Winter Patriot Community Blog

[Video features one NSFW word.]

Three minutes and thirty seconds, and twice the plot development of Ghost Rider: Spirit of Vengeance! Go figure.

Open thread below....

Title: ThrasherArtist: Neil Young

My love for Neil Young is certainly no secret, and this is one of my all time favorites of his. Not many people have been so powerful with just a guitar and a voice, but there are some who are right up there with him. What is your favorite performance with one person using one instrument?

And PS: Our sister site Newstalgia has for its mid-week anti-road rage concert, some lovely chamber music for you.

Rust Never Sleeps Price: $7.99 (As of 02/22/12 05:17 pm details)

Click here to view this media

Chris Matthews just couldn't seem to make it through another segment talking about the Republican's recent overreach with their assault on women's access to affordable contraceptives without bringing on the Catholic bishops favorite water carrier, Melinda Henneberger.

Henneberger's recent piece at The Washington Post attempts to blame Democrats for ginning up the recent debate purely for political and fundraising purposes as though the backlash against the actions of the Catholic bishops and some of the recent statements from presidential candidate Rick Santorum, or the invasive transvaginal ultrasound bill that it appears Virginia Bob McDonnell has now backed off of, was not real or sincere.

Thankfully Salon's Joan Walsh was there to push back at Henneberger's assertions and I'll just lead readers over to her column where she has more on the interview above -- Did crafty Dems make contraception a campaign issue? :

First Rush Limbaugh, now the Washington Post women's blog, claim the GOP was set up by its enemies on birth control

Did you know the GOP doesn’t want to be talking about contraception? That it’s an issue ginned up by opportunistic Democrats? Rush Limbaugh made that case last week (while also insisting Republicans would win an election decided on culture war issues, so I’m not sure what his problem was.) But Wednesday it made its way to the Washington Post’s women’s blog, in a piece by Melinda Henneberger headlined: “It’s Democrats who are putting focus on birth control.”

Now, Henneberger is not a Republican. She’s a sorta-liberal, a veteran of the New York Times, Huffington Post, Slate and Politics Daily, who too often gives Republicans the benefit of the doubt, particularly when it comes to reproductive health issues. She emerged as a leading voice criticizing President Obama’s decision to require all employers, even religiously affiliated ones (though not churches) to provide contraception coverage in health insurance policies. You know my stand on that. But her questionable views on the politics of birth control got my attention a few weeks earlier, when she carried water for Rick Santorum and let him whine in an interview that Salon’s Irin Carmon had been unfair to him in her piece “Rick Santorum is coming for your birth control.”

Much more there where Walsh takes Henneberger's arguments apart, so go read the rest.

Transcript below the fold.

MATTHEWS: Welcome back to HARDBALL. In what could signal a major political tipping point, Virginia governor Michael -- actually, Governor Bob McDonnell today said he would oppose -- oppose -- a Republican bill that would have required women to get an invasive ultrasound before getting an abortion in Virginia.

McDonnell, who`s often talked about as a potential VP nominee for -- especially for Romney, was criticized nationally for his earlier intent to sign a bill like that and by more than a thousand protesters recently at the state capitol this Monday, actually.

Well, this comes following weeks of fighting here in Washington over access to contraception, women`s health care, the fights in which Republicans appeared ready to battle hard to stop that contraceptive coverage as part of the health care law.

What are the politics at play here, and how will these fights affect women voters as we head towards the 2012 election? In fact, most women -- well, most voters are women. Joan Walsh is an MSNBC political analyst editor-at-large for Salon, and Melinda Henneberger writes for "The Washington Post."

Well, let`s take a look at Emily`s List here. Emily`s List is, obviously, an organization which helps people get elected to politics. The political group that supports candidates who favor abortion rights is using last week`s fights against women`s health care in a new fund-raising. It went up today in Florida, California, Illinois. Let`s listen to part of it.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: The power to decide whether or not women will use contraception lies with her.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Where are the women?

NARRATOR: So who should be heard? You.

Join us. Go to Emilyslist.org today.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MATTHEWS: Melinda, I want to have a general conversation with you and Joan about this. You are both great people on this program, obviously.

(LAUGHTER)

MATTHEWS: so I`m obviously going to listen to you mostly, rather than talk.

(LAUGHTER)

MATTHEWS: But they`re -- I keep hearing from the women who produce us here, the senior producers and others around me, that they`re very concerned that the government, especially the Republican Party -- well, exclusively the Republican Party -- is making a move here; they`re making a move here to question whether women should get contraception as part of the national health care plan.

Here in Virginia right across the Potomac River -- and they have already done this in eight states -- they are pushing to require that women have -- who are -- who have chosen to come to a clinic to have an abortion have to sit and watch something as part of a responsibility that they, the state, decides they must meet that they can impose on somebody, to look at an ultrasound or to have in fact an ultrasound test.

What does this politically mean? What is going on politically here?

MELINDA HENNEBERGER, "THE WASHINGTON POST": On the ultrasound issue in particular, I think that this decision by Bob McDonnell to pull back, to reverse himself, to say this isn`t going to happen is very, very important.

I think we can draw from that that he is not only saying this doesn`t work for Virginia. When you read his statement, he is saying that this is actually at odds with Republican rhetoric, that we as a party cannot say we -- you know, invasive government is anathema to us...

MATTHEWS: Yes.

HENNEBERGER: ... but, you know, a transvaginal ultrasound is not invasive.

I just think that the disconnect was too big and they realized this pushback. I mean, they see the kind of money that women`s groups are raising, that pro-choice women`s groups are raising.

MATTHEWS: So do you see it as kind of realpolitik?

HENNEBERGER: Sure.

MATTHEWS: It`s pure politics.

HENNEBERGER: I think they see that it really does go too far.

MATTHEWS: Joan, do you agree that this is basically a political decision by the Republican conservative governor of Virginia that they have gone too far here potentially?

JOAN WALSH, EDITOR IN CHIEF, SALON.COM: Oh, absolutely.

I think that he had signaled that he was going to sign it. He`s been on the far right on all of these decisions, Chris. So this is really about the media and women`s groups and individual women, wonderful women in Virginia standing up and saying, you`re going too far.

Now, most of us think that the ultra -- the outside-your-body ultrasound bill is also going too far. It is not like that is a great thing. That is very intrusive on a woman`s decision. It is meant to stop abortion, stop the legal exercise of a right.

So it`s not like that is so great. But this really did show how out of touch these people are that they were really willing to say, a woman has to submit to being penetrated if she wants an abortion. I mean, that`s -- it`s crazy.

MATTHEWS: Yes, let me go into dangerous -- let me go into dangerous territory here...

WALSH: Sure.

MATTHEWS: ... because I think sometimes common sense should interfere with the usual political discussions.

