They Remember...

...You should remember too! 
  ~  On Nov 6th...Remember, Don't Vote Republican

Who is Alinsky and Why is He Inside a Bubble?

 

On his HBO show, Real Time, which was broadcast on January 27, 2012, Bill Mahr questioned the most bizarre lines of attack by Newt Gingrich and the GOP/Tea Party talking heads, against liberals and President Obama. Gingrich's recent rally cry that is being leveled against Obama is accusing him of being a "Saul Alinsky radical."

So, Bill Maher wants to know, "Who the F#@K is Saul Alinsky?" A Wikipedia search determined that Alinsky was a beloved and influential community organizer with zero communist ties. Alinsky is best known for being a civil rights advocate in the 1950s.


The Republicans are running against a fictional Obama, a radical and socialist political figure who has no basis in actual policy or even personal association, as the Alinsky charges demonstrate: Alinsky died when Obama was ten.


Based on fictional misrepresentations, the GOP/Tea Party can create a fictional candidate to run against.


This is how politics has changed. You used to run against an actual president. But now you just recreate him inside the bubble and run against your new fictional candidate.

WATCH:

Visual Messages

Here are some cartoons from artist Joe Heller on various issues facing all of us. 

MIDDLE CLASS

VOTER ID 

RELIGION

 YOUR 2012 CALENDAR

On the Road to Pottersville

 

According to Robert Parry, the goal of the right-wing Republican Tea Bag Party is set on "Turning America into Pottersville."

The Republican presidential race has taken a detour into the "class warfare" that the party supposedly despises, with Newt Gingrich and Rick Perry tagging Mitt Romney as an elitist who got rich by laying off workers. But this spat misses the larger point of what the Right is doing to America, writes Robert Parry.

For many years, it appeared that the Right wanted to take the United States back to the 1950s - when blacks "knew their place," women were "in the kitchen" and gays stayed "in the closet" - but it turns out that the intended back-in-time-travel was to the 1920s, to an era of a few haves and many have-nots, not only before the Civil Rights Movement but before the Great American Middle-Class.

The Right's goal has been less to recreate the world of "Father Knows Best" than to establish a national "Pottersville," like in the movie, "It's a Wonderful Life," where the existence of the average man and woman was brutish and unfulfilling, while the 1 percent of that age lived in gilded comfort and held sweeping power.

That is the message ironically coming from the expensive ad wars of the Republican presidential battle, where frontrunner Mitt Romney has emerged as the personification of the 1 percent and has been attacked by rivals who - while supporting similar policies favoring the ultra-rich - have savaged his career as a venture capitalist, or as Texas Gov. Rick Perry puts it, a "vulture capitalist."

Romney's response has been telling. The former chief executive of the corporate takeover firm Bain Capital went beyond the Right's usual lament about "class warfare," terming the criticism of high-flying financiers who use layoffs to fatten their bottom lines "the bitter politics of envy."

And, if there remained any doubt about Romney's status as the nation's "elitist-in-chief," he added that it was wrong to have a noisy and open debate about the dangers of growing income inequality. He told Matt Lauer on NBC's "Today" that "I think it's fine to talk about those things in quiet rooms, and discussions about tax policy and the like."

In other words, keep the rabble from protesting their lot; leave these matters to the well-bred and the well-off, in their think tanks and their board rooms.

For decades, the Right has largely concealed this elitist agenda behind appeals to social conservatism and flag-waving patriotism. Many working- and middle-class Americans, especially white males, have sided with the economic free-marketers because the hated "lib-rhuls" supported civil rights for blacks, women and gays - and also questioned America's military might.

Plus, many Americans have forgotten a basic truth: that the Great American Middle-Class was largely a creation of the federal government and its policies dating back to Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal. For many Americans in the middle-class, it was more satisfying to think that they or their parents had climbed the social ladder on their own. They didn't need "guv-mint" help.

But the truth is that it was government policies arising out of the Great Depression and carried forward through the post-World War II years by both Republican and Democratic presidents that created the opportunities for tens of millions of Americans to achieve relative comfort and security.

Those policies ranged from Social Security and labor rights in the 1930s to the GI Bill after World War II to government investments in infrastructure and technological research in the decades that followed. Even in recent years, despite right-wing efforts to choke off this flow of progress, government programs - such as the Internet - brought greater efficiency to markets and wealth to many entrepreneurs.

So, not only is Massachusetts Senate candidate Elizabeth Warren right when she notes that "there is nobody in this country who got rich on his own," it's also true that government policies enabled large numbers of Americans to climb out of poverty and into the middle-class.

The Dick Cheney example

Oddly, one of the best examples of this reality is the life of right-wing icon Dick Cheney, as he revealed in his recent memoir, In My Time. In the book, Cheney recognizes that his personal success was made possible by Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal and the fact that Cheney's father managed to land a steady job with the federal government.

"I've often reflected on how different was the utterly stable environment he provided for his family and wondered if because of that I have been able to take risks, to change directions, and to leave one career path for another with hardly a second thought," Cheney wrote.

By contrast, in sketching his family's history, Cheney depicted the hard-scrabble life of farmers and small businessmen scratching out a living in the American Midwest and suffering financial reversals whenever the titans of Wall Street stumbled into a financial crisis and the bankers cut off credit.

After his forebears would make some modest headway from their hard work, they would find themselves back at square one, again and again, because of some "market" crisis or a negative weather pattern. Whether a financial panic or a sudden drought, everything was lost.

"In 1883, as the country struggled through a long economic depression, the sash and door factory that [Civil War veteran Samuel Fletcher Cheney] co-owned [in Defiance, Ohio] had to be sold to pay its debts," Cheney wrote. "At the age of fifty-four, Samuel Cheney had to start over," moving to Nebraska.

