AFA Fires Breitbart Columnist Austin Ruse Over "Shoot Liberal Professors" Comment 14MAR14

afr has fired austin ruse because of his comments on the network two days ago as reported below and my earlier post American Family Radio (aka Manson Family Radio) guest host calls for left-wing academics to be "taken out and shot" & American Family Association defends Rick Perry's porno past 12MAR14&23AUG11 http://bucknacktssordidtawdryblog.blogspot.com/2014/03/american-family-radio-aka-manson-family.html
One still has to question the claim to faith of the catholic family & human rights institute (c-fam) as long as they keep him on and so endorse his views. 

Two days ago while filling in on the American Family Association radio show of Sandy Rios, Breitbart columnist Austin Ruse declared that liberal college professors should all be "taken out and shot." Ruse then spent the next day engaging in Twitter flame wars with his detractors. Today Right Wing Watch reports that Ruse has been fired by American Family Radio, who posted a statement to their Facebook page: "The fill-in host on AFR who made those comments is no longer on the air with us and will not be filling in on AFR in the future." AFR has also deleted Ruse's shows from their archives. For his part, Ruse has deleted his Twitter account, saying on Facebook, "Due to leftist swarm, I've had to deactivate my twitter account." Ruse continues to be listed as a Breitbart contributor.

And yet Bryan Fischer remains.

RELATED: In addition to writing for Breitbart, Ruse is the head of C-FAM, the Catholic Family & Human Rights Institute, which is a member of the World Congress of Families, the coalition working with NOM and others to export anti-gay hatred to foreign counties. During a speech at CPAC 2012, Ruse denounced the United Nations for issuing a resolution against the gay death penalty.

Before Talking About Shooting College Professors, Austin Ruse Wanted To 'Take Out' Hillary Clinton

Submitted by Brian Tashman on Friday, 3/14/2014 2:50 pm

Perhaps we shouldn’t have been surprised that Catholic Family & Human Rights Institute head Austin Ruse wanted to have liberal and women’s studies professors “taken out and shot,” as he once called for the murder of Hillary Clinton.
Back in 2001, Catholics for Choice released a report [PDF] on Ruse and his lobbying efforts at the United Nations, especially his campaign against the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women and the Beijing Platform for Action, which he dubbed the work of “radical feminists.”
The report notes that in a 2000 address to the Cardinal Mindszenty Foundation, Ruse told a story about talking to a Catholic priest about killing Clinton: “Hillary [Clinton] is the ‘conquering queen’ at the United Nations…I was standing on the floor of the UN a couple of months ago, when she was thinking about running, and I was talking to a priest from the Holy See delegation and — I shouldn’t tell you this but he offered me guaranteed absolution if I just took her out — and not on a date.”
Catholics for Choice adds that Ruse sees his conflict with “radical feminists” in “terms of war and attacks and battles”:

Its values and the way in which it promotes them have a negative impact on international policy discourse, especially the efforts of NGOs and governments to work more closely for the development and implementation of public policies on social issues. Perhaps most disturbing is the warlike mindset that permeates [Catholic Family & Human Rights Institute’s] thinking and actions. It is of course very shocking that such a mindset should exist within the Holy See delegation, where, according to Ruse, a priest member of the delegation suggested to him that he should “take out” Hillary Rodham Clinton. It is hard to believe that a member of the Catholic clergy would even joke about such things, but why would Austin Ruse lie about such things?

…

Suggestions of this kind emerge when groups or individuals see value conflicts in absolutist terms; when they believe God is on their side. The values and ideas of the “other”—who is demonized—need to be crushed. Note how frequently and passionately Austin Ruse talks about this conflict in terms of war and attacks and battles:

My friends, we are in a war….this war is being fought exclusively in quiet and carpeted room at international fora in Rome, Istanbul, Cairo, Beijing, and Rio. I believe one day these place names should be recognized as battlefields just like Bunker Hill, Normandy and Khe San for they are the sites of major battles in this war…

…In the summer of 361 B.C., a Theban general gathered an army of 60,000 freemen, yeoman farmers, a democratic army of citizens…Their victory came almost all at once and their victory rocked the ancient world.

Long under attack by her enemies, the family seems now to be disintegrating all around us….I will focus on one institution with which I am most familiar, the United Nations, an institution that is increasingly at the forefront of the attack on the family.

It was a windowless office where UN negotiators held something called informals...It is the room where the battles are won and lost.

- See more at: http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/talking-about-shooting-college-professors-austin-ruse-wanted-take-out-hillary-clinton#sthash.RAJ4FUkm.dpuf

Before Talking About Shooting College Professors, Austin Ruse Wanted To 'Take Out' Hillary Clinton

Submitted by Brian Tashman on Friday, 3/14/2014 2:50 pm

Perhaps we shouldn’t have been surprised that Catholic Family & Human Rights Institute head Austin Ruse wanted to have liberal and women’s studies professors “taken out and shot,” as he once called for the murder of Hillary Clinton.
Back in 2001, Catholics for Choice released a report [PDF] on Ruse and his lobbying efforts at the United Nations, especially his campaign against the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women and the Beijing Platform for Action, which he dubbed the work of “radical feminists.”
The report notes that in a 2000 address to the Cardinal Mindszenty Foundation, Ruse told a story about talking to a Catholic priest about killing Clinton: “Hillary [Clinton] is the ‘conquering queen’ at the United Nations…I was standing on the floor of the UN a couple of months ago, when she was thinking about running, and I was talking to a priest from the Holy See delegation and — I shouldn’t tell you this but he offered me guaranteed absolution if I just took her out — and not on a date.”
Catholics for Choice adds that Ruse sees his conflict with “radical feminists” in “terms of war and attacks and battles”:

Its values and the way in which it promotes them have a negative impact on international policy discourse, especially the efforts of NGOs and governments to work more closely for the development and implementation of public policies on social issues. Perhaps most disturbing is the warlike mindset that permeates [Catholic Family & Human Rights Institute’s] thinking and actions. It is of course very shocking that such a mindset should exist within the Holy See delegation, where, according to Ruse, a priest member of the delegation suggested to him that he should “take out” Hillary Rodham Clinton. It is hard to believe that a member of the Catholic clergy would even joke about such things, but why would Austin Ruse lie about such things?

…

Suggestions of this kind emerge when groups or individuals see value conflicts in absolutist terms; when they believe God is on their side. The values and ideas of the “other”—who is demonized—need to be crushed. Note how frequently and passionately Austin Ruse talks about this conflict in terms of war and attacks and battles:

My friends, we are in a war….this war is being fought exclusively in quiet and carpeted room at international fora in Rome, Istanbul, Cairo, Beijing, and Rio. I believe one day these place names should be recognized as battlefields just like Bunker Hill, Normandy and Khe San for they are the sites of major battles in this war…

…In the summer of 361 B.C., a Theban general gathered an army of 60,000 freemen, yeoman farmers, a democratic army of citizens…Their victory came almost all at once and their victory rocked the ancient world.

Long under attack by her enemies, the family seems now to be disintegrating all around us….I will focus on one institution with which I am most familiar, the United Nations, an institution that is increasingly at the forefront of the attack on the family.

It was a windowless office where UN negotiators held something called informals...It is the room where the battles are won and lost.

