Tuesday, March 13, 2012

Don't ever use ROUNDUP on weeds in your yard or eat foods sprayed with it.

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2012/03/13/active-ingredient-glyphosate-in-roundup-herbicides-found-in-peoples-urine.aspx?e_cid=20120313_DNL_art_1

The "Safe" Garden Product that Can Destroy Your DNA

EXCERPT:  It's important to avoid the use of Roundup on your lawn and garden, but on a larger scale the best way to fight back against this chemical is by boycotting the GM crops that were developed for its use. Several organizations, including Mercola.com, the Organic Consumers Association, the Institute for Responsible Technology, and the Environmental Working Group, are working to generate a tipping point of consumer rejection to make GMOs a thing of the past.

Here's how you can get involved:

  • If you live in California and are willing to attend a short training session and then start collecting petition signatures (you will be part of a team of 2-4 people) for the California Ballot Initiative, sign up here. (For more information see: The California Ballot Initiative: Taking Down Monsanto.) Also remember to share this information with family and friends in California!
  • Whether you live in California or not, please donate money to this historic effort
  • Distribute WIDELY the Non-GMO Shopping Guide to help you identify and avoid foods with GMOs. Look for products (including organic products) that feature the Non-GMO Project Verified Seal to be sure that at-risk ingredients have been tested for GMO content. You can also download the free iPhone application that is available in the iTunes store. You can find it by searching for ShopNoGMO in the applications.

In the meantime, the simplest way to avoid GM foods is to buy whole, certified organic foods. By definition, foods that are certified organic must never intentionally use GM organisms, must be produced without artificial pesticides and fertilizers and come from an animal reared without the routine use of antibiotics, growth promoters or other drugs. Additionally, grass-fed beef will not have been fed GM corn feed, although now that GM alfalfa is approved, grass-fed will not always mean GMO free.

You can also look for foods that are "non-GMO verified" by the Non-GMO Project.


Share:

Saturday, March 10, 2012

Catherine Crier has an excellent suggestion

She suggests that American women should listen to Santorum and accommodate him and Republican men by only having sex within marriage and only when wishing to procreate, just as Santorum has stated it should be.  In other words, women will stop having sex with men except in marriage and then only when they want to make a baby.  Otherwise, sex is out of the question.  I wonder how long that would last -- and how many Republicans would want to vote for Santorum then.   Watch Catherine on the Bill Maher show at:
► 5:58► 5:58
www.youtube.com/watch?v=15cG8SihV8Q
Share:

Mark Twain, man of wisdom

"Man is the only animal that deals in that atrocity of atrocities, War. He is the only one that gathers his brethren about him and goes forth in cold blood and calm pulse to exterminate his kind. He is the only animal that for sordid wages will march out... and help to slaughter strangers of his own species who have done him no harm and with whom he has no quarrel.... And in the intervals between campaigns he washes the blood off his hands and works for "the universal brotherhood of man" - with his mouth."      --Mark Twain
Share:

Friday, March 09, 2012

Blessed silence during commercial breaks on Limbaugh's show

Now there are beautiful, long silences during the commercial breaks in the online streaming of Limbaugh's show on WABC, the flagship station for his broadcasts. Here are the amazing stats:
  • A total of 86 ads aired during WABC's online streaming broadcast of The Rush Limbaugh Show yesterday;
  • 77 of those ads were public service announcements donated free of charge by the Ad Council;
  • Of the nine paid spots that ran, seven were from companies that have said they have taken steps to ensure their ads no longer air during the program;
  • WABC's online feed included about 5:33 of dead air when ads would normally have run.
Click here to listen to the silence during the commercial breaks on Rush Limbaugh's program, and be sure to share it with friends over Facebook, Twitter, or anywhere else.

In the most important way, Limbaugh has killed himself. Ding dong, the evil loudmouth clown is dead! Women everywhere are rejoicing!  May he and his stinkin' cigar NEVER resurrect!


Share:

Thursday, March 08, 2012

Do you want to subsidize the antiquated religious beliefs of a small minority?

If the only place you have heard about this is FOX News or Rush Limbaugh, please read the underlined parts below to get a true understanding.

How Republicans Are Trying to Force You to Pay for Others' Religious Beliefs

By Joshua Holland

We shouldn't have to subsidize the antiquated religious beliefs of a small minority.
 
Last week, the Blunt-Rubio Amendment, which would have allowed any employer to refuse to cover any medical goods or services he or she found “morally objectionable,” went down to a narrow defeat, but Republicans aren't giving up on the issue. They appear to be intent on using the power of government to force the vast majority of Americans who have no problem with birth control to pay for a small minority's personal beliefs through higher insurance premiums.

I should make one thing clear: religious liberty is bedrock principle, and people whose faith leads them to oppose the use of birth control have that right. But that's not the issue – nobody is being forced to use contraception contrary to their beliefs, and the “accommodation” the Obama administration came to with the Catholic bishops means that religious institutions don't need to get involved.

In fact, many states have long mandated that prescription drug plans cover contraceptives, and the issue of “religious liberty” was never even raised until it became a partisan talking-point. Mitt Romney didn't carve out an exception for employers that are affiliated with a church in Massachussetts, nor did Mike Huckabee when he was the governor of Arkansas.

In New Hampshire, Republican lawmakers are trying to do away with just such a requirement. The law has been in effect for 12 years, since it was passed by a Republican legislature. As NPR noted, “nobody at the time, it seems, saw the policy as a blow against religious liberty.” State Rep. Terie Norelli, who co-sponsored the law in 2000, told NPR, "There was no discussion whatsoever — I even went back and looked at the history from the bill. There was not one comment about religious freedoms." According to the report, “It wasn't just lawmakers who were silent; religious leaders were, too.”

No, this is about health insurance. And the simple fact is that it costs insurers a lot more to cover a population without offering that population birth control than it does to pick up the cost of contraceptives. What will insurers do if they have to pay extra not to cover birth control? They will, of course, pass the extra costs onto the rest of us through higher premiums.

And this is fundamentally unfair. The vast majority of Americans don't have a moral objection to using birth-control (99 percent of women who are at risk of becoming pregnant have done so), and as long as the devout's right to practice their religion as they choose – to only engage in “procreative sex” if they so choose -- is not in danger, then we shouldn't have to pay for their superstitions through higher premiums.

Religious conservatives are desperately trying to turn this argument on its head, claiming it is they who would have to pay higher premiums to cover others' birth control. “It’s not really about whether contraception would be included in insurance coverage,” Tim LeFever, head of the Capitol Resource Institute, a religious-right group, told Salon. “It’s that with our country’s tradition of religious liberty, Obama would step in like he did. Very few people consider the compromise anything more than a wink and a nod. Most of us say, ‘Of course we’re still paying for it. You’re still going to war against our conscience.’”