There, Samuel Cheney built a sod house and began a farm, enjoying some success until a drought hit, again forcing him to the edge. Despite a solid credit record, he noted that "the banks will not loan to anyone at present" and, in 1896, he had to watch all his possessions auctioned off at the Kearney County Courthouse. Samuel Cheney started another homestead in 1904 and kept working until he died in 1911 at the age of 82.

His third son, Thomas, who was nicknamed Bert (and who would become Dick Cheney's grandfather), tried to build a different life as a cashier and part owner of a Sumner, Kansas, bank, named Farmers and Merchants Bank. But he still suffered when the economy crashed.

"Despite all his plans and success, Bert Cheney found that, like his father, he couldn't escape the terrible power of nature," Dick Cheney wrote. "When drought struck in the early 1930s, farmers couldn't pay their debts, storekeepers had to close their doors, and Farmers and Merchants Bank went under. … My grandparents lost everything except for the house in which they lived."

Finding security

Bert Cheney's son, Richard, ventured off in a different direction, working his way through Kearney State Teachers College and taking the civil service exam. He landed a job as a typist with the Veterans Administration in Lincoln, Nebraska.

"After scraping by for so long, he found the prospect of a $120 monthly salary and the security of a government job too good to turn down," his son, Dick Cheney, wrote. "Before long he was offered a job with another federal agency, the Soil Conservation Service.

"The SCS taught farmers about crop rotation, terraced planting, contour plowing, and using ‘shelter belts' of trees as windbreaks - techniques that would prevent the soil from blowing away, as it had in the dust storms of the Great Depression. My dad stayed with the SCS for more than thirty years, doing work of which he was immensely proud.

"He was also proud of the pension that came with federal employment - a pride that I didn't understand until as an adult I learned about the economic catastrophes that his parents and grandparents had experienced and that had shadowed his own youth."

Like many Americans, the Cheney family was pulled from the depths of the Great Depression by the New Deal of Franklin Roosevelt, cementing the family's support for the Democratic president and his party. The family celebrated when little Dick was born on FDR's birthday.

"When I was born [on Jan. 30, 1941] my granddad wanted to send a telegram to the president," Cheney wrote in his memoir. "Both sides of my family were staunch New Deal Democrats, and Granddad was sure that FDR would want to know about the ‘little stranger' with whom he now had a birthday in common."

However, Dick Cheney took a different path. Freed from the insecurity that had afflicted his father and earlier Cheneys - caused by the cruel vicissitudes of laissez-faire capitalism - Dick Cheney enjoyed the relative comfort of middle-class life in post-World War II America. He took advantage of the many opportunities that presented themselves.

Most notably, Cheney attached himself to an ambitious Republican congressman from Illinois named Donald Rumsfeld. When Rumsfeld left Congress for posts in the Nixon administration, he brought Cheney along. Eventually Rumsfeld became White House chief of staff to President Gerald Ford and - when Rumsfeld was tapped to become Defense Secretary in 1975 - he recommended his young aide, Dick Cheney, to succeed him.

Cheney's career path through the ranks of Republican national politics, with occasional trips through the revolving door into lucrative private-sector jobs, was set. He became a major player within the GOP Establishment, building a reputation as an ardent conservative, a foreign policy hawk - and a fierce opponent of the New Deal.

Demonizing guv-mint

The Right's ongoing campaign to dismantle the New Deal also has hinged on the demonization of "guv-mint," a darkening of attitudes that became more possible when many middle-class Americans lost their memory of how their families had moved into the middle-class.

In the 1960s and 1970s, middle-class white men in particular came to view the government as a force for helping the poor, women and minorities, while putting pressure on white males to change long-established attitudes. Plus, they were told that the government was taking their hard-earned dollars to give to the undeserving.

When these messages - along with a mix of patriotic hoopla and coded appeals to bigotry - were delivered by the personable Ronald Reagan in 1980, middle- and working-class whites rallied to the Right's banner. It was time, they felt, to dismantle many government programs for the poor and to get tough on foreign adversaries.

But Reagan's most important policy was slashing taxes, especially those on the rich. Under Reagan's "supply-side economics," the top marginal tax rate - that is what the richest Americans pay on their highest tranche of income - was more than halved, from 70 percent to 28 percent.

Yet, since the promised surge in "supply-side" growth didn't materialize, one result was a dramatic rise in the national debt. Another less obvious change was the incentivizing of greed. Under presidents from Dwight Eisenhower (when the top marginal tax rate was 90 percent) through Jimmy Carter (with a 70 percent top rate), taxes had been a disincentive against greed.

After all, if 70 to 90 percent of your highest tranche of income went to the government to help pay for building the nation, you had little personal incentive to press for that extra $1 million or $2 million. So corporate CEOs - while well-compensated - were happy earning about 25 times as much as their average worker in the 1960s. A few decades later, that ratio on CEO pay was about 200 times what the average worker was making.

As the Washington Post's Peter Whoriskey framed this historic development in a June 19, 2011, article, U.S. business underwent a cultural transformation from the 1970s when chief executives believed more in sharing the wealth than they do today.

Whoriskey described the findings of researchers with access to economic data from the Internal Revenue Service. The numbers revealed that the big bucks were not flowing primarily to athletes or actors or even stock market speculators; America's new super-rich were mostly corporate chieftains.

The article cited a U.S. dairy company CEO from the 1970s, Kenneth J. Douglas, who earned the equivalent of about $1 million a year. He lived comfortably but not ostentatiously. Douglas had an office on the second floor of a milk distribution center, and he turned down raises because he felt it would hurt morale at the plant, Whoriskey reported.

