Glenn Beck Preaches the Gospel of Rwanda's genocidal leaders in the 1990s

Glenn Beck Preaches the Gospel of Rwanda's genocidal leaders in the 1990s

Let's pause and give thanks to Glenn Beck.

No, seriously — because that's what he's due.

We owe this talk-show-host-turned-political-leader gratitude for using his televised keynote address to the Conservative Political Action Conference to so frankly outline what the conservative movement has become — and why it repulses so many Americans.

Coming days after an anti-tax terrorist kamikaze-attacked a government facility in Texas, and following Republicans like Sen. Scott Brown and Rep. Steve King expressing sympathy for that terrorist's grievances, Beck's homily stands as the moment's most forthright manifesto on the right's authoritarian objectives.

Beck began his speech posing as a libertarian against "big government." Notice that most Republican icons are now saying this, though not all resemble Beck — not all of them previously pushed the big-government Patriot Act or the even-bigger-government bank bailout.

From there, Beck worked up a drenching sweat, criticizing Theodore Roosevelt's notion that we should make sure the accumulation of wealth is "honorably obtained" and "represents benefit to the community."

His porcine complexion verging on crimson, Beck called that concept of "community" a "cancer" that "is not our founders' idea of America" — somehow forgetting the notions of community and solidarity inherent in the founders' "Join or Die" motto.

But ignorance, no matter how embarrassing, doesn't get in Beck's way. To wild applause, he labeled this alleged tumor of "community" the supposedly evil "progressivism" — and he told disciples to "eradicate it" from the nation.

The lesson was eminently clear, coming in no less than the keynote address to one of America's most important political conventions. Beck taught us that a once-principled conservative movement of reasoned activists has turned into a mob — one that does not engage in civilized battles of ideas. Instead, these torch-carriers, gun-brandishers and tea partiers follow an anti-government terrorist attack by cheering a demagogue's demand for the physical annihilation of those with whom he disagrees — namely anyone, but particularly progressives, who value "community."

No doubt, some conservatives will parse, insisting Beck was only endorsing the "eradication" of progressivism but not of progressives.
These same willful ignoramuses will also likely say that the Nazis' beef was with Judaism but not Jews, and that white supremacists dislike African-American culture but have no problem with black people. Other conservatives will surely depict Beck's "eradication" line as just the jest of a self-described "rodeo clown" — merely the "fusion of entertainment and enlightenment," as his radio motto intones. But if Beck is half as smart as he incessantly tells listeners he is, then he knows it's no joke.

In a melting-pot nation of slave descendants and immigrant refugees haunted by ancestral memories of despotic violence, Beck is deliberately employing coded and menacing language, warning his opponents not to believe Sinclair Lewis' refrain that such horror "can't happen here." Beck wants adversaries to know that it can and it will — to them, and at his movement's hands.

Really, the threat isn't even veiled. To understand it, just ponder comparisons. For instance, ask yourself: What is the difference between Beck's decree and that of Rwanda's genocidal leaders in the 1990s? The former broadcasted a call to "eradicate" the "cancer"-like progressives; the latter a call to "exterminate the cockroaches." Likewise, what separates Beck's screed from a bin Laden fatwa? They may employ different ideologies and languages, but both endorse the wholesale elimination of large groups of Americans.

And so we finally see tyranny's hideous image within our midst: It's not a tightly cropped mustache in a beige uniform; it's a clean-shaven baby face in a suit — a rodeo clown with a chalkboard who unfortunately speaks for modern-day conservatism.

We should thank him, at least, for admitting what his movement truly wants.

Demand that terrorist lover Sen. Richard Shelby (R-AL) resign -Shelby Dismisses The Adverse Effect Of His Holds On The Pentagon, Says He Has No Clue If Nominees Are Qualified

How Do Rational Americans Debate the Crazy Conservative Party

Conservative media revive "nuclear option" falsehood to accuse Democrats of reconciliation hypocrisy

Conservative media are pushing the falsehood that "the nuclear option" refers to the budget reconciliation process in order to accuse Democrats of hypocrisy for previously criticizing the nuclear option and now considering using reconciliation to pass health care reform. But Democratic criticism of a 2005 Republican proposal to change filibuster rules is in no way inconsistent with passing health care reform through reconciliation -- a process that has repeatedly been used to pass legislation, including major health care reform.
Conservative media spread Breitbart.tv video and message that Dems are hypocrites on "nuclear option"