He's right that most conservatives say exactly that, but it couldn't be further from the truth. As I wrote recently, it costs significantly more to insure a population without offering contraception because the cost of unwanted pregnancies is so high – higher, in fact, than the cost of planned pregnancies, which are associated with lower risk of complications. For the cost of the average childbirth in the United States, you could cover a woman's birth control pills for approximately 293 years.

Share:

Wednesday, March 07, 2012

A real crime that radiation therapy actually causes cancer

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/radiation-therapy-linked-development-secondary-cancers-heart-disease/story?id=15864706#.T1fC4_U0iSo

What a sad state of affairs when there are many alternative treatments that actually cure cancer without being harmful to the patient--but Big Pharma and the controlled FDA don't want you to know about them, so they persecute and prosecute practitioners using these therapies.  Such a world we live in--it is driven by greed of the 1% who can never get enough $$ to satisfy them. 

For proof, see the film Burzynski about a doctor who has been hounded through decades by Big Pharma, the AMA, and the FDA, all of whom want his patents for their own.  They are still pursuing him through the courts, even though in every case they have brought against him, the judges ruled in Dr. Burzynski's favor and have even questioned the prosecution in wonderment as to why they are persecuting this good doctor who has cured hundreds of patients of brain cancer (as well as several other types of cancer), for which no hope was given by western medicine.  You can see the documentary in full online at: http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/burzynski-the-movie-cancer-is-serious-business/

Share:

Kucinich goes down -- a sad day

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/07/marcy-kaptur-dennis-kucinich-ohio-primary_n_1325014.html

The Repugs finally got rid of him by the sneaky strategy of gerrymandering the districts.  Their intent for years has been to get Kucinich's voice and his integrity out of Congress.  One has to admit that a lone man with integrity no longer belongs among the weasels who now occupy the Senate and House.  If only it were the other way around!!!!

Share:

Tuesday, March 06, 2012

Rush Limbaugh and the Right Wing Nervous Breakdown

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/eric-boehlert/41797/rush-limbaugh-and-the-right-wing-nervous-breakdown
Honestly, would you really want to belong to a party that had Rush Limbaugh as its spokesman? It's enough to make any sane person flee in horror!

EXCERPT:
It's no secret Republican leaders live in fear of Limbaugh and over the years have found it almost impossible to publicly criticize even his most outlandish and hateful statements. Those few who did stop forward were often forced to then quickly reverse course and apologize to Limbaugh. Just like Republicans have had to bow down to kingmakers at Fox News and embrace their lowest common denominator programming. Incredibly!, Large portions of the right-wing media complex saw nothing wrong with that kind of behavior; saw nothing wrong with the 53 bullying smears Limbaugh unloaded on the student in front of his national radio audience. Not only did they defend Limbaugh, they lashed out at anyone who suggested the titan talker lacked common sense. And then they stomped on Sandra Fluke's reputation some more....  The Republican Party years ago made a Faustian bargain with the right-wing Noise Machine. And now it's paying the price.

RUSH LIMBAUGH AND THE RIGHT WING NERVOUS BREAKDOWN
By Eric Boehlert

It turns out that even in cases of emergency, the GOP Noise Machine has no off switch.

Republicans learned that painful lesson as the Rush Limbaugh "slut" fiasco made headlines for days on end. With the Voice of the Republican Party engulfed in one of the most damaging (and self-inflicted) controversies of his career, and with parts of the GOP Noise Machine scrambling to actually defend Limbaugh, as well as to echo his misogynist taunts, it's been the larger conservative movement that has been absorbing the worst blows.

For a Republican Party already suffering from a yawning gender gap, Limbaugh's hijacking of the news cycle last week must have been unwelcome news. But this is what happens when Republicans sponsor an irresponsible media Noise Machine that's designed to offend and attack and is designed to dehumanize its political enemies. This is what happens when the wheels fall off in spectacular fashion, like Limbaugh spending three days smearing, by name, a Georgetown University Law School student as greedy nymphomaniac having so much sex "it's amazing she can still walk."

It's no secret Republican leaders live in fear of Limbaugh and over the years have found it almost impossible to publicly criticize even his most outlandish and hateful statements. Those few who did stop forward were often forced to then quickly reverse course and apologize to Limbaugh. Just like Republicans have had to bow down to kingmakers at Fox News and embrace their lowest common denominator programming.

The truth is the conservative movement in America has become a media-based one, delegating an absurd amount of influence to bloggers, cable channels and talk show hosts. In turn, that movement suffered a collective collapse last week. Incapable of self-reflection, player after player, including those at Fox News, rushed forward to condemn the law student and/or to insist the AM talker had done nothing wrong by, A) insulting the young woman, B) mocking her parents C) demanding she post videos of herself having sex online, and D) suggesting she was using condoms when she was in elementary school.

Large portions of the right-wing media complex saw nothing wrong with that kind of behavior; saw nothing wrong with the 53 bullying smears Limbaugh unloaded on the student in front of his national radio audience. Not only did they defend Limbaugh, they lashed out at anyone who suggested the titan talker lacked common sense. And then they stomped on Sandra Fluke's reputation some more.

A sample of the swill:

-Fox News contributor Michelle Malkin denounced Fluke as a "femme-agogu tool."

-The right-wing site Jawa Report illustrated a post about Fluke with a picture of a tattoo that reads "Semen Demon."

-Pam Geller wrote that Fluke is "banging it five times a day" and that "calling this whore a slut was a softball."

-Accuracy in Media's Don Irvine called her a "skank."

-Former CPAC Blogger of The Year, Ace of Spades, called Fluke a "shiftless rent-a-cooch from East Whoreville."

-Michelle Malkin guest blogger Doug Ross used "Got Slut?" in a headline and suggested Fluke suffered from "nymphomania."

-Dana Loesch complained the controversy surrounding Limbaugh's three-day "slut" campaign represented a "manufactured" story. (This, before Limbaugh responded to the "manufactured" story by issuing a rare public statement.)

This is nuts. (What word would you choose?) A law student testifies about contraception and within days conservative commentators are sprinting towards their microphones and keyboards in order to find ways to call her a slutty, semen demon?

That's what a nervous breakdown looks like and that's what has been broadcast across AM talk radio, Fox News and the Internet since last Wednesday.

Some conservative voices did acknowledge the errors of Limbaugh's ways and condemned Republicans for cozying up to him.Wall Street Journalist Peggy Noonan called his performance "crude, rude, even piggish." And on ABC's This Week, George Will coined Sunday's best phrase when he pointed out Republicans leaders "want to bomb Iran, but they're afraid of Rush Limbaugh."

A Washington Post editorial suggested that, "For the good of U.S. political culture -- or at least its own political self-interest -- the GOP must distance itself from Mr. Limbaugh." But few members tried, even timidly, to do the right thing.

Ron Paul dismissed Limbaugh's misogynist taunts as being a "little crude," Rep. John Boenher gently chastised the talk show host for using "inappropriate" language, and Mitt Romney said simply that Limbaugh's brutal name-calling didn't include "the language I'd use."