However, just a few decades later, Gregg L. Engles, the CEO of the same company, Dean Foods, averaged about 10 times what Douglas made; worked in a glittering high-rise office building in Dallas; owned a vacation estate in Vail, Colorado; belonged to four golf clubs; and traveled in a $10 million corporate jet. He apparently had little concern about what his workers thought.

"The evolution of executive grandeur - from very comfortable to jet-setting - reflects one of the primary reasons that the gap between those with the highest incomes and everyone else is widening," Whoriskey reported.

"For years, statistics have depicted growing income disparity in the United States, and it has reached levels not seen since the Great Depression. In 2008, the last year for which data are available, for example, the top 0.1 percent of earners took in more than 10 percent of the personal income in the United States, including capital gains, and the top 1 percent took in more than 20 percent."

The old New-Deal-to-post-World-War-II notion had been that a healthy middle-class contributed to profitable businesses because average people could afford to buy consumer goods, own their own homes and take an annual vacation with the kids. That "middle-class system," however, had required intervention by the government as the representative of the everyman.

The consequences of several decades of Reaganism and its related ideas (such as shipping many middle-class jobs overseas) are now apparent. Wealth has been concentrated at the top with billionaires living extravagant lives while the middle-class shrinks and struggles. One everyman after another gets shoved down the social ladder into the lower classes and into poverty.

Those real-life consequences are painful. Millions of Americans forego needed medical care because they can't afford health insurance; young people, burdened by college loans, crowd back in with their parents; trained workers settle for low-paying jobs or are unemployed; families skip vacations and other simple pleasures of life.

Beyond the unfairness, there is the macro-economic problem which comes from massive income disparity. A strong economy is one in which the vast majority people can buy products, which can then be manufactured more cheaply, creating a positive cycle of profits and prosperity.

Instead, Mitt Romney - and even his Republican rivals who criticize his personal business methods - are intent to press ahead down the dark road of Reaganism toward some nightmarish Pottersville. Instead of a vibrant debate about whether this is the right way to go, Romney instructs the masses to keep their mouths shut with the only permitted conversations about the nation's future restricted to "quiet rooms."

Bill Moyers is Back!

 

Bill Moyers and Moyers & Company is back highlighting important political, social and pressing issues that affect us all.   The following video is from the show: Bill Moyers: Occupy a Cause.

What’s the common cause behind Occupy protesters?

The Moyers & Company team visited the Occupy Wall Street site several times between October and December in 2011 — visits that reveal real faces, real people, and a true common cause. In this premiere Bill Moyers Essay, Bill talks about their anger — not at the concept of wealth itself, but at the crony capitalists who resort to tricks, loopholes, and hard, cold cash for politicians to make sure insiders prosper… and then pull up the ladder behind them.

Bill Moyers on Occupy Wall Street from BillMoyers.com on Vimeo.

Bill Moyers also explores how America’s vast inequality didn’t just happen, it’s been politically engineered. Watch the Bill Moyers' interview with Jacob Hacker and Paul Pierson about their book Winner-Take-All Politics: How Washington Made the Rich Richer--and Turned Its Back on the Middle Class.

Jacob Hacker & Paul Pierson on Winner Take All Politics from BillMoyers.com on Vimeo.

The Santorum Plan is God's Plan

A group of evangelical and social conservative leaders recently voted to back the candidacy of Rick Santorum in the race for the GOP Presidential nomination. Is this support just a last attempt to stop front-runner Mitt Romney? Or is it an acknowledgment that Santorum's positions fit the beliefs of the more conservative element of the GOP? Santorum has unwaveringly opposed same-sex marriage, adoption by same-sex couples, abortion, partial-birth abortion, contraception, global warming and evolution. Here are Santorum's positions on these issues:

Same-Sex Marriage

"And if the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual sex within your home, then you have the right to bigamy, you have the right to polygamy, you have the right to incest, you have the right to adultery. In every society, the definition of marriage has not ever to my knowledge included homosexuality. That’s not to pick on homosexuality. It’s not, you know, man on child, man on dog, or whatever the case may be. It is one thing."

Adoption by same-sex couples

"The state is not doing a service to the child and to society by not putting that child in a home where there is a mother and a father. This is common sense. This is nature. Even fathers in jail who had abandoned their kids were still better than no father at all to have in their children's lives."

Abortion

"I believe that any doctor that performs an abortion, I would advocate that any doctor that performs an abortion, should be criminally charged for doing so."

And on debating the partial-birth abortion ban in 1996, Santorum said: “Mr. President, I just need to restate, we have quoted physician after physician, obstetrician after obstetrician, pro-life, pro-choice, people who have performed abortions—this is not Rick Santorum or James Inhofe or Mike DeWine or Bob Smith—these are physicians, obstetricians, who are saying that this procedure is never, never, never medically necessary to save the health or life of the mother. Never. Never.”

Even though Santorum has previously testified that there are no circumstances where abortion is necessary to protect the life of the mother, his wife Karen had a second trimester abortion in October 1996. The Santorums were told that if she did not induce her labor, she and the baby would more than likely die. The decision was made to induce labor, and abort the fetus. However, the Rick and Karen don't call it an abortion. Rather, they refer to it as a "medically induced miscarriage."

Partial-birth abortion

"This isn’t taught in any medical school. It isn’t done in any hospital. It isn’t done by any obstetrician. This is a rogue procedure for the convenience and economic benefit of abortionists and abortion clinics. Of course, it is not medically necessary. It is not even medically recognized."

Contraception

Many of the Christian faith have said, well, that’s okay, contraception is okay. It’s not okay. It’s a license to do things in a sexual realm that is counter to how things are supposed to be.