(LAUGHTER)

MATTHEWS: Ironically, it was the president of the United States who comes across to most people as rather secular. He has a Christian faith, he goes to church. But he seems basically a secular politician. I think that is fair to say. He doesn`t wear his religion on his sleeve, whatever his religion might be in his case. And it is obviously a Christian religion.

But when you push through something that says women should have access free to contraception, that to me will be probably the greatest reduction potentially in the number of abortions in this country.

WALSH: Right.

MATTHEWS: Because if every woman has a free -- there is no real financial excuse not to use protection, to use the common phrase, if you choose to have sex and you don`t want to have children.

And therefore the great irony is that`s one way to reduce radically the number of abortions. Now along come the conservatives with their way of reducing the number of abortions.

You pick up here, Joan.

Their way of doing it is make you look at this ultrasound right as you go in to get an abortion.

WALSH: Right.

MATTHEWS: I would say get there for the takeoff, not the landing....

(LAUGHTER)

MATTHEWS: ... or the beginning.

(CROSSTALK)

MATTHEWS: Get there when you`re going to stop the conception.

WALSH: Well...

MATTHEWS: Get there when you`re not going to have the unwanted pregnancy in the millions and millions of cases where women will now get access to free birth control, rather than the few isolated cases where a woman might change her mind.

And, look, I`m up for free decision-making.

WALSH: Right.

MATTHEWS: If they did have this testing and they do make a decision, fine.

HENNEBERGER: I just think that, you know, the Catholic Church has been working in this country for universal health care since 1919, and they should take the victory and go home.

I mean, this is a very important -- the larger Affordable Care Act is...

MATTHEWS: Right.

WALSH: Absolutely.

HENNEBERGER: ... such an important step forward from what we have all been working for all this long.

MATTHEWS: So the compromise should hold.

HENNEBERGER: I hope the compromise holds. We will see whether it does or not.

But I just think, back to the politics of the thing, it really -- I think it`s why -- I wrote the piece today that, you know, it`s Democrats who really want to make the conversation about this.

(CROSSTALK)

MATTHEWS: Let me challenge you on that.

WALSH: Yes.

MATTHEWS: Joan, you pick up here.

It`s not just Democrats who want to fight. As we speak, Fred Upton...

WALSH: No.

MATTHEWS: ... no, the congressman, Boehner, Cantor, the whole Republican leadership in both sides is pushing a big bill to change the health care bill to deny people The free contraception.

WALSH: Right.

(CROSSTALK)

HENNEBERGER: I`m just saying that, in the presidential race, they would rather not make this the talking point.

(CROSSTALK)

MATTHEWS: I`m talking Congress.

WALSH: Well, look, the president -- the president did something very important.

He listened to the Institute of Medicine, and he made a medical choice to say that insurance companies must provide contraception cost-free because it keeps women healthy and because it actually saves money. So that is a no-brainer.

And the fact that these Republicans, from Rick Santorum and the entire field to John Boehner, think that they want to play politics with this and repeal that requirement, when there are so many other requirements -- look, I know they want to repeal all of Obamacare, as they call it, but they`re focusing on this because they do want to eliminate women`s access to contraception.

MATTHEWS: OK. They may pull back at some point.

WALSH: So, Melinda, I so disagree with you on the notion that Republicans are ginning this up -- that -- excuse me -- Democrats are ginning this up. Republicans want...

HENNEBERGER: I don`t mean they`re ginning it up. I think that they are -- it`s brilliant for them. Why wouldn`t they want to talk about it? It is a complete win for them on the political side.

WALSH: Well, they`re -- but they are also talking about it because it is a real issue. They`re not talking about it to raise money, ka-ching.

HENNEBERGER: They are in fact raising money, both sides.

WALSH: They are talking about it because it is a real -- absolutely. But that is not the only issue.

MATTHEWS: OK.

(CROSSTALK)

WALSH: They are talking about it because it is a real, real issue.

HENNEBERGER: Sell outrage to raise money.

WALSH: It`s not an outrage.

But I`m just saying, you make it sound as though they are only doing it to raise money. They are doing it because women`s rights are under threat.

HENNEBERGER: No, I think...

(CROSSTALK)

HENNEBERGER: ... believe what they say.

(CROSSTALK)

WALSH: Women`s rights are under threat.

(CROSSTALK)

MATTHEWS: OK. We`re out of time.

(CROSSTALK)

MATTHEWS: We`re going to bring this up again.

Thank you both. I respect both of you so much.

WALSH: Thank you.

MATTHEWS: Melinda, thank you.

WALSH: Thanks.

MATTHEWS: And, Joan, of course.

WALSH: Thanks, Chris.

MATTHEWS: Anyway, it is Ash Wednesday today. I am a little late getting there, but I will get there.

(LAUGHTER)

MATTHEWS: Up next...

(LAUGHTER)

MATTHEWS: Joan, thank you for coming on.

As a quick glance at January's presidential fundraising numbers confirms, the unlimited cash flowing into SuperPACs is fundamentally distorting the 2012 election. The millions flowing into conservative SuperPAC coffers are not only far outpacing the GOP candidates' own campaigns, but continuing to overwhelm their Democratic counterparts. But for the likes of Charles and David Koch, the Walton family, Foster Friess, Sheldon Adelson, Meg Whitman, the Marriotts and the rest of the SuperPAC-Men, a multimillion dollar contribution isn't an eccentric hobby, but a wise investment. After all, if Republicans win in November, their plan to eliminate the estate and capital gains taxes would divert billions of dollars from the United States Treasury to the accounts of nation's richest families. Of course, that gaping hole would have to be filled by all other American taxpayers.

As Mother Jones reported last month, as of December 31, 2011 conservative SuperPACs reaped $60 million of now-unlimited contributions, compared to just $8 million for liberal groups. That tidal wave of corporate cash and play money from the wealthy has filled the coffers of Karl Rove's American Crossroads, Mitt Romney's Restore the Future, Rick Santorum's Red, White and Blue Fund, Newt Gingrich's Winning the Future and a litany of other right-wing SuperPACs. Sheldon Adelson, the casino mogul worth an estimated $25 billion, said, "I might give $10 million or $100 million to Gingrich." And as Amanda Terkel detailed, the Koch brothers and their allies pledged to raise much more to defeat President Obama:

At a private three-day retreat in California last weekend, conservative billionaires Charles and David Koch and about 250 to 300 other individuals pledged approximately $100 million to defeat President Obama in the 2012 elections.

A source who was in the room when the pledges were made told The Huffington Post that, specifically, Charles Koch pledged $40 million and David pledged $20 million.

But that figure is chump change compared to the eye-popping return on investment the Kochs can expect if their side wins in November. Ending the estate tax, a policy endorsed by Mitt Romney and every other Republican presidential candidate, would literally be worth billions of dollars to the heirs of Charles and David Koch. As ThinkProgress explained last year:

According to a quick back-of-the-envelope calculation, the Koch brothers' heirs' would save a combined $17.4 billion in estate taxes thanks to Romney's plan.

