Coburn already demanding offsets for tornado relief

By Joan McCarter

The dust in Moore, Oklahoma had barely settled, the search and rescue operations still active, on Monday evening when Sen. Tom Coburn declared that his own state will only get aid if money is taken from someone else.

Sen. Tom Coburn, ghoul

 

CQ Roll Call reporter Jennifer Scholtes wrote for CQ.com Monday evening that Coburn said he would “absolutely” demand offsets for any federal aid that Congress provides.

Coburn added, Scholtes wrote, that it is too early to guess at a damage toll but that he knows for certain he will fight to make sure disaster funding that the federal government contributes is paid for.

It’s a position he has taken repeatedly during his career when Congress debates emergency funding for disaster aid.
 

At least he's consistent. He was one of 36 senators to vote against Sandy relief, and both he and his Oklahoma colleague, Jim Inhofe, supported an amendment that would have slashed the $60 billion Sandy relief to just $23 billion. Coburn said Sandy relief was "wasteful spending," and his buddy Inhofe called it a "slush fund." He's changing his tune on disaster relief, though, now that it's his state.

Sen. Inhofe to @JansingCo: his labeling of Hurricane Sandy bill as a "slush fund" is "totally different" than Okla tornado relief.
— @kasie via Twitter for iPhone

Inhofe apparently won't go along with Coburn on this one, and he's not the only one. The sheer scope of the destruction Monday appears to have shaken some sense into House Republicans. Speaker John Boehner told reporters: "We’ll work with the administration to make sure they have the resources they need." Appropriations Chair Hal Rogers added:

Approps Chair Rogers on OK disaster $: "don't think disasters of this type should be offset. We have an obilgation to help these people"
— @deirdrewalshcnn via TweetDeck

On this one, Coburn might be on his own, and might not be able to get 39 other Republicans on his side to block a disaster relief bill in the Senate. It's too early to know what the need is going to be in Oklahoma, but the price tag for tornado-ravaged Joplin, Missouri two years ago was more than $200 million.  

Washington police arrest 17 in Occupy Justice foreclosure protests. Actions continue today

 By Meteor Blades

They knew some of them would be arrested Monday and 17 of them were. They were homeowners from across the nation demonstrating outside the Department of Justice offices in Washington, D.C., against the government's years-long failure to take legal action against banks. Some of the protesters were tazed. A coalition made of Occupy Wall Street, Occupy Homes, the Home Defenders League and the Campaign for a Fair Settlement, among others, the crux of demonstrators' message was that shielding the banks that are too big to fail is cowardly and unjust:

Five years after Wall Street crashed the economy, not one banker has been prosecuted for the reckless and fraudulent practices that cost millions of Americans their jobs, threw our cities and schools into crisis, and left families and communities ravaged by a foreclosure crisis and epidemic of underwater mortgages.

Nobody from DOJ came outside to talk with the protesters. Read below the fold for more on what sparked the protests:

The government worked out a $9.2 billion deal with the banks, with $3.3 billion meant to go to some four million eligible homeowners who had been foreclosed on in 2009 and 2010. Although the original plan was to have an independent review of how much each homeowner was owed, ultimately the decision was made to let the banks themselves decide. As an inevitable consequence of this ludicrous approach, many of those seeking foreclosure relief say they were unfairly compensated. For instance, Eric Krasner of Frederick, Maryland, was foreclosed on in 2010:

Krasner figured he was owed $62,000 from the settlement, but when his check came, he received only $2,000. Many in his situation received as little as $300 in compensation. "Until Eric Holder does his job and puts bankers in jail, this is going to continue," Krasner said.

A new report from Home Defenders League, Alliance for a Just Society and New Bottom Line Wasted Wealth: How the Wall Street Crash Continues to Stall Economic Recovery and Deepen Racial Inequity in America, points out the continuing impact on individuals and the economy from the foreclosure crisis. Some highlights:

The foreclosure crisis continued to destroy wealth on a large scale in 2012: Three years after the reported end of the Great Recession, the foreclosure crisis continued to destroy wealth on a large scale in 2012, with192.6 billion in wealth lost due to foreclosures across the U.S., an average of1,679 in lost wealth per household for each of the country’s 114.7 million households.

The most devastating impacts of the ongoing foreclosure crisis were in majority communities of color and racially diverse communities: ZIP codes with majority people of color populations saw 16 foreclosures per thousand households with an average of2,200 in lost wealth per household. In sharp contrast, segregated White communities experienced only 10 foreclosures per thousand households and an average wealth loss of1,300 per household.