Global Warming

"I believe the earth gets warmer, and I also believe the earth gets cooler, and I think history points out that it does that and that the idea that man through the production of CO2, which is a trace gas in the atmosphere and the man-made part of that trace gas is itself a trace gas, is somehow responsible for climate change is, I think, just patently absurd when you consider all of the other factors, El Niño, La Niña, sunspots, you know, moisture in the air."

Evolution

"What we should be teaching are the problems and holes and I think there are legitimate problems and holes in the theory of evolution. And what we need to do is to present those fairly from a scientific point of view. And we should lay out areas in which the evidence supports evolution and the areas in the evidence that does not."

Santorum's position against evolution has made him the 'King of creationism.' Santorum believes that what he believes, should be taught to all those who do believe or don't believe, what he believes. That is because Santorum believes that this is God's plan. Rick Santorum wants to replace the teaching of real science with creationism.

Since January 1st, three state legislatures in Missouri, Indiana, and New Hampshire have all introduced bills that would force schools to teach creationism as an accepted science even if students, parents, and teachers are not Christians. Such bills infringe upon religious freedom as protected by the United States Constitution. Since 2004, 12 states have tried to pass creationism bills. Only one, in Louisiana, has become law. You may be wondering, where did all of these bills come from?

It turns out, all creationism bills introduced since 2004 are inspired by an amendment drafted and proposed by then Senator and current Republican Presidential candidate Rick Santorum in 2001. Santorum offered the amendment to be included in the No Child Left Behind Act. The amendment, which failed, promoted the teaching of intelligent design and questioned the academic standing of evolution in US public schools. Santorum didn’t craft the language of the bill by himself, however. He had help from Phillip E. Johnson of the Center for Science and Culture which is run by a conservative think tank known as Discovery Institute. Johnson is the founding adviser of the Center and is considered the founder of the intelligent design movement. He is also known as a member of the group for the Scientific Reappraisal of the HIV-AIDS Hypothesis, a prominent AIDS denialist group and has written that HIV does not cause AIDS, which explains why many religious extremists make such claims.

The amendment would have allowed schools and teachers to dispute evolution which the scientific community regards as the only credible, and thoroughly tested, scientific explanation for the development and diversification of all life on Earth. But people like Santorum, Johnson and other religious extremists want to replace the teaching of real science with creationism, a Biblical theory that is classified as pseudo-science by an overwhelming majority of scientists. There is no evidence supporting creationism, whereas plenty of evidence exists to support evolution.

So the next time you read a headline about a new creationism bill being introduced in a state, you’ll know exactly where the bill came from and who is responsible for trying to force religion upon our children.

Given his positions on social issues, Bruce Epperly ponders whether Santorum is the "Jesus candidate."
At least his wife, Karen, thinks so.

For me it’s not just another political race. It’s about going on to the battlefield and defending God’s truth in the World.

Oh Lord!

The State of Indiana is pursuing several bills which deal the issue of abortion, unions and education. Indiana now has some of the strictest anti-abortions laws in the country.

ABORTION
Highlights of the Indiana abortion policies that are in effect include:

• Women must be informed that human physical life begins at fertilization.
• Indiana will opt-out of abortion coverage in any state health exchange required under the new federal health law passed by Congress in 2010.
• Pain-capable children beginning at 20-weeks gestational age will enjoy enhanced protections.
• All abortions on girls under the age of 14 must be reported to child protective services within three days of the abortion in order to facilitate prompt investigation into child sexual abuse.
• Women must be informed that abortion may increase the risk of infertility, infection, or hemorrhaging.
• Doctors who do abortions in Indiana must have local hospital admitting privileges, provide medical licensing numbers, and provide emergency contact information to women having abortions.
• Women considering abortion must be informed about Indiana’s safe haven law that allows for mothers who decide to carry their children to term but are unable to care for their children to leave them with safe haven providers such as local police without criminal repercussions.

Ken Falk, an ACLU attorney representing Planned Parenthood, said the new anti-abortion law, which cuts public funding for Planned Parenthood, makes Indiana the first state to deny Medicaid funds for general health services such as breast exams and pap smears.

UNIONS
Indiana has right-to-work legislation which is presently before Indiana's House of Representatives. If it passes the House, where Republicans hold a 60-40 majority, it will go to the Senate, where Senate Republicans outnumber Democrats 37-13.

If the right-to-work proposal is approved, Indiana would be the first state in the industrial heartland of the United States to adopt such a law. It is in force in 22 other states, mostly in the South and West.

Indiana is home to numerous manufacturing plants for the auto industry that produce vehicles or components, including non-union and union-represented facilities.

Under the proposal, employees at unionized private workplaces would not be required to pay union dues. Supporters say the move would attract jobs to Indiana. Critics call it union busting.

EDUCATION

Legislators in Indiana have proposed a bill which would allow the reciting of the Lord's Prayer at the beginning of the school day.

Three Republican state senators in Indiana have a plan to fix public education in the state: Have someone recite the Lord’s Prayer at the beginning of every school day.

Really. It’s Senate Bill No. 25 (PDF):

In order that each student recognize the importance of spiritual development in establishing character and becoming a good citizen, the governing body of a school corporation or the equivalent authority of a charter school may require the recitation of the Lord’s Prayer at the beginning of each school day. The prayer may be recited by a teacher, a student, or the class of students.

In case you’re unfamiliar with what they’re talking about, this is the kind of Christian prayer the senators believe schools need:

Our Father, which art in heaven,
Hallowed be thy Name.
Thy Kingdom come.
Thy will be done in earth,
As it is in heaven.
Give us this day our daily bread.
And forgive us our trespasses,
As we forgive them that trespass against us.
And lead us not into temptation,
But deliver us from evil.
For thine is the kingdom,
The power, and the glory,
For ever and ever.
Amen.