- See more at: http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/talking-about-shooting-college-professors-austin-ruse-wanted-take-out-hillary-clinton#sthash.RAJ4FUkm.dpuf

Before Talking About Shooting College Professors, Austin Ruse Wanted To 'Take Out' Hillary Clinton

Submitted by Brian Tashman on Friday, 3/14/2014 2:50 pm

Perhaps we shouldn’t have been surprised that Catholic Family & Human Rights Institute head Austin Ruse wanted to have liberal and women’s studies professors “taken out and shot,” as he once called for the murder of Hillary Clinton.
Back in 2001, Catholics for Choice released a report [PDF] on Ruse and his lobbying efforts at the United Nations, especially his campaign against the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women and the Beijing Platform for Action, which he dubbed the work of “radical feminists.”
The report notes that in a 2000 address to the Cardinal Mindszenty Foundation, Ruse told a story about talking to a Catholic priest about killing Clinton: “Hillary [Clinton] is the ‘conquering queen’ at the United Nations…I was standing on the floor of the UN a couple of months ago, when she was thinking about running, and I was talking to a priest from the Holy See delegation and — I shouldn’t tell you this but he offered me guaranteed absolution if I just took her out — and not on a date.”
Catholics for Choice adds that Ruse sees his conflict with “radical feminists” in “terms of war and attacks and battles”:

Its values and the way in which it promotes them have a negative impact on international policy discourse, especially the efforts of NGOs and governments to work more closely for the development and implementation of public policies on social issues. Perhaps most disturbing is the warlike mindset that permeates [Catholic Family & Human Rights Institute’s] thinking and actions. It is of course very shocking that such a mindset should exist within the Holy See delegation, where, according to Ruse, a priest member of the delegation suggested to him that he should “take out” Hillary Rodham Clinton. It is hard to believe that a member of the Catholic clergy would even joke about such things, but why would Austin Ruse lie about such things?

…

Suggestions of this kind emerge when groups or individuals see value conflicts in absolutist terms; when they believe God is on their side. The values and ideas of the “other”—who is demonized—need to be crushed. Note how frequently and passionately Austin Ruse talks about this conflict in terms of war and attacks and battles:

My friends, we are in a war….this war is being fought exclusively in quiet and carpeted room at international fora in Rome, Istanbul, Cairo, Beijing, and Rio. I believe one day these place names should be recognized as battlefields just like Bunker Hill, Normandy and Khe San for they are the sites of major battles in this war…

…In the summer of 361 B.C., a Theban general gathered an army of 60,000 freemen, yeoman farmers, a democratic army of citizens…Their victory came almost all at once and their victory rocked the ancient world.

Long under attack by her enemies, the family seems now to be disintegrating all around us….I will focus on one institution with which I am most familiar, the United Nations, an institution that is increasingly at the forefront of the attack on the family.

It was a windowless office where UN negotiators held something called informals...It is the room where the battles are won and lost.

- See more at: http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/talking-about-shooting-college-professors-austin-ruse-wanted-take-out-hillary-clinton#sthash.RAJ4FUkm.dpuf

American Family Radio (aka Manson Family Radio) guest host calls for left-wing academics to be "taken out and shot" & American Family Association defends Rick Perry's porno past 12MAR14&23AUG11

SO this is what Christian radio is like? No wonder people are leaving the Church and doing their best to remain Christian and religious outside organized religion. After all, who wants to be exposed to, and have their children exposed to this kind of heresy and twisted perversion of their faith? 
Christian Dem in NC

If it were possible for American Family Radio to go too far, it did today.  This morning, regular morning drive-time host Sandy Rios was off, so Austin Ruse of the Catholic Family and Human Rights Institute served as guest host.  Ruse's organization is rabidly opposed to the United Nations.  For instance, when the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities came up for ratification by the Senate, Ruse blasted out an email claiming that the UN would use it as an excuse to take kids from their parents.  In part due to hysteria stirred up by Ruse and other wingers, the treaty came up six votes short of the 67 needed for ratification.  That should tell you all you need to know about Ruse and his outfit.
But today, Ruse went several miles off the deep end.  As many of you know, a freshman at Duke University recently revealed she's helping to pay her tuition by acting in porn films.  As degrading as that is, Ruse's reaction was even worse.  He claimed that this is evidence liberal academics should just be "taken out and shot."  No, this isn't snark--People for the American Way got a clip.

That is the nonsense that they teach in women’s studies at Duke University, this is where she learned this. The toxic stew of the modern university is gender studies, it’s “Sex Week,” they all have “Sex Week” and teaching people how to be sex-positive and overcome the patriarchy. My daughters go to a little private religious school and we pay an arm and a leg for it precisely to keep them away from all of this kind of nonsense. I do hope that they go to a Christian college or university and to keep them so far away from the hard left, human-hating people that run modern universities, who should all be taken out and shot.

This is unacceptable.  Period, full stop.  There is no way, no how that this sort of talk is protected speech.  There's a name for this kind of talk--incitement to violence.  The Wildmons need to pay for this, and pay dearly.  We need to demand that AFR apologize for this terroristic garbage being allowed on its airwaves, and I don't think it's out of line to complain to the FCC.  Check out a list of American Family Radio's licenses here if you want to file a complaint.

Thu Mar 13, 2014 at 5:38 AM PT: Several posters who are better versed than I am have said that Ruse's spew is protected speech--if barely.  There's nothing that says he can't be made to pay for this with his day job at Catholic Family and Human Rights Institute, though.  And there's nothing that says American Family Radio can't be called out for this.

Originally posted to Christian Dem in NC on Wed Mar 12, 2014 at 04:00 PM PDT.

Also republished by Street Prophets . 

American Family Association defends Rick Perry's porno past

by Kaili Joy Gray

You would think that the American Family Association—the Christian extremist hate group that is forever seeking to answer the question "Who would Jesus boycott?"—would have a problem with teabagger darling and Bible-thumper Rick Perry's past investment in porn distributor Movie Gallery, Inc. After all, AFA has been leading a boycott of the company for the past decade, for its "hard-core sex videos" that "poses a serious threat to our communities!”
But AFA was also a sponsor of Perry's prayer-a-thon earlier this month, which, to the untrained ear, sure sounds a little hypocritical.
Alas, and praise Jesus, the AFA has found a loophole and wants everyone to know there is absolutely no hypocrisy in supporting Perry while boycotting a company in which he'd invested thousands of dollars. Via Wonkette:

Mr. Perry had divested himself of Movie Galley stock long before its involvement in the sale of pornography was even on the AFA’s radar, and five years before AFA launched its public boycott.

Oh. Well, that explains everything, doesn't it? Obviously, it would be downright un-Christian of AFA to hold Perry's investment against him since it all happened before AFA was paying attention. And shame on the media for being so unfair to Perry!

Tim Wildmon, president of AFA, said, “The media has taken a grossly unfair and gratuitous shot at Gov. Perry. This represents sloppy reporting at its worst. A simple call to AFA could have clarified the timeline for anyone interested in reporting the objective truth. This is the ultimate non-story, and every media outlet that carried this slander owes the governor an apology.”

Yes, yes, I'm sure the collective media will be issuing its apology to Perry any minute now.

Originally posted to Kaili Joy Gray on Tue Aug 23, 2011 at 10:18 AM PDT.

Also republished by Daily Kos.

 http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/03/12/1284234/-American-Family-Radio-guest-host-calls-for-left-wing-academics-to-be-taken-out-and-shot?detail=email 

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/08/23/1009793/-American-Family-Association-defends-Rick-Perry-s-porno-past 

Reports: Gingrich's Ex-Wife Says He Wanted An 'Open Marriage' 19JAN12

newt gingrich(k) had an affair with this woman, the former marianne ginther, while married to his first wife. Seems she didn't mind him cheating when it was with her. These interviews only show the the hypocrisy of newt gingrich(k) and his 2nd and 3rd wives and the low class of people they are. How can the religious community in this country consider him for president, especially after the way they turned on Bill Clinton after his affair with monica lewinsky? One can only speculate their racist hatred of Pres Obama trumps their concern about family values. What a sad comment on the "evangelical" wing of the republican party in this country. From WikiLeaks, followed by the reports from NPR.......
Marriages and children
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newt_Gingrich  

Gingrich has been married three times. In 1962, he married Jackie Battley, his former high school geometry teacher, when he was 19 years old and she was 26.^[131][132] Gingrich and Battley have two daughters from their marriage: Kathy Gingrich Lubbers is president of Gingrich Communications,^[133] and Jackie Gingrich Cushman is an author, conservative columnist, and political commentator^[134] whose books include 5 Principles for a Successful Life, co-authored with Newt Gingrich.^[135]
In the spring of 1980, Gingrich left Battley after beginning an affair with Marianne Ginther.^[136][137] In 1984, Battley told The Washington Post that the divorce was a "complete surprise" to her. According to Battley, in September 1980, Gingrich and their children visited her while she was in the hospital, recovering from surgery, and Gingrich wanted to discuss the terms of their divorce.^[138] Gingrich has disputed that account.^[139] In 2011 their daughter, Jackie Gingrich Cushman, said that it was her mother who requested the divorce, that it happened prior to the hospital stay, and that Gingrich's visit was for the purpose of bringing the couple's children to see their mother, not to discuss the divorce.^[140] Although Gingrich's presidential campaign staff continued to insist in 2011 that his wife requested the divorce, court documents obtained by CNN from Carroll County, Georgia, indicated that Jackie had asked a judge to block the process stating that although "she has adequate and ample grounds for divorce... she does not desire one at this time [and] does not admit that this marriage is irretrievably broken.^[141]
According to L. H. Carter, Gingrich's campaign treasurer, Gingrich said of Battley: "She's not young enough or pretty enough to be the wife of the President. And besides, she has cancer."^[142][143] Gingrich has denied saying it. His supporters dismiss Carter as a disgruntled former aide who was miffed at not being asked to accompany Gingrich to Washington.^[144]
In 1981, six months after the divorce from Battley was final, Gingrich wed Marianne Ginther.^{[145][146][147][148]} In the mid-1990s, Gingrich began an affair with House of Representatives staffer Callista Bisek, who is 23 years his junior. They continued their affair during the Lewinsky scandal, when Gingrich became a leader of the investigation of President Clinton for perjury and obstruction of justice in connection with Clinton's alleged affairs.^[149] According to Ginther, his second wife, she declined to accept Gingrich's suggestion of an open marriage.^[150]
In 2000, Gingrich married Bisek shortly after his divorce from second wife Ginther was finalized. He and Callista currently live in McLean, Virginia.^[151]

Reports: Gingrich's Ex-Wife Says He Wanted An 'Open Marriage'

by Debra Rosenberg

Enlarge MARK WILSON/ASSOCIATED PRESS Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich and his then-wife, Marianne, leave their home on Tuesday, Jan. 7, 1997. At the time, Gingrich was in the midst of an investigation over congressional ethics violations.

If Newt Gingrich got a boost for his prospects in South Carolina on Thursday with rising poll numbers and an endorsement from rival Rick Perry, his second ex-wife, Marianne, seemed to be doing her best to dampen his prospects with an ill-timed interview on ABC's Nightline Thursday night.
In an excerpt released by ABC Thursday morning, Marianne tells Brian Ross that her ex lacks the moral character to be president. In what ABC says is her first television interview since the 1999 divorce, Marianne did not seem to hold back. As Brian Ross reports:

"In her most provocative comments, the ex-Mrs. Gingrich said Newt sought an 'open marriage' arrangement so he could have a mistress and a wife.
She said when Gingrich admitted to a six-year affair with a Congressional aide, he asked her if she would share him with the other woman, Callista, who is now married to Gingrich.
'And I just stared at him and he said, 'Callista doesn't care what I do," Marianne Gingrich told ABC News. 'He wanted an open marriage and I refused.'
Marianne described her 'shock' at Gingrich's behavior, including how she says she learned he conducted his affair with Callista 'in my bedroom in our apartment in Washington.'
 

The Washington Post reported similar details about an open marriage in its own interview with Marianne. She also told the newspaper about a family values speech Gingrich gave shortly after asking her for a divorce:

"'How could he ask me for a divorce on Monday and within 48 hours give a speech on family values and talk about how people treat people?' she said."

These sorts of disclosure seem unlikely to play well with socially conservative voters in South Carolina.
The second ex-Mrs. Gingrich has spoken out before. In August of 2010, she gave a long interview to Esquire.

"Back in the 1990s, she told a reporter she could end her husband's career with a single interview. She held her tongue all through the affair and the divorce and even through the annulment Gingrich requested from the Catholic Church two years later, trying to erase their shared past," Esquire reported then.

In that interview Marianne also seemed eager to point out the discrepancies between Gingrich's public and private lives:

"He could have been president. But when you try and change your history too much, and try and recolor it because you don't like the way it was or you want it to be different to prove something new ... you lose touch with who you really are. You lose your way," she told Esquire. "He believes that what he says in public and how he lives don't have to be connected," she says. "If you believe that, then yeah, you can run for president."

Over at Slate's XX factor, Jessica Grose questions whether the 11th-hour disclosures could actually generate sympathy for Gingrich:

"Marianne's interview may even have a positive effect on South Carolina voters. They may see her as a bitter woman who's just attempting revenge-by-network news, and this may galvanize their wavering support for Newt. They may not even believe whatever Marianne has to say."

That could be. In any case, the ABC excerpts surfaced in plenty of time to make their way into Thursday night's GOP debate at 8 p.m. ET on CNN.

Perry, Gingrich lose lawsuit to get on Virginia primary ballot 13JAN12

OH this is rich, especially the part about newt gingrich(k)'s campaign submitting 1500 signatures written by the same person!!!! This from the group getting America all worked up about voter fraud!!!! From the Washington Post.......

By Anita Kumar

RICHMOND — A federal judge denied a request Friday by four presidential candidates to add their names to Virginia’s Republican primary ballot.
Texas Gov. Rick Perry, former senator Rick Santorum (Pa.), former House speaker Newt Gingrich (Ga.) and former Utah governor Jon Huntsman Jr. failed to qualify for the ballot and sued the State Board of Elections and the state GOP.
U.S. District Judge John A. Gibney Jr. said the candidates should have challenged the qualification rules months ago when they realized that Virginia forbids out-of-state residents to collect signatures.
“Had the plaintiffs filed a timely suit, the court would likely have granted preliminary relief,” Gibney wrote in his ruling. “In essence, they played the game, lost, and then complained that the rules were unfair.’’
Gibney said he thought a provision requiring the candidates to use only state residents was unconstitutional, but none of the candidates had managed to collect the required 10,000 signatures. Only former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney and Rep. Ron Paul (Tex.) qualified for the Virginia ballot.
Virginia, an increasingly important swing state, will hold its primary on Super Tuesday, March 6.
Virginia’s ballot-access rules, in place for four decades, are considered the toughest in the nation. Candidates must collect 10,000 signatures, with at least 400 from each of the congressional districts, while some other states only require candidates to pay fees or sign forms.
State officials said Friday that they would not have time to reprint and mail absentee ballots by Jan. 21 in order to get them out 45 days before the primary as required by state and federal law. Changes would cost hundreds of thousands of dollars.
“We remain disappointed that more Republican candidates are not on our primary ballot,’’ said Pat Mullins, chairman of the Republican Party of Virginia.
Perry’s campaign told state election officials that it had submitted 11,911 signatures, but the lawsuit says 6,000 were submitted. Officials testified that an employee of the Utah firm hired to collect signatures went into a diabetic coma and was unable to either collect all the signatures or turn them in.
Gingrich’s campaign said it submitted 11,050 signatures. But the Virginia firm hired to collect signatures included 1,500 signatures that appeared to be signed by one person.
A poll released last month showed Gingrich with a slight lead over Romney among Virginia Republicans in the race for president. The Quinnipiac University poll showed Gingrich at 30 percent and Romney at 25 percent among Republican voters.
Santorum and Huntsman did not submit signatures and failed to qualify for the ballot. Officials testified Friday that Santorum’s campaign collected 8,000 but did not turn them in because campaign officials knew they fell short. Huntsman’s campaign officials said they did not want to pay $100,000 to a firm to collect the signatures.
Gov. Robert F. McDonnell (R) and legislative leaders said they would be open to looking at changing the ballot rules for future elections during this year’s General Assembly session.
“There are a lot more important issues,’’ said House Speaker William J. Howell (R-Stafford).
“If someone is running for president of the United States, the leader of the free world, you would think they would understand the requirements,’’ said Sen. Ryan T. McDougle (R-Hanover), chairman of the Senate Republican Caucus.
Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli II (R) had initially said he would push a bill to ensure that more Republican presidential candidates would appear on the state’s ballot this year, but he later backed off.
The Democratic Party of Virginia certified President Obama’s signatures. He was the only Democrat to qualify for the ballot, so the state will cancel the party’s primary.

In Post-Gadhafi Libya, Islamists Start To Rise 3JAN12 & Strength of Egyptian Islamists proves a test for Obama’s pro-democracy policy in the Middle East 5JAN12

AMERICAN government officials and politicians are expressing their concern about the rising influence and political power of conservative Islamist political parties Tunisia, Egypt, Libya, Yemen and possibly Syria. In reality their concern is not for the fate of democracy in these countries, nor for the human rights of their citizens, but for the state and profitability of American corporate interest and of the U.S. military-industrial complex, dependent on sales of tools of government repression and weapons of mass destruction to the region. Oil and war are the reasons for American concern, not freedom, democracy and human rights, and American support of the violent defeat of the revolution in Bahrain has shown these countries what the American governments interest really are.
One also has to compare the extreme right wing "religious" policies of some of the Islamist parties in these countries with the "religious" policies of some politicians in the U.S. Some of the gop / tea-baggers presidential candidates (ron paul) are supported by and adhere to the beliefs of the "christian" reconstructionist movement, which calls for the nation to be governed by strict "religious" laws that differ with the Islamic Salafist only in the name of their faith. The others (rick perry, newt gingrich, mitt romney, rick santorum) support and are supported by "religious" groups that limit the human rights of women and children and preach intolerance of other faiths, secularism and ethnic groups, the same as mainstream Islamist like the Muslim Brotherhood. Maybe we should be more concerned about the threat to our freedom, democracy and human rights from the extreme "religious" right here in America before worrying about "religious" extremist in the Arab world. Here are two interesting articles from NPR and the Washington Post....

by Lourdes Garcia-Navarro

Listen to the Story

Morning Edition

[7 min 51 sec]

 

Enlarge Sergey Ponomarev/AP A rebel fighter stands on a monument inside Moammar Gadhafi's main compound in Tripoli.

One year ago, protesters across the Arab world began to rise up against autocratic rulers, forcing several from power. These revolutions have led to the region's biggest upheaval in decades. It's still not clear how these seismic changes will play out, and so far, the results have been mixed. In a six-part series, NPR is taking a look at where the region stands today. In the second installment, NPR's Lourdes Garcia-Navarro reports on how Islamists in Libya, long suppressed during Moammar Gadhafi's 42-year rule, are now able to operate freely.
Kolo Street in Tripoli is unpaved, potholed and lined with crumbling concrete and mud brick homes. The residents here complain of decades of neglect under Moammar Gadhafi.
But now, after Libya's revolution, there's a sudden interest in their plight, and it's not coming from the transitional government.
On a recent day, a man answered questions about his family's situation from members of an Islamic charity that just started operating in the neighborhood. The group is promising to help him and the six members of his family with food and financial support.

More In This Series

Part 1: Turning Elections Into Democracy
Today: Islamists On The Rise
Part 3: Syria — A Looming Civil War?
Part 4: Bahrain — An Uprising Suppressed
Part 5: Turkey's Expanding Role
Part 6: The U.S. And The Arab Spring

One of the men, Shukry Jualy, who started the Helping Hands charity, says he is a Salafi Muslim — part of an ultra-conservative movement that exists in a number of Muslim countries.
While Jualy says his group has no political affiliation, Salafist parties have done well in neighboring Egypt's elections. Much of their support came through grass-roots community work that translated into votes.
Unlike in Egypt, though, Islamists in Libya are starting almost from scratch. Gadhafi was much more aggressive in stamping out Islamist influences in Libya. For example, his security forces arrested anyone with a long beard, a sign of Muslim piety. And attending the early morning prayers at mosques, a timeless ritual in most every Muslim country, was actually forbidden in Gadhafi's Libya.
But now that the dictator is gone, Islamist groups are wasting no time as they try to spread their influence.
'Rehabilitation' In Misrata
The men in this makeshift prison in Misrata are from all over Libya, captured in various battles, all purported to be Gadhafi fighters. At prayer time, they line up in a covered courtyard, kneeling and pressing their heads to the floor.
One of the striking things is that all of the men have uncut beards.
A prison guard calls the prison a "rehabilitation center." He says the men are required to pray five times a day and they are taught Islam.
Guard Haitham Mohammed says when the prisoners arrive, they have no idea how to read the Quran or how to be properly observant Muslims. The guards then begin teaching them, he says.

Timeline: The Major Events Of The Arab Spring

A look at the most important developments in the Arab world over the past year.

But what they are being taught is the Salafist strain, which the men who run the prison follow.
The prisoners say they are obligated to pray and leave their beards uncut, and they're forbidden to smoke. Anyone caught breaking the strict code is whipped.
Fattah Abdulsalam Dares runs this facility. Like many things in Libya these days, his appointment was haphazard. He had no prison guard experience. He's a businessman who became a rebel fighter and then took over the prison.
Dares' story is similar to that of many Islamists in Libya. Charming and voluble, he recounts how he was arrested and tortured under Gadhafi in the very same building he oversees as a prison now. His crime, he says, was simply sporting a long beard. Now, he encourages all of the prisoners to wear one.
"We Islamists want to show people our real face, not the evil one painted on us by the former regime," Dares says. We believe in charity and honesty, he says.
Islamists Becoming More Prominent
The Islamist message has resonated across the region in the wake of the Arab Spring.
"There's no doubt that this is the moment for Islamist politics and Islamist movements," says Samer Shehata, an assistant professor of Arab politics at Georgetown University.
Michael Hanna, a fellow at The Century Foundation, a progressive, nonpartisan think tank, adds that the decades of repression have actually helped push Islamist groups toward their strong position now.

There's no doubt that this is the moment for Islamist politics and Islamist movements.

- Samer Shehata, assistant professor of Arab politics at Georgetown University

"This is a reckoning that was a long time in coming," Hanna says. "The postponement of the integration of political Islam into the political process, and the opening up of democratic potential probably exacerbated the current situation."
Still, it's something that makes many in the West uneasy. In the case of Libya, the fear is that NATO's intervention will clear the way for hard-line Islamists to take power, as happened in Afghanistan in the 1990s after the Soviets were driven out.
Already, many of the most powerful Islamists in Libya have a complicated relationship with Western nations. Britain and America often colluded with Gadhafi's regime against Islamist militants in the wake of the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.
Among the most infamous cases is that of Abdul Hakim Belhaj, who headed the now defunct Libyan Islamic Fighting Group. It was deemed a terrorist organization with links to al-Qaida, though Belhaj has denied belonging to Osama bin Laden's global terrorist group. Belhaj is now the powerful head of the Tripoli Military Council.
In an interview with NPR, he told of his rendition back to Libya from Malaysia in 2004.
Belhaj is now suing the British government for what he says is its complicity in his kidnap and torture at Gadhafi's hands. Documents recently discovered seem to support his claim that Britain's MI6 organized his transfer back to Tripoli.
Belhaj now has political aspirations, and he's been in talks with other prominent Islamists since last April. He plans to start a political party, but infighting has delayed a formal announcement.
Divisions Among Islamists
There are many different kinds of Islamists in Libya, and there are deep divisions among them. The Libyan Muslim Brotherhood, which was initially slated to join the group, has now backed out.
Libya's Islamists are worried about their reception in a country with no history of political parties for 42 years and relentless propaganda by the Gadhafi regime against them. So, they have been trying to attract other groups to what they are branding a nationalist party and calling the National Assembly.
The party's manifesto, though, was written by one of the leading Islamist figures in Libya, Sheik Ali Sallabi.
In an extensive interview with NPR, Sallabi said the new party will be inclusive and independent in nature. While Islam and Sharia law will be the basis for any Libyan constitution, he says, he looks to models like Malaysia and Turkey instead of Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. He talks of a moderate Islam that is open to the outside and democratically minded.
It's a speech intended to ease concerns of critics in the West and in Libya. Recent polls show that while Libyans are pious and believe in Islam's role in society, they are extremely leery of Islamist parties.
"I think they are going to limit our freedom," says pharmacist Nouri Ghariyani. "Of course, we are Muslim but not Islamic. It is different; personally, I don't like them."
In many street interviews, people from all walks of life reiterated that fear.
And so Libya's Islamists are treading gingerly for now, waiting to see if, after 40 years under the shadow of a dictator, they can seize what seems to be their day.

More From This Series

 

The Arab Spring: One Year Later

Bahrain: The Revolution That Wasn't

After a crackdown, the government has promised reforms. But so far, little has changed.

The Arab Spring: One Year Later

Syrian Uprising Raises The Specter Of Sectarian War

Upheavals in Syria and elsewhere in the Middle East have left minorities feeling vulnerable.

The Arab Spring: One Year Later

In Post-Gadhafi Libya, Islamists Start To Rise

Moammar Gadhafi long suppressed Islamists; with his death, Islamists are now starting to organize.

Strength of Egyptian Islamists proves a test for Obama’s pro-democracy policy in the Middle East

 By Karen DeYoung and Leila Fadel
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/strength-of-egyptian-islamists-proves-a-test-for-obamas-pro-democracy-policy-in-the-middle-east/2012/01/05/gIQAbvDjdP_story.html 

The strong electoral showing of Islamist parties in Egypt has provided the first major test of the Obama administration’s pledge to support democratically elected governments in the Arab world, even when its preferred candidates lose.
U.S. officials described recent outreach to the Muslim Brotherhood, which appears destined to win the largest share of parliamentary seats, as a chance to put in practice policies President Obama first outlined nearly three years ago in a major speech proposing a new relationship of mutual respect with the Muslim world.
Last May, three months after Egyptian president Hosni Mubarak resigned in the face of massive public protests and U.S. abandonment, Obama reiterated the theme, while acknowledging that “not every country will follow our particular form of representative democracy, and there will be times when our short-term interests don’t align perfectly with our long-term vision for the region.”
For now, White House officials said they are taking the long-shunned Brotherhood at its word, accepting promises of respect for the rule of law and civil rights and waiting to see how it governs.
“We have . . . had some good reassurances from different interlocutors, and we will continue to seek those kinds of reassurances going forward,” State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland said Thursday.
A senior administration official, speaking on the condition of anonymity about the sensitive talks, said that U.S. interlocutors are “not just in a listening mode; we are actively making clear that we want to see an inclusive Egypt that respects women and minorities, as well as the importance of regional stability. We’re hearing the right things, but the proof will be in their actions.”
The top U.S. diplomat for the Middle East, who arrived in Cairo on Wednesday night, told a Cairo news conference that the United States has “no more important partner in the Arab world than Egypt.”
Assistant Secretary of State Jeffrey D. Feltman is expected to meet Friday and Saturday with Muslim Brotherhood leaders and other political figures. Those discussions are likely to be easier than the talks that began his four-day visit, with the current military-led government that replaced Mubarak.
Tensions between the two governments have been high since Egyptian security forces raided at least 10 pro-democracy civil society organizations, including three American groups, as part of a crackdown on dissent ahead of the crucial transition to elected governance.
The ruling military council had promised U.S. officials that the International Republican Institute, the National Democratic Institute and Freedom House — all Washington-based democracy-building groups that receive U.S. government funding — would be reopened and their confiscated equipment returned.
But the offices remain closed, and Egyptian government officials have publicly defended the raids and vowed to continue investigations into what they believe is illicit foreign funding.
After meeting with Foreign Minister Mohamed Kamal Amr, Feltman said he was “encouraged” that the organizations would be legally registered and allowed to operate.
U.S. influence with longstanding allies in the military will be further tested in the coming weeks, as civilian groups move to form a government they expect to take over sooner rather than later.
Although final results of the last round of elections this week are not yet known, “it’s clear now that the Muslim Brotherhood will have a very large plurality, over 40 percent, in parliament,” said Marwan Muasher, vice president for studies at the Washington-based Carnegie Endowment for International Peace and a former Jordanian foreign minister.
“One thing to watch is whether they will choose to have a coalition with the Salafists,” the radically conservative Islamists who have so far won a surprising 20 percent of the vote, Muasher said, “or with liberals” in the secular parties the United States had hoped would make a stronger electoral showing.
Some conservative Republicans, including a number of the current GOP presidential candidates, have denounced Obama’s Muslim outreach as indicative of what they call his international “apology” for the actions of previous administrations.
But Muasher and other experts on the region have described it as a pragmatic realization that “the option of not dealing with the Islamists is simply not there. You cannot say you’re not going to deal with them, because that would in effect be saying you’re not going to deal with a very large number of countries in the Middle East, including Egypt, Morocco and Tunisia,” where a moderate Islamist party in October won the region’s first democratic election following the Arab Spring uprisings.
That recognition, he said, also requires a more sophisticated understanding of divisions within the Islamic world. “People in the West think political Islam is either al-Qaeda or Hamas and Hezbollah,” Muasher said. “The overwhelming majority of political Islam in the region belongs to the Brotherhood, and the last time they carried arms was in the 1960s.”
Meanwhile, Feltman also met in Cairo with members of the Cairo-based Arab League to discuss continued unrest in Syria and brutal crackdowns on protesters by Syrian security forces.


Fadel reported from Cairo.

BILL MAHER: RICK PERRY IS DUMBER THAN SARAH PALIN

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!

10 Signs God Is Furious With the Right from ALTERNET 16SEP11

ENJOY!

Whatever disaster strikes, there's always an upside in religious rightland, always somebody to point the finger at with glee. Let's turn the tables.

 

Editor's note: the following is satire... for the most part.
Why is it that whenever disaster strikes, right-wing religious nuts seem to have all the fun? Some might say it's just because they're sadists, but they always seem to find the silver lining. 9/11? God's calling on America to repent! (No, not for it's foreign policy, you dummy!) Hurricane Katrina? It was that darned homosexual parade the organizers forgot to tell anyone about!
Whatever disaster strikes, there's always an up-side in religious rightland, always somebody to point the finger at with glee. How come they get all the fun?
So when the East Coast got a one-two punch last month, earthquake-hurricane within a few days of one another, it got me thinking. When another hurricane followed up afterward, it was more than I could bear. And so, I offer you a list of God's Top 10 Targets from a not-so-right-but-possibly-more-righteous point of view.
There are at least three different ways to approach this subject, and we have examples of all three. First is to identify specific target groups for repeated offenses—sinners who just won't mend their ways. Second is to identify geographic targets for specific offenses—sin city or state, as the case may be. Third is to identify specific individuals.
1. Republicans, for bearing false witness.
It's not just one of the Ten Commandments -- the Bible has repeated warnings against slander, false testimony and plain old lying. But Republicans apparently think that God was talking to somebody else—the exact opposite of their usual assumption—especially since Barack Obama arrived on the scene. Obama was born in Kenya, he is a Muslim, he's a socialist, a Marxist, a fascist, he hates white people (like his mom and his grandparents), he hangs out with terrorists. It goes on and on and on.
God has repeatedly told them not to act like this—yet they pay Him no mind. It's not just Obama, either. When it comes to science, things get just as bad, be it evolution, global warming, reproductive health, or gender orientation; when the science isn't on their side, the lying and slander take up the slack. It's not just that the science is against them, you see. Scientists are fraudsters; they are always conspiring against God and his people, according to some of the more whacked out types—like GOP senators, for example. God may have a great deal of patience, but when folks start trying to drag Him into the mix, that's when the earthquakes and hurricanes begin.
2. The Religious Right, for ignoring Jesus on the separation of church and state.
More than 1,600 years before John Locke and 1,700 years before Thomas Jefferson weighed in on the subject, Jesus said, “Render therefore unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s and unto God those things which are God’s.” (What's more, he said that, in part, as a way of opting out of a tax revolt!) But the Religious Right defiantly continues to oppose Him. God's been extremely patient with them over the years, but that patience has finally run out, as the most anti-separationist elements of the Religious Right—known as dominionists—have come increasingly to the fore. Some might say they're embarrassing Him personally. Others will say it's starting to get really dangerous. Whatever the reason, God's had enough.
3. The nativist right and the GOP, for a rash of anti-immigrant laws.
“Thou shalt neither vex a stranger, nor oppress him: for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt.” Exodus 22:21 could not be clearer—unless, of course, we switched from the King James Bible to the New International Version: “Do not mistreat an alien or oppress him, for you were aliens in Egypt.”
But for some in the GOP, them's fightin' words. All they can think about is disobeying God. They are positively possessed with the Satanic spirit of disobedience. It began with Arizona's SB-1070 last year. And while a number of states followed Arizona's lead with anti-immigrant laws of their own, the most notorious was Alabama, which faced "a historic outbreak of severe weather" in April.
The same day the law was signed, Alabama’s Episcopal, Methodist and Roman Catholic churches filed a separate lawsuit, claiming the law unconstitutionally interferes with their right of religious freedom. Church leaders said the law “will make it a crime to follow God’s command.” Among other things, the suit said, “The bishops have reason to fear that administering of religious sacraments, which are central to the Christian faith, to known undocumented persons may be criminalized under this law.”  If criminalizing Christian sacraments isn't inviting divine retribution, what is?
4. The predatory lending industry and all who enable them. 
There are numerous Bible passages condemning usury. Typical of these is Exodus 22:25: "If you lend money to one of my people among you who is needy, do not be like a moneylender; charge him no interest." Naturally, the whole of modern capitalism is built on ignoring a broad reading of this. But predatory lending is a particularly egregious form of defiance. It's proved rather costly to our country as well.
A Wall Street Journal article on December 31, 2007 reported that Ameriquest Mortgage and Countrywide Financial, two of the largest U.S. mortgage lenders, spent $20.5 million and $8.7 million respectively in political donations, campaign contributions, and lobbying activities between 2002 and 2006 in order to defeat anti-predatory lending legislation. Such practices contributed significantly to the financial crisis that plunged us into the Great Recession. But it seems that wasn't a clear enough lesson, especially since those who lobbied most intensely benefited most from the bailouts as well, according to an IMF study. So earthquakes and hurricanes are an old school, Old Testament way for God to make his point.
5. The GOP, for its contempt for the poor. 
For more than half a century, the GOP has attacked Democrats and liberals for their concern for the poor. At least since the 1980s, the neo-liberal wing of the Democratic Party has tried to distance themselves from the poor, and reposition the party as defenders of the middle class, instead. The GOP has responded with policies to impoverish the middle class as well, so that they can be safely demonized, too.
But the GOP's venom for all but the wealthy has reached new heights during the Great Recession. Not only should those who caused the crisis be taken care of while all others suffer—far too many national Democratic politicians seem to agree on that one—but a renewed rhetoric of contempt for the poor has emerged, in direct contradiction to what Jesus said, in Luke 6:20: “Blessed are you who are poor, for yours is the kingdom of God."
Increasingly, it seems, Republicans don't think poor people are even human. In January 2010, South Carolina Lt. Governor Andre Baurer (R) compared poor people to stray animals: He told an audience that his grandmother told him "as a small child to quit feeding stray animals. You know why? Because they breed." He compared this to government assistance, which he said is "facilitating the problem if you give an animal or a person ample food supply. They will reproduce, especially ones that don't think too much further than that. And so what you've got to do is you've got to curtail that type of behavior. They don't know any better." Then, in early August, Nebraska Attorney General Jon Bruning, the frontrunner for the GOP senate nomination, compared poor people to scavenging racoons. Talk like that is what causes earthquakes and hurricanes.
6. Privatized public utilities, for the worship of Mammon. 
Public utilities are natural monopolies, totally unsuited to private enterprise, since there is no competitive marketplace. This, of course, makes them perfect targets for monopoly capitalists—Mammon's greatest worshipers.
Against them, God struck a mighty blow. In Mansfield, Massachusetts, which has had its own municipal power service since 1903, electrical service was restored for most customers within 24 hours after Irene hit, even though 4,000 out of 9,500 households had lost power—quite unlike what happened to nearby communities served by a commercial outfit. According to a local report, the storm “uprooted old trees and knocked down utility lines all over town.”
“Unlike homes and businesses in Easton, Norton and Foxboro, however, local customers did not have to wait for National Grid to respond with crews or listen to a recording on the telephone.... [M]uch of Easton waited three days for power to return and areas of communities such as Foxboro are still in the dark.” According to another report, about Foxborough, “The outrage expressed... is similar to the movie Network in the scene where people flung open their windows and said, 'I'm as mad as hell, and I'm not going to take this anymore.'”
Then there are a couple of geographically specific targets:
7. Virginia. 
Virginia was the site of the earthquake's epicenter and the second state where Irene made landfall, so the state is a target-rich environment.
There's House Majority Leader Eric Cantor. On God's bulls-eye scale, the epicenter near Mineral, Virginia is in Cantor's district—a direct hit. And in budget negotiations this year, Cantor's contempt for the poor came through loud and clear. He's been the most aggressive congressional leader when it comes to budget-cutting and pushing the economy as hard as possible over the cliff. Then, after the earthquake hit, Cantor said any federal relief would have to be offset with spending cuts, and quipped, “Obviously, the problem is that people in Virginia don’t have earthquake insurance.” He reiterated his demand for offsetting cuts when Hurricane Irene hit shortly afterward—even though he voted against such a provision after Tropical Storm Gaston hit the Richmond area in 2004.
Then there's Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli. No way he escapes God's wrath. Cuccinelli's widely criticized witch-hunt against eminent climate scientist Michael Mann represents the most extreme right-wing attack on the mythical “climate-gate” scandal, which consisted primarily of scientists making snide remarks about ignoramuses like Cuccinelli. He's all wrapped up in sin of bearing false witness. Which is where Hurricane Irene comes in—although it surely doesn't help that Cuccinelli is suing to keep people sick, and has told Virginia's colleges and universities that they can't ban anti-gay discrimination.
And, of course, Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell has tried to have it both ways with God, as well as with the people of Virginia. On the one hand, all the way back in 1989, he wrote a Christian Reconstructionist M.A. thesis, “The Republican Party’s Vision for the Family: The Compelling Issue of the Decade” at the College of Law at Pat Robertson’s Regent University. McDonnell's authorship of the thesis came to light during his 2009 campaign for governor, but because the establishment is in deep denial about Dominionism in general, and Christian Reconstructionism in particular, the full weight of his thesis never really sunk in. On the other hand, McDonnell has tried very assiduously to walk away from that past, given that almost no one wants to admit to such extreme views. He's wobbled back and forth on a number of issues, but generally tried to strike a reasonable demeanor—in sharp contrast to Cuccinelli. But God doesn't like folks who run hot and cold, which is why McDonnell's a target, too.
Finally, just to be a wee bit bipartisan about it, we need to include Virginia's Democratic Senator Mark Warner in our list—though with a bit of twist. On the day of the earthquake, Warner was scheduled to speak at the Library of Congress Packard Campus for Audio Visual Conservation in Culpepper, Virginia. He arrived about 10 minutes after the quake, according to the local Star Exponent, which reported:

The building had been emptied of its staff and the approximate 75 people who came to hear Warner so the former governor talked from under a tree atop Mount Pony. 

“I was not going to mention the fact that one of the last times I was in Culpeper there was a tornado,” he said of an appearance years ago at CulpeperFest marked by wild weather. “If you don’t want me to come back, there’s an easier way to do this. If we start seeing frogs, it may be a sign of things to come,” he said. 

So it's not that God is angry with Warner, exactly. He just targets Warner for amusement, to see what he'll say next. And, of course, because he, too, represents Virginia, truly a state of sin.
8. North Carolina. 
Hurricane Irene could have barreled directly into South Carolina, but it delivered a stiff upper-cut to North Carolina instead. And why not? Governor Bev Perdue tried her darnedest to protect the state. She vetoed its draconian budget bill, only to see her veto over-ridden. It too was an attack on the poor -- the bill didn't just fail to balance spending cuts with tax increases, it actually let a temporary one-cent sales tax expire, along with some income taxes on high earners, while cutting $124 million in local education funding on top of $305 million cut in previous years. Perdue also vetoed a highly restrictive abortion law—one that, among other things, has a 24-hour waiting period, and force-feeds anti-abortion propaganda to women seeking an abortion—call it the “Bearing False Witness By Doctors Act.” But that veto was over-ridden as well—by a single vote in the state senate. So, really, God's hand was forced on this one. He had no choice but to strike North Carolina, and strike it hard.
Finally, there are two individual targets to consider:
9. Rick Perry.
While the one-two punch of the Virginia earthquake and Hurricane Irene were far removed from Texas Governor Rick Perry's stomping grounds, God had not forgotten Perry, but was merely preparing to toy with him. Perry, after all, had responded to a terrible drought in Texas not by implementing any long-term policy measures (which might make Texas better able to deal with the prospects of more severe droughts to come as global warming impacts increase), but by calling on Texans to pray.
Back in April, Perry proclaimed the "three-day period from Friday, April 22, 2011, to Sunday, April 24, 2011, as Days of Prayer for Rain in the State of Texas.” Since then, however, things have only gotten worse, as Timothy Egan noted in the NY Times “Opinionator” blog, "[A] rainless spring was followed by a rainless summer. July was the hottest month in recorded Texas history....Nearly all of Texas  is now in 'extreme or exceptional' drought, as classified by federal meteorologists, the worst in Texas history. Lakes have disappeared. Creeks are phantoms, the caked bottoms littered with rotting, dead fish.”
Somehow, though, it seemed like most folks outside of Texas had no idea of Perry's failed prayer initiative. That's where God came in, following up Irene with the tantalizing prospect of a Gulf of Mexico storm that would finally bring relief to the Longhorn state. But alas no. First Tropical Storm Jose petered out entirely, then Tropical Storm Lee turned to Louisiana instead. If you pray with Perry, you obviously take the Lord's name in vain. As one frustrated Texan wrote on Reddit, “Perry's prayer has been answered. The answer was 'No'.” God is making things perfectly clear, as Richard Nixon would say: If you want someone praying for America in the White House, Rick Perry is not your guy.
10 God.
Yes, it's true, God Himself was one of the main targets of God's wrath, particularly during the earthquake, which did remarkably little damage to the living. But, as Rob Kerby noted at BeliefNet, churches took some pretty hard hits:

“Churches seemed to bear the brunt of Tuesday’s 5.8 earthquake on the East Coast.

“Significant damage was reported to Washington, D.C.’s National Cathedral and St. Peter’s Catholic Church, historic St. Patrick’s Church near Baltimore, and two churches in Culpepper, Va., close to the epicenter — St. Stephen Episcopal Church and Culpepper Christian Assembly.” 

Okay, so maybe God's not self-flagellating. Maybe it's the tenants who are being targeted. But who's to say, really? And if the God's wrath biz is all about appropriating authority to cast blame around, then why not think really big, and proclaim God Himself to be the target? Pat Robertson & company have monopolized this gig for far too long. If the rest of us are to have any hope of catching up, we're got to make ourselves a splash. And what better way to make a splash than proclaiming that God is the target?

DNC Chair: Social Security Plans Of GOP Candidates Look Dicey After Stock Market Plunge & Stocks Close Sharply Down Amid Recession Fears 22SEP11

THE repiglicans and tea-baggers want to destroy Social Security. They are intent on fulfilling the goal of the extreme right wing and eliminating government agencies and programs so the federal government becomes, as expressed by grover norquist,  "small enough to fit in a bathtub".  The threat is real, and they have become bold enough to make their positions on Social Security known in print and in their debates. Woe to the nation if we fall for their lies and propaganda and then loose Social Security as we know it today...From HuffPost & NPR...
WASHINGTON -- The massive drop in the stock market Thursday afternoon provides an ominous, albeit politically inviting, backdrop for the Republican debate later in the night. A GOP field that has bashed the president for his economic stewardship has, as its freshest data point, a 390-point loss in the Dow Jones Industrial Average.
But the market volatility can cut both ways. In an interview with The Huffington Post just hours before the GOP candidates took center stage, Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, chairwoman of the Democratic National Committee, made the argument that the stock market fall exposed the political hazards of the Republican presidential field's broad call to privatize Social Security.
"What would my constituent's Social Security account look like if that were the law of the land after a day like today," asked the Florida representative. "That would have caused a lot of people that I represent to fall through the floor because there would be no safety net."
The wide appeal of Social Security rests largely on the perception that it is a stable social safety net. And Democrats in the past (most notably when President George W. Bush tried to privatize the program in 2005) have been successful in using the unpredictability of markets to undermine efforts to change Social Security.
This year's Republican presidential field is unique, however, in that one of its primary fault lines is whether a successful candidate needs to be restrained in his tone on entitlement reform. Mitt Romney, in particular, has gone so far as to call Rick Perry unelectable for insisting that Social Security is a "Ponzi scheme" based on a "monstrous lie."
"Mitt Romney is a wolf in sheep's clothing," Wasserman Schultz said when asked about the former Massachusetts governor's more moderate pitch. "He is trying to mask his true beliefs, which he has repeatedly said over the years, which is he believes in private accounts for Social Security. He believes in letting people invest their Social Security in the stock market."
Romney has, indeed, argued as much in the books he has written.

As for that unstable stock market, the DNC chairwoman did her best to downplay the stain it might leave on perceptions of the president's economic record.
"The backdrop is obviously unfortunate, but it is a day-to-day proposition," Wasserman Schultz said. "When it comes to the work we are doing under President Obama to continue to create jobs and get the economy turned around and pick up the pace of recovery, there are ups and downs. But my job is to, I think, show people where we have been and where we are now thanks to President Obama's policies. And if you look at that, it stacks up pretty well."

Stocks Close Sharply Down Amid Recession Fears

by NPR Staff and Wires

Enlarge Louis Lanzano/AP A trader works on the floor of the New York Stock Exchange on Thursday.

Stocks closed sharply lower Thursday after investors sold stocks with abandon, convinced that the U.S. and the world are headed for a new recession.
The Dow Jones industrial average fell as much as 527 points, the second consecutive plunge since the Federal Reserve announced a change in strategy for fighting the economic slowdown.
At the close of trading, the Dow was down 391.01 points, or 3.5 percent, at 10,733.83. The Standard & Poor's 500 index fell 37.18, or 3.2 percent, to 1,129.58. The Nasdaq composite fell 82.52, or 3.3 percent, to 2,455.67.
Nineteen stocks fell for every one that rose. Trading volume was high on the New York Stock Exchange, at 6.9 billion.
Oil and metals prices, which rely on economic demand, sank. Traders sought the safety of Treasury bonds.
One financial indicator after another shows that investors are losing hope that the economy can keep growing. Thursday's plunge comes a day after the Federal Reserve announced a change in strategy for fighting the economic slowdown but warned that it saw "significant downside risks to the economic outlook."
"Markets rely on confidence and certainty. Right now there is neither," said John Canally, an economic strategist at LPL Financial, an investment firm in Boston.
Economic news was bad around the world. A closely watched survey in Europe indicated a recession could be on the way there, and a manufacturing survey suggested a slowdown in China, which has been one of the hottest economies.
"The probability of going back into recession is higher now than at any point in the recovery," said Tim Quinlan, an economist at Wells Fargo. He put his odds of a recession at 35 percent, the highest yet.
Christine Lagarde, the head of the International Monetary Fund, said the world economy was "entering a dangerous phase." She told an annual meeting of the IMF and World Bank that nations need credible plans to get their debt under control.
On Thursday, investors looking for a safe place to put their money bought American government debt, which they see as less risky than stocks even as the nation wrestles with its long-term budget.
NPR's John Ydstie tells Melissa Block, host of All Things Considered, the market's reaction may be a judgment that the Fed's action isn't enough to ensure the U.S. doesn't slide back into recession.
"But the Fed's announcement to both buy longer-term U.S. debt and to buy U.S.-backed mortgage securities did certainly help to push long-term U.S. interest rates lower today," he said.
The interest rate on the 10-year bond, a benchmark for many mortgages, is 1.71 percent, a level last seen in the 1940s. Rates on the 30-year bond are now below 3 percent. Yields fall as investors buy bonds and send their prices higher.
The Fed, adopting a new strategy to try to get the U.S. economy going, announced Wednesday that it would shuffle $400 billion of its own holdings in hopes of reducing interest rates on long-term loans.
The central bank hopes that allowing people and businesses to borrow money more cheaply will encourage them to spend it throughout the economy, providing a lift that could turn it around.
The Fed statement troubled investors. It offered a bleak assessment of the future of the U.S. economy, saying it sees "significant downside risks to the economic outlook," including volatility in overseas markets.
"In financial markets, the thinking seems to be: If the Fed is worried, the rest of us ought to be really worried," said Brian Gendreau, senior investment strategist at Cetera Financial Group.
Economists say the Fed action may help, but probably not much. The only thing that will help is for people and businesses to start spending more money, said Uri Landesman, president of Platinum Partners, a hedge fund.
"Counting on the Fed to get us out of this is a mistake," he said.
Earlier Thursday, the Conference Board said its index of leading economic indicators rose 0.3 percent in August, the fourth consecutive increase. Still, the improvement in August wasn't broad-based and mostly stemmed from an improvement in financial conditions, such as low interest rates.
And the number of people applying for unemployment benefits fell last week, but the four-week average rose for the fifth straight week, the Labor Department said.
Weekly applications dropped by 9,000 to a seasonally adjusted 423,000. The four-week average, a less volatile figure, rose slightly to 421,000.
Applications typically need to fall below 375,000 to significantly lower the unemployment rate. They haven't been that low since February.
http://www.npr.org/2011/09/22/140713662/stocks-in-deep-slide-amid-recession-fears?sc=nl&cc=brk-20110922-1609

 

Rick Perry says the 2009 stimulus 'created zero jobs' 12SEP11

CHRISTIAN rick perry, r Texas, has no problem with lying to further his bid to be the repiglican / tea-bagger nominee for president. This from PolitiFact....

"The first round of stimulus ... it created zero jobs."

Rick Perry on Monday, September 12th, 2011 in the CNN/Tea Party Express debate

Rick Perry says the 2009 stimulus 'created zero jobs'

Share this story:

Texas Gov. Rick Perry criticized President Barack Obama's new jobs plan during a Republican presidential debate Sept. 12, 2011, saying his previous effort "created zero jobs."

WOLF BLITZER: "Gov. Perry, the president in his new plan has a lot of tax cuts, payroll tax cuts, middle-class tax cuts, tax credits for hiring veterans, tax credits for hiring long-term unemployed people. Are those things you would support?"

RICK PERRY: "And he's going to pay for them all with raising your taxes. That is the issue. He had $800 billion worth of stimulus in the first round of stimulus. It created zero jobs, $400-plus billion dollars in this package. And I can do the math on that one. Half of zero jobs is going to be zero jobs."
PolitiFact has regularly checked job claims about the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, so this one caught our ears.
Zero?
Republican Sen. Scott Brown of Massachusetts said in February 2010 that the stimulus bill "didn't create one new job." He earned a Pants on Fire.
Florida Republican Gov. Rick Scott said in September 2010 during his successful campaign for governor that the stimulus bill had "not created one private sector job." We smelled smoke. (We even found Billy Weston, a Florida Republican who personally credited the stimulus for his new job with a private Riviera Beach pharmaceutical manufacturer.)
So, what's the evidence?

The White House has posted on its stimulus website a listing of jobs funded by the stimulus, breaking it down by state and congressional district. Just for the quarter April 1 to June 20, 2011, the country had a reported 555,029 full-time equivalent jobs funded by the Recovery Act.

As our colleagues at PolitiFact Virginia have pointed out, in a report released March 18, 2011, the president’s Council of Economic Advisers estimated that between 2.5 million and 3.6 million jobs were created or saved by the stimulus through the fourth quarter of 2010.

Separately, the council’s report cited four independent analyses by the Congressional Budget Office and three private economic analysis companies. Here’s what the groups found:

• CBO: Between 1.3 million and 3.6 million jobs saved or created.

• IHS/Global Insight: 2.45 million jobs saved or created.

• Macroeconomic Advisers: 2.3 million jobs saved or created.

• Moody’s Economy.com: 2.5 million jobs saved or created.

Note the language "created or saved," which means not every one of those more than a million jobs count as "created," as Perry said.

But certainly more than zero. Ask Billy Weston.

Perry said "the first round of stimulus ... created zero jobs." We say Pants on Fire.

About this statement:

Published: Monday, September 12th, 2011 at 11:15 p.m.
Subjects: Economy, Jobs, Stimulus
Sources:
CQ Transcriptswire, "Republican presidential candidates participate in a CNN-Tea Party Express GOP Presidential Debate," Sept. 12, 2011 (subscribers only)

PolitiFact, "Obama says Congressional Budget Office found the economic stimulus has created up to 1.6 million jobs," Dec. 14, 2009 (Half True)

PolitiFact, "Obama says stimulus is responsible for 2 million jobs created or saved," February 17, 2010 (Half True)

PolitiFact, "Scott Brown says stimulus 'didn’t create one new job,'" February 18, 2010 (Pants on Fire)

PolitiFact Florida, "Rick Scott says the stimulus didn't create a single private sector job," Sept. 17, 2010 (Pants on Fire)

PolitiFact Virginia, "Cantor says stimulus 'failed to get people back to work,'" June 2, 2011 (False)

White House website on stimulus spending, accessed Sept. 12, 2011

Council of Economic Advisers, "The economic impact of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009," March 18, 2011

Written by: Becky Bowers
Researched by: Becky Bowers
Edited by: Bill Adair