone believe that the communists and the Nazis were a movement for social justice. That is without a doubt a sick demented view of history. Liberals, or progressives if one likes, were the ones that defeated Hitler and whose policies of containment eventually toppled the old Soviet Empire.