That’s Matthew 6:9-13.

The Lord's prayer? Really, who's Lord are we talking about. Is this legislation referring to the Lord of the Christians? What about the Lord of the Jews? Maybe the Lord of the Muslims? Do Buddhists or Hindu's have a Lord? Could it be the Lord of the Flies? Or possibly the Lord of the Rings?

The Nit-Picking of Newt

Massachusetts Senatorial Democratic candidate Elizabeth Warren has articulated quite well a progressive economic message regarding the debt crisis and fair taxation, as she speaks on the campaign trail. As a Democrat candidate, she makes a strong case for the underlying social contract that has been in effective in this country.

Here is a another statement from a political candidate that reflects the same sentiment as Warren's statements. Can you figure out who said this?

The era of Republican domination back between 1856 and 1932 was a period of tremendous government experimenting, a period of building the transcontinental railroad...a period of encouraging homesteading through the Homestead Act, a period of the agricultural college and the Morrill Act which led to the land-grant colleges and the agricultural agent system.

The test I always give conservatives is to say "How many of you wanted to save the Panama Canal?" Most of my conservative friends promptly raise their hands. But the fact of the matter is that the Panama Canal was built by government engineers, because government doctors cured yellow fevers. It was run by a government corporation and it was constructed by government Army and Navy, the largest public works project in history at the time was it was set up.*

The underlying message of the above statement fits into the progressive economic message of Elizabeth Warren. However, this quote did not come from Elizabeth Warren. It came from a young Rep. Newt Gingrich, in 1983. Gingrich has previously acknowledged the benefits of government in certain cases.

*Via Congressional Record (daily ed.), November 3, 1983, H9200

Selling the American People Short

Here is an analysis of a position Governor Mitt Romney expressed in the New Hampshire debate on January 7, 2012.

The Republicans held their 629th debate last night in New Hampshire and, for the most part, it revealed nothing new about the candidates or their positions. OK, they are against gay marriage and they think Obama is a socialist. We get it. However there was a moment with the inevitable nominee, Mitt Romney, that was disturbing, if not revealing.

I find it amazing that we have troops in harm's way around the world - in Afghanistan right now, in Iraq the first three years of this president's term. He doesn't go on TV every month and talk to the American people about the sacrifice being made by these men and women. I find it extraordinary that a very few number of families are paying the price of freedom in America. The hurdle to actually putting our troops in harm's way is very, very high, and the test is America's interests. Our security interests. And they have to be involved in a very significant way to deploy our troops.

First of all, what president has ever gone on TV every month to talk about war? Only someone who is not paying attention, or is being deliberately dishonest, could accuse President Obama of not speaking up enough on behalf of the troops.

More importantly, how can Romney, who evaded the draft in his youth by going on a Mormon missionary trip that he spent in a palace in France, and took a couple of educational deferments to attend Brigham Young University and Harvard Business School, now grumble that too few families are "paying the price of freedom."

And what of Romney's family? He has five sons who were of age to serve in the military during the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, but here is how he described their contribution to freedom's cost during his 2008 campaign:

Romney: It's remarkable how we can show our support for our nation, and one of the ways my sons are showing support for our nation is helping to get me elected, because they think I'd be a great president. My son, Josh, bought the family Winnebago and has visited 99 counties, most of them with his three kids and his wife. And I respect that and respect all of those in the way they serve this great country.

So traveling around the United States in a custom painted luxury RV, touting their father for president, is somehow analogous to risking one's life in the harsh deserts and mountains of the Middle East? This is how the Romney boys sacrificed on behalf their country:

Yep. That's the "Five Brothers Mitt Mobile" and Mitt's boy Craig cavorting with dangerous cheerleading insurgents.

For Romney to complain that "a very few number of families are paying the price of freedom," is extraordinarily callous and hypocritical considering that his own family is conspicuously welching on the debt. It exemplifies the aloofness and privilege of a multimillionaire who clearly regards himself as superior to the masses. This soundbite from last night's debate should get extra attention because it appears to be one of the only positions that Romney has held consistently for several years.

Romney doesn't seem to know anything about "paying the price of freedom in America. Maybe he thinks he can just buy freedom. He could be wrong!

Maple Syrup and Climate Change

Mother Jones reports on the unreported story of the warming effect of climate change on maple trees. This is the story of a "maple farmer, retired teacher, and citizen-scientist who is documenting and publicizing the declining state of maple trees in New Hampshire."

For many of us, climate change is an abstract topic, as tedious as a droning Al Gore lecture complete with wonky charts.

But not if you're a maple farmer in New England. The region has long provided a robust ecological niche for maple trees. But just a few decades of steadily warming weather has changed all that. Once-flourishing trees are shedding leaves too early in the season and producing sub-par sap.

Maple syrup—dark, minerally, its sweetness cut by a caramel edge—surely ranks among the great traditional foods on planet Earth. Climate change means we can no longer take it for granted. If current trends continue, maple syrup production could well be an historical memory by 2100.

In this video, Climate Desk's James West profiles Martha Carlson, a 65-five-year-old maple farmer, retired teacher, and citizen-scientist who is documenting and publicizing the declining state of maple trees in New Hampshire. "We need lots of citizens to observe nature," Carlson says at one point. I bet if we all opened our eyes like Carlson has, we'd find that climate change is affecting our own landscapes, too. And then maybe we'd be able to motivate our political class to actually do something about climate change.

Christie, a Class Act or a Clown?