Breitbart.tv headline: "Obama & Dems in '05: 51 Vote 'Nuclear Option' Is 'Arrogant' Power Grab Against the Founder's Intent." On February 24, Breitbart.tv posted video showing Democratic senators expressing opposition to a Republican proposal that would have eliminated use of the filibuster for judicial nominations. Text accompanying the video states, "Biden: 'I pray God when the Democrats take back control we don't make the kind of naked power grab you are doing.' "

Beck: "[T]hey all stood up and said this was such a bad idea." On his radio show, Glenn Beck played clips from the Breitbart.tv video and said of the possibility that Democrats might use reconciliation: "Why are they threatening this so much? Especially when they all stood up and said it was such a bad idea." [Premiere Radio Networks' The Glenn Beck Program, 2/24/10]

Limbaugh: Democrats were "against doing this precise thing back in 2005." On his radio show, Rush Limbaugh said of Democrats, "They are going to blow up the Senate rules, they are gonna nuke the Senate rules, in order to get health care through the Senate. They were all against doing this precise thing back in 2005 to confirm judges." [Premiere Radio Networks' The Rush Limbaugh Show, 2/24/10]

Drudge links to video. In red text above the site's logo, the Drudge Report echoed Breitbart's headline and linked to the video (click on image to enlarge):

Drudge headline

Fox Nation embeds video. The front page of the Fox News website Fox Nation featured a headline on its front page reading "Video Flashback: Dems Howl with Rage Over Nuclear Option":

Fox Nation headline

The headline linked to a Fox Nation page on which the Breitbart.tv video was embedded.

HotAir: "Video: God doesn't listen to Joe Biden." HotAir.com blogger Ed Morrissey wrote in a February 24 post, "Or maybe God just figured that Joe Biden wasn't terribly serious about this 2005 prayer, unearthed by Breitbart TV and Naked Emperor News today." Morrissey also embedded the video in the post.

Townhall.com: "Flashback: Obama, Dems Call 50-Vote Nuclear Option 'Arrogant' Power Grab." In a February 24 post that also contained the video, Townhall.com blogger Meredith Jessup wrote, "With rumors Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid might try to force a nuclear option vote on Obama's health care plan, this video is especially poignant today."
"Nuclear option" was coined by GOP to describe a process to change Senate filibuster rules

Lott described proposal to change filibuster rules as "nuclear option." The term "nuclear option" was coined by former Sen. Trent Lott (R-MS), one of the leading advocates of the proposal to change the Senate rules on filibusters for judicial nominations. After Republican strategists deemed the term a political liability, Republican senators began to attribute it to Democrats. As Media Matters for America noted, at the time, many in the news media followed suit, repeating the Republicans' false attribution of the term to the Democrats.
Reconciliation is already part of Senate procedure, and Republicans have used it repeatedly

Reconciliation process is part of congressional budget process. The budget reconciliation process is defined by the U.S. House Committee on Rules as "part of the congressional budget process ... utilized when Congress issues directives to legislate policy changes in mandatory spending (entitlements) or revenue programs (tax laws) to achieve the goals in spending and revenue contemplated by the budget resolution."

Brietbart was one of the major pushers of the total falsehoods about ACORN. He had a choice to make between being honorable and being a sleaze-bag. Breitbart decided to be a sleaze. Typical conservative.

Hannity Distorts Jimmy Carter’s Words To Claim He Objected To Being Compared To Obama. Sean Hannity thinks journalistic integrity is something Republican hate mongers should use to blow their nose. Republicans constantly complain about being described as dumb. Hannity seems determined to make that description stick.

Redistributing Wealth - Republicans Guide the Way

What George W. Bush didn't want you to know about the wealthiest 400 Americans

I can't say that I was surprised to learn, from a new report by former New York Times tax reporter David Cay Johnston, that "the incomes of the top 400 American households soared to a new record high... in 2007, while the income tax rates they paid fell to a record low..."

Nor was I shocked to learn that those 400 taxpayers, who boasted an average income of $344.8 million, paid an effective tax rate of 16.2 percent, which is "lower than the typical effective income tax rate paid by Americans with incomes in the low six figures."

This is America, right? We've come to expect shocking statistics on income inequality. They're practically our birth right.

But then came the kicker:

The annual top 400 report was first made public by the Clinton administration, but the George W. Bush administration shut down access to the report. Its release was resumed a year ago when President Obama took office.