The Republican Party years ago made a Faustian bargain with the right-wing Noise Machine. And now it's paying the price.

Blogger Tod Kelly made this observation in the wake of Limbaugh's "slut" debacle:

The people behind the people in the GOP aren't idiots. They know perfectly well that this whole battle on contraception is going to kill them in a few months; they certainly know that the Right's most visible pundits lamely and uncomfortably trying to rally around Limbaugh is especially bad news for them.

Republicans know this "slut" controversy has been a disaster for them politically, yet they were powerless to do anything about it. Powerless to stop it.

That's because Republicans can't turn off the Noise Machine, even when it's in the throes of a nervous breakdown.


Share:

Monday, March 05, 2012

Excellent article: How America Returned to the Gilded Age

Many Americans still wonder how it happened, how did a country admired for its Great Middle Class, which sustained strong democratic institutions, end up with Third-World-style wealth inequality and a democracy to match?
Read more of The Winners Take Everything at: http://consortiumnews.com/2012/02/29/the-winners-take-everything/

EXCERPT:  H
ow It Happened

The authors of Winner-Take-All Politics, Jacob Hacker and Paul Pierson, have put together a thesis that tries to tell the great untold story of the last 30 odd years. That is, how did the redistribution of wealth in this country become so concentrated in the highest echelons, to the point that, in the wake of the collapse, the middle class — or what is left of it — simply does not have the purchasing power to recharge the economy?

Hacker and Pierson spend the first part of the book proving this is so. And they do that in a very convincing manner, through an array of statistical charts that show that the concentration of wealth today is at a point unsurpassed since the Gilded Age, the Age of the Robber Barons — like Jay Gould, Cornelius Vanderbilt, J. P. Morgan and John Rockefeller Sr. — the days when there was no middle class and when these men essentially owned the government through outright bribery.

That was also a time when there were no strong unions to hold the Robber Barons in check. There also were no real laws regulating banking and the stock market. Because of all this, the Robber Barons were allowed to do as they wished with no regard to anyone else. According to Teddy Roosevelt, they even arranged economic downturns to hurt presidents who were opposed to their total dominion. There really was no democracy, since elections were bought and sold.

As notorious Republican campaign manager Mark Hanna once said, “The single most important thing about winning elections is money. I forgot the second thing.” Therefore in the key election of 1896, Hanna backed William McKinley against the full-throated populist William Jennings Bryan, who crisscrossed the country by train, hitting as many as four cities in a day. McKinley sat on his front porch with his mother and wife, while Hanna brought the media to him. Bryan got more votes than any previous candidate for president, but McKinley still won.

What Hacker and Pierson are arguing here is that, for all intents and purposes, the USA is now back in the Gilded Age. Even though we have a president who is a Democrat, and even though Democrats control the Senate, it does not matter. The intent of the book is to show why the top 1 percent really does not care about party affiliation.

Share:

Sunday, March 04, 2012

Good article on the purpose of the right wing to keep the public dumbed down

Why Teaching People to Think for Themselves Is Repugnant to Religious Zealots and Rick Santorum

By Henry A. Giroux,  truthout.org

Democracy cannot function without an informed citizenry, and an ignorant public is just what Santorum and his allies count on.
 

Right-wing fundamentalists such as Republican presidential candidate Rick Santorum hate public schools, which he suggests are government schools wedded to doing the work of Satan, dressed up in the garb of the Enlightenment. Santorum, true to his love affair with the very secular ideology of privatization, prefers home schooling, which is code for people taking responsibility for whatever social issues or problems they may face, whether it be finding the best education for their children or securing decent health care.

Actually, Santorum and many of his allies dislike any public institution that enables people to think critically and act with a degree of responsibility toward the public. This is one reason why they hate any notion of public education, which harbors the promise, if not the threat, of actually educating students to be thoughtful, self-reflective and capable of questioning so-called common sense and holding power accountable. Of course, some progressives see this as simply another example of how the right wing of the Republican Party seems to think that being stupid is in. But there is more going on here than the issue of whether right-wing fundamentalists are intellectually and politically challenged. What makes critical education, especially, so dangerous to radical Christian evangelicals, neoconservatives and right-wing nationalists in the United States today is that, central to its very definition, is the task of educating students to become critical agents who can actively question and negotiate the relationships between individual troubles and public issues. In other words, students who can lead rather than follow, embrace reasoned arguments over opinions and reject common sense as the engine of truth.

What Santorum and his allies realize is that democracy cannot function without an informed citizenry and that, in the absence of such a citizenry, we have a public uninvested in either thinking reflectively or acting responsibly. There is nothing more feared by this group of fundamentalists than individuals who can actually think critically and reflectively and are willing to invest in reason and freedom rather than a crude moralism and a reductionistic appeal to faith as the ultimate basis of agency and politics. What Santorum and his appeal to theocracy longs for is a crowd of followers willing to lose themselves in causes and movements that trade in clichés and common sense. This is the Tea Party crowd with their overt racism, dislike for critical thought and longing for outlets through which they can vent their anger, moral panics and hatred for those who reject their rigid Manichean view of the world. This is a crowd that embraces the likes of Santorum and other fundamentalists because they provide the outlets in which such groups can fulfill their desire to be amused by what might be called the spectacle of anti-politics.

As the anti-public politicians and administrative incompetents in Arizona made clear in their banning ethnic studies and censoring books critical of a conflict-free version of American history, critical pedagogy is especially dangerous. Not only does it offer students a way of connecting education to social change, it also invokes those subordinated histories, narratives and modes of knowledge in an attempt to give students often rendered voiceless the capacities to both read the word and the world critically. But the religious fanatics and privatizing fundamentalists do more than censor critical thought; they also substitute a pedagogy of punishment for a pedagogy of critical learning. Too many children in America now attend schools modeled after prisons. Schools have become places where the challenge of teaching and learning has been replaced by an obsession with crime, punishment and humiliation. Too many young people are being charged with criminal misdemeanors for behaviors that are too trivial to criminalize.

To read more of this article, go to: http://www.alternet.org/story/154312/why_teaching_people_to_think_for_themselves_is_repugnant_to_religious_zealots_and_rick_santorum?akid=8348.1075525.kJiRO_&rd=1&t=2

Share:

Santorum: Contraception is a grievous wrong

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/03/04/santorum-contraception-a-grievous-moral-wrong/

I am wondering what my Republican friends are thinking about this man?  Do they actually think he would make a great President with views like this?  It's hard to imagine anyone in the 21st century voting for this guy--and yet he has a big following.  It makes me cringe when I contemplate the average intelligence of the American voter.  The slate of Republican candidates shows the lack of evolution in our population. We have met the enemy--and he is us.  Woe is us!