EXETER, NH - JANUARY 08: Republican presidential candidate former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney (L) looks on as New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie speaks during a rally at Exeter High School on January 8, 2012 in Exeter, New Hampshire.With days to go before the New Hampshire primary, Mitt Romney is making a final campaign swing through the state. (Photo by Justin Sullivan/Getty Images) Photo by Justin Sullivan/Getty Images

New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie was heckled at a Mitt Romney rally in New Hampshire where he was speaking on Sunday, January 8th, 2012. His response to the women who were shouting out to Christie falls within the bathroom humor category of an intolerant, misogynistic, arrogant clown. I do want to apologize to all clowns who do not fall within this category.

On Sunday, Jan. 8., New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie was speaking at a Romney for President rally in New Hampshire when he was interrupted by some female hecklers. It’s difficult to make out exactly what Christie’s critics were yelling, but it’s something to do with jobs going down. Ever the class act, Christie’s response: “You know, something may be going down tonight, but it ain’t going to be jobs, sweetheart.” He then goes on to insult the women by saying that if they were from Jersey, they wouldn’t be so silly as to think that his policies don’t support job creation. (That’s the way to win New Hampshire voters for Romney at the upcoming primary: insult them by saying that Jersey voters are smarter!)

The video, which does not make Christie look great, wasn’t some hidden-camera “gotcha” depicting a private moment, a la the 2006 “macaca” video that may have cost George Allen his Senate seat. Rather, it was uploaded to the New Jersey GOP’s YouTube account. They seem to think his remark about “going down” is a zinger, something to be proud of, rather than recognizing it as flagrantly demeaning, even misogynistic. How would Christie have responded to male protesters saying the same thing? Probably not by changing the subject to what acts they perform in the bedroom. His handlers should be apologizing for the remark, not promoting it.

It is difficult to hear the exact words of the women who are yelling something about Christie and jobs....possibly that 'Christie kills jobs.' But no matter what they are saying, Governor Romney is seen smiling in the background as Christie yells back his not so subtle sexual innuendo about oral sex. Real class act! Gee maybe Christie's not a clown, just a buffoon!

Santorum Also Means Hypocrite!

Will Bunch says the media has focused on recent events involving Rick Santorum, but there is more to know about this guy. Bunch has succinctly assembled a "Pennsylvanian's brief guide to the Rick Santorum you don't know."

You've probably heard all the good ones about GOP presidential hopeful Rick Santorum by now. The one about his "Google problem." The one about the "man-on-dog sex" (prompting the greatest journalistic response ever, when the reporter told Santorum that he was "sort of freaking me out.") The one about how the Catholic Church's priest sex abuse scandal was caused by Boston liberalism, or the one about how President Obama should be anti-abortion because he's black and abortion is like slavery. And so on and so forth.

That's the Rick Santorum that America has come to know over the last 15 years or so -- an unapologetic and almost goofy culture warrior whose obsessions -- like thinking that gay sex is a gateway drug to bestiality -- make him a hero to social conservatives and often a laughing stock to most everyone else. Santorum's rise in the 2012 presidential race has people talking about whether his views on social issues -- talk of annulling gay marriages, seemingly questioning the right to even birth control -- make him too extreme to be president -- and that's an important topic to discuss.

But I also think Santorum's weird sexual bluster can obscure who he really is, and what truly matters about his suddenly surging campaign. As a Philadelphia-based political reporter, I arrived in town just seven months after Santorum became my state's junior senator. I followed his 12 years on the Washington political stage closely, and I think people obsessing on the "man-on-dog" stuff are missing the bigger picture. For one thing, the self-styled "family values" expert has a surprisingly ambiguous record with his own personal ethics. Also, Santorum's legislative record shows that his real workaday agenda was not so much waging culture wars as protecting the interests of the 1 percent, the millionaires and billionaires who funded the modern Republican Party. You could say that Rick Santorum is just another politician. But that would be giving him too much credit.

Here's a Pennsylvanian's brief guide to the Rick Santorum you don't know:

1. This compassionate Christian conservative founded a charity that was actually a bit of a scam. In 2001, following up on a faith-based urban charity initiative around the 2000 GOP convention in Philadelphia, Santorum launched a charitable foundation called the Operation Good Neighbor Foundation. While in its first few years the charity cut checks to community groups for $474,000, Operation Good Neighbor Foundation had actually raised more than $1 million, from donors who overlapped with Santorum's political fund raising. Where did the majority of the charity's money go? In salary and consulting fees to a network of politically connected lobbyists, aides and fundraisers, including rent and office payments to Santorum's finance director Rob Bickhart, later finance chair of the Republican National Committee. When I reported on Santorum's charity for The American Prospect in 2006, experts told me a responsible charity doles out at least 75 percent of its income in grants, and they were shocked to learn the figure for Operation Good Neighbor Fund was less than 36 percent. The charity -- which didn't register with the state of Pennsylvania as required under the law --- was finally disbanded in 2007.

2. Likewise, a so-called "leadership PAC" created by Santorum that was supposed to fund other Republicans instead seemed to mostly pay for the lifestyle of Santorum and those around him. My investigation of the America's Foundation PAC showed that only 18 percent of its money went to fund political candidates, less -- and typically far less -- than any other "leadership PACs." What America's Foundation did spend a lot on with what looked like everyday expenses, including 66 trips to the Starbucks in Santorum's then-hometown of Leesburg, Va., multiple fast-food outings and expenditures at Walmart, Target and Giant supermarkets. Campaign finance experts said the PAC's expenses -- paid for by donations from wealthy businessmen and lobbyists -- were "unconventional," at best and arguably not legal. Santorum also funded his large Leesburg "McMansion" with a $500,000 mortgage from a private bank run by a major campaign donor, in a program that was only supposed to be open to high-wealth investment clients in the trust, which Santorum was not, and closed to the general public.