More than 13 million homes are still underwater and at risk of foreclosure and more lost wealth: For reporting ZIP codes, there are at least 13.2 million underwater mortgages (when a homeowner owes more than the home is worth) on the books.1 The Congressional Budget Office estimates that 13% of underwater homeowners are already “seriously delinquent” on mortgage payments — they are foreclosures-in-waiting.2 If action is not taken to prevent these mortgages from going into foreclosure, Americans stand to lose nearly221 billion in additional wealth from these mortgages alone.

A strategy of principal reduction would save money for homeowners, boost the economy, and create jobs: Principal reduction—writing down underwater mortgages to current market values—would create significant savings for underwater homeowners. It would also generate new economic activity and create jobs in local economies. Using 2012 data, a principal reduction program could produce average annual savings of7,710 per underwater homeowner nationwide, boost the U.S. economy to the tune of101.7 billion, and create 1.5 million jobs.

Unemployment and underemployment contribute to the widening racial wealth divide. Median wealth ratios measure White wealth for every dollar of wealth for people of color. In 1995, the ratio of White to Black wealth was 7-to-1. In 2004, it was 11-to-1. By the reported end of the Great Recession 2009, it had ballooned to 19-to-1. For Latinos, the White-to-Hispanic wealth ratio was 7-to-1 in 2004. Five years later, it was 15-to-1. Wealth was lost across the board from the Great Recession, but significantly more so for people of color. From 2005 to 2009, White median net worth fell 16% to113,149. But net worth fell by 66% for Latinos to 18,359, and 53% for Blacks to 12,124.

The protesters' chief goals sound like an echo: prosecute Wall Street bankers; end the foreclosure crisis by resetting mortgages to their current value (“principal reduction”); restore and rebuild wealth stolen from communities of color that have been the hardest hit.
Meanwhile, they get tazed and arrested while the bailed-out bankers have returned to collecting their gargantuan bonuses with no fear that anybody in authority is going to give them any grief.

Originally posted to Meteor Blades on Tue May 21, 2013 at 08:01 AM PDT.

Also republished by Daily Kos.

How Apple Used Shell Companies to Save $44 Billion in Taxes

By NELSON D. SCHWARTZ and CHARLES DUHIGG

WASHINGTON — Even as Apple became the nation’s most profitable technology company, it avoided billions in taxes in the United States and around the world through a web of subsidiaries so complex it spanned continents and went beyond anything most experts had ever seen, Congressional investigators disclosed on Monday.

The investigation is expected to set up a potentially explosive confrontation between a bipartisan group of lawmakers and Timothy D. Cook, Apple’s chief executive, at a public hearing on Tuesday.

Congressional investigators found that some of Apple’s subsidiaries had no employees and were largely run by top officials from the company’s headquarters in Cupertino, Calif. But by officially locating them in places like Ireland, Apple was able to, in effect, make them stateless — exempt from taxes, record-keeping laws and the need for the subsidiaries to even file tax returns anywhere in the world.

“Apple wasn’t satisfied with shifting its profits to a low-tax offshore tax haven,” said Senator Carl Levin, a Michigan Democrat who is chairman of the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations that is holding the public hearing Tuesday into Apple’s use of tax havens. “Apple successfully sought the holy grail of tax avoidance. It has created offshore entities holding tens of billions of dollars while claiming to be tax resident nowhere.”

Thanks to what lawmakers called “gimmicks” and “schemes,” Apple was able to largely sidestep taxes on tens of billions of dollars it earned outside the United States in recent years. Last year, international operations accounted for 61 percent of Apple’s total revenue.

Investigators have not accused Apple of breaking any laws and the company is hardly the only American multinational to face scrutiny for using complex corporate structures and tax havens to sidestep taxes. In recent months, revelations from European authorities about the tax avoidance strategies used by Google, Starbucks and Amazon have all stirred public anger and spurred several European governments, as well as the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, a Paris-based research organization for the world’s richest countries, to discuss measures to close the loopholes.

Still, the findings about Apple were remarkable both for the enormous amount of money involved and the audaciousness of the company’s assertion that its subsidiaries are beyond the reach of any taxing authority.

“There is a technical term economists like to use for behavior like this,” said Edward Kleinbard, a law professor at the University of Southern California in Los Angeles and a former staff director at the Congressional Joint Committee on Taxation. “Unbelievable chutzpah.”