Share:

Important documentary trailer gives reasons for chemtrails

Watch this very short trailer for a new documentary called Why In the World Are They Spraying?  Through interviews with knowledgeable people about the government's HAARP program, this film gives answers to some very important questions.  I consider weather control to be one of the most important issues on our planet today and yet millions of people are still unaware of the spraying of chemtrails all over the world (even though you can see them being laid down by high-flying jets and spreading across the skies on an almost daily basis).  Watch this trailer video and share it with others if you think it is valuable for us to know what is going on in our world:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s3__ssxTvNc

If you would like further information about chemtrails, you can watch online the full-length documentary that preceded this latest one, entitled WHAT in the World Are They Spraying?   Go to: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BARt9ccu8no&feature=related

Now, think about the ferocity of storms (latest tornadoes in the U.S., no snow in the Sierras, no rain in California's winter this year, mild winter on east coast, ferocious winter in Europe, trees and plants dying all over the world, etc.)  This documentary is shining light on the subject that our mainstream media isn't touching.
Share:

Saturday, March 03, 2012

On the subject of Iran: Foster Gamble

A short video by Foster Gamble re. what is really behind the saber rattling against Iran:
http://www.thrivemovement.com/thrive-movie-foster-gamble-analysis-of-war-with-iran-follow-the-money.blog

Foster Gamble is the man who made the documentary Thrive. He is a member of the Procter-Gamble Gambles, a man raised in privilege but who has questioned all of his adult life, wondering why, with all of high technology available in our world, the planet and its peoples are not thriving.  His film, which gives answers to that question, can be bought on amazon.com or seen online at www.thrivemovement.com for a fee of $5.

Share:

Mormon Beliefs Will Gradually Permeate the Government if Romney is President

I've read several articles by ex-Mormons who tell of the plan within that religion to become much more influential over the U.S. government.  Their first goal is to get a Mormon into the White House.  Then he will follow the bidding of "the elders" to whom no Mormon ever says No. Have you noticed that no matter which religion they are, the Republican presidential contenders want church and state to be melded together? To hell with the Constitution (which they claim to revere above all else.  Go figure!  Nothing they do or say makes any sense).

This whole thing about denying women insurance coverage for birth control prescriptions
is a throwback to caveman times. (Hmmm..isn't Viagra prescribed and covered by insurance? Oh yes, but MEN need that!)  And the demand for a non-optional vaginal probe ultrasound for every women seeking an abortion reveals for all to see how right wingers really view women. You have to wonder if a non-optional anal probe or penis probe were required for men to obtain their insurance-covered Viagra, how many male votes would that get in Congress?  What kind of rage would rise up in males across the country in protest to such a thing?  Yet, Republican males think nothing of making such intrusive demands on women--and believe it is just fine to exclude women from Congressional hearings on the subject of birth control for women.  They don't believe in abortion and they don't want women to use birth control, which would be the greatest prevention of abortion.  By any practical standard, the far right wing is certifiably insane.  And dangerously so.  Read on:

THE GOP: IT ONLY GETS MORE AND MORE DANGEROUS
By Stephen Pizzo

Like you, I've been watching this curious spectacle of grown up Republicans tripping all over one another to embrace a 1950s attitude toward women and birth control.

The latest to support this backwards march is Mitt Romney, who came late to the game. Of course Mitt always waits to see which way the wind is blowing before he plants his feet and stakes a claim to whatever the hell appears popular at any point in time.

But then former Mormon Bishop Mitt has a lot of experience when it comes to saying one thing while doing - and profiting - from just the opposite.

Before I explain where I am going with this, a question; Have you ever spent any time in Salt Lake City? If not you've missed a place extremely important to see and experience. SLC, and Utah itself, is as close to a theocratic state you'll see in America. (And, may I add, I hope we ever see.)

Mormons have a of lot rules they claim were handed down straight from the Big Guy itself to their felonious little guy, Joseph Smith. And, since in Utah, Mormons rule, many of those rules tend to find their way into state and local laws. With such a high percentage of Utah's resident-members being practicing Mormons, the laws are passed and defended on the same grounds as the current GOP conception debacle: that religious folk should not be forced to provide products and services they consider "sinful."

Chief among the devil's products and services in Utah is booze. It's verboten. Well, okay, conditionally verboten. If the Mormon "church" is about anything, it's about making money. So you can buy alcohol in Utah. If you want a bottle of gin to make life in SLC bearable, you can buy it, but from a state monopoly - a state liquor store. I went into one of these stores in SLC and was bowled over. It was the size of our local Costco warehouse store. Within these state-sanctioned confines you can buy sin by the case - anything from 3% beer to 100 proof rotgut to the finest brandy on the planet.

And, like all cases where someone has a monopoly, you will pay more - up to 30% more than in California, for example. (To reinforce, apparently, the message that sin, while fun, comes at a high price.)

The Mormon-manipulated Utah legislature seems to have no problem accepting the windfall from the sale of all this Satan-juice. (In fact, sales of booze in Utah is up 60%, according to the Salt Lake City Tribune) So, in all, the theocratic state of Utah raked in over $100 million from alcohol sales in 2010. For a Republican, free enterprise loving state, it seems some socialism is just fine. (As long as it lines the pockets of the rulers)

Of course Mormons are known for their entrepreneurial skills, and there are plenty of Mormon-owned bars and restaurants in SLC. So, it should not come as a surprise that the anti-booze laws have been crafted in such a way that these business owners are allowed to dip their beaks into the alcohol sales pot - but not without masking it with a bit of religious-disapproval-theater.

During a visit to SLC a few years ago we decided to go out to a nice restaurant for dinner. We sat down and ordered a pre-dinner mixed drink. Everything was normal, as in normal 21st century America, until that point. This is where you feel the hand of Mormon first. Even if you're 98-years old, in wheel chair and on oxygen, the server must demand to see your ID to confirm you are over 21. Then, while they will take your drink order, you will not get your drink until the dinner is served. Because, under Utah law, mixed drinks must only be consumed with the meal, not before, not after.

Silly? Of course. But religion is a show and the show must go on.

I only mention this because, if right wingers get what they say they want on this whole birth control/religious rights nonsense, this is the kind of world it will thrust upon all American women. If they Utah-ize contraception sale laws, walking into a drug store to fill a contraception prescription will become a kind of humiliating game of Russia Roulette: "Sorry Ma'am, we don't sell THAT kind of thing here."

Off to the next drug store.

And be assured, when you do find a drug store that sells contraceptives, there will almost certainly be additional doses of humiliation on tap. "Photo ID please," and "Please fill out this form explaining that you have been advised of all the health risks," and, "Do you have a signed note from your doctor showing he has performed a pelvic exam during the last calendar year?"