3. Santorum was never above mingling his cultural crusades with the everyday work of raising political cash. In 2005, Santorum made headlines -- not all positive -- for visiting the deathbed of Terri Schiavo, the woman at the center of a national right-to-die controversy. What my Philadelphia Daily News colleague John Baer later exposed was that the real reason he was in the Tampa, Fla., area was to collect money at a $250,000 fundraiser organized by executives of Outback Steakhouses, a company that shared Santorum's passion for a low minimum wage for waitresses and other rank-and-file workers. Santorum's efforts were also aided by his unusual mode of travel: Wal-Mart's corporate jet. And he canceled a public meeting on Social Security reform "out of respect for the Schiavo family" even as the closed fundraisers went on.

4. Santorum didn't seem to be against government waste when it came to his family. During his years in the Senate, Santorum raised his family in northern Virginia and rarely if ever seemed to use the small house that he claimed as his legal residence, in a blue-collar Pittsburgh suburb called Penn Hills. So Pennsylvania voters were shocked when they found out the Penn Hills School District had paid out $72,000 for the home cyberschooling of five of Santorum's kids, hundreds of miles away in a different state. The cash-strapped district was unsuccessful in its efforts to get any of its money back from Santorum.

5. Washington's lobbyist culture -- Santorum was soaking in it. The ex-Pennsylvania senator spent much of his final years in government trying to downplay and defend his involvement in the so-called "K Street Project," an effort created by GOP uber-lobbyist and tax-cutting fanatic Grover Norquist and future felon and House majority whip Tom DeLay. By all accounts, Santorum was the Senate's "point man" on the K Street Project and he met with Norquist -- at least occasionally and perhaps frequently -- to discuss the effort to sure that Republicans were landing well-paying jobs in lobbying firms that were seeking to then access and influence other Republicans.

6. Santorum had no problem with big government if it was supporting his campaign contributors in Big Pharma. It's little wonder that Santorum ultimately supported Medicare Part D, a prescription drug plan for the elderly that has added hundreds of billions of dollars to the federal deficit and was drafted in such a way to best help pharmaceutical companies maximize profits from all the unbridled spending. When Santorum was defeated for a third term in 2006, an internal memo at the drug giant GlaxoSmithKline said his departure from Washington "creates a big hole that we need to fill."

7. The defender of family values was also slavish in his devotion to a large American corporate behemoth, Wal-Mart: In the wake of the report about Santorum's travel in the Wal-Mart corporate jet, I counted the many ways that Santorum had done the bidding of the world's largest retailer in the Senate, including battling to limit any increases in the minimum wage and seeking to make changes in overtime rules that would benefit the company and hurt its blue-collar workforce, tort reform to limit lawsuits against what is said to be the world's most-sued company, and changes in charitable giving laws and of course eliminating the estate tax that would benefit the billionaire heirs of Sam Walton.

8 . Santorum has frequently insisted that his political values are guided by his religious values, and that John F. Kennedy's famous 1960 speech describing a separation between the two had done "much harm" in America. But despite inviting such scrutiny, there's been little discussion of Santorum's ties to ultra-conservative movements within the Roman Catholic Church. Santorum's comments about JFK were made in Rome in 2002 when he spoke at a 100th birthday event for Jose Maria Escrivade Balaguer, founder of the secretive group within the church known as Opus Dei. Although Santorum says he is not a member of Opus Dei -- which has been criticized by some for alleged cult-like qualities and ties to ultra-conservative regimes around the world -- he did receive written permission to attend the ultra-conservative St. Catherine of Siena Church in Great Falls, Va., where Mass is still conducted in Latin and a long-time priest and many parishioners are members of Opus Dei, mingling with political conservatives like Supreme Court Justices Antonin Scalia and former FBI director Louis Freeh.

9. Santorum isn't above big government-funded boondoggles -- when they're linked to his allies and campaign contributors. Consider the type of project that the Tea Party loves to hate, a $750 million energy plant in Schuylkill County, Pa., that was to convert coal to liquids but needed massive subsidies. Santorum boasted of his rule in securing an $100 million federal loan for the project -- which had hired Pennsylvania's top Republican Party power broker of the 2000s, Bob Asher, as a lobbyist and paid him at least $900,000. Despite Santorum's efforts, the plant has not been built.

10. Santorum apparently believes in "an entitlement culture" when it comes for former politicians. After Tuesday night's virtual tie in the Iowa caucus, the Pennsylvanian spoke eloquently about his immigrant grandfather working for decades in the Pennsylvania coal fields and his massive hands; the grandson probably won't have that problem. Losing an election in 2006 allowed Santorum to become a poster child for how ex-pols quickly and easily cash in in America, as a lawyer-rainmaker and joining a "think tank" (that for a time was called America's Enemies) and as an analyst for the Fox News Channel and as a board member for Universal Health Services, an ethically challenged company where executives had supported his Senate campaigns. The New York Times' Gail Collins noted that Santorum had earned $970,000 in 2010 despite seeming sort of unemployed.

The real Rick Santorum is indeed a frothy mixture -- of self-interest, loose ethical standards, and careerism in a career that's been largely devoted not so much to the social causes about which he makes headlines as looking out for the interests of big corporations and the wealthiest 1 percent of Americans. It's a shame that more voters don't know that yet. That is the "Google problem" that Santorum actually deserves.

Rick Santorum has been a vocal advocate against many social issues including abortion, birth control, sexual freedom, gay marriage, gays in the military, evolution, global warming and unions. But time after time he has shown he is a hypocrite. In 1996, Santorum's wife, Karen, was pregnant. In her second trimester she became ill and was told that if labor was not induced, that she and the baby would more than likely die. The decision was made to induce labor, and "abort the fetus."

On the campaign trail Republican presidential candidate Rick Santorum is an anti-abortion extremist, arguing that abortion should be prohibited even in cases of rape and incest, even in cases when the mother’s life is in danger.

However, critics accuse Santorum of being a cruel abortion hypocrite, asking other women to take risks he and his wife chose to avoid.

Numerous sources report Santorum’s wife Karen had a second trimester abortion in October 1996. The Santorum’s, however, don’t like to describe it as an abortion. Instead, they call it a medically induced miscarriage. Yet for many, this is a distinction without a difference.

Recently when asked about exceptions for rape and incest Santorum said that any exception to a prohibition on abortion “would be taking a life - and I would advocate that any doctor who performs an abortion should be criminally charged for doing so."

In essence, Santorum is arguinging that the doctor(s) that saved the life of his wife should be criminally charged for doing so.

To be sure, the Santorums did not want to terminate Karen Santorum’s pregnancy in 1996. But they did, and Karen Santorum is still alive. Most people would agree the Santorums made the right decision. However, if presidential candidate Rick Santorum has his way, women in the future would not have the same life saving opportunity granted to Karen Santorum.

The decision that the Karen Santorum had to make was her decision and her choice. She was lucky that she had that choice. No one begrudges the decision she made, it is the hypocritical stand of her husband which is at issue.

"Rick Santorum is a Christian Right Wing zealot who is obsessed with violating our personal lives and privacy. He would restrict women, outlaw homosexuality, ban birth control, tell unmarried couples what they can and cannot do, would throw senior citizens into poverty, thinks Americans should suffer, and he would enter America into even more wars. He is a Bible obsessed buffoon who has no grasp on American history, believes the Bush policies are worth continuing, and to top it all off, he’s a hypocrite.

The Economic Reality of the War Machine

This video is based on a "Flashpoints" interview with Dennis Bernstein & Dave Lindorff.

The Upside Down World of Rick Santorum

When I was growing up, my parents wanted me to go to college. Actually there was no question whether or not I would attend college. Of course, I would. It was the way to attain knowledge, power and higher income. Some kids chose not to go to college and decided to work in factories, or find a trade to pursue. But back then, there were plenty of jobs and the industry was local.

Today, with a college degree, it is hard to find employment. Today, without a college degree, those factory jobs don't exist.

So what did Rick Santorum focus on recently when he was criticizing President Obama? Santorum was outraged that President Obama should want all children in America to go to college. That's right, Santorum thinks Obama's comments are not only an insult to Americans but shows hubris on the part of the President.

“I was so outraged at the President of the United States standing up and saying ‘Every child in America should go to college.’ Well, who are you? Who are you to say that ‘every child in America go’? I mean, the hubris of this president to think that he knows what’s best for you. I have seven kids. Maybe they’ll all go to college. But if one of my kids wants to go and be an auto mechanic, good for him. That’s a good paying job. Use your hands, use your mind.

This is the kind of snobbery that we see from those who think they know how to run our lives.

Rise up America. Defend your own freedoms. And overthrow these folks who think they know how to orchestrate every aspect of your life.”

It's kind of amusing, even hypocritical that Rick Santorum would say that, "This is the kind of snobbery that we see from those who think they know how to run our lives." Really Mr. Santorum? What about you, do you want to run my life? Oh, yes you do.

As an example of Santorum's control issues, here are several statements that prove how ignorant, fanatical, heartless, and dangerous Rick Santorum is.

“Suffering, if you’re a Christian, suffering is a part of life. And it’s not a bad thing, it is an essential thing in life … There are all different ways to suffer. One way to suffer is through lack of food and shelter and there’s another way to suffer which is lack of dignity and hope and there’s all sorts of ways that people suffer and it’s not just tangible, it’s also intangible and we have to consider both.”
~Rick Santorum, saying that Americans should suffer because suffering is good.

“I believe that any doctor that performs an abortion, I would advocate that any doctor that performs an abortion, should be criminally charged for doing so.”
~Rick Santorum, advocating for arresting doctors that provide crucial medical services to women.

“If the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual [gay] sex within your home, then you have the right to bigamy, you have the right to polygamy, you have the right to incest, you have the right to adultery. You have the right to anything. Does that undermine the fabric of our society? I would argue yes, it does. It all comes from, I would argue, this right to privacy that doesn’t exist in my opinion in the United States Constitution. In every society, the definition of marriage has not ever to my knowledge included homosexuality. That’s not to pick on homosexuality. It’s not, you know, man on child, man on dog, or whatever the case may be. It is one thing.”
~Rick Santorum, comparing homosexuality to bestiality, and saying that we don’t have the right to have consensual sex. He’s also saying we don’t have the right to privacy.

“One of the things I will talk about, that no president has talked about before, is I think the dangers of contraception in this country. It’s not okay. It’s a license to do things in a sexual realm that is counter to how things are supposed to be. [Sex] is supposed to be within marriage. It’s supposed to be for purposes that are yes, conjugal…but also procreative. That’s the perfect way that a sexual union should happen…This is special and it needs to be seen as special.”
~Rick Santorum, opposing contraception and frighteningly suggesting that he would make pre-marital sex illegal.

The chutzpah of Santorum thinking he can regulate my sexual preferences, practices or desires. Or that he can tell me what I can or can't do with my body, my life. If he wants to suffer, I say give it to him! "Rise up America. Defend your own freedoms. And overthrow these folks who think they know how to orchestrate every aspect of your life.”