Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Segami
Segami's Journal
Segami's Journal
June 8, 2014
Democrats this week began a witch hunt for Congressional holdouts who still support federal intervention in states’ rights to regulate medical marijuana. Proponents of greater access to medical marijuana were emboldened after a Republican-controlled House voted 219-189 to proscribe the government from enforcing federal marijuana laws that conflict with rapidly changing state laws supported by majorities of the American public. As libertarian met libertine, a quarter of Republican congressmen voted for the provision — with opposition from just 17 Democrats.
Now, progressives are targeting Reps. Andy Harris and Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Democrats from Maryland and Florida, with ads on MSNBC from Americans for Safe Access. Kris Hermes, a spokesman for the progressive group, told The Huffington Post that the attack on Wasserman makes sense, especially given that 90 percent of Floridians support medical marijuana, according to a recent Quinnipiac poll.
"The reason for these two particular members of Congress has to do with their especially outspoken opposition to medical marijuana, despite its popular support in their districts," he said. "Although the Rohrabacher-Farr amendment was passed with a solid majority, the influence of these two elected officials is significant, and their efforts to derail a measure supported by the vast majority of Americans is troubling and must be confronted."
Following this initial media exposure, the new ads will run during the next several days on MSNBC to remind voters how Harris, among 17 Democrats in the House, continues to oppose legalization of medical marijuana. The Florida Congressman spoke on the House floor in late May against the bill sponsored by California Reps. Dana Rohrabacher and Sam Farr to deny DEA funding for operations against state-regulated medical marijuana. "It's the camel's nose under the tent," Harris said, according to Reason and National Journal. The Congressman cited a report published this week by the DEA calling medical marijuana “a means to an end” in gaining legalization for recreational purposes.
cont'
http://www.medicaldaily.com/medical-marijuana-ads-target-congressmen-who-oppose-legalization-after-vote-protect-states-rights
Progressives TARGET Congressional HOLDOUTS Who OPPOSE Medical Marijuana
Democrats this week began a witch hunt for Congressional holdouts who still support federal intervention in states’ rights to regulate medical marijuana. Proponents of greater access to medical marijuana were emboldened after a Republican-controlled House voted 219-189 to proscribe the government from enforcing federal marijuana laws that conflict with rapidly changing state laws supported by majorities of the American public. As libertarian met libertine, a quarter of Republican congressmen voted for the provision — with opposition from just 17 Democrats.
Now, progressives are targeting Reps. Andy Harris and Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Democrats from Maryland and Florida, with ads on MSNBC from Americans for Safe Access. Kris Hermes, a spokesman for the progressive group, told The Huffington Post that the attack on Wasserman makes sense, especially given that 90 percent of Floridians support medical marijuana, according to a recent Quinnipiac poll.
"The reason for these two particular members of Congress has to do with their especially outspoken opposition to medical marijuana, despite its popular support in their districts," he said. "Although the Rohrabacher-Farr amendment was passed with a solid majority, the influence of these two elected officials is significant, and their efforts to derail a measure supported by the vast majority of Americans is troubling and must be confronted."
Following this initial media exposure, the new ads will run during the next several days on MSNBC to remind voters how Harris, among 17 Democrats in the House, continues to oppose legalization of medical marijuana. The Florida Congressman spoke on the House floor in late May against the bill sponsored by California Reps. Dana Rohrabacher and Sam Farr to deny DEA funding for operations against state-regulated medical marijuana. "It's the camel's nose under the tent," Harris said, according to Reason and National Journal. The Congressman cited a report published this week by the DEA calling medical marijuana “a means to an end” in gaining legalization for recreational purposes.
cont'
http://www.medicaldaily.com/medical-marijuana-ads-target-congressmen-who-oppose-legalization-after-vote-protect-states-rights
June 7, 2014
On March 31, 2014, the Obamacare open enrollment deadline passed. Over 8 million Americans successfully enrolled and gained health insurance coverage. Over six million more gained coverage through Medicaid expansion. Despite Republican claims that the sky would fall and send the US job market into a death spiral, it did not fall and it still hasn’t. For the fourth consecutive month, the economy added more than 200,000 jobs, and healthcare led the way in creating those jobs. According to a report from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, 217,000 jobs were added in May. Healthcare was responsible for approximately 55,000 of those jobs. And that’s not the only good news.
The jobs report is even sweeter because it means the United States has finally recovered all of the jobs lost when the economy crashed during the Bush Administration in 2008. It also marks the first time that the economy has added 200,000 jobs for four straight months since 1999-2000, when another Democrat, Bill Clinton, occupied the White House. Additionally, the unemployment rate still stands at 6.3 percent, which is a six year low since the rate peaked at 10 percent in 2009 just after Obama took office.
Even though Republicans have crusaded against President Obama’s signature healthcare law all these years by claiming it to be a job killer, the evidence clearly shows that they’re totally wrong. In fact, Obamacare actually creates jobs. The job creation power of Obamacare even goes beyond the healthcare sector. Implementing a healthcare system that will handle an influx of millions of people demands the growth of many fields, including many outside of healthcare. Not just doctors, nurses, and physician assistants, but also jobs in payroll services, computer programming, attorneys, medical bill coders, consultants, customer service, human resources, occupational therapy, and educators. A system that is expected to help way more than 14 million Americans simply cannot do its job unless more workers are hired to fill the increased need.
This isn’t the only bad news the GOP has received about Obamacare in recent months. A recent poll indicates that uninsured rates have fallen across the board throughout the nation, especially among African-Americans and Hispanics. Furthermore, a separate poll reveals that Americans now support Obamacare and a report from the Congressional Budget Office predicts that the law will save an additional $104 billion in costs. It looks like conservatives are all out of doomsday claims about Obamacare.
cont'
http://www.addictinginfo.org/2014/06/06/bad-news-for-republicans-obamacare-still-not-a-job-killer-as-217000-jobs-added-in-may-healthcare-adds-the-most/
BAD NEWS For Republicans: Obamacare STILL NOT A Job Killer- 217,000 Jobs Added-HEALTHCARE ADDS MOST
On March 31, 2014, the Obamacare open enrollment deadline passed. Over 8 million Americans successfully enrolled and gained health insurance coverage. Over six million more gained coverage through Medicaid expansion. Despite Republican claims that the sky would fall and send the US job market into a death spiral, it did not fall and it still hasn’t. For the fourth consecutive month, the economy added more than 200,000 jobs, and healthcare led the way in creating those jobs. According to a report from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, 217,000 jobs were added in May. Healthcare was responsible for approximately 55,000 of those jobs. And that’s not the only good news.