Some states, like Utah -- and take your pick of any other red state -- will almost certainly decide, if allowed by law to do so, that contraceptives are dangerous (aka, sinful) like booze, and should be sold like some kind of controlled substance. Only at drug stores specially licensed will be allowed to sell them only, of course, after women are forced to jump through the appropriate number of humiliating hoops. (The little "sluts')

The number of such authorized contraceptive outlets in any given area might be allocated on a formula - one-store-for every 25,000 residents -- for example. Such limits would be proposed and supported on the grounds that young girls and boys need to be protected from the temptations presented by easily acquired rubbers and pills and such.

If you think this is all hysterically implausible, spend a couple of weeks in Salt Lake City. Then get back to me.


Share:

Andy Borowitz: Economy is rising according to S&P Birther Index

I've been noticing the same thing. since far righters can't blame obama for poor economy anymore. so, back to the birther claims.

Republicans are so predictable!


March 3, 2012

In Positive Economic Sign, Republicans Starting to Say Obama Wasn’t Born in US Again

S & P Birther Index Posts Big Gains

WASHINGTON (The Borowitz Report) – In what some experts are calling a strong indicator of improvement in the economy, Republicans in recent weeks have begun renewing their claims that President Barack Obama was not born in the United States.

While most economists agree that any significant improvement in the US economy is generally accompanied by an uptick in GOP questions about Mr. Obama’s place of birth, there is now an econometric tool for measuring the increase in those claims: the so-called S & P Birther Index.


The Birther Index, established in 2008, measures the occurrences of such words as “birth certificate,” “Kenya,” and “wasn’t born here” in Republican statements about the President, and has proven to be a surprisingly reliable tool for tracking improvements in the economy.


Harland Dorinson, the economist who devised the S & P Birther Index, said that as the economy recovers the index also shows a strong surge in statements questioning the President’s Christianity.


“As unemployment started going down, we saw an increase in references to Mr. Obama being a Muslim,” he said. “This is generally a very bullish sign for the economy.”


But Mr. Dorinson was quick to add that while the surge in references to Mr. Obama being “an Islamic socialist born in a mud-hut in Nairobi” is encouraging, the economy is not out of the woods yet.


“We won’t be fully in a recovery until the Republicans start calling him a Wiccan,” he said. “And if they start saying he’s a Satanist who practices human sacrifice and drinks the blood of children, then it’ll be time to pop open the champagne.”
Share:

Friday, March 02, 2012

Warning: JEB Bush is waiting in the wings

This article tells the truth about where the real power lies, in our country--and the world.  When We, the People all learn this and stand up against the cabal--and only then--can real changes be made.  Watch the DVD THRIVE and go to www.thrivemovement.com for additional information.  For more on the Bush family’s unknown past and the full gamut of its network with the wealthiest interests in the US and around the world, see Russ Baker’s book, Family of Secrets: The Bush Dynasty, America’s Invisible Government, and the Hidden History of the Last Fifty Years. For details on Jeb Bush’s relationship with the Cuban exile community, see Ann Louise Bardach’s Cuba Confidential: Love and Vengeance in Miami and Havana.

CAN YOU SAY PRESIDENT BUSH AGAIN?
By Russ Baker

More and more GOP politicians are realizing their party has a big problem. What once seemed a great idea—a drawn-out Republican Primary slugfest intended to take the limelight from President Obama—may have only served to get their entire field on the wounded list. And what option does that leave?

Well, one solution is to forget about the entire bunch.

Maine’s Republican Governor Paul LePage, elected in 2010 with heavy Tea Party support, thinks the circular firing squad scenario might open things up for someone else. The Associated Press quoted LePage the other day on this:

“I would love to see a good old-fashioned convention and a dark horse come out and do it in the fall,” LePage said, adding that he didn’t have a particular alternative candidate in mind.

Whoever this is, it doesn’t need to be a “dark horse,” a term signifying a generally unknown prospect who surges to prominence. Instead, as in racing, this competitor out of nowhere could be the progeny of a previous winner. Maybe even a sibling of another.

In other words, he—and it will be a he—could be what Donald Rumsfeld might call a “known unknown”—a major brand name that has not been sullied by the current non-stop mud wrestling. For one has been hanging out at the steps to the arena all this time. His name is Jeb Bush.

***

Before anyone races to declare that Americans will not stand for another Bush presidential campaign—and certainly not for another Bush presidency—let me just say that they’d be sorely underestimating the Bush family.

The Bushes are nothing if not resilient. George W. Bush, he of so few qualifications but with his own distinctive Bush personality and formidable charisma, came out of the dust of his father’s re-election defeat in 1992, stronger than his father ever was politically. And though W. is now persona non grata to many, his brother would come back as a significantly different brand. He’s widely regarded as more capable, much more focused, much better at delivering points. He’s able to pull off a kind of sober, reasonable persona, more stable than a Santorum or a Gingrich or most of the other contenders. Rich but not entitled. A kind of Romney—without the Romney.

And yet….And yet he is still a Bush. That means a great deal, because, putting aside all the stylistic differences, this is a clan with a mission. It’s a mission they’ll never talk about, beyond vague statements about a sense within the family of Duty to Nation. No, the Bush clan is the ultimate representative of the game plan of the one percent of the one percent. What they stand for in private is much, much more troubling than most Americans know. What I learned in the five years I spent investigating them—as they were going out of power the last time—shook me to my core.

***

There isn’t space to get into the hundreds of disturbing things about the long-term agenda and covert worldview of this family and their friends, going back not just years but generations. Suffice it to point out a few things that might seem innocuous, but aren’t.

One is the propensity the Bushes have for long-term alliances with those on the other side of the aisle. This is emphatically not about bipartisanship. It is about the same kinds of things that bring Republican and Democratic elites together, that explain the 2004 nominees of both parties being members of the same Yale secret society. It is about why the same people stay on top forever.

The Bush family made friends with Bill Clinton at the very start of his administration—right after he defeated George H.W. Bush—a relationship that is sustained to the present moment. Although a Democrat, Clinton never did take on the big issues that would have upset the people behind the Bush dynamic. Indeed, he deregulated the financial markets and outsourced government, and carried out a foreign policy comfortable to those used to extracting resources from wherever needed, no questions asked; he failed to challenge the national security establishment or generate a post-Soviet-collapse “peace dividend.”

The Bush family has now attempted the same thing with another Democratic “opponent,” Barack Obama. Shortly after Obama took office, George H.W. Bush and Jeb (but not W.) paid the new president a private visit in the White House. That’s not a common thing, but the media essentially ignored it and we never did learn the real nature of that trip, beyond the notion that the Bush family just wanted one more peek at the West Wing.

Recently, Obama got another visit from the duo. Jeb and his father, known familiarly as Poppy, were ostensibly in town to attend the Alfalfa Club’s annual banquet, also attended by Obama—one of those seemingly harmless events where the press is kept out and government officials and rich people frolic and reaffirm each other’s credentials in this country’s elite.