While Apple’s strategy is unusual in its scope and effectiveness, it underscores how riddled with loopholes the American corporate tax code has become, critics say. At the same time, it shows how difficult it will be for Washington to overhaul the tax system.

Over all, Apple’s tax avoidance efforts shifted at least $74 billion from the reach of the Internal Revenue Service between 2009 and 2012, the investigators said. That cash remains offshore, but Apple, which paid more than $6 billion in taxes in the United States last year on its American operations, could still have to pay federal taxes on it if the company were to return the money to its coffers in the United States.

John McCain of Arizona, who is the panel’s senior Republican, said: “Apple claims to be the largest U.S. corporate taxpayer, but by sheer size and scale, it is also among America’s largest tax avoiders.”

In prepared testimony expected to be delivered to the Senate committee by Mr. Cook and other Apple executives on Tuesday, the company said it “welcomes an objective examination of the U.S. corporate tax system, which has not kept pace with the advent of the digital age and the rapidly changing global economy.”

The executives plan to tell the lawmakers that Apple does not use tax gimmicks, according to the prepared testimony.

Mr. Cook is also expected to argue that some of Apple’s largest subsidiaries do not reduce Apple’s tax liability, and to press for a sweeping overhaul of the United States corporate tax code — in particular, by lowering rates on companies moving foreign overseas earnings back to the United States. Apple currently assigns more than $100 billion to offshore subsidiaries.

Atop Apple’s offshore network is a subsidiary named Apple Operations International, which is incorporated in Ireland — where Apple had negotiated a special corporate tax rate of 2 percent or less in recent years — but keeps its bank accounts and records in the United States and holds board meetings in California.

Because the United States bases residency on where companies are incorporated, while Ireland focuses on where they are managed and controlled, Apple Operations International was able to fall neatly between the cracks of the two countries’ jurisdictions.

Apple Operations International has not filed a tax return in Ireland, the United States or any other country over the last five years. It had income of $30 billion between 2009 and 2012. By shuttling revenue between international subsidiaries, Apple was able largely to sidestep paying taxes, Congressional investigators said.

In the prepared testimony, Apple executives disputed the characterization of Apple Operations International. “A.O.I. performs important business functions that facilitate and enhance Apple’s success in international markets,” the testimony states. “It is not a shell company.”

The Senate investigators also found evidence that the company turned over substantially less money to the government than its public filings indicated.

While the company cited an effective rate of 24 to 32 percent in its disclosures, its effective tax rate was 20.1 percent, based on the committee’s findings. And for a company of Apple’s size, the resulting difference was substantial — more than $8 billion in 2009, 2010 and 2011.

Because of these strategies, tax experts say, Washington is forced to rely more and heavily on payroll taxes and individual income taxes to finance the government’s operations. For example, in 2011, individual income taxes contributed $1.1 trillion to federal coffers, while corporate taxes added up to $181 billion.

As companies’ earnings have accumulated offshore, many executives have been pushing more aggressively for a tax holiday that would allow them to bring back funds at lower tax rates. Apple has recently announced that it will return $100 billion to shareholders over three years through a combination of dividends and purchases of its own shares. Though Apple has enough cash on hand to pay for those initiatives, the company recently announced it would take on $17 billion in debt, rather than bring overseas money back to the United States to avoid paying repatriation taxes on those returning funds.

“If Apple had used its overseas cash to fund this return of capital, the funds would have been diminished by the very high corporate U.S. tax rate of 35 percent,” Mr. Cook is planning to testify, according to the prepared text. Apple “believes the current system, which applies industrial era concepts to a digital economy, actually undermines U.S. competitiveness.”

Critics, however, say these so-called repatriation holidays, which bring back funds at lower tax rates, do virtually nothing to stimulate the economy and benefit only corporations, their executives and shareholders. Congress enacted a repatriation holiday in 2004, allowing corporations to bring back about $300 billion from overseas and pay just 5.25 percent rather than the regular 35 percent corporate rate.

But a study by the National Bureau of Economic Research found that 92 percent of the repatriated cash was used to pay for dividends, share buybacks or executive bonuses.

“Repatriations did not lead to an increase in domestic investment, employment or R.&D., even for the firms that lobbied for the tax holiday stating these intentions,” concluded the study, which was conducted by a team of three economists that included a former Bush administration official. Tuesday’s hearing on Capitol Hill, along with the disclosures about Apple’s tax policies, are likely to make lowering repatriation taxes a more difficult proposition for lawmakers to stomach, Congressional staff members said.