Each of the Koch brothers -- Charles and David -- is worth about $25 billion. They are each married, so they would receive an exemption on the first $10 million that they pass down, and then theirs heirs would pay a 35 percent tax, or $8.7 billion, on the rest of their vast fortunes.

Now, this is an exceedingly rough calculation, as it's almost certain that the Koch's have engaged in extensive estate planning and would pay nowhere near that amount. But 35 percent is the rate on the books, and Romney's plan to eliminate the estate tax entirely would undeniably save the Kochs a boatload of money.

Here's why. Despite Republican mythology about family farms and businesses being lost to the so-called "death tax," by 2009 only 0.24 percent of estates even paid the levy. And that was before the December 2010 compromise President Obama inked with Congressional Republicans extending the Bush tax cuts further slashed the estate tax. The reduced 35 percent tax is now applied only to couples with estates greater than $10 million, a change which will cost Uncle Sam roughly $15 billion a year. Now, the Tax Policy Center calculated, only 0.1 percent of estates are impacted. Only 50 family farms and small businesses will be affected, and they contribute "less than one tenth of 1 percent point of the total revenue the tax will collect." Who pays the estate tax?

TPC estimates that 8,600 individuals dying in 2011 will leave estates large enough to require filing an estate tax return (estates with a gross value under $5 million need not file a return in 2011). After allowing for deductions and credits, an estimated 3,270 estates will owe tax. Roughly 90 percent of these taxable estates will come from the top ten percent of income earners and nearly half will come from the top one percent alone.

Estate tax liability will total an estimated $10.6 billion in 2011. The top ten percent of income earners will pay 98 percent of this total. The richest 1 in 1,000 will pay $5.4 billion or 51 percent of the total.

Among that richest 1 in 1,000 are the Koch brothers and the family behind Walmart, the Walton clan.

That's one reason why Wal-Mart heirs Alice Walton and brother Jim Walton each contributed $100,000 to Mitt Romney's SuperPAC. After all, the six members of Walmart's founding family are worth an estimated $69.7 billion, a sum equal to the total wealth ofthe bottom 30 percent of Americans. As Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders explained in his now famous December 2010 filibuster, the elimination of the estate tax could save the Walton family alone $32.7 billion.

Of course, the Walton crusade to the end the estate tax didn't just start last year. As USA Today reported back in 2005:

Led by Sam Walton's only daughter, Alice, the family spent $3.2 million on lobbying, conservative causes and candidates for last year's federal elections. That's more than double what it spent in the previous two elections combined, public documents show.

The Waltons have joined a coterie of wealthy families trying to save fortunes through permanent repeal of the estate tax, government watchdogs say. The election of President Bush and more conservatives to Congress gave momentum to the long-fought effort. The Waltons add more.

As the Arkansas Times pointed out, the 2010 reduction in the estate tax, if made permanent, would ensure that Sam Walton's clan will keep billions out of the hands of Uncle Sam:

Please note that the cut in the top estate tax, from 45 to 35 percent, will be worth a cool $9 billion at current values to just the top five Walton estates. 9 BILLION. Who'll pay for that lost revenue (not just from Waltons but Kochs, etc.) over the years? The working schlubs, that's who.

Thanks in part to the efforts of the "Senator from Walmart," Blanche Lincoln, President Obama's concession in December 2010 gave the Waltons won a huge victory. If they get their way, it won't be their last.

That goes double for Meg Whitman, the former eBay CEO who now heads up HP. Last month, Whitman joined hotel billionaires Richard and J.W. Marriott in pumping hundreds of thousands of dollars into Mitt Romney's SuperPAC. Of course, Whitman's $100,000 donation is a drop in the bucket compared to the $140 million she spent on her failed 2010 California gubernatorial campaign. But as many observers noted at the time, Whitman's big gamble on ending the capital gains tax offered the promise of a much larger payday. The Los Angeles Times' Michael Hiltzik noted that ending the capital gains tax would cost California up to $10 billion in revenue annually even as it would put tens of millions of dollars directly into Meg Whitman's pocketbook.

Meg Whitman, the billionaire former chief executive of EBay, proposes to eliminate the state tax on capital gains. That tax, like the state tax on all other income, tops out at 10.3% for income exceeding $1 million.

The Whitman campaign refused to tell me this week what percentage of Whitman's income derives from capital gains (which can be defined as profits on stock, bond, real estate and other such investments). Whitman has thus far refused to make public her tax returns, which might hold a clue...Capital gains might even represent the majority of her income in some years.

As Chris Kelly of the Huffington Post aptly put it, "Meg Whitman's Tax Plan: She Stops Paying Hers."

It's worth noting that Mitt Romney, Wall Street's favorite for 2012, will also benefit from the elimination of the estate tax, just not on as grand a scale. The heirs of the 250 Million Dollar Man could reap an $84,000,000 windfall, more than enough to offset the $45 million of his own money Mitt Romney blew in his failed 2008 presidential campaign.

It's worth pointing out that America's rich and famous won't be paying the full estate tax anyway. After all, Mitt Romney has apparently succeeded in setting up a $100 million trust fund for his sons, tax-free. As President George W. Bush put it in rejecting calls to raise taxes on the wealthy duiring his 2004 reelection campaign:

"The really rich people figure out how to dodge taxes anyway."

But the bagmen and women of the Republican Party have had enough of playing dodgeball with Uncle Sam. The SuperPAC-Men are playing a deadly serious game of winner-take-all politics. And they are literally playing for keeps.

(This piece also appears at Perrspectives.)

enlargeCredit: CNN

The March 1st and March 5th debates have been cancelled. This could be the only debate to hold you over for an entire month.

Our own Blue Gal notes: "I can't believe Gingrich and Santorum agreed to debate on Ash Wednesday, but whatever."

Oh yeah. That's right. Maybe Gingrich will give up his third wife for Lent.

Open thread below.

Click here to view this media

From The Ed Show this Tuesday, the war on women's health continues:

Republicans are still trying to silence Sandra Fluke, a Georgetown student who appeared on The Ed Show last week. First, they wouldn't let her or any other woman testify at a birth control hearing. Now Democrats are holding their own hearing with Fluke, but refuse to televise it!

Terry O’Neill, President of the National Organization for Women, Lizz Winstead, comedian and co-creator of The Daily Show and Krystal Ball, Democratic strategist and former candidate for U.S. Congress, comment on the on-going Republican war on women’s health.

Click here to view this media

Does crazy go to "11?" I was just wondering, because I've heard so many similarly crazy things from Wingnut Nation in the past couple of weeks. Like this low-level politician from Fort Wayne who can't bring himself to be associated with the scandalous abortion-loving, transgender-embracing Girl Scouts of America:

FORT WAYNE, Ind. (WANE) - A Fort Wayne lawmaker's refusing to sign a resolution to celebrate the 100th anniversary of the Girl Scouts.