The publications reporting on the Bush White House visit intimated that it seemed a little weird to them, but nobody came right out and said it. To be sure, this is one family with a lot of weird little coincidences, and famous excuses for happening to have to be somewhere. Examples: George H.W. Bush said he couldn’t remember where he was the day JFK was shot, but documents show that he was right there in… Dallas. Working covertly for the CIA. Before publicly not remembering, he went to the trouble of creating a hodgepodge of competing scenarios for where he was—and why.

Another oddity: George H.W. Bush ran against Ronald Reagan in 1980, lost, and, barely suppressing his disgust and disappointment, became Reagan’s veep. Like Lyndon Johnson a decade earlier, he faced an eight-year wait for another chance at the top. Two months after the inauguration, Reagan was shot by John Hinckley—son of a family that had been close with the Bushes for decades. Of course, this was so very bizarre and statistically improbable (and chilling), that virtually no media organization even mentioned the connection. (For more on odd security incidents surrounding the presidency, see this.)

***

With a third Bush on the horizon, we need to consider the gap between the way the Bush clan is presented in the media and the reality. The media tell us that they are a family like every other family in pursuit of the American dream, perhaps blessed with just a little more drive and luck than most. As if.

In fact, Jeb owes his current political stature to family influence that soared when Poppy headed out from Connecticut along with many other old-money people to get in on the oil boom (with more than a little intelligence work mixed in—much of it involving anti-Castro Cubans.) Then Jeb grew up and moved to Florida, where Poppy’s CIA ties with the anti-Castro Cuban community got the son quickly fixed up, professionally, financially, and, soon enough, politically.

There’s a whole bunch of stuff concerning Jeb that any budding investigative reporter should find good teething material. In 1980, after his father’s election as vice president, Jeb set up the Bush family franchise in the Sunshine State, with its increasing national political importance. He promptly got involved with the wealthy Cuban exile community that had long and deep covert connections to his father, and that wanted continued access for favors. One of those Cubans, Armando Codina, a self-made millionaire, took the veep’s son under his wing, and Jeb was soon on his way to his own fortune in real estate deals that often did not pass the smell test. This was, helpfully, under the shingle of “Bush Realty” in case anyone did not already know his father was in the White House and that Jeb was “open for business.”

These guys don’t “beat around the Bush.” They don’t have to. As Jeb told the Miami News in 1983, “I want to be very wealthy–and I’ll be glad to tell you when I’ve accomplished that goal.”

Jeb waded into Florida politics in 1984 as Dade County GOP Chair. One of Jeb’s closest associates was Camilo Padreda, a former intelligence officer with the Batista dictatorship overthrown by Fidel Castro. Padreda and a friend had previously been indicted for embezzlement, but the charges were dropped, it has been said, after the CIA assured prosecutors that Padreda’s friend had worked for the agency. (At the time, the elder Bush, a former CIA director, was vice president). Padreda later pled guilty to defrauding the Bush administration’s Department of Housing and Urban Development, though his worst punishment was two months of house arrest. Jeb also was on the payroll of another Cuban businessman, Miguel Recarey, who had been involved with CIA attempts to assassinate Castro. He lobbied his father’s administration on behalf of Recarey. Later on, Recarey was charged in what is believed to be the largest Medicare fraud in history, but managed to flee the country with a handy “expedited” $2.2 million tax refund he received from the IRS that same day.

In 1990, when George H.W. was president, Jeb got him to release the convicted terrorist Orlando Bosch, who had participated in more than 30 terrorist acts (among other things, Bosch was implicated in the bombing of a Cubana plane that resulted in the deaths of 73 civilians). In 1998, with heavy help from the Cuban community, Jeb was elected governor, and thus emerged in a prime position to help his elder brother, George W., prevail in the 2000 Florida election fiasco, and thereby become president. As governor, Jeb nominated Raoul Cantero, the grandson of the Cuban dictator Batista, to the Florida supreme court, though he was lacking in experience—Cantero had been the terrorist Bosch’s spokesman and attorney.

In the aftermath of September 11, while the George W. Bush administration was pushing the colored panic light like crazy, and targeting terrorist suspects of all kinds and levels of probable guilt and innocence, it consented to the release of Cuban exiles convicted of terrorist offenses. Jeb advocated for these releases as well.

***

Jeb has been carefully laying a scenario in which he could indeed run—and could be very well received. He’s traveled the country extensively as a kind of elder statesman. And recently he criticized the GOP presidential candidates’ behavior:

“I watch these debates and.. it’s a little troubling sometimes when people are appealing to people’s fears and emotion rather than trying to get them to look over the horizon for a broader perspective and that’s kind of where we are…I think it changes when we get to the general election. I hope.”

In an interview with CBS News after the event, Bush added, “I think it’s important for the candidates to recognize they have to appeal to primary voters, and not turn off independent voters that will be part of a winning coalition.”

This “bring us together” appeal would allow him to jump in, should he be needed, in 2012, and, run or not, win or lose, would position him seriously for 2016.

That we are not already paying enough attention to this prospect is telling about the state of the American media – and electorate—today.

Our lack of collective memory, our failure to examine deeper forces and patterns in this country, our perpetual rush to “move on” and our staunch resistance to possible insights and lessons from the past, will come back to haunt us.

**

My hunch is that the Bushes and the real establishment (that’s not the Tea Party, not the Santoriacs or the Gingrichites, folks) just love how bad the GOP field is. Obama is almost certain to be reelected. Which is just fine. Like Clinton, he’s played ball on all the big issues that really matter to the One Percent of One Percent—foreign intervention, oil, Wall Street bailouts. They figure he won’t do anything more radical in his second term, while, like another young president (Bill Clinton), looking forward to cashing out to an extremely comfortable life after the White House. And they figure as long as Obama does not make Hillary his veep, that the electorate will tire of the Democrats in 2016 and be ready for….another Bush.

Small wonder these Democratic and Republican administrations are all kissing cousins now. Competitive democracy? Bah—that’s language for columnists. These guys all have it made—and as ever, they’re busy divvying up the pie.

For more on the Bush family’s unknown past and the full gamut of its network with the wealthiest interests in the US and around the world, see Russ Baker’s book, Family of Secrets: The Bush Dynasty, America’s Invisible Government, and the Hidden History of the Last Fifty Years. For details on Jeb Bush’s relationship with the Cuban exile community, see Ann Louise Bardach’s Cuba Confidential: Love and Vengeance in Miami and Havana.
Share:

An Intelligent Woman versus a Conservative Dolt

Which one impresses you in the best way?

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/03/01/sandra-fluke-on-limbaugh-i-was-stunned-then-outraged/

Watch this interview of Sandra Fluke, an obviously intelligent articulate woman who gets her point across without rants or condemnation of anyone.  If you have llstened to Rush Limbaugh's vile denunciation of her and all women who practice birth control, you will come away with the understanding that Ms. Fluke and Limbaugh belong in different universes.  She is light years ahead of Limbaugh in evolution. 