On Capitol Hill Monday, legislators made plain their fury over what they called Apple’s “egregious” and “outrageous” conduct.

While other companies have taken advantage of loopholes, Mr. Levin said, “I’ve never seen anything like this and we don’t know anybody who’s seen anything like this.”

Nelson D. Schwartz reported from Washington and Charles Duhigg from New York. David Kocieniewski contributed reporting from New York.

Batman Arkham Origins Trailer

Can Obama weather the storm?

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Eric Cantor's con would steal workers' overtime pay

Posted by Jim Hightower

Listen to this Commentary

Little Eric Cantor, the prancing political prissy who serves as the GOP's House majority leader, apparently thinks he's too slick to get caught in an outright legislative lie – or maybe he thinks we rubes are too dumb to figure out that he's trying to slick us.

Either way, a crude deceit is at the very heart of his "Working Families Flexibility Act," which he recently slid through the House. It eliminates a central piece of America's middle-class framework, namely the 8-hour workday and 40-hour week. Under the 1938 Fair Labor Law, bosses can make hourly employees work extra, but only by paying an overtime wage for the added hours.

Cantor claims his bill would improve this New Deal protection by letting corporate managers require extra hours on the job without overtime pay by offering "comp time" to the employees. In other words, work more hours now in exchange for taking-off those same number of hours later on.

With a wink at corporate lobbyists, Eric slyly refers to this switch as "women-friendly," allowing working moms the flexibility to decide when to take time off. Therein lies the lie.

It's not workers who get to decide, but bosses. Note that Cantor's bill does not guarantee employees the right to use the time-off they would earn by giving up extra pay. They can use the comp time only if and when the employer says it's okay – which might be never. Also, even if employees are granted time off, bosses can require them to be on-call during their "free" time.

Cantor's bill is a con. It hands workplace flexibility to corporations, not to "moms," while also stealing the hard-won right of workers to be assured of an 8-hour day, or extra pay.

For more information, contact the National Partnership for Women and Families: www.nationalpartnership.org.

"Now They Want to Take Away the 8-Hour Day and 40-Hour Week," www.alternet.org, May 9, 2013.

"House GOP Advances Fake Pro-Working-Mother Bill," www.motherjones.com, May 7, 2013.

Oklahoma Senators Jim Inhofe, Tom Coburn, Face Difficult Options On Disaster Relief

By Christina Wilkie

WASHINGTON - As frantic rescue missions continued Monday in Oklahoma following the catastrophic tornadoes that ripped through the state, it appeared increasingly likely that residents who lost homes and businesses would turn to the federal government for emergency disaster aid. That could put the state's two Republican senators in an awkward position.

Sens. Jim Inhofe and Tom Coburn, both Republicans, are fiscal hawks who have repeatedly voted against funding disaster aid for other parts of the country. They also have opposed increased funding for the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), which administers federal disaster relief.

Late last year, Inhofe and Coburn both backed a plan to slash disaster relief to victims of Hurricane Sandy. In a December press release, Coburn complained that the Sandy Relief bill contained "wasteful spending," and identified a series of items he objected to, including "$12.9 billion for future disaster mitigation activities and studies."

Coburn spokesman John Hart on Monday evening confirmed that the senator will seek to ensure that any additional funding for tornado disaster relief in Oklahoma be offset by cuts to federal spending elsewhere in the budget. "That's always been his position [to offset disaster aid]," Hart said. "He supported offsets to the bill funding the OKC bombing recovery effort." Those offsets were achieved in 1995 by tapping federal funds that had not yet been appropriated.

In 2011, both senators opposed legislation that would have granted necessary funding for FEMA when the agency was set to run out of money. Sending the funds to FEMA would have been "unconscionable," Coburn said at the time.

Hart said Coburn had "never made parochial calculations" about Oklahoma's disproportionate share of disaster funds, "as his voting record and campaign against earmarks demonstrates." Hart added that Coburn, "makes no apologies for voting against disaster aid bills that are often poorly conceived and used to finance priorities that have little to do with disasters."

A representative for Inhofe could not immediately be reached for comment. Inhofe earlier tweeted: "The devastation in Oklahoma is heartbreaking. Please join me and #PrayforOklahoma. Spread the word."

Coburn also put out a message on Twitter, writing, "My thoughts and prayers are with those in Oklahoma affected by the tragic tornado outbreak."

Oklahoma currently ranks third in the nation after Texas and California in terms of total federal disaster and fire declarations, which kickstart the federal emergency relief funding process. Just last month, President Barack Obama signed a disaster declaration for the state following severe snowstorms.