He says he chose not to because of things he uncovered about the organization while surfing the web. State Representative Bob Morris says he won't sign it because the organization supports abortion and homosexuality. But the Girl Scouts of Northern Indiana - Michiana says it doesn't do any of the above.

It was websites like Honest Girl Scouts and Speak Now Girl Scouts that persuaded Representative Bob Morris to not sign the resolution.

Morris sent a private letter to his party members over the weekend explaining why he'd be voting against celebrating the Girl Scouts 100th birthday.

"Mixed reaction and some eyes were opened," (R) State Rep. Morris said.

He says he doesn't have a problem with Girl Scout groups or troops locally here in Fort Wayne.

"The Girl Scouts of America 99.9 percent of them are great groups, great troops but the problem that I have is with Girl Scouts of America of the national level."

Some websites claim The Girl Scouts of America donate funds to Planned Parenthood.

The Girl Scouts of Northern Indiana - Michiana released this statement about it:

"Neither Girl Scouts of Northern Indiana - Michiana nor Girl Scouts USA have any relationship with Planned Parenthood. No funds are allocated to Planned Parenthood. Neither organization has a programmatic relationship with Planned Parenthood. Neither organization has plans for any relationship in the future."

Other sites also say The Girl Scouts promotes homosexuality by allowing transgender children to join troops

Click here to view this media

Well, we managed to get Pat Buchanan off the air on MSNBC, but that didn't stop him from rearing his ugly head on PBS over the weekend to sing the praises of one Charles Murray, along with host John McLaughlin and The National Review's Rich Lowry.

John McLaughlin opened the second segment of the show bemoaning the decline of marriage in the United States along with the number of children who are born out of wedlock.

For a little refresher on just who Charles Murray is, I'll just refer back to David Brooks singing his praises earlier this month on Charlie Rose's show which I posted here -- David Brooks: The Villagers' Mr. 'Common Sense Center'.

As was linked and quoted in that post, Charles Pierce took apart Brooks' op-ed preceding that interview in his article here -- Our Mr. Brooks Finds Another Very Important Thinker. Rich Lowry in the clip above failed to mention the entire title of Murray's book just as Brooks did, which is as Pierce noted Coming Apart: The State of White America, 1960-2010. Somehow that whole "state of white America" portion of the title didn't seem to be very relevant to either of them. Imagine that?

As Media Matters documented before Buchanan finally got the boot from MSNBC, and as Buchanan mentioned in the clip above, Buchanan cited Murray's work in his recent book -- Pat Buchanan Won't Disavow Idea That Minorities Have Inferior Genes:

In his new book Suicide of a Superpower, Buchanan cites The Atlantic article and the work of Charles Murray, who co-wrote The Bell Curve with Herrnstein. The Bell Curve argues that there's racial differences in intelligence. Buchanan wrote in his book.

It seems trying to mainstream Murray's ideas are nothing new for our corporate media or for The McLaughlin Group in particular. From FAIR back in Feb. 1995 -- Racism Resurgent - How Media Let The Bell Curve's Pseudo-Science Define the Agenda on Race:

When the New Republic devoted almost an entire issue (10/31/94) to a debate with the authors of The Bell Curve, editor Andrew Sullivan justified the decision by writing, "The notion that there might be resilient ethnic differences in intelligence is not, we believe, an inherently racist belief."

In fact, the idea that some races are inherently inferior to others is the definition of racism. What the New Republic was saying--along with other media outlets that prominently and respectfully considered the thesis of Charles Murray and the late Richard Herrnstein's book--is that racism is a respectable intellectual position, and has a legitimate place in the national debate on race. [...]

While Murray and Herrnstein were generally characterized as sober social scientists, their critics were sometimes identified with censorious political correctness: "Both Murray and Herrnstein have been called racists," wrote Washington Post columnist Richard Cohen (10/18/94). "Their findings, though, have been accepted by most others in their field, and it would be wrong--both intellectually and politically--to suppress them." Proclaimed Newsweek's Geoffrey Cowley (10/24/94): "As the shouting begins, it's worth noting that the science behind The Bell Curve is overwhelmingly mainstream."

Murray himself doesn't think that the research they relied on was so mainstream. "Some of the things we read to do this work, we literally hide when we're on planes and trains," Murray told the New York Times Magazine (10/9/94).

Pioneers of Eugenics

As well they might. Nearly all the research that Murray and Herrnstein relied on for their central claims about race and IQ was funded by the Pioneer Fund, described by the London Sunday Telegraph (3/12/89) as a "neo-Nazi organization closely integrated with the far right in American politics." The fund's mission is to promote eugenics, a philosophy that maintains that "genetically unfit" individuals or races are a threat to society.

The Pioneer Fund was set up in 1937 by Wickliffe Draper, a millionaire who advocated sending blacks back to Africa. The foundation's charter set forth the group's missions as "racial betterment" and aid for people "deemed to be descended primarily from white persons who settled in the original 13 states prior to the adoption of the Constitution of the United States." (In 1985, after Pioneer Fund grant recipients began receiving political heat, the charter was slightly amended to play down the race angle--GQ, 11/94.)

The fund's first president, Harry Laughlin, was an influential advocate of sterilization for those he considered genetically unfit. In successfully advocating laws that would restrict immigrants from Southern and Eastern Europe, Laughlin testified before Congress that 83 percent of Jewish immigrants were innately feeble-minded (Rolling Stone, 10/20/94). Another founder, Frederick Osborn, described Nazi Germany's sterilization law as "a most exciting experiment" (Discovery Journal, 7/9/94).

The fund's current president, Harry Weyher, denounces the Supreme Court decision that desegregated schools, saying, "All Brown did was wreck the school system" (GQ, 11/94). The fund's treasurer, John Trevor, formerly served as treasurer for the crypto-fascist Coalition of Patriotic Societies, when it called in 1962 for the release of Nazi war criminals and praised South Africa's "well-reasoned racial policies" (Rolling Stone, 10/20/94).

One of the Pioneer Fund's largest current grantees is Roger Pearson, an activist and publisher who has been associated with international fascist currents. Pearson has written: "If a nation with a more advanced, more specialized or in any way superior set of genes mingles with, instead of exterminating, an inferior tribe, then it commits racial suicide" (Russ Bellant, Old Nazis, the New Right and the Republican Party). [...]

For Their Own Ends

Many pundits carefully distanced themselves from the book, then made use of its claims to push their own ideological ends. In a New Republic column (10/31/94), Mickey Kaus argues against a genetic basis for IQ differences, saying, "There are obvious policies that might change the black 'environment' and therefore black IQ scores." But what's his example of such a program? "Abolition of cash welfare," he suggests.