The jobs report is even sweeter because it means the United States has finally recovered all of the jobs lost when the economy crashed during the Bush Administration in 2008. It also marks the first time that the economy has added 200,000 jobs for four straight months since 1999-2000, when another Democrat, Bill Clinton, occupied the White House. Additionally, the unemployment rate still stands at 6.3 percent, which is a six year low since the rate peaked at 10 percent in 2009 just after Obama took office.
Even though Republicans have crusaded against President Obama’s signature healthcare law all these years by claiming it to be a job killer, the evidence clearly shows that they’re totally wrong. In fact, Obamacare actually creates jobs. The job creation power of Obamacare even goes beyond the healthcare sector. Implementing a healthcare system that will handle an influx of millions of people demands the growth of many fields, including many outside of healthcare. Not just doctors, nurses, and physician assistants, but also jobs in payroll services, computer programming, attorneys, medical bill coders, consultants, customer service, human resources, occupational therapy, and educators. A system that is expected to help way more than 14 million Americans simply cannot do its job unless more workers are hired to fill the increased need.
This isn’t the only bad news the GOP has received about Obamacare in recent months. A recent poll indicates that uninsured rates have fallen across the board throughout the nation, especially among African-Americans and Hispanics. Furthermore, a separate poll reveals that Americans now support Obamacare and a report from the Congressional Budget Office predicts that the law will save an additional $104 billion in costs. It looks like conservatives are all out of doomsday claims about Obamacare.
cont'
http://www.addictinginfo.org/2014/06/06/bad-news-for-republicans-obamacare-still-not-a-job-killer-as-217000-jobs-added-in-may-healthcare-adds-the-most/
June 6, 2014
BAM...BOOM!.....
John McCain has spent much of the past week denying that he changed his position about exchanging Taliban prisoners for American soldier Bowe Bergdahl. So he probably wasn't happy on Friday morning, when the Washington Post's official fact-checker, Glenn Kessler, sided with the people who think McCain flip-flopped on Bergdahl.
McCain told Jake Tapper on Thursday that, although he previously expressed his willingness to exchange prisoners for Bergdahl, he would never have done so if he'd known exactly which prisoners would be exchanged. Kessler, though, poked some big holes in that argument:
Read more:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/06/06/john-mccain-flip-flop-bergdahl_n_5460622.html
BOOM!!- John McCain GETS HAMMERED By Fact-Checker
BAM...BOOM!.....
John McCain has spent much of the past week denying that he changed his position about exchanging Taliban prisoners for American soldier Bowe Bergdahl. So he probably wasn't happy on Friday morning, when the Washington Post's official fact-checker, Glenn Kessler, sided with the people who think McCain flip-flopped on Bergdahl.
McCain told Jake Tapper on Thursday that, although he previously expressed his willingness to exchange prisoners for Bergdahl, he would never have done so if he'd known exactly which prisoners would be exchanged. Kessler, though, poked some big holes in that argument:
"...We fully appreciate that the details of a prisoner exchange are important, and McCain certainly made that caveat clear. But since the deal was announced, he has suggested that the question of trading the Taliban Five for Bergdahl was a surprise—and that’s certainly not the case. These five men were always part of the prisoner swap, so that is not a detail that can be in dispute. Indeed, only a day after The Washington Post revealed a deal was in the works to trade the five men for Bergdahl, McCain appeared on television with what was billed as a “new position.”
McCain may have thought he left himself an out when he said his support was dependent on the details. But then he can’t object to the most important detail–the identity of the prisoners–that was known at the time he indicated his support. McCain earns an upside-down Pinocchio, constituting a flip-flop..."
McCain may have thought he left himself an out when he said his support was dependent on the details. But then he can’t object to the most important detail–the identity of the prisoners–that was known at the time he indicated his support. McCain earns an upside-down Pinocchio, constituting a flip-flop..."
Read more:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/06/06/john-mccain-flip-flop-bergdahl_n_5460622.html
June 6, 2014
Vodafone, one of the world’s largest mobile phone groups, has revealed the existence of secret wires that allow government agencies to listen to all conversations on its networks, saying they are widely used in some of the 29 countries in which it operates in Europe and beyond. The company has broken its silence on government surveillance in order to push back against the increasingly widespread use of phone and broadband networks to spy on citizens, and will publish its first Law Enforcement Disclosure Report on Friday. At 40,000 words, it is the most comprehensive survey yet of how governments monitor the conversations and whereabouts of their people.
The company said wires had been connected directly to its network and those of other telecoms groups, allowing agencies to listen to or record live conversations and, in certain cases, track the whereabouts of a customer. Privacy campaigners said the revelations were a “nightmare scenario” that confirmed their worst fears on the extent of snooping. In Albania, Egypt, Hungary, India, Malta, Qatar, Romania, South Africa and Turkey, it is unlawful to disclose any information related to wiretapping or interception of the content of phone calls and messages including whether such capabilities exist. “For governments to access phone calls at the flick of a switch is unprecedented and terrifying,” said the Liberty director, Shami Chakrabarti. “[Edward] Snowden revealed the internet was already treated as fair game. Bluster that all is well is wearing pretty thin – our analogue laws need a digital overhaul.”
In about six of the countries in which Vodafone operates, the law either obliges telecoms operators to install direct access pipes, or allows governments to do so. The company, which owns mobile and fixed broadband networks, including the former Cable & Wireless business, has not named the countries involved because certain regimes could retaliate by imprisoning its staff. Direct-access systems do not require warrants, and companies have no information about the identity or the number of customers targeted. Mass surveillance can happen on any telecoms network without agencies having to justify their intrusion to the companies involved. Industry sources say that in some cases, the direct-access wire, or pipe, is essentially equipment in a locked room in a network’s central data centre or in one of its local exchanges or “switches”.