And despite their voting record on disaster aid for other states, both Coburn and Inhofe appear to sing a different tune when it comes to such funding for Oklahoma.

In January of 2007, Coburn urged federal officials to speed disaster relief aid after the state faced a major ice storm.

A year later, in 2008, Inhofe lauded the fact that emergency relief from the Department of Housing and Urban Development would be given to 24 Oklahoma counties. "The impact of severe weather has been truly devastating to many Oklahoma communities across the state. I am pleased that the people whose lives have been affected by disastrous weather are getting much-needed federal assistance," he said at the time.

The cost of the recovery effort for this week's tornadoes is likely to be high. After a spate of tornadoes in the state in 1999, Oklahomans requested and received $67.8 million in federal relief funds.

Sam Stein contributed.
This article has been updated to include the comments of Coburn's spokesman.

Eric Holder Must Go NOW

Posted on May 15, 2013 by Gary Bentley

Ring of Fire co-hosts Mike Papantonio and Sam Seder discuss the troubled legacy of Eric Holder, and how his presence threatens to bring down the entire Obama presidency.

IRS Apology for Tea Party Racists?

If any other group called for the government's demise, the GOP would have a fit.

By Edward Wyckoff Williams
Posted: May 20, 2013 at 12:58 A.M.

(The Root) -- The confederacy of dunces that makes up the Republican Party leadership and Fox News want you to believe that liberal operatives at the IRS abused power - for political purposes - by scrutinizing conservative Tea Party affiliates applying for tax-exempt 501(c)(4) status. What has been missed in the mainstream debate on the topic is the fact that the Tea Party should have been scrutinized. Race, money, political power and extremist ideology are the smoking guns - and it's time to follow the money trail.

President Obama chose to get ahead of the scandal, saying that targeting of conservative groups was "inexcusable." Heads are already rolling after the official inspector general's report, which forced the acting IRS commissioner to resign. Analysis on the political left and center has proven equally appeasing of GOP critics, with many liberals buying into Republican talking points. But what is being ignored is a critical truth that, from its inception, the Tea Party movement has resembled an activist organization driven by white supremacist ideology - its sole organizing purpose being to oppose the nation's first African-American president.

What is different about the Tea Party (as opposed to more blatant radicals) is that it morphed into a pseudo-policy force whose expressed concerns were excessive government spending and debt. This gave it legitimacy among the Beltway chattering classes and, as such, the Tea Party is a well-oiled, well-funded machine that has now been surreptitiously co-opted by the Republican establishment, and used to swift-boat the president on every issue from the debt ceiling to sequestration to judicial and Cabinet appointments and the jobs bill.

What does this have to do with the IRS?

If the majority of Tea Party members had been Muslim - arriving at rallies with concealed weapons and signs depicting the U.S. president as Hitler and reading, "Don't tread on me" or "Take back our country" - House Republicans would readily build a bipartisan coalition requiring the CIA, FBI and IRS to investigate its members and their financial backers. No stone would be left unturned. The Patriot Act would be used as justification, and if questions arose, the official answer would be "no comment" in the name of "national security."

Beginning as early as 2007 and 2008, the FBI, Secret Service and Department of Homeland Security all reported increases in white supremacist activity -- in direct response to the ascendency of Barack Obama. A special DHS report in 2009 showed that many extremist and self-proclaimed neo-Nazi organizations were encouraging younger members to join the U.S. military as a way to provide weapons training for subsequent militia activity. There was a backlash to the report - critics claimed soldiers should not be targeted as suspects by the very government they served.

DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano defended the research, saying in an official statement, "The document on right-wing extremism … is an ongoing series of assessments … on the phenomenon and trends of violent radicalization in the United States." Napolitano was sure to express appreciation to loyal veterans but concluded, "Let me be very clear: We monitor the risks of violent extremism taking root here in the United States. We do not have the luxury of focusing our efforts on one group; we must protect the country from terrorism whether foreign or homegrown, and regardless of the ideology that motivates its violence."

This past January, Mother Jones magazine revealed that James B. Taylor, a prominent conservative leader who once ran a white supremacist group, also had ties with the Tea Party Express -- one of the largest and most influential of the Tea Party groups. Prior to his Tea Party affiliations, Taylor was vice president of the innocuously named National Policy Institute - a tax-exempt group whose aim is to lobby for white Americans. It is that kind of exemption that lies at the heart of the supposed IRS scandal.