The McLaughlin Group (10/21/94) featured a whole parade of this sort of pseudo-critic: While no one wanted to embrace wholeheartedly Murray and Herrnstein's genetic determinism, almost all were happy to make use of the conclusion The Bell Curve draws from the eugenic argument: that the poor and non-white are getting what they deserve.

Thus Pat Buchanan declared: "I think a lot of the data are indisputable.... It does shoot a hole straight through the heart of egalitarian socialism which tried to create equality of result by coercive government programs."

And Michael Barone: "The implication of their argument is, if they're right, that we really should not engage in a lot of government social engineering to create equal outcomes and so forth. They'd have to throw all the Chinese out of the Higher Math Department."

Morton Kondracke found this message: "It does undermine the case, John, for racial quotas, which is the form of discrimination in our society."

Clarence Page, the token liberal on the panel, described Murray as a personal friend, and gave a lukewarm critique: "It's got some good data, but it's Murray's conclusions that he doesn't prove."

It was left to John McLaughlin, of all people, to say the obvious about The Bell Curve: "It is largely pseudo-scientific and it is singularly unhelpful."

And from The Roosevelt Institute here's more on Murray's latest book they were touting in the segment above as well -- Blame Marriage Rates on the Family Values of the 1%:

Charles Murray is at it again. He burst onto the national scene in the ’80s, announcing that he knew why the African-American non-marital birth rate had risen so dramatically: the government made them do it. He explained that welfare and a host of other liberal sins had weakened the moral fiber of the poor, producing disaster. It would take free market discipline to instill the right values once again. Now Murray is back with a new book and a long article in the Wall Street Journal attempting to explain income inequality among whites. His claim: working class whites have lost ground because they have abandoned a commitment to marriage, religion, and hard work. In his world, unemployment is high because those on the losing end of today’s economy refuse to work, non-marital births occur because of a lack of emphasis on marriage, and the upper class can assist only by expressing its disapproval and “preaching what it practices” — presumably investments in Ivy League education, parent-subsidized internships, and marriage between two investment bankers at 32.

In this new work, Murray says no five-point plan can change things. What he doesn’t tell you is how little his last five-point plan accomplished. Murray’s past work helped spark the movement that led to the abolition of welfare “as we know it” in 1996. And the welfare mothers who were able to get and hold jobs — in no small part due to government subsidized health benefits and day care — were in fact better off. But Murray claims no credit because throughout the twenty-year attack on welfare (and the steady erosion of benefits that went with it) marriage rates continued to decline.

Murray-like prescriptions — even when they are right that the behavior of the working class is a problem — have always failed. The simple fact is that prosperity and equality improve behavior more than privation or preaching. Consider the Irish potato famine. The potato blight wiped out the principal source of food for Catholic Ireland while leaving the cattle and wheat of Protestant Ireland (the 1% of their day) unaffected. The British responded with soup kitchens — for six months. Then, Murray-like editorial cartoons in London started to depict the English taxpayer with drunken Irishmen on their backs. The editorials complained that soup kitchens encouraged idleness and worse — too many Irish births. The English brought back market discipline (and upper class disapproval of Catholic behavior) and their solution worked: the Irish population fell by a quarter in the next several years, due in roughly equal parts to death and emigration. But no Englishman heralded the improved moral qualities of Irish Catholics. The improvement in the reputation of the Irish took jobs and equal community membership, factors the Irish never found under British rule.

Murray can’t tell you what really caused the class divide in marriage because the class-based changes in families he laments closely track the class warfare of the 1%.

More there so read the rest but that takes us to the segment above from this weekend's The McLaughlin Group. I'd love for anyone to explain to me why Pat Buchanan is still on the air, or John McLaughlin and Rich Lowry for that matter. They've unfortunately been trying to make someone with white nationalists ties that pay for his books to be published acceptable to the mainstream for some time now.

Rough transcript:

MCLAUGHLIN: Issue two... brides no more! Wedding ceremonies, bridal music, smiling couples... fugheddaboudit! Today more and more Americans are shunning marriage. The percentage of American adults married today is 51 percent, so says Pew Research Center. That's the lowest rate of married adults ever recorded in any earlier Pew polls. And it doesn't stop there. Those Americans who do marry are waiting longer before they say “I do.”

In 2010 the marriage rate for Americans aged 25-34 was 44 percent. Fifty years ago, 1960, 82 percent were married. So why is marriage becoming increasingly passe? Item, divorce. The divorce rate in America has long been 50 percent. One out of two marriages fail. Item, economy. Today Americans wait until they have a firm financial footing like graduating from college, on a payroll, before walking down the aisle. Item, no stigma. Americans today are less likely to turn up their noses on those who live alone or cohabit. […]

Now hold on D'Vera. The number of children born out of wedlock, has gone up. There's a troubling correlation. More unmarried people, having more children out of wedlock. Today the percentage of Americans born out of wedlock is, get this, 40 percent.

Question, does it strike you as ironic that just as the heterosexual interest in marriage is apparently on the wane, gay and lesbian interest in marriage is waxing prophetic? Rich?

Lowry: Yes, in irony. And when they say that marriage died, they'll put it on the heterosexuals, who've done a very good job of destroying it as an institution. 1970 you had about 10 percent illegitimacy rate, now it's 40, 42 percent. And another thing people miss, particularly eroding among the middle and the working class. If you look at marriage rates among the upper class, they're basically the same as what it was in 1960. It's eroding in the middle and in the working class which adds the economic pressure, is creating a real crisis in the working class.

MCLAUGHLIN: You know who supports you on that?

LOWRY: Who's that?

MCLAUGHLIN: Charles Murray. Who is Charles Murray?

LOWRY: He is a scholar at AEI and he just wrote a book called Coming Apart, about the very class division which is not just economic, it's social and cultural.

MCLAUGHLIN: He makes the same point you just made. You think you should notify him of that? That without knowing it you made the same point, which is some kind of corroboration. (crosstalk)

BUCHANAN: It is, John it's a triumph of the counter-culture. That's right. Among working class white folks, the illegitimacy rate is way over 40 percent, among Hispanics, all Hispanics it's 51. Among African Americans, it's 71 percent. Among the poor it is pandemic. The values of the counter-culture with regard to family and marriage and divorce and premarital sex, all of these things, are triumphing, frankly into the culture and into society and we're seeing the consequences of it now. Some of us feel it means coming apart... (crosstalk)

MCLAUGHLIN: I want to ask Par a question. Do you think the state should be involved in marriages? Why do we have the requirement of registration is needed, for the state?

BUCHANAN: I think the Judeo-Christian idea of a family and children is of enormous benefit to the entire society and it conforms that society on the basis of its values, and it did. Unfortunately the values are changing. There's no doubt about it. In California, of course they defeated gay marriage out there, but legislatures are passing them.