The staff working in that room can be employed by the telecoms firm, but have state security clearance and are usually unable to discuss any aspect of their work with the rest of the company. Vodafone says it requires all employees to follow its code of conduct, but secrecy means that it cannot always verify that they do so. Government agencies can also intercept traffic on its way into a data centre, combing through conversations before routing them on to the operator. “These are the nightmare scenarios that we were imagining,” said Gus Hosein, executive director of Privacy International, which has brought legal action against the British government over mass surveillance. “I never thought the telcos [telecommunications companies] would be so complicit. It’s a brave step by Vodafone and hopefully the other telcos will become more brave with disclosure, but what we need is for them to be braver about fighting back against the illegal requests and the laws themselves.” Vodafone’s group privacy officer, Stephen Deadman, said: “These pipes exist, the direct access model exists.
cont'
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/06/05/vodafone-exposes-secret-worldwide-network-of-government-wiretaps/
Vodafone EXPOSES SECRET Worldwide Network Of GOVERNMENT WIRETAPS
"...Wires allow agencies to listen to or record live conversations, in what privacy campaigners are calling a ‘nightmare scenario’..."
Vodafone, one of the world’s largest mobile phone groups, has revealed the existence of secret wires that allow government agencies to listen to all conversations on its networks, saying they are widely used in some of the 29 countries in which it operates in Europe and beyond. The company has broken its silence on government surveillance in order to push back against the increasingly widespread use of phone and broadband networks to spy on citizens, and will publish its first Law Enforcement Disclosure Report on Friday. At 40,000 words, it is the most comprehensive survey yet of how governments monitor the conversations and whereabouts of their people.
The company said wires had been connected directly to its network and those of other telecoms groups, allowing agencies to listen to or record live conversations and, in certain cases, track the whereabouts of a customer. Privacy campaigners said the revelations were a “nightmare scenario” that confirmed their worst fears on the extent of snooping. In Albania, Egypt, Hungary, India, Malta, Qatar, Romania, South Africa and Turkey, it is unlawful to disclose any information related to wiretapping or interception of the content of phone calls and messages including whether such capabilities exist. “For governments to access phone calls at the flick of a switch is unprecedented and terrifying,” said the Liberty director, Shami Chakrabarti. “[Edward] Snowden revealed the internet was already treated as fair game. Bluster that all is well is wearing pretty thin – our analogue laws need a digital overhaul.”
In about six of the countries in which Vodafone operates, the law either obliges telecoms operators to install direct access pipes, or allows governments to do so. The company, which owns mobile and fixed broadband networks, including the former Cable & Wireless business, has not named the countries involved because certain regimes could retaliate by imprisoning its staff. Direct-access systems do not require warrants, and companies have no information about the identity or the number of customers targeted. Mass surveillance can happen on any telecoms network without agencies having to justify their intrusion to the companies involved. Industry sources say that in some cases, the direct-access wire, or pipe, is essentially equipment in a locked room in a network’s central data centre or in one of its local exchanges or “switches”.
The staff working in that room can be employed by the telecoms firm, but have state security clearance and are usually unable to discuss any aspect of their work with the rest of the company. Vodafone says it requires all employees to follow its code of conduct, but secrecy means that it cannot always verify that they do so. Government agencies can also intercept traffic on its way into a data centre, combing through conversations before routing them on to the operator. “These are the nightmare scenarios that we were imagining,” said Gus Hosein, executive director of Privacy International, which has brought legal action against the British government over mass surveillance. “I never thought the telcos [telecommunications companies] would be so complicit. It’s a brave step by Vodafone and hopefully the other telcos will become more brave with disclosure, but what we need is for them to be braver about fighting back against the illegal requests and the laws themselves.” Vodafone’s group privacy officer, Stephen Deadman, said: “These pipes exist, the direct access model exists.
cont'
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/06/05/vodafone-exposes-secret-worldwide-network-of-government-wiretaps/
June 5, 2014
On Thursday’s episode of Morning Joe, host Joe Scarborough went way over the line when discussing the situation surrounding the release of Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl, an american POW who was finally brought home after nearly five years in captivity. Apparently, Scarborough was off at the beginning of the week and this was his first opportunity to talk about the growing controversy, created solely by conservatives in the media and Republicans in Washington, over Bergdahl. What we were presented with was a disgusting display that actually put Joe’s recent over-the-top demonstrations to shame.
After starting off the show tossing out spurious arguments and berating the President for his decision to release the “five most important members of the Taliban,” Joe then ended the segment with a hateful rant where he called Bergdahl a deserter and someone who was not worth saving. In fact, he said that Bergdahl should be the last person we should concern ourselves with freeing and that he deserved to be held in captivity due to his own actions. Scarborough’s hate-filled, vitriolic rant was precipitated by comments made by panel guests Steve Rattner and Eugene Robinson. Joe told Robinson that he wasn’t going to allow him to say that the detainees released may not even be a legitimate threat to the US in the future. Basically, in Joe’s mind, it is an absolute certainty that they are going to mastermind a 9/11-style attach on the US in the future and they should have never been released (even though they were going to have to be released, per international law, within the next year.)
This then started a discussion revolving around Bergdahl’s service and the possibility that he might have gone AWOL prior to being captured in 2009. Robinson wondered if anyone would have a problem with a prisoner exchange for Bergdahl if he was a war hero, rather than someone whose service record is under question. This led to Rattner saying that he’d only release these detainees in exchange for someone truly important, like a Senator or Joe Scarborough (good grief!) This lit the fire under Joe to go off on Bergdahl’s alleged desertion. Essentially, Scarborough said that Bergdahl is a worthless human being who didn’t deserve to have his country make a deal to secure his release and bring him home. Answering the question about whether his service record mattered, Joe yelled, “Damn straight it matters!” He then went on a tirade of embarrassing proportions, as he claimed that Bergdahl hates America, that he is responsible for six American soldiers dying because they were looking for him (a claim that has since been refuted) and that he is a deserter who should be the last person we think of getting out of that area.
cont'
http://www.politicususa.com/2014/06/05/bergdahl-comments-thursday-joe-scarborough-air-now.html
After His Bergdahl Comments Thursday, Joe Scarborough Needs To Be TAKEN OFF THE AIR NOW!
On Thursday’s episode of Morning Joe, host Joe Scarborough went way over the line when discussing the situation surrounding the release of Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl, an american POW who was finally brought home after nearly five years in captivity. Apparently, Scarborough was off at the beginning of the week and this was his first opportunity to talk about the growing controversy, created solely by conservatives in the media and Republicans in Washington, over Bergdahl. What we were presented with was a disgusting display that actually put Joe’s recent over-the-top demonstrations to shame.
After starting off the show tossing out spurious arguments and berating the President for his decision to release the “five most important members of the Taliban,” Joe then ended the segment with a hateful rant where he called Bergdahl a deserter and someone who was not worth saving. In fact, he said that Bergdahl should be the last person we should concern ourselves with freeing and that he deserved to be held in captivity due to his own actions. Scarborough’s hate-filled, vitriolic rant was precipitated by comments made by panel guests Steve Rattner and Eugene Robinson. Joe told Robinson that he wasn’t going to allow him to say that the detainees released may not even be a legitimate threat to the US in the future. Basically, in Joe’s mind, it is an absolute certainty that they are going to mastermind a 9/11-style attach on the US in the future and they should have never been released (even though they were going to have to be released, per international law, within the next year.)
This then started a discussion revolving around Bergdahl’s service and the possibility that he might have gone AWOL prior to being captured in 2009. Robinson wondered if anyone would have a problem with a prisoner exchange for Bergdahl if he was a war hero, rather than someone whose service record is under question. This led to Rattner saying that he’d only release these detainees in exchange for someone truly important, like a Senator or Joe Scarborough (good grief!) This lit the fire under Joe to go off on Bergdahl’s alleged desertion. Essentially, Scarborough said that Bergdahl is a worthless human being who didn’t deserve to have his country make a deal to secure his release and bring him home. Answering the question about whether his service record mattered, Joe yelled, “Damn straight it matters!” He then went on a tirade of embarrassing proportions, as he claimed that Bergdahl hates America, that he is responsible for six American soldiers dying because they were looking for him (a claim that has since been refuted) and that he is a deserter who should be the last person we think of getting out of that area.
cont'
http://www.politicususa.com/2014/06/05/bergdahl-comments-thursday-joe-scarborough-air-now.html
June 5, 2014
Advocate.com reports that the conservative LGBT organization GOProud is closing up shop. The organization was formed five years ago, but never could quite find its niche within the homophobic Republican Party. GOProud founder Jimmy LaSalvia quit the organization and left the Republican Party last year, blasting party officials for their intolerant views on his way out. Co-founder Chris Barron also exited the GOProud organization in 2013 after a dispute regarding the group initially being denied participation in the CPAC convention.
The troubled organization has always seemed a bit slow to recognize that the Republican Party is not welcoming to gays and lesbians, regardless of how conservative they may be on economic issues. No matter how much the GOP leadership talks about personal liberty and individual rights, they ultimately bow to social conservatives. Anti-gay discrimination is enshrined in the GOP’s national platform, and many state party platforms also explicitly support anti-gay discrimination.
As long as Republicans running for office continue to pander to the socially reactionary Christian Right, gays in the GOP will be treated as second class citizens. While some LGBT conservatives may hope that the party will embrace them as long as they hate Obamacare, love guns, and despise capital gains taxes as much as they do, the truth is the religious conservative base has no use for gays and lesbians period. Bigotry is like that. No matter how much LGBT Americans seek acceptance within the Republican ranks, that acceptance will not be forthcoming until the Republican Party purges itself of the intolerant social conservatives who control much of the party machinery.
http://www.politicususa.com/2014/06/04/gay-republican-organization-goproud-throwing-towel-calling-quits.html
.
Gay Republican Organization GOPROUD Is Throwing In The Towel And CALLING IT QUITS
GOProud was simply never a viable group within a party that is all to eager to ratchet up antipathy towards gays to win over the support of social conservatives. Apparently the organization has figured out after five years of existence that they really have no home inside the Republican Party. GOProud is proud to be GOP no more, as they are disbanding.
Advocate.com reports that the conservative LGBT organization GOProud is closing up shop. The organization was formed five years ago, but never could quite find its niche within the homophobic Republican Party. GOProud founder Jimmy LaSalvia quit the organization and left the Republican Party last year, blasting party officials for their intolerant views on his way out. Co-founder Chris Barron also exited the GOProud organization in 2013 after a dispute regarding the group initially being denied participation in the CPAC convention.
The troubled organization has always seemed a bit slow to recognize that the Republican Party is not welcoming to gays and lesbians, regardless of how conservative they may be on economic issues. No matter how much the GOP leadership talks about personal liberty and individual rights, they ultimately bow to social conservatives. Anti-gay discrimination is enshrined in the GOP’s national platform, and many state party platforms also explicitly support anti-gay discrimination.
As long as Republicans running for office continue to pander to the socially reactionary Christian Right, gays in the GOP will be treated as second class citizens. While some LGBT conservatives may hope that the party will embrace them as long as they hate Obamacare, love guns, and despise capital gains taxes as much as they do, the truth is the religious conservative base has no use for gays and lesbians period. Bigotry is like that. No matter how much LGBT Americans seek acceptance within the Republican ranks, that acceptance will not be forthcoming until the Republican Party purges itself of the intolerant social conservatives who control much of the party machinery.
http://www.politicususa.com/2014/06/04/gay-republican-organization-goproud-throwing-towel-calling-quits.html
.
June 4, 2014
A few weeks ago, Hillary Clinton delivered a much-touted policy speech at the New America Foundation in Washington, where she talked passionately about the financial plight of Americans who "are still barely getting by, barely holding on, not seeing the rewards that they believe their hard work should have merited." She bemoaned the fact that the slice of the nation's wealth collected by the top 1 percent—or 0.01 percent—has "risen sharply over the last generation," and she denounced this "throwback to the Gilded Age of the robber barons." Her speech, in which she cited the various projects of the Bill, Hillary, and Chelsea Clinton Foundation that address economic inequality, was widely compared to the rhetoric of Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), the unofficial torchbearer of the populist wing of the Democratic Party. Here was Hillary, test-driving a theme for a possible 2016 presidential campaign, sticking up for the little guy and trash-talking the economic elites. She decried the "shadow banking system that operated without accountability" and caused the financial crisis that wiped out millions of jobs and the nest eggs, retirement funds, and college savings of families across the land. Yet at the end of this week, when all three Clintons hold a daylong confab with donors to their foundation, the site for this gathering will be the Manhattan headquarters of Goldman Sachs.
Goldman was a key participant in that "shadow banking system" that precipitated the housing market collapse and the consequent financial debacle that slammed America's middle class. (A system that was unleashed in part due to deregulation supported by the Clinton administration in the 1990s.) This investment house might even be considered one of the robber barons of Wall Street. In its 2011 report, the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission, a congressionally created panel set up to investigate the economic meltdown, approvingly cited a financial expert who concluded that Goldman practices had "multiplied the effects of the collapse in [the] subprime" mortgage market that set off the wider financial implosion that nearly threw the nation into a depression. Hillary Clinton's shift from declaimer of Big Finance shenanigans to collaborator with Goldman—the firm has donated between $250,000 and $500,000 to the Clinton Foundation—prompts an obvious question: Can the former secretary of state cultivate populist cred while hobnobbing with Goldman and pocketing money from it and other Wall Street firms? Last year, she gave two paid speeches to Goldman Sachs audiences. (Her customary fee is $200,000 a speech.) In recent years, Goldman Sachs has hardly exemplified the values and principles Clinton earnestly hailed in her speech. A few reminders:
* In April 2011, Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.), who chairs the Senate's Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, released a report, based on a two-year investigation, that concluded that Goldman had misled clients and Congress about its investments in securities related to the housing market. Levin called on the Justice Department and the Securities and Exchange Commission to investigate if Goldman had violated the law by selling complicated securities to customers without informing the buyers that Goldman would pocket profits if these financial products dropped in value. Goldman denied the charge, but the previous year Goldman had paid $550 million in a civil settlement with the SEC regarding its sale of these securities. (When the case was first filed, the SEC maintained that Goldman had committed fraud by creating and peddling a mortgage investment that was secretly designed to fail.)
* In March 2012, Greg Smith, a top Goldman executive who was resigning, wrote an op-ed for the New York Times slamming the screw-the-client culture that permeated Goldman: "To put the problem in the simplest terms, the interests of the client continue to be sidelined in the way the firm operates and thinks about making money…I attend derivatives sales meetings where not one single minute is spent asking questions about how we can help clients. It's purely about how we can make the most possible money off of them…It makes me ill how callously people talk about ripping their clients off. Over the last 12 months I have seen five different managing directors refer to their own clients as 'muppets,' sometimes over internal e-mail." The Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission's report also described Goldman as a first-class predator: "Despite the first of Goldman's business principles—that 'our clients' interests always come first'—documents indicate that the firm targeted less-sophisticated customers in its efforts to reduce subprime exposure." In other words, the firm knowingly peddled junk to suckers who trusted it. The report quoted an expert who noted that Goldman's actions were "the most cynical use of credit information that I have ever seen" and who compared Goldman's wheeling-and-dealing to "buying fire insurance on someone else's house and then committing arson."
* Last year, the New York Times published a fascinating investigative article that revealed how Goldman Sachs and other financial firms engaged in shrewd maneuvers to drive up the cost of aluminum. This rigging of the market, the paper reported, "ultimately costs consumers billions of dollars." That did not help struggling middle-class families.
Given Hillary Clinton's Warrenesque address at the New America Foundation, I asked a spokesmen for the potential 2016 candidate if there was anything incongruous about her association with Goldman, and he forwarded this statement:
cont'
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/06/hillary-clintons-goldman-sachs-problem
Hillary Clinton's GOLDMAN SACHS PROBLEM.
A few weeks ago, Hillary Clinton delivered a much-touted policy speech at the New America Foundation in Washington, where she talked passionately about the financial plight of Americans who "are still barely getting by, barely holding on, not seeing the rewards that they believe their hard work should have merited." She bemoaned the fact that the slice of the nation's wealth collected by the top 1 percent—or 0.01 percent—has "risen sharply over the last generation," and she denounced this "throwback to the Gilded Age of the robber barons." Her speech, in which she cited the various projects of the Bill, Hillary, and Chelsea Clinton Foundation that address economic inequality, was widely compared to the rhetoric of Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), the unofficial torchbearer of the populist wing of the Democratic Party. Here was Hillary, test-driving a theme for a possible 2016 presidential campaign, sticking up for the little guy and trash-talking the economic elites. She decried the "shadow banking system that operated without accountability" and caused the financial crisis that wiped out millions of jobs and the nest eggs, retirement funds, and college savings of families across the land. Yet at the end of this week, when all three Clintons hold a daylong confab with donors to their foundation, the site for this gathering will be the Manhattan headquarters of Goldman Sachs.
Goldman was a key participant in that "shadow banking system" that precipitated the housing market collapse and the consequent financial debacle that slammed America's middle class. (A system that was unleashed in part due to deregulation supported by the Clinton administration in the 1990s.) This investment house might even be considered one of the robber barons of Wall Street. In its 2011 report, the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission, a congressionally created panel set up to investigate the economic meltdown, approvingly cited a financial expert who concluded that Goldman practices had "multiplied the effects of the collapse in [the] subprime" mortgage market that set off the wider financial implosion that nearly threw the nation into a depression. Hillary Clinton's shift from declaimer of Big Finance shenanigans to collaborator with Goldman—the firm has donated between $250,000 and $500,000 to the Clinton Foundation—prompts an obvious question: Can the former secretary of state cultivate populist cred while hobnobbing with Goldman and pocketing money from it and other Wall Street firms? Last year, she gave two paid speeches to Goldman Sachs audiences. (Her customary fee is $200,000 a speech.) In recent years, Goldman Sachs has hardly exemplified the values and principles Clinton earnestly hailed in her speech. A few reminders:
* In April 2011, Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.), who chairs the Senate's Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, released a report, based on a two-year investigation, that concluded that Goldman had misled clients and Congress about its investments in securities related to the housing market. Levin called on the Justice Department and the Securities and Exchange Commission to investigate if Goldman had violated the law by selling complicated securities to customers without informing the buyers that Goldman would pocket profits if these financial products dropped in value. Goldman denied the charge, but the previous year Goldman had paid $550 million in a civil settlement with the SEC regarding its sale of these securities. (When the case was first filed, the SEC maintained that Goldman had committed fraud by creating and peddling a mortgage investment that was secretly designed to fail.)
* In March 2012, Greg Smith, a top Goldman executive who was resigning, wrote an op-ed for the New York Times slamming the screw-the-client culture that permeated Goldman: "To put the problem in the simplest terms, the interests of the client continue to be sidelined in the way the firm operates and thinks about making money…I attend derivatives sales meetings where not one single minute is spent asking questions about how we can help clients. It's purely about how we can make the most possible money off of them…It makes me ill how callously people talk about ripping their clients off. Over the last 12 months I have seen five different managing directors refer to their own clients as 'muppets,' sometimes over internal e-mail." The Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission's report also described Goldman as a first-class predator: "Despite the first of Goldman's business principles—that 'our clients' interests always come first'—documents indicate that the firm targeted less-sophisticated customers in its efforts to reduce subprime exposure." In other words, the firm knowingly peddled junk to suckers who trusted it. The report quoted an expert who noted that Goldman's actions were "the most cynical use of credit information that I have ever seen" and who compared Goldman's wheeling-and-dealing to "buying fire insurance on someone else's house and then committing arson."
* Last year, the New York Times published a fascinating investigative article that revealed how Goldman Sachs and other financial firms engaged in shrewd maneuvers to drive up the cost of aluminum. This rigging of the market, the paper reported, "ultimately costs consumers billions of dollars." That did not help struggling middle-class families.
Given Hillary Clinton's Warrenesque address at the New America Foundation, I asked a spokesmen for the potential 2016 candidate if there was anything incongruous about her association with Goldman, and he forwarded this statement:
The support the Clinton Foundation receives from companies such as Goldman Sachs, organizations and individual donors helps maximize the impact of our philanthropic work. This support is helping enterprise partnerships in South America that are creating jobs; efforts to improve access to early childhood education in the U.S.; development programs that help small holder farmers in Africa; and rebuilding and economic development efforts in Haiti.
Goldman Sachs has been a long time supporter of the Clinton Global Initiative where they have advanced a commitment designed to support 10,000 women across the world through business training and education. We are grateful for their support.
Goldman Sachs has been a long time supporter of the Clinton Global Initiative where they have advanced a commitment designed to support 10,000 women across the world through business training and education. We are grateful for their support.
cont'
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/06/hillary-clintons-goldman-sachs-problem
June 4, 2014
Another self-righteous REAGAN Criminal THUG weasel with NOTHING to say!!...............
Former Iran-Contra lackey and current conservative hero Oliver North, who never served a prison term for his part in helping the Reagan administration secretly sell arms to Iran while funneling the resulting cash to administration-backed guerrillas in Central America and then lying outright to Congress when Congress discovered the administration was doing both of those explicitly illegal things, gets to furrow his crooked eyebrows with suspicion that something crooked is afoot in this Bergdahl prisoner exchange business because of of course he does..
Well, he is the goddamn expert on these things, you gotta give him that. By the way, the reason arms were being illegally sold to the Iranian regime was itself to secure the release of American hostages taken by Iranian-backed terrorist groups—just in case you needed to paint a barn with irony and were about a hundred gallons short, and you're welcome. The story of why Oliver North could do all those things and not end up in the federal pen is similarly interesting, and perhaps one he'll share with you if you run into him at the next Fox News Christmas party. Long story short, 'Merica.
Join us for our next installment of fine conservative programming, when we'll be interviewing cleared-of-all-charges John Wilkes Booth as to whether he thinks the recently murdered Abraham Lincoln was a good or a bad president.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/06/03/1304166/-Oliver-North-suspicious-that-Obama-traded-a-ransom-for-an-American-hostage-No-really
Oliver North Suspicious That Obama Traded A 'RANSOM' For An American Hostage. NO, REALLY!
Another self-righteous REAGAN Criminal THUG weasel with NOTHING to say!!...............
Former Iran-Contra lackey and current conservative hero Oliver North, who never served a prison term for his part in helping the Reagan administration secretly sell arms to Iran while funneling the resulting cash to administration-backed guerrillas in Central America and then lying outright to Congress when Congress discovered the administration was doing both of those explicitly illegal things, gets to furrow his crooked eyebrows with suspicion that something crooked is afoot in this Bergdahl prisoner exchange business because of of course he does..
"...North demanded that the media ask the Obama administration if there was “a ransom, a fiscal, financial, money transaction,” with the Taliban as part of the deal. “Was there a ransom paid? Did the government of the United States, either directly or indirectly, finance a terrorist organization?...”
http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/oliver-north-yes-oliver-north-accuses-obama-financing-terrorist-organization-bergdahl-releas
http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/oliver-north-yes-oliver-north-accuses-obama-financing-terrorist-organization-bergdahl-releas
Well, he is the goddamn expert on these things, you gotta give him that. By the way, the reason arms were being illegally sold to the Iranian regime was itself to secure the release of American hostages taken by Iranian-backed terrorist groups—just in case you needed to paint a barn with irony and were about a hundred gallons short, and you're welcome. The story of why Oliver North could do all those things and not end up in the federal pen is similarly interesting, and perhaps one he'll share with you if you run into him at the next Fox News Christmas party. Long story short, 'Merica.
Join us for our next installment of fine conservative programming, when we'll be interviewing cleared-of-all-charges John Wilkes Booth as to whether he thinks the recently murdered Abraham Lincoln was a good or a bad president.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/06/03/1304166/-Oliver-North-suspicious-that-Obama-traded-a-ransom-for-an-American-hostage-No-really
June 4, 2014
Whats wrong Johnny, did you come down with a sudden case of 'flip-flop-itis'?........
This 'Keatings Five' Republican is now serving hot his special ' flip-flop shit sandwich '
~snip~
Take Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz). On Feb. 18, 2014, he told CNN's Anderson Cooper that he could support such an arrangement, albeit reserving judgment for some of the details:
The day after Bergdahl's release was secured, however, McCain was on the Sunday morning talk shows questioning why the administration would release the "hardest of the hard core." On Monday, the following day, he stressed that he "would not have made this deal." "I would have done everything in my power to repatriate him and I would have done everything I possibly could. But I would not have put the lives of American servicemen at risk in the future," he said.
McCain spokesman Brian Rogers said the senator's objections lie in the details. "The details that we know so far are troubling and could enable these hard-core Taliban leaders to return to the battlefield against Americans and our allies and partners next year," he said. On Tuesday, his office issued a statement, saying the senator had "serious concerns" about a report that the five detainees being transferred to Qatar would be "able to travel freely in the country and, after one year, will be able to leave Qatar, including travel to Afghanistan."
Another outspoken champion for Bergdahl's release was Rep. Rich Nugent (R-Fla.), who wanted the administration to "do everything possible" for his safe return.
cont'
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/06/03/bowe-bergdahl-release_n_5439644.html
GOP Urged White House To 'DO ALL IT CAN' To Get Bowe Bergdahl
Whats wrong Johnny, did you come down with a sudden case of 'flip-flop-itis'?........
This 'Keatings Five' Republican is now serving hot his special ' flip-flop shit sandwich '
~snip~
Take Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz). On Feb. 18, 2014, he told CNN's Anderson Cooper that he could support such an arrangement, albeit reserving judgment for some of the details:
COOPER: Would you oppose the idea of some form of negotiations or prisoner exchange? I know back in 2012 you called the idea of even negotiating with the Taliban bizarre, highly questionable.
McCAIN: Well, at that time the proposal was that they would release -- Taliban, some of them really hard-core, particularly five really hard-core Taliban leaders, as a confidence-building measure. Now this idea is for an exchange of prisoners for our American fighting man.
I would be inclined to support such a thing depending on a lot of the details...
COOPER: So if there was some -- the possibility of some sort of exchange, that's something you would support?
McCAIN: I would support. Obviously I'd have to know the details, but I would support ways of bringing him home, and if exchange was one of them, I think that would be something I think we should seriously consider.
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1402/18/acd.01.html
McCAIN: Well, at that time the proposal was that they would release -- Taliban, some of them really hard-core, particularly five really hard-core Taliban leaders, as a confidence-building measure. Now this idea is for an exchange of prisoners for our American fighting man.
I would be inclined to support such a thing depending on a lot of the details...
COOPER: So if there was some -- the possibility of some sort of exchange, that's something you would support?
McCAIN: I would support. Obviously I'd have to know the details, but I would support ways of bringing him home, and if exchange was one of them, I think that would be something I think we should seriously consider.
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1402/18/acd.01.html
The day after Bergdahl's release was secured, however, McCain was on the Sunday morning talk shows questioning why the administration would release the "hardest of the hard core." On Monday, the following day, he stressed that he "would not have made this deal." "I would have done everything in my power to repatriate him and I would have done everything I possibly could. But I would not have put the lives of American servicemen at risk in the future," he said.
McCain spokesman Brian Rogers said the senator's objections lie in the details. "The details that we know so far are troubling and could enable these hard-core Taliban leaders to return to the battlefield against Americans and our allies and partners next year," he said. On Tuesday, his office issued a statement, saying the senator had "serious concerns" about a report that the five detainees being transferred to Qatar would be "able to travel freely in the country and, after one year, will be able to leave Qatar, including travel to Afghanistan."
Another outspoken champion for Bergdahl's release was Rep. Rich Nugent (R-Fla.), who wanted the administration to "do everything possible" for his safe return.
"Last year, on the fourth anniversary of Sgt. Bergdahl's capture, on the floor of the House of Representatives, I introduced a resolution in the House calling on the United States to do everything possible not to leave any members of the armed forces behind during the drawdown of Iraq and Afghanistan. Believe it or not, I had members of Congress come up to me and say, 'I didn't know we had a living POW in Afghanistan.' That was shocking to me," said Nugent, according to a Feb. 24 article in the Citrus County Chronicle.
http://www.rollingthunderfl7.com/mediareports/2014-02-24%20Citrus%20stands%20up%20for%20POW%20-%20ChronicleOnline.pdf
http://www.rollingthunderfl7.com/mediareports/2014-02-24%20Citrus%20stands%20up%20for%20POW%20-%20ChronicleOnline.pdf
cont'
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/06/03/bowe-bergdahl-release_n_5439644.html
June 1, 2014
~snip~
Fake Christians are a pest. I’m talking about the alleged conservative Christians of the Religious Right. I’ve even called them that myself, but over the years, I’ve become convinced that they are not Christian at all. They are as murderous as any conservative Christian in history, but those Christians at least pretended Jesus mattered to them. I suppose we could call them something other than fake Christians, or I suppose you could still make an argument that they’re just another of a myriad forms Christianity has taken over the two millennia of its existence. I call them fake Christians for one simple reason: you can’t have Christianity without Christ, and these people have removed Jesus from the equation. To listen to them, you would no more know Jesus had existed than George W. Bush.
~snip~
Now they claim to be the true form of Christianity, but as I’ve said before, Jesus exists only in weaponized form, as a name to beat others with. They don’t care about what he taught, or what he said. Jesus said to love. They hate. Jesus said to turn the other cheek. They attack. Jesus said to pray in private. they pray publicly. Jesus said to forgive. They plot revenge. Jesus loved the poor. They worship Kochs. What’s funny is that they obsess over Satan without even talking about Jesus. Jesus thought there was a Satan, though in the Old Testament Satan is just a servant of YHWH. But while the Religious Right is all about Satan it’s not about Jesus, which makes them what? Think about it. Mark Creech wrote in the Christian Post the other day accusing of “LGBT-affirming” churches as a “Fifth Column.” Aren’t Creech himself, and other Religious Right groups, really the fifth column in the equation? After all, they’re pretending to be Christians while accusing Christians of pretending to be Christians. And we’re already all aware of Rick Santorum’s claim from a few years ago that mainline Protestants are not really Christians, that they’re aiding Satan in his war on America. “Mainline Protestantism in this country…is in shambles, it is gone from the world of Christianity as I see it,” he claimed.
Again, Satan. But where’s Jesus? Creech says, “Others will say I have no right to judge who is or isn’t a Christian” but “God allows it (the church) to sort out true believers from nonbelievers.” I don’t think you need God’s permission to spot nonbelievers, and Creech is one. If you don’t really care about Jesus’ teaching, you’re not really a Christian, are you? That is the whole point of the gospels, after all. They don’t all present the same Jesus, but they all teach readers about Jesus’ own teachings. I would argue that if you strip the gospels from the New Testament, you don’t have much left. Sure, you have Paul, but Paul too bases his teachings on the figure of Jesus. Jesus is absolutely essential to Christianity. So how about Phil Robertson? He told the Republican Leadership Conference Thursday that, “You lose your religion, you lose your morality, you lose your freedom. You cannot be right for America if you are not right with God.” Not only does this contradict the United States Constitution and the First Amendment, but it’s patently and demonstrably false. Morality has existed for as long as humans have existed. Neither Judaism nor Christianity invented morality. And Robertson is no fool. He said, “The GOP must be desperate to call a person like me.” Desperate they are. So desperate they will get more extreme every time they lose, thinking that will somehow turn the tide in a society moving steadily to the left.
~snip~
Shouldn’t these people, if they’re really Christians, be talking about Jesus, just a little bit? Don’t hold your breath: it won’t happen. They’re not Christians. They’re an aberration, a manifestation of an extreme conservative reaction to change that didn’t have a religion conservative enough to bend to its cause. Lacking such a religion, they took bits and pieces from the country’s dominant religion and pretended to be the real thing. It’s not. It’s a con. It’s a bait and switch. There is a real Christianity out there – many forms of it – at least if we’re defining Christianity by the inclusion of Jesus. And I don’t see how such a definition could be rejected. For the rest, there is continuing debate about the original form(s) Christianity took after Jesus’ death and from that perspective maybe there are no real Christians at all today. And if Catholicism was Paganized by the Early Church in an attempt to co-opt Pagan religiosity, then it also did not later survive contact with Germanic Paganism. These are issues that have been studied by scholars as well. Definitions will remain problematic, but we can agree, I think, on the essential inclusion of Jesus in the religion founded in his name, the religion that is, ultimately about him.
cont'
http://www.politicususa.com/2014/06/01/problem-fake-christians.html
The Problem Of FAKE CHRISTIANS
"...Jesus exists only in weaponized form, as a name to beat others with. They don’t care about what he taught, or what he said. Jesus said to love. They hate. Jesus said to turn the other cheek. They attack. Jesus said to pray in private. they pray publicly. Jesus said to forgive. They plot revenge. Jesus loved the poor. They worship Kochs...."
~snip~
Fake Christians are a pest. I’m talking about the alleged conservative Christians of the Religious Right. I’ve even called them that myself, but over the years, I’ve become convinced that they are not Christian at all. They are as murderous as any conservative Christian in history, but those Christians at least pretended Jesus mattered to them. I suppose we could call them something other than fake Christians, or I suppose you could still make an argument that they’re just another of a myriad forms Christianity has taken over the two millennia of its existence. I call them fake Christians for one simple reason: you can’t have Christianity without Christ, and these people have removed Jesus from the equation. To listen to them, you would no more know Jesus had existed than George W. Bush.
~snip~
Now they claim to be the true form of Christianity, but as I’ve said before, Jesus exists only in weaponized form, as a name to beat others with. They don’t care about what he taught, or what he said. Jesus said to love. They hate. Jesus said to turn the other cheek. They attack. Jesus said to pray in private. they pray publicly. Jesus said to forgive. They plot revenge. Jesus loved the poor. They worship Kochs. What’s funny is that they obsess over Satan without even talking about Jesus. Jesus thought there was a Satan, though in the Old Testament Satan is just a servant of YHWH. But while the Religious Right is all about Satan it’s not about Jesus, which makes them what? Think about it. Mark Creech wrote in the Christian Post the other day accusing of “LGBT-affirming” churches as a “Fifth Column.” Aren’t Creech himself, and other Religious Right groups, really the fifth column in the equation? After all, they’re pretending to be Christians while accusing Christians of pretending to be Christians. And we’re already all aware of Rick Santorum’s claim from a few years ago that mainline Protestants are not really Christians, that they’re aiding Satan in his war on America. “Mainline Protestantism in this country…is in shambles, it is gone from the world of Christianity as I see it,” he claimed.
"...This is a spiritual war. And the Father of Lies has his sights on what you would think the Father of Lies would have his sights on: a good, decent, powerful, influential country – the United States of America. If you were Satan, who would you attack in this day and age...."
http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/santorum-satan-systematically-destroying-america
http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/santorum-satan-systematically-destroying-america
Again, Satan. But where’s Jesus? Creech says, “Others will say I have no right to judge who is or isn’t a Christian” but “God allows it (the church) to sort out true believers from nonbelievers.” I don’t think you need God’s permission to spot nonbelievers, and Creech is one. If you don’t really care about Jesus’ teaching, you’re not really a Christian, are you? That is the whole point of the gospels, after all. They don’t all present the same Jesus, but they all teach readers about Jesus’ own teachings. I would argue that if you strip the gospels from the New Testament, you don’t have much left. Sure, you have Paul, but Paul too bases his teachings on the figure of Jesus. Jesus is absolutely essential to Christianity. So how about Phil Robertson? He told the Republican Leadership Conference Thursday that, “You lose your religion, you lose your morality, you lose your freedom. You cannot be right for America if you are not right with God.” Not only does this contradict the United States Constitution and the First Amendment, but it’s patently and demonstrably false. Morality has existed for as long as humans have existed. Neither Judaism nor Christianity invented morality. And Robertson is no fool. He said, “The GOP must be desperate to call a person like me.” Desperate they are. So desperate they will get more extreme every time they lose, thinking that will somehow turn the tide in a society moving steadily to the left.
~snip~
Shouldn’t these people, if they’re really Christians, be talking about Jesus, just a little bit? Don’t hold your breath: it won’t happen. They’re not Christians. They’re an aberration, a manifestation of an extreme conservative reaction to change that didn’t have a religion conservative enough to bend to its cause. Lacking such a religion, they took bits and pieces from the country’s dominant religion and pretended to be the real thing. It’s not. It’s a con. It’s a bait and switch. There is a real Christianity out there – many forms of it – at least if we’re defining Christianity by the inclusion of Jesus. And I don’t see how such a definition could be rejected. For the rest, there is continuing debate about the original form(s) Christianity took after Jesus’ death and from that perspective maybe there are no real Christians at all today. And if Catholicism was Paganized by the Early Church in an attempt to co-opt Pagan religiosity, then it also did not later survive contact with Germanic Paganism. These are issues that have been studied by scholars as well. Definitions will remain problematic, but we can agree, I think, on the essential inclusion of Jesus in the religion founded in his name, the religion that is, ultimately about him.
cont'
http://www.politicususa.com/2014/06/01/problem-fake-christians.html
Profile Information
Member since: Tue May 13, 2008, 03:07 AMNumber of posts: 14,923