This begs an uncomfortably obvious question: Should the kind of tax-exempt status given to religious organizations and charities be conferred upon groups with strong anti-government ideologies and who have ties to white supremacists?

A 2011 article by Eve Conant for the Daily Beast showed that a number of white-nationalist groups were instrumental in fueling the anti-Obama sentiment that helped Republicans win the House of Representatives in the 2010 midterms. More importantly, some of the individuals involved had expressed ties to the Tea Party. Conant spoke with Don Black, the founder of Stormfront, the nation's largest white-supremacist website, who said, "Many of our people are involved in the Tea Party." The strategy was to enter conservative politics at the local and state levels - while tapping into national fundraising resources.

Quoting Black, Conant writes, the aim was to start from the ground up, "where we have a chance of winning." Black admitted the Tea Party's success sparked hope among his ideological soul mates, but he expressed doubt that a vocal white nationalist could capture a seat in the U.S. Senate. Enter Rand Paul. Though not a registered white nationalist, Paul achieved victory in Kentucky while unapologetically expressing opposition to the 1964 Civil Rights Act - an obvious dog whistle to disgruntled whites. (He has since claimed he always supported the bill.) Paul remains a Tea Party favorite and is touted as a possible presidential candidate in 2016.

In a 2011 piece for Salon, Michael Lind explored data showing that members of the Tea Party Caucus were overwhelmingly white and from former Confederate states. Lind opined that the Tea Party agenda wasn't based on traditional American conservatism but in eccentric Southern conservatism - hell-bent on dismantling programs that promote egalitarian values and aid to the poor, the black and brown.

The IRS, it seems, had reason to question the motives of Tea Party organizations seeking 501(c)(4) status - especially since those groups are allowed to raise unlimited funds and engage in political campaigning. The Federal Elections Commission is normally charged with monitoring the financial limitations and undue political influence of donors, but the rise of (c)4s and unlimited donations has rigged the game such that IRS and FEC roles are muddled. It is particularly troubling that (c)4 rules allow donors to remain conveniently anonymous.

The rise of super PACs was widely debated during the 2012 election, but not on the basis that they were engaged in anti-American activity or had ties to possible terrorist extremists. Yet that debate should have occurred.

Far too many Tea Party groups promote anti-government, "Patriot Movement" dogma, reliant on conspiracy theories that see the federal government as the primary enemy. (Hence, the myth of a national gun registry surrounding the Fast and Furious program and the debate over universal background checks, and "Obama as Hitler" hysteria.)

Julian Bond, chair emeritus of the NAACP, told MSNBC in an interview that it was "legitimate" for the IRS to target "admittedly racist" Tea Party groups, which he said reflected the "Taliban wing" of American politics. Bond also noted that the NAACP was unfairly targeted by IRS officials in 2004, after Bond gave a speech criticizing then-president George W. Bush. (The NAACP was subsequently cleared of any wrongdoing.)

It's interesting to note that Douglas Shulman, the IRS commissioner at the time of these Tea Party probes was himself an appointee of George W. Bush.

Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.), whose tactics as head of the Oversight and Government Reform Committee have proven him to be more crazed pitbull than a reliable watchdog, will certainly find a way to blame even that on President Obama.

Edward Wyckoff Williams is a contributing editor at The Root. He is a columnist and political analyst, appearing on Al-Jazeera, MSNBC, ABC, CBS Washington and national syndicated radio. Follow him on Twitter and Facebook.

 
Like The Root on Facebook. Follow us on Twitter.

Veterans Blast Shinseki For Disability Claims Backlog

 

WHITE HOUSE PETITION: www.MillionVetBacklog.com

End the #MillionVetBacklog & relieve Secretary Shinseki

Four years ago, both President Obama and VA Secretary Shinseki vowed to fix the VA disability claims backlog. Instead, it has increased by 2,000% — and is projected to soon reach one million veterans. A tragic milestone.

Military commanders are not allowed to fail for four years and keep their job. Nor should Secretary Shinseki. It's time for new VA leadership, and a bold vision for reform.

It is time for the White House to stop making excuses and start delivering results. Only Presidential leadership can end the #MillionVetBacklog. We urge the President to act now.

SIGN OUR WHITE HOUSE PETITION and JOIN THE MOVEMENT TO END THE #MILLIONVETBACKLOG. www.MillionVetBacklog.com

Sign up for email updates from Concerned Veterans for America, HERE: http://bit.ly/QXtuct

Stay connected...
http://www.ConcernedVeteransforAmeric...
http://www.Facebook.com/ConcernedVets...
http://www.Twitter.com/ConcernedVets

100 Reasons Why President Obama Is NOT The Same As President Bush

By Stephen D. Foster Jr.