I wonder how Republican conservatives can continue to listen to Limbaugh and give support to his ignorant rantings, while denying evolved people like Ms. Fluke the chance to speak at a Congressional hearing on women's rights to contraceptives (masked as a hearing on the right to religious freedom, which only right-wing lemmings could possibly believe).  The right wing fanatics have devolved the entire Republican Party into a medieval travesty that cannot be taken seriously by intelligent people.  I doubt that the party can survive its takeover by fundamentalist nutcases.  I know a couple conservative Republicans who must be cringing at what they are hearing from so-called leading representatives of the GOP.  Limbaugh seems to be the head of the party these days; if so, woe is them.

Share:

Psychopaths in our world are not rare

My daughter and I were talking yesterday about sociopaths/psychopaths we have met in our lives and how lucky we have been to have good-hearted compassionate people in our family and extended families.  Sociopaths/psychopaths are defined as self-centered people who cannot feel empathy with others and have no conscience, so they do ruthless unethical acts on a daily basis without a twinge of guilt.  Of course, Wall Street is full of this type -- as is the political world and the religious world (think of the present Pope, Cardinals, and bishops of the Catholic Church who covered up pedophilia, for instance). 

Relatively, the top 1% has far more psychopaths than the 99%, of that I am certain!  An overabundance of wealth and power position in the world, especially when one is born into it, gives the rich a sense of privilege that overrides feelings for others and allows them to believe they are "special." The sociopathic type blatantly reveals itself when it obtains positions of authority over others. They love power.  Think about how many of this type you have met in your own life, in the workplace, in your church, and in your daily interactions in the business world. This is the type that runs the world -- and we are all the poorer (literally and figuratively) for it.  


ONE OUT OF EVERY TEN WALL STREETERS  IS A PSYCHOPATH, SAY RESEARCHERS
By Alexander Eichler

One out of every 10 Wall Street employees is likely a clinical psychopath, writes journalist Sherree DeCovny in an upcoming issue of the trade publication CFA Magazine (subscription required). In the general population the rate is closer to one percent.

"A financial psychopath can present as a perfect well-rounded job candidate, CEO, manager, co-worker, and team member because their destructive characteristics are practically invisible," writes DeCovny, who pulls together research from several psychologists for her story, which helpfully suggests that financial firms carefully screen out extreme psychopaths in hiring.

To be sure, typical psychopathic behavior runs the gamut. At the extreme end is Bateman, portrayed by Christian Bale, in the 2000 movie "American Psycho," as an investment banker who actually kills people and exhibits no remorse. When health professionals talk about "psychopaths," they have a broader range of behavior in mind.

A clinical psychopath is bright, gregarious and charming, writes DeCovny. He lies easily and often, and may have trouble feeling empathy for other people. He's probably also more willing to take dangerous risks -- either because he doesn't understand the consequences, or because he simply doesn't care. (A perfect description of 99% of politicians. We see them daily on television, in political debates and giving interviews and speeches that are filled with lies, from start to finish. They will often switch their stated positions 180 degrees, even in the middle of a speech or interview. I have one word about that: Romney)

An appetite for risk can seem like a positive business trait on Wall Street, where big gambles sometimes lead to big rewards. But for the people DeCovny is talking about, the outcomes matter less than the gambles themselves -- and the chemical rush of serotonin and endorphins that accompanies them.

This is hardly the first time that mental illness has been equated with a certain capacity for professional success -- especially in the financial sector, where some stock traders have actually scored higher than diagnosed psychopaths on tests that measure competitiveness and attraction to risk.

Some psychologists have long claimed that the qualities that make for a high-achieving politician or stockbroker are also the same traits that psychopaths have in abundance.

Other researchers generalize it to bosses as a species, saying that about 4 percent of all executives are psychopaths -- and that their relative lack of scruples is what helps them excel in business.

At the same time, the fast-moving, high-pressure environment of Wall Street probably compromises the mental health of some of its employees. A recent study found that many young bankers develop alcoholism, insomnia, eating disorders and other stress-related ailments within just a few years on the job.

Stockbrokers have also been shown to experience clinical depression at a rate more than three times as high as the general population.

DeCovny writes that for someone with a "latent" compulsive gambling problem, a job trading stocks can trigger pathological responses that send the person into an escalating pattern of lies, debts and even embezzlement and fraud.

A person with this problem would feel gratified by an enormous loss, because of the way their brain's reward system works -- which DeCovny says may explain the activities of such notorious rogue traders as Kweku Adoboli, Jerome Kerviel and Nick Leeson, three men who gambled and lost the combined equivalent of $10.3 billion for their respective institutions over the past 17 years.


Share:

Thursday, March 01, 2012

Good essay by Bill Maher

THE GREAT THING ABOUT HAVING BEEN POOR
By Bill Maher

f you grow up in America, it's pretty rare if you don't love money. One of the first things I ever remember being punished for was stealing money. Five dollars, off my father's dresser. I was so little, I don't think I even knew it was wrong to take something that wasn't specifically mine - I recall this being my introduction to the concept of "larceny is bad." But somehow, I knew it was good to have cash.

After I left my middle class household at 18, standard of living took a real tumble for a while. At Cornell, I had no money, and boy did I look it. They called where I lived the last three years Collegetown, but Collegetown was really slums in a rural setting. Landlords did not have to work that hard in Ithaca, N.Y. - every year, there was fresh supply of eager tenants among the students who didn't want to live in a sorority or fraternity. It was a sweet market for a slumlord.

But even that looked good compared to what was waiting for me as I began my illustrious career as a standup comedian in New York City in 1979. First year I lived on 99th Street in Spanish Harlem, a five-floor walk up, toilet down the hall. No shower - a tub that sat in the kitchen with a snake-like attachment that hooked up to the kitchen sink. Walked home every night from the comedy clubs on the tony Upper East Side, watching the neighborhoods become poorer and scarier as I made my way north, and I'm sure the only reason I was never robbed was, they took one look at me and knew it wasn't worth the trouble. Sometimes, freedom really is just another word for nothing left to lose.

And yet, in a short 33 years, things had turned around enough so that I was able to give a million dollars to the super PAC of a certain mixed-race president who, I would like to remind all my overconfident progressive friends, does NOT have this election in the bag. And a lot of people this last week have said the same thing to me: "You're not picking up the drinks tonight?"

The great thing about having been poor is how liberated it makes you if you eventually become rich. There's nothing like the knowledge that you don't need money to survive. That the money cushion you lie on every night doesn't have to be three feet thick, and you can still get to sleep.

Other people seemed surprised I had a million dollars, which amused me. I've had a television show since 1993; television pays well - I may even have another million lying around somewhere. Every year when I visit my accountant in December to see how the year went, he always says I'm the best saver of all his clients, which amazes me, because I feel like I deprive myself of absolutely nothing. I once asked him, what do your other clients spend their money on? Because I know who some of his other clients are, and I know they make WAY more than I do. He said that what they spend their money on is always changing, and that's not even the point - the point is, however much money they make that year, they always spend all of it! That's how they think: have money, spend it, because the real tragedy would be to die and have money left over.