MCLAUGHLIN: On the abstract level, is there any reason why marriage should be related to the state and you would have to sign a book if you want a license to get married?

BUCHANAN: Children, their various rights involved, the married couples, there's also children involved, obligations and duties, so yes.

MCLAUGHLIN: You want the state to be involved in how the children are reared?

BUCHANAN: No, I want... there's obligations to protect the children. You can't do certain things.

MCLAUGHLIN: You mean there could be a tax responsibility to take care of a child if the child is born out of wedlock?

BUCHANAN: If society has agreed they're going to be educated better, you can do it by homeschooling.

MCLAUGHLIN: Can't religious institutions carry that problem?

BUCHANAN: Unfortunately not.

MCLAUGHLIN: Why have the state involved at all? (crosstalk) You don't need the state involved in a marriage. It's a private contract between a spouse and...

BUCHANAN: That's true if we were a Judeo-Christian country like we used to be. Yes.

MCLAUGHLIN: Where are we now? An atheist country?

BUCHANAN: We're a secular/Christian country and increasingly secular.

MCLAUGHLIN: Are you doing anything about it?

BUCHANAN: I just wrote a book and it got me in trouble.

The latest stories from the front lines of the labor fight across the country ...

Workers at two Southern California carwashes have their first contracts since joining the United Steelworkers

The National Union of Healthcare Workers and the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers are looking to work together more closely

Cory McCray walks through the process of a union election and the lengths a company will go through to stop a union

Brooklyn grocery store workers are fighting for overtime pay and against wage theft

A new report shows that restaurants in the U.S. widely discriminate against and exploit female workers

Sears is laying off workers in Illinois after taking millions in subsidies from the state

State and local governments have laid off nearly 700,000 workers since the beginning of the recession

Republicans want to cut the minimum wage for tipped workers

Florida Republicans are attempting to prevent local governments from passing laws to enforce wage theft laws

200,000 signatures have been gathered to repeal Michigan's emergency finanacial manager rule, enough to get it on the November ballot

Apple's Foxconn manufacturers in China are raising some salaries by 25 percent, caving to immense pressure online and elsewhere

St. Louis fire fighters are fighting to save their pensions

Seattle port truck drivers return to work but the issues from the strike aren't yet resolved

Arizona's anti-union legislation would cost local governments hundreds of thousands of dollars

States that cut the most government spending have lost the most jobs

Oklahoma Republicans are trying to pass a rule that would allow taxpayers or their representatives the absolute right to control union money

And I am both proud and saddened to bring it to you...

In a nutshell, a collection of some of Santorum's craziest statements on abortion, contraception, homosexuality, global warming, Social Security, blacks (or "blahs"), Hitler, napkins, freedom and the left.

For daily updates on creepy sh*t Santorum says, visit Santorum Exposed on Facebook.

The same Hyatt has a history of anti-labor activity

On Tuesday, faculty and students from more than 150 universities across the nation rallied on behalf of sisters Martha and Lorena Reyes, who were fired by the Hyatt Regency Santa Clara after they protested their faces being photoshopped to bikini bodies in the workplace. The protesters are calling on Hyatt to give the the women their jobs back.

:
Outraged by Hyatt’s actions, Women’s and Gender Studies faculty from several universities nationwide initiated the petition, explaining to colleagues in a cover letter that, “the sexualization of housekeepers is an appalling expression of power that has no place at work, . . . [and] it belongs to a long list of well-documented abusive and unsafe practices that Hyatt housekeepers, many of them women of color, all over the country endure.” In the statement signed by over 700 individuals from over 150 universities, supporters call on Hyatt to “reinstate the Reyes sisters” and “respond to Hyatt workers’ demands” that Hyatt “correct the unsafe, hazardous, and demeaning conditions facing them at work.”

It's clear that the firings were in retaliation for the women's actions, which were completely justified:

During National Housekeeping Week in September, employees of the Hyatt Regency Santa Clara are usually given some kind of recognition for their hard work. Instead, two sisters, Martha and Lorena Reyes, found photos of their faces "Photoshopped" onto photos of bikini-clad women posted in the staff room. The actual Hyatt photo appears on the left-hand side of the image above, provided by the Reyes' attorney. The sisters agreed to share the photos with the media.

Hyatt spokesperson Peter Hillen said that the hotel was aware of a collage of the associates within the department in which faces of many employees were superimposed onto images of people at a beach, but that they are just beginning the process of figuring out all of the facts. “We’re not quite sure who was behind the collage – whether it was a single individual or a department,” said Hillen.

Whether out of spite or for a laugh, the photos were “shameful,” said Lorena Reyes. "It was very humiliating in my own workplace," she said.

In shock and discomfort, she said, she and her sister ripped the photo down and voiced their opposition to the management. In mid-October, both sisters were fired.

According to the two sisters, hotel management told them they were let go because they allegedly took lunch breaks 10 minutes longer than allotted. The sisters, meanwhile, argue that they often missed their 10-minute break as a result of their heavy workload, and decided to add the 10 minutes to their lunch. Lorena said they've been doing that for years along with other employees who are unable to take their 10-minute break. Hillen could not speak to specifics because of employee privacy issues, but declared that their firing was “separate and apart from the issues of the images” and was a result of “clear and consistent violations of hotel policy and procedures.”

Lorena has been working for the Hyatt for 24 years. Her sister, Martha, has been working there for six years. They claim the hotel management never talked to them about this matter until this incident occurred.

Supporters of the Reyes sisters can sign a petition for Hyatt to rehire them:

Hyatt housekeepers are part of our communities, the family members of our students, and workers who make our stay at hotels comfortable when we attend professional conferences. Thus we are joining the campaign to boycott Hyatt until they meet the following demands:

1) reinstate Marta and Lorena immediately, with back pay,

2) issue an apology to Marta and Lorena, as well as all the women who were subjected to and/or had to witness the objectification of women's bodies, and

3) respond to Hyatt workers' demands across North America that the corporation correct the unsafe, hazardous, and demeaning conditions facing them at work.

enlargeGuess who's the bestest gun salesman ever? President Barack Obama! Even though he hasn't done a thing to control guns, he gets accused of doing it anyway, because that's how your basic paranoid wingnut thinks (along with a lot of encouragement from the NRA lie machine):

Although the nation’s largest gun lobby would never publicly acknowledge it, at least one gun-loving group seems to realize that a Democratic president isn’t always bad for business.

In a post published Tuesday by online ammunition supplier Ammo.com, President Barack Obama is hailed as “the greatest gun salesman in America.”

The site is even asking readers whether the gun industry should actually begin supporting him.

In an eye-grabbing message, the munitions outlet compiled dozens of statistics that show firearms sales skyrocketing in the wake of Obama’s 2008 election.

“Ironically, the perceived hostility towards gun owners by President Obama has actually helped the firearms industry tremendously,” they wrote. “Since the 2008 election, more Americans than ever before are purchasing firearms & ammunition. This has meant massive increases in sales by firearm & ammunition makers, billions more in federal and state tax collections related to guns & ammo, increased membership in the [National Rifle Association (NRA)], and hundreds of thousands of new Americans carrying concealed handguns. Therefore, should the firearms industry support President Obama for a second term or not?”

That’s actually a good question — although it’s not being taken seriously by the NRA.

During the recent Conservative Political Action Conference, NRA CEO Wayne LaPierre declared Obama’s lack of interest in gun regulations to be part of “a massive Obama conspiracy.”

“We see the president’s strategy crystal clear: Get re-elected and, with no more elections to worry about, get busy dismantling and destroying our firearms’ freedom, erase the Second Amendment from the Bill of Rights and excise it from the U.S. Constitution,” he said.

We see your strategy, Wayne: Keep that cash rolling in by pretending a black president is ready to take your guns!

An infographic compiled by the site claims taxes on the sales of new firearms and ammunition have gone up 48 percent since 2008, and state-by-state breakdowns show that North Carolina, Iowa and Utah have all seen more than 100 percent increases in gun sales.

President Obama has made quite literally no effort to impose additional regulations on firearms, and has actually expanded gun rights in America by signing a measure that allows Americans to carry guns in national parks. That very measure allowed a group of tea party supporters to stage an “open carry” protest in 2010 just a few miles away from the White House.

On paper Rick Santorum is not a generous man. He’s the most religious; the staunchest of the moralists; the fastest to the Bible thumpyist; the preachiest of the preachy in this race. He’s the most giant-government-forcing-you-to-be-holy of the small-government-for-corporations-only candidates. Yet according to his tax returns, he gives the least amount to charity of anyone else running. In 2010 Santorum gave 1.75 percent of his nearly million dollars of income. That same year President Obama gave 14.2 percent of his income to charity topping the most giving of the Republican candidates, Mitt Romney. That’s a whopping 12 percent difference with a president who Santorum says doesn’t have an agenda based on the Bible.

Now this would not be notable if Santorum were a godless hedonist who wrote tomes about how well selfishness has served him. But since he’s of the Christian faith and uses God as a personal reference on his resume, well, then it’s quite significant. Especially since the Bible is pretty clear on charity and helping the less fortunate.

But Santorum’s other problem is he seems kind of anti-women. Now when I say “anti-women” I don’t mean he kicks all women in the shins instead of shaking hands, or he’s scared of anything with an extreme waist-to-hip ratio. I mean he’s anti women being anything other than a mother or a soiled dove. “Traditional roles” for women have been either wholesome mom or the proverbial whore: Mother or outcast; Child bearer or streetwalker; Womb proprietor or back alley courtesan. Feminism traditionally has striven for equality regardless of gender. It’s been a cry for women to be able to branch out of the world’s oldest profession into some new ones. And yes, gasp, work outside the home.

In Santorum’s 2005 book, “It Takes a Family,” the Senator wrote: “The radical feminists succeeded in undermining the traditional family and convincing women that professional accomplishments are the key to happiness.”

And Rick’s recent declaration that prenatal testing leads to more abortions only solidifies the caricature of him as a shady backwoods holy man in any Timothy Olyphant television show. It’s condescending to women to be told they don’t need to worry “their pretty little head” about the health of their baby because if they had knowledge they’d “ruin their lives with an abortion.” It makes Santorum look anti-women-being-educated-and-properly-informed. Because giving birth is the most important role in life – anything else is worthy of popular scorn.

Santorum’s team has sensed this woman thing could be an issue. So he’s trying to soften the edges with the (ahem) softer sex. Last week when ABC News’ George Stephanopoulos asked about the anti-women working passages in his book Santorum said his wife, Karen co-wrote those passages. "She felt very much like society and those radical feminists that I was referring to were not affirming her choice ... All I'm saying is ... we should affirm both choices ... That's what the book says, and I stand by what I said." Yes, the book, according to Santorum’s latest explanation, should have been titled “Affirming Choices.” Santorum: pro-affirming-choice. Sure.

I could make all these problems for Rick as a candidate go away. I have one simple solution: Give Karen an author credit. Yes, “It Takes a Family,” admittedly took a family to write, so why not accredit the co-author on the cover? Currently Karen isn’t even in the acknowledgement section – let alone on the cover or in the catalog information. So why not announce that the mother of your children isn’t just your personal incubator but is valued for her mind and opinion? It says your anti-women stance comes straight from the woman happily working in your own home. Do a re-issue of this collection of antiquated ramblings and tell the world she’s the wife who made you the anti-women candidate you are today.

It accomplishes two things: It makes Santorum seem generous (again) on paper, and it makes all of that Neolithic “women need to know their place” rhetoric in his 464-page manifesto seem more this millennium.

Sure it “takes a family” to write a book – but it “takes a woman” to make you look less like a sad desperate relic.

Click here to view this media

He's baaaaack. As I suspected, letting Glenn Beck loose from Fox News didn't keep him from stirring the pot, and this time it's on a global basis. Here's his plan, via Gather.com:

Beck met with Cardinals, Monsignors, Archbishops and other Catholic leaders and officials at the Vatican. Beck's website says, "They discussed the importance of freedom of expression and freedom of conscience, as well as standing against the rise of secularism and the rise of anti-Semitism." Fans will have to wait until later today when Glenn is back to discuss his trip. Anything that can help to bring peace between religions and work towards solidarity against secular attacks will be welcome by many.

Mr. Beck also spoke with Tea Party leaders from Serbia, Georgia, Milan, Rome, Germany, Austria, London, and Israel. Who knew there was a Tea Party overseas? The meeting was put together by FreedomWorks and Mercury One. The website says they discussed the peace movement overseas and "...an integrated global effort to champion Tea Party ideals." On his Monday radio show, Beck will talk about his "...vision for a multi-faith coalition that stands in support of religious liberty." Last night on his Twitter, Beck posted, "I'm back from "special assignment" with amazing news.

Yeah. Amazing news. I found this snippet from his interview about the Grand Plan with Bill O'Reilly to be pretty interesting, at about 50 seconds in:

BECK: I think the problem is that Europe is going to fall into real darkness and the old hatreds will rear their ugly heads, if we don't help each other. We're going to have a global peace and freedom movement, or tea party movement meeting in Dallas this summer on July 26th along with FreedomWorks...

What did he mean by "fall into real darkness" and "old hatreds?" I have an idea, but it's not quite clear to me and if I climb into the head of a typical Fox viewer I'm afraid my head will explode, so I'll leave that question to you.

At any rate, Beck is seeking to rally the troops around in order to revive the tea party folks just in time for the election, it seems. With primary participation at all-time lows, I suppose dragging Beck out of the closet might be this group's last hurrah.

Click here to view this media

Monday night, Karl Rove and Sean Hannity had a lot of fun "worrying" over how rising gas prices might affect President Obama's re-election. Rove is certain that no President can be re-elected if gas prices are rising.

I thought that was interesting, so I went and checked out some facts about historical oil prices, especially since Rove seems to have forgotten that the all-time high for gas prices was in July, 2008, when they hit $4.21 per gallon. Remember John McCain calling for a suspension of the national gas tax? Shortly after hitting that all-time high, prices plummeted. In fact, there has been a trend of extreme volatility in gasoline (and oil) prices for the past ten years, as you can see from this chart:

enlarge

What's notable about Hannity and Rove's concern trolling here is what they don't mention: Oil speculation. Instead they natter on about how President Obama wants gas prices to be at $5.00 per gallon to serve his "radical agenda." But speculators are playing a very large role in the steep rise in the price of oil, once again, just like they did in 2008.

Via Kansas City Star:

While tension over Iran has ratcheted up in the past few months, the price of oil and gasoline has leaped far beyond conventional supply and demand variables. Financial speculators are piling into the market, torquing the Iranian fear factor into ever-higher prices.

"Speculation is now part of the DNA of oil prices. You cannot separate the two anymore. There is no demarcation," said Fadel Gheit, a 30-year veteran of energy markets and an analyst at Oppenheimer & Co. "I still remain convinced oil prices are inflated."

[...]

The fear premium is the froth above what prices would be absent fears of a supply disruption - somewhere in the $80 to $85 range for a barrel of crude oil. It means that even with the extra cost put on oil from Iran fears, prices are at least another $10 higher than what demand fundamentals would dictate.

Why? Financial speculators.

What should the price of oil be if left to conventional supply and demand market fundamentals? Canada's the largest supplier of imported oil to the United States, which now actually produces more than half of the oil it consumes. Production and delivery costs for a barrel of oil from Canada are about $75 a barrel. The market-fundamentals cost for a barrel of oil is in that ballpark; above that, speculation sets the prices.

"It's as simple as that," said Gheit, who has testified before Congress and called for regulatory limits on speculation in commodities markets.

Historically, financial speculators accounted for about 30 percent of oil trading in commodity markets, while producers and end users made up about 70 percent. Today it's almost the reverse.

A McClatchy Newspapers review of the latest Commitment of Traders report from the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, which regulates oil trading, shows that producers and merchants made up just 36 percent of all contracts traded in the week ending Feb. 14.

Consider this. For the past six weeks or so, Fox News has been hammering away on Iran and the possibility of going to war with Iran. They've ratcheted up the Iran fears by a factor of ten. Every single Fox News show breathlessly tells viewers about the Great Satan and how they are such a national security threat. In fact, Newt Gingrich went so far as to tell a town hall audience yesterday that President Obama is a threat to national security because he won't make nice with Netanyahu and saber-rattle with him over the perceived "Iran threat." It's feeling a lot like Iraq all over again, isn't it?

And now let's add the Koch Brothers to the mix as Think Progress reported last year:

2008: Rampant oil speculation spikes prices to unprecedented levels. As academics from the Peterson Institute, the James Baker Institute at Rice University, and others conclude, non-commercial speculators begin to dominate the market, forcing up prices. Although the evidence was abundant that speculators caused the massive price spikes during the summer of 2008, regulators were toothless to act. A bipartisan majority in the House overwhelmingly passed legislation to award powers to the CFTC to oversee rampant oil speculation, but Republican in the Senate — acting with help from Koch lobbyists — killed the bill, called the Energy Markets Emergency Act.

This is the recipe:

1. Use the conservative media noise machine to ramp up concerns about Iran, an oil-producing nation. This is the fear premium.
2. Make sure all conservatives running for President echo the same talking points about how the sole obstacle to lower gasoline prices is President Obama's silly homage to "radical environmentalists".
3. Make sure there are no impediments to behind-the-scenes manipulation of crude oil prices via speculation.
4. Speculate wildly, hedging all ways so no matter what happens, you make money.
5. As prices rise, use your 24/7 media machine to make sure everyone knows these prices just wouldn't be rising without policy decisions made by this President.
6. Whatever you do, do NOT mention speculation at all.
7. Lather, rinse, repeat. Over, and over, and over until it becomes fact without evidence.

Don't expect Hannity and Rove to tell you that. It would wreck their fact-free discussion and cause their "concerns" to evaporate.

Click here to view this media
[via The Obama Diary]

The Obama's hosted another concert at the White House tonight. This one was all about the blues, and at the end, the President serenaded the crowd with his version of "Sweet Home Alabama Chicago."

The full special airs on PBS February 27th.

Click here to view this media

If you don't count money (which is how people with no talent keep score), Frank Luntz is what I think of as a sad loser in the Game of Life. No spouse, no children, workaholic, publicly denounced by the pollsters' professional organization because they suspected him of making things up, no ethical standards to speak of, very bad toupee. He's the kind of person who makes other people feel good, because everyone can find something about this jerk to make themselves feel superior. Isn't it interesting, that any news organizations still treat him like he's credible? Because he's not just on Fox News, you know.

And now, he jokes about killing the president. Isn't he just too special?

Fox News contributor Frank Luntz on Monday made a suggestion about running over the nation’s first black president with his car.

Appearing at an event with Republican presidential candidate Rick Santorum in West Michigan, the GOP pollster warmed up the audience with a few jokes. Video of the event was captured by The Grand Rapids Press.

“I actually have a ‘Run, Barack, Run’ bumper sticker, but I put it on the front of my car,” Luntz said.

I guess we're not supposed to remember the racist jokes about "Run, N***er, Run" bumperstickers on the front of cars. And clearly, Fox News sees that sort of subtlety as a feature, not a bug. But news networks like ABC and CBS that use this clown might still care.

Gin and Tacos: That poll right-wingers are citing showing low support for the birth-control coverage mandate is fatally flawed.

Norbrook: Republicans' recent track record shows how vast the difference between the parties has become.

The Reaction: Santorum's grotesque claim that Democrats are "anti-science" just shows that he has no clue what the word "science" means.

Green Eagle: Oh, and Santorum was lying about World War II as well.

Blog round-up by Infidel753. Tips to mbru [at] crooksandliars [dot] com.

enlargeCredit: h/t NVB

Open thread below....

Title: Midnight CityArtist: M83

You might have heard this gem from France's M83 in a Victoria's Secret commercial or elsewhere, as it has been used across the globe in commercials and the like. A standout from 2011's stellar Hurry Up, We're Dreaming, this track sounds like what the future would have sounded like to me in the 80's. What's your favorite music from the electronic world?

Hurry Up, We're Dreaming Artist: M83 Price: $11.95 (As of 02/22/12 05:55 am details)