President Obama and President Bush should never be compared to one another. Ever. These men couldn’t be more different when it comes to policy, personality, and decision-making. In fact, let us count the 100 different ways in which the two men governed; differences that will remind us all why we should be glad that Bush is not still in the White House.

1. Bush started the war in Iraq and Obama ended it.

2. Bush lowered taxes on the wealthy and Obama raised taxes on the wealthy.

3. Bush tried to give Social Security to Wall Street and Obama protected it.

4. Bush left office with a $1 trillion deficit and Obama has lowered it.

5. President Bush ignored the War in Afghanistan and Obama made it his focus.

6. Bush didn’t kill Osama Bin Laden; Obama did.

7. Bush sanctioned torture and Obama ended torture.

8. Bush opened the Gitmo prison and Obama is trying to close it.

9. Bush instituted the failed No Child Left Behind education program and Obama ended it.

10. Bush relied on military force while Obama has relied on diplomacy.

11. Bush nominated mostly men to the Supreme Court and Obama has focused on nominating women. (Bush nominated one woman, but she was totally unqualified for the position.)

12. Bush nominated white men to the Supreme Court while Obama has nominated a white woman and a Latina.

13. Bush was placed in office by a conservative-leaning Supreme Court in 2000 while Obama won each of his elections legitimately.

14. Bush took unilateral action in foreign policy while Obama has worked more with our allies.

15. Bush responded poorly to natural disasters like Katrina, while Obama has responded more than adequately to disasters like Irene and Sandy.

16. Bush detained terrorists without due process and Obama has had terrorists prosecuted successfully with due process.

17. Bush deregulated big banks and Obama reinstated some of those regulations.

18. Bush never signed an Equal Pay for women bill while Obama did. It was the first piece of legislation he signed.

19. Bush tarnished America’s reputation around the world and Obama is restoring it.

20. Bush invaded a country illegally while Obama has done no such thing.

21. Bush had a cooperative Congress for most of his administration, while Obama hasn’t.

22. Bush used fear to control the American public while Obama has not.

23. Obama instituted healthcare reform that covers millions of people; the topic was not on Bush’s agenda.

24. Obama ended ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’. President Bush continued it.

25. Obama supports marriage equality and Bush does not.

26. Bush supported anti-union policies while Obama supports unions.

27. Obama has expanded land and water conservation programs more than Bush.

28. Obama has provided generous subsides to alternative energy producers. Bush didn’t do this.
29. Obama instituted tough emissions standards for cars and factories. Bush did no such thing.

30. Obama believes in climate change and that mankind has played a big role in that change. Bush is a climate change denier.

31. Under Obama, the stock market has eclipsed 15,000 points. It never got that high under Bush.

32. Obama created the Consumer Financial Protection Agency to protect consumers from unfair banking practices. Bush allowed the banks to use unfair practices at will.

33. Obama is pursuing gun control laws in response to tragic mass shootings while Bush took a hands-off approach.

34. Obama has cut defense spending while Bush only increased it.

35. Obama is bringing clean energy to the armed forces. Bush did not.

36. Obama has created more private sector jobs than Bush did.

37. Obama is for reducing and eliminating all nuclear arsenals. Bush withdrew America from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty which is the opposite of Obama’s stance.

38. Obama supports Planned Parenthood while Bush did not.

39. Obama supports a woman’s right to choose while Bush does not.

40. Obama and Bush both support fighting the AIDS epidemic, but only Obama supports the use of condoms as part of the fight.

41. Obama hasn’t landed on an aircraft carrier to falsely declare mission accomplished. Bush did.

42. Obama has taken far less vacation days than Bush.

43. Obama has written personal checks to Americans in need. Bush never did that.

44. Obama isn’t being used as a puppet by his Vice-President. Bush kinda was.

45. Obama hasn’t used 9/11 as a political tool. Bush did that for nearly eight years.

46. Obama signed the American Recovery Act, also known as the stimulus, to save the economy. Bush chose to save the banks.

47. Obama is working to end the War in Afghanistan. Bush began the war and could have ended it sooner had he not focused on Iraq.

48. Obama did more to save the auto industry than Bush did.

49. Obama toppled Moammar Gaddafi without placing soldiers on the ground in harms way. Thousands of soldiers were killed in Bush’s quest to topple Saddam Hussein and he never got Bin Laden.