Me? I just don't have expensive tastes I guess - I don't collect cars or paintings or jewelry, and I gave up my heroin habit years ago. But I also know that, as I said when I presented that giant check to Priorities USA Action last Thursday at the end of my stand up special on Yahoo!, "This hurts!" I was trying to make the point that if I could do it, a lot of other people could do it a lot more easily than me. You know, the only place in America where the millionaires and billionaires are predominantly liberal is here in Hollywood - with the possible exception of Silicon Valley and Ben & Jerry's ice cream. There's a reason that of the 16 billionaires that have contributed to super PACs this year, 14 have given to Republicans. It is generally the party of the rich. And in a post-Citizens United world, the party of the rich has an advantage like they've never had before. In 2008, the most you could give to a candidate was $2,300. Now it's Infinity. No, the election is not in the bag.


Share:

Should be read by conservative Catholics and the last-sentence warning taken

But most evangelical-type conservatives are only interested in what they hear in their rigid-right "bubble" from the likes of Limbaugh, Beck, and Coulter--and their new hero, Santorum.

WHY EVANGELICALS LOVE SANTORUM AND HATE JFK
By Michael Wolraich

Michael Wolraich is a founder of the political blog dagblog.com and the author of "Blowing Smoke: Why the Right Keeps Serving Up Whack-Job Fantasies about the Plot to Euthanize Grandma, Outlaw Christmas, and Turn Junior into a Raging Homosexual."

(CNN) -- Sen. Rick Santorum, who is campaigning to become America's second Catholic president, disagrees from the bottom of his gut with the first Catholic to hold the office.

In October, he told a Catholic university audience that when he read the 1960 speech in which John F. Kennedy said: "I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute," he "almost threw up." More recently, he elaborated on his dyspeptic condition in an ABC television interview, calling JFK's credo "an absolutist doctrine that was abhorrent at the time of 1960."

But the Baptist ministers who witnessed Kennedy's speech surely felt differently. In the 1960s, evangelical leaders were not concerned that Kennedy was too secular; they were concerned that he was too Catholic.

For most of American history, the Protestant majority has regarded Catholics with deep suspicion. Many of the 13 colonies banned Catholics from public office and prohibited Catholic rituals. Priests were banished and sometimes executed.

After independence, the Constitution protected Catholics from the worst persecutions of the Colonial period, but discrimination persisted, and anti-Catholic paranoia raged with an intensity that would have made Glenn Beck blush. One popular book, "Foreign Conspiracy Against the Liberties of the United States," warned of a secret Jesuit plot to deliver America to the Austrian empire. Its author was Samuel Morse, co-inventor of the telegraph.

Such fears diminished as Catholic immigrants assimilated in the 20th century, but many Protestants remained hostile toward Catholic politicians. During JFK's presidential campaign, the Department of Justice documented 144 producers of anti-Catholic campaign literature. The pamphlets warned of Vatican influence over American policy and the prospect of state-funded Catholic schools. Most of the opposition came from evangelical groups like the National Association of Evangelicals and the Southern Baptist Convention.

In the face of unrelenting hostility, Kennedy decided to address concerns about his religion directly. Speaking to a group of Baptist ministers in Houston, he reassured them:

"I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute, where no Catholic prelate would tell the president -- should he be Catholic -- how to act, and no Protestant minister would tell his parishioners for whom to vote, where no church or church school is granted any public funds or political preference, and where no man is denied public office merely because his religion differs from the president who might appoint him, or the people who might elect him."

Perhaps Rick Santorum's father, an Italian immigrant who came to the United States in 1930, heard these words and understood the prejudice that JFK struggled against. But Rick Santorum was only 2 years old when they were spoken. If he has any memory of Catholics' difficult history in this country, he does not publicize it. Nor do other Catholic champions of the religious right in their determination to wash away the old hostilities that divided American Christianity.

Evangelicals and Catholics began collaborating politically in the late 1970s. The architect behind their reconciliation was a political strategist named Paul Weyrich. Frustrated by the Republican Party's preoccupation with business interests, Weyrich sought to reorient the party toward religious and cultural issues. To this end, he founded the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank, and the Moral Majority, the first organization to represent what we now call the religious right.

Weyrich, a Melkite Greek Catholic, knew that a Catholic leader would not appeal to evangelicals, so he tried to recruit televangelist Pat Robertson to lead his cause. When Robertson turned him down, Weyrich enlisted the Rev. Jerry Falwell.

Falwell would later say that Catholics and evangelicals found common ground in their opposition to abortion, but Weyrich remembered it somewhat differently. He had tried to mobilize evangelicals over abortion and failed. Most Protestants regarded abortion as a "Catholic issue," and many prominent Baptist leaders had even endorsed the Roe v. Wade decision.

What actually brought Catholics and evangelicals together was a common enemy. This imaginary enemy has gone by many names. In the 1970s and '80s, it was known as "secular humanism," a fiendish anti-religious movement that had supposedly taken over the schools, the courts, the media and the government.

In the 1990s, it was called "political correctness," and rampaged through the universities. When Bill O'Reilly of Fox News announced that Christmas was under siege in 2004, he blamed "secular progressives" in the media. Meanwhile, Rick Santorum decries "cultural liberalism" and warns that the government is trying to destroy religious freedom by forcing Catholic organizations to insure birth control.

Regardless of the name, the supposed enemy's goals remain the same: to eradicate Christianity from the public sphere and replace traditional Judeo-Christian values with a liberal agenda. Its agents are progressive politicians, journalists, professors and nonprofit organizations. Its creed is the separation of church and state that JFK once appealed to in his campaign to become the first Catholic president.

The construction of such a villain has been devastatingly effective in uniting the religious right. The same evangelical groups that once attacked JFK as an agent of the pope have become the foundation of Santorum's support in the Republic primary, and his only rival for their vote is fellow Catholic Newt Gingrich. Times have changed.

But should Santorum and his conservative Catholic allies succeed in breaking down the barriers between state and religion, they may reap a bitter fruit. For without the secular menace to distract Protestants from their doctrinal differences with Catholics, the old enmities may rise again. And just as religious right leaders seldom extend their demands for religious freedom to Muslims and other non-Christian religions, Catholics might one day find the freedoms that they have come to take for granted are no longer assured.


Share:

Romney now begging for small money donations

Charles P. Pierce | The Great Humbling of Romneybot 2.0

Charles P. Pierce, Esquire Magazine
Pierce writes: "After Rick Santorum gave a heartfelt, weepy performance of almost transcendental mendacity, complete with props, Romney came out and appeared to be attempting to sell his audience some handy home-cleaning products. He even plugged his website and begged for some small-money donations. The guy makes the average Amway salesman sound like Demosthenes."
READ MORE

Share: