Rewriting history, Pope Benedict claims Nazis
were atheists

MothersCross.jpg buckle.jpeg Prussia-Coat-of-Arms.png

Not that I claim to know more than Pope Benedict's first-person Nazi expertise, but his claim that Nazis were about atheism is somewhat bizarre:

The Pope used this speech to warn Britain about "aggressive forms of secularism" and "atheist extremism" in society. He recounted Britain's stand against the Nazis, then stated "As we reflect on the sobering lessons of the atheist extremism of the Twentieth Century."

In a few short sentences, Benedict threw down a gauntlet by linking the atrocities committed by Nazi Germany with atheism. While, to be fair to the Pope, the Nazis had no real love for Catholics, Nazi Germany was a religious state. The Nazis drew upon both Christianity and Pagan influences. Nazi paraphernelia proudly proclaimed Gott mit uns (God with us). Nazi propaganda routinely referred to political enemies as atheists as a means to vilify them, and Hitler himself is reported by at least one close aid to have confirmed his Catholicism late into the war.

Not only has the Pope bought into the lie that the Nazis were atheists, but apparently he has forgotten the history of an organization he was part of, both as a member of the Hitler Youth and as a member of an anti-aircraft gun crew.

Speaking the lie to the Pope's claim are the various Nazi artifacts with Christian iconography and messaging on them.

Perhaps the Pope should have talked about Stalin. After all, the Soviet Union was an atheist totalitarian regime. But perhaps Stalin did not suit the Pope's purpose for various unknown reasons.

Add to del.icio.us

Digg this

Post to Furl

Add to reddit

Add to myYahoo!

The smell of schadenfreude in the morning:
Christine O'Donnell sparks all-out right-wing civil war

Click here to view this media

One of the reasons the GOP has become the Party Of No is because conservatism is fundamentally a negative thing -- it's not so much for anything as it is against All Things Liberal. This is why right-wing pundits' chief skill is less in proposing or promoting things but in tearing things (and people) down.

This is never more evident than when they start turning on each other, as they have this week in the wake of Christine O'Donnell's GOP primary victory in Delaware. We've gotten a brilliant display of the viciousness of Republican infighting that just makes you want to pop a big batch of popcorn and pull up a chair to watch.

There's nothing more amusing, really, than seeing Michelle Malkin -- without a hint of irony -- viciously attack Karl Rove for his on-air criticism of O'Donnell's victory ... by calling it "vicious." And then to watch Rove furiously defend himself by making a very clear-cut case against O'Donnell's lack of ethics ... and then suggest that Republicans might want to steer away from someone who refuses to be held accountable. Of course, we all remember just how accountable Rove has been for his various near-criminal activities in the White House.

My absolute favorite read today, though, is Oliver Willis' compilation at Media Matters of the outbreak of hostilities around O'Donnell, particularly fomented by Mark Levin, who until he grew a beard was movement conservatism's version of George Costanza. Levin has been castigating everyone in sight who questioned O'Donnell, particularly the folks at the Weekly Standard. They've been firing back, which means that everyone's private opinion of Levin (he is reputedly one of the nastiest characters you'd ever have the misfortune to encounter in person) is now bubbling to the surface.

I dunno about you, but I've popped about a week's worth of popcorn for this. I'm skipping the butter, though.

UPDATE: Here's Rove this morning on Fox's America's Newsroom, backing down.

Click here to view this media

I guess the might of the Mighty Limbaugh is too much even for Karl Rove.

Add to del.icio.us

Digg this

Post to Furl

Add to reddit

Add to myYahoo!

NOM sent a messsage- just the wrong kind

I did a lot of writing on it before the election, but haven't done very much post-game on the[...]

Read The Full Article:
http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/OpenLeft-FrontPage/~3/9TzNcjU8uYs/nom-sent-a-messs
age-just-the-wrong-kind

Add to del.icio.us

Digg this

Post to Furl

Add to reddit

Add to myYahoo!

Elizabeth Warren will build new consumer
protection bureau

The details are a bit convoluted, as the Obama Administration seeks to avoid a hostile Wall Street-owned Senate. But by all indications, this is a good thing.

President Obama will announce this week that Elizabeth Warren, the Harvard Law School professor who first proposed the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, will be named to a special position reporting to both him and to the Treasury Department and tasked with heading the effort to get the new federal agency standing, a knowledgeable Democrat told ABC News.

Warren's title will be Assistant to the President & Special Adviser to the Secretary of the Treasury on the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.

Warren currently chairs the Congressional Oversight Panel of the Troubled Assets Relief Program and has been seen by many on the Left as a force for greater accountability and transparency, and a check against the forces in the Obama administration more closely allied with the financial sector. Many officials in that sector eye her warily as too anti-business.

More details:

The move allows her to act as an interim head of the CFPB and will enable her to begin setting up the agency immediately and prevent the GOP from filibustering her nomination. Warren could serve until President Barack Obama nominates a permanent director to serve the five-year term -- a nomination he's not required to make for some time. Obama also could nominate her as the permanent director in the near future, a prospect that has been discussed among top aides, according to a person familiar with White House deliberations. Warren formally will be named as a special adviser reporting directly to Obama, and serving in a similar capacity to Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, later this week.

Senator Chris Dodd has decided to exit the Senate as the asshole tool of an asshole Wall Street, and it's clear his marching orders are to oppose Warren at all costs.

Senate Banking Chairman Chris Dodd leaned on President Barack Obama on Thursday to appoint someone to permanently lead the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, arguing that Elizabeth Warren’s special advisory role does not go far enough.

“They need to send us a director though, a nominee, so the issue is no different today than it was yesterday,” the Connecticut Democrat said. “We need a nominee who can run the place. So I don’t know what their intentions are.”

Dodd, Wall Street, and Republicans fear that Warren will be too effective in building a consumer protection bureau that, you know, protects consumers. By all indications, this is a positive move by the White House, utilizing provisions in the law allowing for an interim head.

And note, we don't want her heading this board for the full five-year term. We'll want her back in Massachusetts in 2012 to take out accidental Republican Sen. Scott Brown and reclaiming that seat for a true progressive consumer champion. So the interim appointment is just about perfect.

Add to del.icio.us

Digg this

Post to Furl

Add to reddit

Add to myYahoo!

O'Donnell Campaign Accepted Contributions Without
A Treasurer, Despite Legal Requirements

Christine O'Donnell may have broken campaign finance regulations by operating for months at a time without a treasurer, experts say.

Her campaign committee, Friends of Christine O'Donnell, has seen three treasurers quit, and went more than a year without a designated treasurer.

Campaign committees are required by law to have a designated treasurer at all times in order to collect and spend money, according to experts. But, according to records filed with the Federal Elections Commission, she's gone through several periods with no treasurer at all, including one of more than a year.

"This is a very bad situation," said Brett Kappel, a campaign finance lawyer with Arent Fox in Washington, D.C. "It's illegal for a campaign committee to accept contributions or make expenditures unless there is a treasurer in office. ... The O'Donnell campaign reported raising and spending well over $100,000 in the first six months of 2010 alone."

The campaign did not respond to a request for comment.

Christian Hilland, a spokesman for the FEC, said the agency's Reports Analysis Division reviews candidate's reports to make sure they comply with regulations. If the reviewers find that a candidate has left something out, they can send a letter to the campaign requesting the info. In O'Donnell's case, the FEC sent two warnings about her lack of a treasurer.

But in the end, only the agency's commissioners can decide whether a candidate broke the law. Their investigations are not public.

One treasurer, Tim Koch, resigned in February 2009. Having failed to designate a new one, O'Donnell was warned by the FEC, and hired a new treasurer in April.

That treasurer, Susan Dixon, worked until June. In September, the FEC again warned O'Donnell that she needs a treasurer.

But O'Donnell didn't respond. And she went until August 2010 -- more than a year -- without notifying the FEC of a new treasurer. Instead, after skipping two required FEC reports, O'Donnell began signing them herself.

There's nothing that would prevent a candidate from being his or her own treasurer, according to Hilland, the spokesman for the FEC.

Not having a treasurer, however, breaks regulation. And if a candidate doesn't file an amended "statement of organization" designating someone as treasurer -- even if it's herself -- within 10 days, he or she could be breaking the rules, according to experts.

"Every political committee shall have a treasurer," FEC regulation reads. "No expenditure shall be made for or on behalf of a political committee without the authorization of its treasurer."

The law, known as the Federal Election Campaign Act, says much the same thing: "No contribution or expenditure shall be accepted or made by or on behalf of a political committee during any period in which the office of treasurer is vacant. "

The campaign took in $264,000 this election cycle up to Aug. 25. There was no designated treasurer from last June until Aug. 14 of this year, when Sandra Taylor notified the FEC she had taken over from O'Donnell.

Koch did not respond to a request for comment and Dixon declined to comment.

Another former treasurer, Jonathon Moseley, who worked for O'Donnell during her last Senate attempt in 2008, spoke with TPMmuckraker over the phone. Moseley, a criminal defense lawyer, said he still supports O'Donnell and only quit because it was understood that his position was temporary.

Campaign finance is "not my specialty. I went in there always intending to be a short-term, stop gap," he said.

[Ed. note: This post was edited after publication.]

Add to del.icio.us

Digg this

Post to Furl

Add to reddit

Add to myYahoo!

Vote for Rob Groce in this poll

***OFFICIAL BALLOT***
Which candidate should MoveOn endorse in the U.S. House race in the 1st District of South Carolina between Ben Frasier, Tim Scott and Robert Groce? Cast your vote today.


All summer long we've run a massive campaign to convince candidates to stand up against the corporate stranglehold on our democracy and fight for the Other 98% of us. Thanks to the incredible work of MoveOn members, that campaign has blown away this summer's goals.
In fact, more than 200 candidates and members of Congress, along with 500,000 individuals, have endorsed the Fight Washington Corruption pledge?our three-part blueprint to reverse the Supreme Court's Citizens United ruling, enact publicly-financed elections, and reduce the influence of lobbyists in Washington. Among the candidates where you live, only Robert Groce supported the Fight Washington Corruption pledge campaign. Ben Frasier and Tim Scott did not. Thanks in part to our work together, corporate lobbying and influence have become increasingly important themes in the election. Just last week, for example, The New York Times ran a front-page profile of Republican leader John Boehner focused on his links to corporate lobbyists.¹ And candidates like Paul Hodes in New Hampshire have come out with new plans to shut the revolving door between government and lobbying.²Meanwhile, though, the problem is only getting worse. In the wake of Citizens United, corporate interests are spending an astounding $400 million to buy the election for Republicans.³ Which is why our focus between now and November needs to be on supporting the candidates who've stood up against corporate influence and beating back the hostile corporate takeover of Congress!Throughout this campaign, MoveOn members have told candidates that support for the pledge would be a factor in MoveOn's endorsements this fall. But in the end, endorsement decisions are made by a vote of MoveOn members in the state or district, taking into account all the information about the race.So today, we need your help making an important decision: which candidate should MoveOn endorse in the U.S. House race in the 1st District of South Carolina between Ben Frasier, Tim Scott and Robert Groce? Please take a moment to vote now on MoveOn's endorsement in your area:http://pol.moveon.org/2010/e/exampleballot.html?id=23453-2979262-6ZeFnBx&t=2Voting ends at 11:59 p.m. tomorrow night. This ballot email is not transferable. If you want to encourage your friends who are MoveOn members to vote, encourage them to look for their personal MoveOn ballot email. You must be a resident of the 1st District of South Carolina and a MoveOn member prior to today to participate in the online endorsement vote.In races with two candidates, a two-thirds majority is needed to win our endorsement. In races with more than two candidates, the one who receives a majority of votes cast will win the endorsement. If no candidate meets our threshold, we won't endorse a candidate.The campaign around the Fight Washington Corruption pledge has shown how much of a difference we can all make when we work together. Now we need to turn that same energy to winning this election! That starts with choosing which candidates we will support on November 2nd?and to make the best decisions possible, we need your input. Click below to cast your vote:http://pol.moveon.org/2010/e/exampleballot.html?id=23453-2979262-6ZeFnBx&t=3
Thanks for all you do. ?Adam, Jeff, Duncan, Laura, Steven and the rest of the team

Sources:1. "A G.O.P. Leader Tightly Bound to Lobbyists," The New York Times, September 11, 2010
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=90358&id=23453-2979262-6ZeFnBx&t=42. "Hodes Announces Plan to Stop Washington Lobbyists' 'Revolving Door,'" press release, paulhodesforsenate.com, August 4, 2010
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=90357&id=23453-2979262-6ZeFnBx&t=53. "Conservative Groups Gearing Up To Spend $400 Million On Midterm Election," Think Progress, August 27, 2010
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=90215&id=23453-2979262-6ZeFnBx&t=6

Read The Full Article:
http://thepoliticsofjamiesanderson.blogspot.com/2010/09/vote-for-rob-groce-in-thi
s-poll.html

Add to del.icio.us

Digg this

Post to Furl

Add to reddit

Add to myYahoo!

O'Donnell Part Of Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy
Before It Was Cool

I don't recall a long-shot like Christine O'Donnell arriving on the national stage so unknown but with such a long record of public statements on such a variety of issues. This morning we put together a list of her top 10 quotes, and it's already[...]

Read The Full Article:
http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/Talking-Points-Memo/~3/466BftQXDFY/odonnell_was_pa
rt_of_the_vast_right-wing_conspirac.php

Add to del.icio.us

Digg this

Post to Furl

Add to reddit

Add to myYahoo!

McMahon Up Off The Mat

The Cook Political Report moves the Connecticut Senate race between Richard Blumenthal (D) and Linda McMahon (R) from "Lean Democrat" to "Toss Up." Linda McMahon - Richard Blumenthal - Connecticut - Cook Political Report - Politics[...]

Read The Full Article:
http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/Talking-Points-Memo/~3/YoqV27kXP24/mcmahon_up_off_
the_mat.php

Add to del.icio.us

Digg this

Post to Furl

Add to reddit

Add to myYahoo!

Just For Kicks

So Rush Limbaugh, a bear and a taxidermist walk into a bar ... or something like that. Rush Limbaugh - United States - Recreation - Outdoors - Taxidermists[...]

Read The Full Article:
http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/Talking-Points-Memo/~3/7oUQjOEUnhQ/just_for_kicks.
php

Add to del.icio.us

Digg this

Post to Furl

Add to reddit

Add to myYahoo!

Sarah Palin's Body Snatchers

It's the 1950s again when atomic anxiety had kids ducking under school desks as Joe McCarthy et al were stalking Washington for subversives plotting to steal our liberties while Hollywood cheese showed aliens in aluminum suits invading the planet to steal our minds.

Sarah Palin's remake of The Body Snatchers has opened to sour reviews from both sides of the aisle but with a boffo start at the box office as veteran observers wonder if it has the legs to last through November when Tea Party preview enthusiasts thin out and mass audiences have to be won over.

Say what you will about her as an auteur, however, Palin is following the path of classic masters of mass fear, from Orson Welles' radio invasion by Martians to the makers of "Frankenstein" and "Dracula," who could create scary images in the minds of millions during hard times.

Purists may carp at stylistic touches such as the tacky Palin clone in the Delaware scene and Jim DeMint as an unconvincing Igor, but her feat in instantly assembling a U. S. Senator in Alaska out of body parts is a dazzling hommage to the original monster makers.

In the 1950s, politics and movies were still separate branches of the culture, even as Washington headline hunters borrowed Hollywood star power for their public floggings. Palin can now cast her productions with unknowns--no need for Sandra Bullock and such.

As this current reality show unreels nationally, new generations may take some comfort in recalling that the 1950s madness ended abruptly with Eisenhower Republicans taking back their party and JFK urging Americans to "ask not what your country can do for you?-ask what you can do for your country."

But that was in a simpler time. In the age of 3-D, how long will we all be trapped in this new horror show?



Read The Full Article:
http://ajliebling.blogspot.com/2010/09/sarah-palins-body-snatchers.html

Add to del.icio.us

Digg this

Post to Furl

Add to reddit

Add to myYahoo!