A new IRS report on the richest 400 taxpayers shows their income rose an average of $81 million -- in a single year

Before angry voters restore Republicans to power -- in the name of "tea party populism" -- perhaps they should consider just how well right-wing rule worked out for them during the past decade. Last fall a Census Bureau study found that real median household income had declined from $52,500 in 2000, the last year that Bill Clinton was president, to $50,303 in 2008, George W. Bush's final year -- a period during which Republicans dominated Congress as well. Millions of those median households lost their health insurance (and, since the onset of the Great Recession, many of those same families have lost jobs as well).

So most of those middle-class Americans who flock to the tea party demonstrations were big losers during the Bush era. So who were the winners? According to David Cay Johnston, America's premier tax journalist, newly released IRS data shows that the country's very wealthiest citizens -- the top 400 -- marked enormous income gains while paying less and less in taxes. For purposes of comparison, Johnston notes that the bottom 90 percent of Americans saw their incomes rise by only 13 percent in 2009 dollars, compared with a 399 percent increase for the top 400.

In a single year, between 2006 and 2007, the income of those top 400 taxpayers rose by 31 percent -- from an average of $263.3 million to an average of $344.8 million per year.

None of us should begrudge wealth per se. Earned wealth anyway. As Lincoln once said all wealth starts and ends with labor. Wealth, in other words is not possible except by way of the labor of average Americans. Average Americans who work hard, yet reap a small percentage of the rewards. Next time you speak to a Republican or Conservative Democrat be sure and thank them for heaping huge rewards on the people that work the least. Do we have socialism in America? You betcha - we redistribute wealth to an already rich collective.

Conservatives - The Culture of Corruption and UnAmerican Spin

IPCC errors: facts and spin

Sea level in the Netherlands: The WG2 report states that “The Netherlands is an example of a country highly susceptible to both sea-level rise and river flooding because 55% of its territory is below sea level”. This sentence was provided by a Dutch government agency – the Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency, which has now published a correction stating that the sentence should have read “55 per cent of the Netherlands is at risk of flooding; 26 per cent of the country is below sea level, and 29 per cent is susceptible to river flooding”. It surely will go down as one of the more ironic episodes in its history when the Dutch parliament last Monday derided the IPCC, in a heated debate, for printing information provided by … the Dutch government. In addition, the IPCC notes that there are several definitions of the area below sea level. The Dutch Ministry of Transport uses the figure 60% (below high water level during storms), while others use 30% (below mean sea level). Needless to say, the actual number mentioned in the report has no bearing on any IPCC conclusions and has nothing to do with climate science, and it is questionable whether it should even be counted as an IPCC error.


The one error in the IPCC report was discovered by who? That's right a climate scoentist with the IPCC.

Clearly, Fox News is on the side of terrorists. Why else would they constantly tell their viewers and terrorists the U.S. is is vulnerable and weak.

TOP TALIBAN MILITARY COMMANDER CAPTURED.... Even the most rabid Republican partisans should find it difficult to disparage a success story of this magnitude.

Warm temperatures, low snowpack may spell trouble during El Niño year

Marvel Comics actually took it easy on the jack-booted fascist movement know as the tea baggers.

Silly Myths -The Media is Liberal

The Lobbying-Media Complex
By Sebastian Jones

As Ridge counseled the administration to "put that package together," he sure seemed like an objective commentator. But what viewers weren't told was that since 2005, Ridge has pocketed $530,659 in executive compensation for serving on the board of Exelon, the nation's largest nuclear power company. As of March 2009, he also held an estimated $248,299 in Exelon stock, according to SEC filings.

Moments earlier, retired general and "NBC Military Analyst" Barry McCaffrey told viewers that the war in Afghanistan would require an additional "three- to ten-year effort" and "a lot of money." Unmentioned was the fact that DynCorp paid McCaffrey $182,309 in 2009 alone. The government had just granted DynCorp a five-year deal worth an estimated $5.9 billion to aid American forces in Afghanistan. The first year is locked in at $644 million, but the additional four options are subject to renewal, contingent on military needs and political realities.

In a single hour, two men with blatant, undisclosed conflicts of interest had appeared on MSNBC. The question is, was this an isolated oversight or business as usual? Evidence points to the latter. In 2003 The Nation exposed McCaffrey's financial ties to military contractors he had promoted on-air on several cable networks; in 2008 David Barstow wrote a Pulitzer Prize-winning series for the New York Times about the Pentagon's use of former military officers--many lobbying or consulting for military contractors--to get their talking points on television in exchange for access to decision-makers; and in 2009 bloggers uncovered how ex-Newsweek writer Richard Wolffe had guest-hosted Countdown With Keith Olbermann while working at a large PR firm specializing in "strategies for managing corporate reputation."

These incidents represent only a fraction of the covert corporate influence peddling on cable news, a four-month investigation by The Nation has found. Since 2007 at least seventy-five registered lobbyists, public relations representatives and corporate officials--people paid by companies and trade groups to manage their public image and promote their financial and political interests--have appeared on MSNBC, Fox News, CNN, CNBC and Fox Business Network with no disclosure of the corporate interests that had paid them. Many have been regulars on more than one of the cable networks, turning in dozens--and in some cases hundreds--of appearances.

For lobbyists, PR firms and corporate officials, going on cable television is a chance to promote clients and their interests on the most widely cited source of news in the United States.

Big Government and Andrew Breitbart are supposed to be the answer to so-called liberal media. They both seem to have ethics problems, Hannah Giles, James O’Keefe, BigGovernment.com and Andrew Breitbart all partners in framing ACORN

Marvel backs down to Tea Party activists over Captain America comic depicting a right-wing protest.

In Captain America issue 602, the patriotic hero is investigating a right-wing anti-government militia group called “the Watchdogs.” Hoping to infiltrate the group, Captain America and his African-American sidekick, The Falcon, observe an all-white anti-tax protest from a rooftop. The Falcon tells Captain America, “I don’t exactly see a black man from Harlem fitting in with a bunch of angry white folks.” Captain America explains “that his plan entails sending The Falcon in among the group posing as an IRS agent under the thinking that a black government official will most certainly spark their anger.” The signs the protesters are carrying are “almost identical to those seen today in Tea Party rallies”

There was no need for Marvel to apologize - the signs at tea bagger events range from the rabidly unhinged to the just plain old conservative crazy.

Rule One - When Republicans Look Like Fools They Spin Like Crazy

House GOP document: We won showdown with President Obama

House Republicans won their televised debate with President Barack Obama last month, according to a GOP document distributed to lawmakers on Thursday.

The document, obtained by The Hill, notes that Obama’s job approval ratings have dipped since the Jan. 29 meeting while Republican numbers have soared.

Obama traveled to Baltimore to attend the House Republican retreat and engaged in testy exchanges with several members. Many political observers said Obama came away victorious.

Conservatives can spin better than any top, but they lost on the facts. Facts and logic have always been the enemy of America's fascist-lite Republican Party, Fact-checking Obama and Republicans at GOP retreat

President Obama takes questions at a retreat for House Republicans

President Barack Obama's meeting with congressional Republicans in Baltimore on Friday provided a remarkable glimpse into relations between the president and the GOP.

Republicans complained that Obama and the Democratic leadership hadn't taken a serious look at their policy proposals. Obama complained that Republicans were often more focused on scoring political points than in solving problems.

Obama challenged their facts and, during an exchange with Rep. Jeb Hensarling, said, "I am happy to have any independent fact-checker out there take a look at your presentation versus mine in terms of the accuracy of what I just said."

We accept.

We've examined these claims:

• Rep. Jeb Hensarling did some extreme cherry-picking to suggest that deficits have ballooned under Obama. But using the Hensarling technique, you could also say they were bigger under President George W. Bush. Hensarling earns a False.

• Rep. Tom Price complained that Obama and his aides have repeatedly said that Republicans "have no ideas and no solutions" on health care. We rated that True.

• Obama again cited numbers to complain that he inherited a budget mess when he took office. We rated that Mostly True.

• Another point Obama and the House Republicans sparred over was health care reform. Republicans told Obama they did have positive solutions to improve the health care system, but their efforts were ignored. Obama replied that he is always willing to look at Republican ideas, but those ideas have to be realistic and effective.

"There's got to be a mechanism in these plans that I can go to an independent health care expert and say, 'Is this something that will actually work or is it boilerplate?'" Obama said. "It can't just be political assertions that aren't substantiated when it comes to the actual details of policy, because otherwise we're going to be selling the American people a bill of goods."

Here at PolitiFact, we examined a GOP plan for health care in November 2009, so the Republicans are correct that they have produced a proposal. The plan favored consumer choice, addressed medical malpractice lawsuits, and had a much lower price tag than Democratic plans. But experts also said that it did not do much to reduce the number of the uninsured and could reduce consumer protections.

Once again true patriots win and Cons lose.

Long Standing Proponent of Fascism-Lite Michelle Malkin Lies Her Way Through Public Policy Issues

Long Standing Proponent of Fascism-Lite Michelle Malkin Lies Her Way Through Public Policy Issues

From Malkin's February 10 column:

"What I won't consider is doing nothing in the face of a lot of hardship across the country," Obama said this week. "Doing nothing"? How about leaving well enough alone, aborting the rest of the original stimulus, retreating from debt-deepening, tax-increasing, economy-stifling initiatives from the government health care takeover to cap-and-trade, and refusing to redistribute tax dollars toward private job destruction and government job inflation?

But CBO has said that health care reform, cap-and-trade bills would reduce deficits

CBO: Senate bill yields "a net reduction in federal deficits of $132 billion" over 10 years. On December 19, 2009, CBO reported of the Senate bill incorporating the manager's amendment:

CBO and JCT estimate that the direct spending and revenue effects of enacting the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act incorporating the manager's amendment would yield a net reduction in federal deficits of $132 billion over the 2010-2019 period.

CBO also estimated on December 20, 2009, that the bill would continue to reduce the deficit beyond the 10-year budget window that ends in 2019 "with a total effect during that decade that is in a broad range between one-quarter percent and one-half percent of GDP."

CBO estimated the House bill will result in $138 billion in deficit reduction through 2019. On November 20, 2009, CBO reported of the House health care reform legislation, "CBO and JCT now estimate that the legislation would yield a net reduction in deficits of $138 billion over the 10-year period." CBO also stated in its November 6, 2009, estimate that "[i]n the subsequent decade, the collective effect of its provisions would probably be slight reductions in federal budget deficits. Those estimates are all subject to substantial uncertainty."

CBO: House cap-and-trade bill would slightly reduce deficits. CBO stated on June 26, 2009, of the House American Clean Energy and Security Act as reported by the House Rules Committee, "CBO and JCT estimate that enacting the legislation would reduce future budget deficits by about $4 billion over the 2010-2014 period and by about $9 billion over the 2010-2019 period."
Malkin advanced misleading claim that "card check" would strip "workers' rights" to NLRB secret-ballot election

From Malkin's February 10 column: [emphasis added]

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said Tuesday that the Senate "jobs" plan -- reportedly with an $85 billion price tag -- was a "really nice piece of legislation." But you'll have to take his word for it. Despite anticipated votes on the bill before Presidents Day weekend, no one outside the Democratic leadership and K Street had seen an actual bill as of Tuesday afternoon. Few will read the whole thing before casting their hasty votes.

And once again, we'll only be informed of the last-minute sweeteners, Cash for Cloture handouts and backroom deals after the ink of the president's signature is dry.

According to various reports:

* Public-sector unions are pushing hard to include their precious card-check plan, which would allow Big Labor bosses to sabotage workers' rights to a federally supervised private-ballot election. Reportedly, Democrats plan to stuff a reauthorization of the Patriot Act into the bill to make it harder for Republicans to oppose it.

In fact, EFCA would strip employers, not workers, of the right to demand a secret ballot

NY Times: Bill "would take away employers' right to insist on holding a secret-ballot election." As The Christian Science Monitor has noted, "The proposed law gives workers a choice of forming a union through majority sign-up ('card check') or an election by secret ballot." Indeed, as The New York Times reported, "Business groups have attacked the legislation because it would take away employers' right to insist on holding a secret-ballot election to determine whether workers favored unionization" [emphasis added]. Employee Free Choice Act supporters say employers often use the election process to delay, obstruct, and intimidate workers in an effort to resist organizing efforts.

Rep. Miller: "The legislation simply enables workers to also form a union through majority sign-up if a majority prefers that method to the NLRB election process." Rep. George Miller (D-CA), chairman of the House Committee on Education and Labor and a leading proponent of the Employee Free Choice Act, has addressed the "myth" that the bill eliminates the secret ballot:

MYTH: The Employee Free Choice Act abolishes the National Labor Relations Board's "secret ballot" election process.

FACT: The Employee Free Choice Act does not abolish the National Labor Relations Board election process. That process would still be available under the Employee Free Choice Act. The legislation simply enables workers to also form a union through majority sign-up if a majority prefers that method to the NLRB election process. Under current law, workers may only use the majority sign-up process if their employer agrees. The Employee Free Choice Act would make that choice -- whether to use the NLRB election process or majority sign-up -- a majority choice of the employees, not the employer.

Name it - facts, genuine patriotism, compassion, government for working class Americans and the common good - rightwing cons like Malkin have nothing but utter contempt for American traditions and values.

Conservative City, Republican Town and Bizarro World Are All the Same Place

Virginia Republican Party Mocks Epic Snow Storm As ‘12 Inches Of Global Warming’ - which means another day in which conservatives would like to push America back into the Dark Ages when any wacko belief trumped science, Hottest January in UAH satellite record - Human-caused global warming easily overwhelms much-hyped "cold snap"

Palin on Fox News Sunday: Says Name-Calling "Unnecessary, It's Inappropriate" -- But Just Seconds Before, Calls Liberals "Kooks". To be fair it does appear that Mrs. Palin is just a sockpuppet for her husband.

No doubt there are actually a few tea baggers here and there doing their own thinking. Its just that thinking is so much in tune with what some deep pocket corporate conservative interests want them to say. If the tea baggers are grass roots, the grass is plastic and the roots are as corrupt as the old conservative movement. The Immaculate Convention

And to be sure, the ersatz revolution wasn't just televised by the organs of the Republican Party, but funded by their donors as well. As ThinkProgress documented here, here, here and here, Dick Armey's FreedomWorks and other of the usual suspects among Republican moneymen showered cash and organizational expertise on the Tea Baggers.

Return to Conservative Glory - Dick Cheney for President 2012

Is Cheney Betting On Economic Collapse? from July 5, 2006

Wouldn't you like to know where Dick Cheney puts his money? Then you'd know whether his "deficits don't matter" claim is just baloney or not.

Well, as it turns out, Kiplinger Magazine ran an article based on Cheney's financial disclosure statement and, sure enough, found out that the VP is lying to the American people for the umpteenth time. Deficits do matter and Cheney has invested his money accordingly.

The article is called "Cheney's betting on bad news" and provides an account of where Cheney has socked away more than $25 million. While the figures may be estimates, the investments are not. According to Tom Blackburn of the Palm Beach Post, Cheney has invested heavily in "a fund that specializes in short-term municipal bonds, a tax-exempt money market fund and an inflation protected securities fund. The first two hold up if interest rates rise with inflation. The third is protected against inflation."

Cheney has dumped another (estimated) $10 to $25 million in a European bond fund which tells us that he is counting on a steadily weakening dollar. So, while working class Americans are loosing ground to inflation and rising energy costs, Darth Cheney will be enhancing his wealth in "Old Europe". As Blackburn sagely notes, "Not all bad news' is bad for everybody."

This should put to rest once and for all the foolish notion that the "Bush Economic Plan" is anything more than a scam aimed at looting the public till. The whole deal is intended to shift the nation's wealth from one class to another. It's also clear that Bush-Cheney couldn't have carried this off without the tacit approval of the thieves at the Federal Reserve who engineered the low-interest rate boondoggle to put the American people to sleep while they picked their pockets.

Reasonable people can dispute that Bush is "intentionally" skewering the dollar with his lavish tax cuts, but how does that explain Cheney's portfolio?

It doesn't. And, one thing we can say with metaphysical certainty is that the miserly Cheney would never plunk his money into an investment that wasn't a sure thing. If Cheney is counting on the dollar tanking and interest rates going up, then, by Gawd, that's what'll happen.

The Bush-Cheney team has racked up another $3 trillion in debt in just 6 years. The US national debt now stands at $8.4 trillion dollars while the trade deficit has ballooned to $800 billion nearly 7% of GDP.

This is lunacy. No country, however powerful, can maintain these staggering numbers. The country is in hock up to its neck and has to borrow $2.5 billion per day just to stay above water. Presently, the Fed is expanding the money supply and buying back its own treasuries to hide the hemorrhaging from the public. Its utter madness.

Last month the trade deficit climbed to $70 billion. More importantly, foreign central banks only purchased a meager $47 billion in treasuries to shore up our ravenous appetite for cheap junk from China.

Do the math! They're not investing in America anymore. They are decreasing their stockpiles of dollars. We're sinking fast and Cheney and his pals are manning the lifeboats while the public is diverted with gay marriage amendments and "American Celebrity".

The American manufacturing sector has been hollowed out by cutthroat corporations who've abandoned their country to make a fast-buck in China or Mexico. The $3 trillion housing (equity) bubble is quickly loosing air while the anemic dollar continues to sag. All the signs indicate that the economy is slowing at the same time that energy prices continue to rise.

This is the onset of stagflation; the dreaded combo of a slowing economy and inflation.

Did Americans really think they'd be spared the same type of economic colonization that has been applied throughout the developing world under the rubric of "neoliberalism"?

Well, think again. The American economy is barrel-rolling towards earth and there are only enough parachutes for Cheney and the gang.

The country has lost 3 million jobs from outsourcing since Bush took office; more than 200,000 of those are the high-paying, high-tech jobs that are the life's-blood of every economy.

Dick Cheney's lies about President Obama

It's pathetic to break a New Year's resolution before we even get to New Year's Day, but here I go. I had promised myself that I would do a better job of ignoring Dick Cheney's corrosive and nonsensical outbursts -- that I would treat them, more or less, like the pearls of wisdom one hears from homeless people sitting in bus shelters.

But he is a former vice president, which gives him a big stage for his histrionic Rottweiler-in-Winter act. It is never a good idea to let widely disseminated lies and distortions go unchallenged. And the shrill screed that Cheney unloosed Wednesday is so full of outright mendacity that, well, my resolution will have to wait.

In a statement to Politico, Cheney seemed to be trying to provide talking points for opponents of the Obama administration who -- incredibly -- would exploit the Christmas Day terrorist attack for political gain. Cheney's broadside opens with a big lie, which he then repeats throughout. It is as if he believes that saying something over and over again, in a loud enough voice, magically makes it so.

"As I've watched the events of the last few days it is clear once again that President Obama is trying to pretend we are not at war," Cheney begins.

Flat-out untrue.

The fact is that Obama has said many times that we are at war against terrorists. He said it as a candidate. He said it in his inaugural address: "Our nation is at war against a far-reaching network of violence and hatred." He has said it since.

As Cheney well knows, unless he has lost even the most tenuous grip on reality, Obama's commitment to warfare as an instrument in the fight against terrorism has won the president nothing but grief from the liberal wing of his party, with more certainly to come. Hasn't anyone told Cheney that Obama is sharply boosting troop levels in Afghanistan in an attempt to avoid losing a war that the Bush administration started but then practically abandoned?

Cheney knows this. But he goes on to use the big lie -- that Obama is "trying to pretend we are not at war" -- to bludgeon the administration on a host of specific issues. Here is the one that jumps out at me: The president, Cheney claims, "seems to think that if he closes Guantanamo and releases the hard-core al Qaeda-trained terrorists still there, we won't be at war."

Interesting that Cheney should bring that up, because it now seems clear that the man accused of trying to blow up Northwest Flight 253, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, was given training -- and probably the bomb itself, which involved plastic explosives sewn into his underwear -- by al-Qaeda operatives in Yemen. It happens that at least two men who were released from Guantanamo appear to have gone on to play major roles as al-Qaeda lieutenants in Yemen. Who let these dangerous people out of our custody? They were set free by the administration of George W. Bush and Dick Cheney.

The former vice president expresses his anger that the Obama administration is bringing Khalid Sheik Mohammed, the architect of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, to trial in New York. Cheney is also angry that Obama does not use the phrase "war on terror" all the time, the way the Bush administration used to. But Obama just specifies that we're at war against a network of terrorists, on the sensible theory that it's impossible to wage war against a tactic.

Toward the end of his two-paragraph statement, Cheney goes completely off the rails and starts fulminating about how Obama is seeking "social transformation -- the restructuring of American society." Somehow, this is supposed to be related to the president's alleged disavowal of war -- which, of course, isn't real anyway. It makes you wonder whether Cheney is just feeding the fantasies of the paranoid right or has actually joined the tea-party fringe.

Dick Cheney Wins BuzzFlash's GOP Hypocrite of the Week Award

The Childish Response - Republicans Refuse to Admit Hand in Creating Record Deficits

Republicans 2000 to 2008 - Here's a great idea lets spend money like it grew on trees. Raise zero new revenue to pay for the spending. Then leave the mess for the next guy. Then wage a campaign to put all the blame on Democrats. Republicans are not so much a political movement as they are a group of adults who suffer from severe mental development disorders, Bush Deficit Hurting Obama: Reports

The emerging narrative in political circles is that the White House has a deficit problem. Glenn Beck, over at Fox News, insists that Obama is "spending us into oblivion." Politico called the recent round of job-stimulus appropriations a "spending binge." Sen. Judd Gregg (R-N.H.) deemed this an era of "fiscal recklessness and irresponsibility," the extent of which is "shocking to the American taxpayer."

The drumbeat is loud enough to put Democrats on notice. The president has increasingly discussed the need to get the deficit under control in recent speeches. And in Congress, a proposal to set up a bipartisan commission to force deficit reduction is gaining steam among the party's more conservative members.

All of which may be vital, say budget analysts say. But the hysteria over the deficit misses a fundamental point: the country's fiscal problems largely aren't due to Obama but rather his predecessor.

A forthcoming study by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities concludes that the $1.4 trillion annual deficit run by the government has little to do with current White House policies and much to do with George W. Bush's actions.

"What we have looked at were several major contributors to the deficit: the tax cuts between 2001 and 2003 (on the assumption they get extended in 2010), the cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and the effects of the recession as well as the legislative response to the recession," James Horney, director of federal fiscal policy at the Center, told the Huffington Post. "When you take those things into account -- in other words, if we hadn't enacted the tax cuts, had the wars, if we hadn't had the recession and needed the legislation to deal with those problems -- the deficits are much, much lower. And basically none of those represent Obama's policies. He didn't run saying he wanted to pass a stimulus to deal with the recession or that he wanted to continue the war in Iraq or escalate [to this extent] in Afghanistan. He inherited these issues once he took office."

"Now we still have a big budget problem in the long run," Horney added. "It is not inappropriate for people to say we have to deal with that. And it is not inappropriate for them to say Obama is president and has the responsibility to deal with this. But it is not appropriate to say that Obama's policies have contributed to the deficit problem."

Horney said that the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities' analysis will be released in the next few weeks. But already, there is data available to supplement its findings. In mid-November, the Democratic-leaning Center for American Progress put together an analysis of its own, in which it concluded that the so-called "Obama spending spree" paled in comparison to the checks written by Bush (see a graph from CAP's report below).

"It's true that spending in 2009 was much higher than it was the previous fiscal year, by about $602 billion, excluding payments on the national debt (which actually declined in 2009 because of low interest rates)," wrote Michael Linden, an associate director for tax and budget policy at the Center. "But it turns out that a huge chunk of that increase actually happened before President Obama took office. In fact, fully 41 percent, or $245 billion, came in the form of the Troubled Asset Relief Program and the rescues of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, actions taken in the fall of 2008 under President George W. Bush.

As for the deficit that conservatives decried, Linden concluded that it was the recession, not Obama, that was to blame. In 2009, federal tax receipts were $419 billion below 2008 levels -- the largest decline from one year to the next in seven decades. "The overall cost of the decline in tax revenues was four times larger than the cost of Obama's initiatives," wrote Linden.

The decline of tax revenues due to the recession may not be a development tied to Obama. But it has become a perplexing problem for this administration.

The White House has raised spending levels by roughly $600 billion in FY2009 -- almost exclusively through temporary programs such as the stimulus -- in order to spur economic growth and increase that revenue base. But spending money to make money can be a costly venture in the short run, especially as the recession is prolonged. Unemployment benefits that used to expire after six months, for instance, have been extended by Congress at a heavy but morally defensible cost. And even when GDP rises, the government is still operating off a largely reduced revenue stream, complicating its efforts to pass pieces of domestic legislation.

"It is not like when the recession ends, people's incomes bounce back to where they were before the recession," said Rob Shapiro. "You will be behind where you were before the recession for a while... There has been a real economic reduction in the base of GDP. So GDP now, when it goes up three percent, it is off of a lower base. It's not off of, say $15 trillion but off of $14 trillion."

Breaking Down the Deficit

McCain's Top Campaign Adviser: Record Deficits Would Have Happened Under McCain, Too

The acknowledgment by Holtz-Eakin is a blow of sorts to the GOP argument that the record-breaking $1.56 trillion projected deficit is solely Obama's responsibility. One hour after Holtz-Eakin's interview, for instance, RNC Chairman Michael Steele sent out a statement, lashing the White House for "growing the deficit by record proportions and killing jobs by raising taxes on small businesses."

In actuality -- as most sober-minded economists attest -- many of the deficit problems the current administration faces today are traced directly back to the policies of its predecessors. This, indeed, seems to be implicit in Holtz-Eakin's acknowledgment.

In December 2009, the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities concluded that the then-$1.4 trillion annual deficit run by the government under Obama had much to do with the Bush administration's package of tax cuts, the wars it launched in Iraq and Afghanistan and its response to the recession.