50. Obama kicked banks out of Federal Student Loans, something Bush never did.

51. Obama expanded Pell Grants for low-income students, which is another thing Bush didn’t do.

52. Obama created Race To The Top to reward states for education reform, something else Bush didn’t do.

53. Obama increased fuel efficiency standards for vehicles. Bush didn’t.

54. Obama signed a new GI bill for returning veterans. Bush didn’t.

55. Obama also expanded the budget of the Department of Veteran’s Affairs more than Bush did.

56. Obama tightened sanctions on Iran while, if Bush were still in office, America would probably be embroiled in another war in the Middle East.

57. Obama issued new EPA regulations that will cut Mercury and other toxic pollution. Bush weakened the EPA.

58. Obama signed a major overhaul of the food safety system which desperately needed it after the Bush years.

59. Obama expanded national service by tripling the size of AmeriCorps, more than Bush ever did.

60. Obama has protected more wildlife areas than Bush.

61. Under Obama, the FDA now approves of making the morning after pill available over-the-counter to women as young as 15. Bush never did that.

62. Obama is pushing to make the federal government more energy-efficient. Bush didn’t.

63. Obama cut the Reagan-era missile defense budget, something Bush never did.

64. Obama is increasing programs to combat cyber warfare more than Bush did.

65. Obama is pushing for a new space shuttle and manned mission to Mars, whereas Bush wanted to go back to the moon where we have already gone before.

66. Obama is improving school nutrition despite Republican attempts to classify pizza as a veggie.

67. Obama is encouraging a national push to get fit and eat right to cut healthcare costs and prevent diseases. Bush didn’t do that.

68. Obama has expanded hate crime protections, especially for the LGBT community, something Bush largely ignored.

69. Obama has avoided scandal despite petty attempts by the GOP to make up scandals. Bush, on the other hand, was involved in scandal after scandal.

70. Obama forced BP to quickly compensate and set up a fund for victims of the Gulf oil spills, again proving he is better than Bush at responding to disaster.

71. The Obama Administration is more transparent than the Bush Administration.

72. Obama is spearheading a movement to bring broadband internet to every corner of America, also something Bush did not do.

77. Obama’s EPA declared carbon dioxide a pollutant for the first time in American history. Bush could have done this, but didn’t.

78. Obama supports funding of stem cell research and lifted the Bush ban on the research.

79. Obama aided South Sudan in declaring their independence. Bush didn’t.

80. Obama saved Americans $4 billion dollars by ending the F-22 program. Bush didn’t.

81. Obama has aided African-American and Native American farmers, something Bush didn’t do.

82. Obama dared to slash the salaries of bailed out bank executives, whereas Bush didn’t.

83. Obama hasn’t started any wars since becoming President. Bush involved America in two of the longest wars in our history.

85. Obama has lowered taxes on the middle class more than Bush.

86. Outsourcing skyrocketed under Bush; Obama is reversing this and now jobs are coming back to America.

87. Obama has been cool under pressure while Bush was more reactionary and indecisive.

88. Obama established a credit card bill of rights to better protect card holders. Bush did no such thing.

89. Obama established the White House Council on Women and Girls. There was no such council during the Bush Administration.

90. Obama ordered financial agencies to establish Offices of Women and Minorities to promote more diverse hiring. Again, Bush didn’t.

91. Obama increased minority access to capital, thus helping minorities in ways Bush never did.

92. Obama negotiated a deal with Swiss banks to permit the US government to gain access to records of tax evaders and criminals. Meanwhile, tax evaders had a field day under Bush.

93. Obama extended benefits to same-sex partners of federal employees, which Bush never did because he is anti-LGBT.

94. Obama protected gay and lesbian partners’ visitation/healthcare decision-making rights, which Bush also never did because he is anti-LGBT.

95. Bush was a child of privilege who had every advantage that money and social position could provide. Obama was a self-made man who crafted his success from his own efforts and abilities.

96. Obama is extremely strategic in his thinking and planning and seems able to look past the immediate moment and defer gratification to achieve a greater future good. Bush had no such skills or vision.

97. Obama understands the true personal and economic costs of warfare, unlike Bush, who involved us in two wars while deeply cutting taxes.

98. The 9/11 attacks occurred under Bush’s watch, not Obama’s.

99. Obama has a Nobel Peace Prize. Bush does not.

100. Bush is a conservative Christian and his decisions and actions were largely faith-based while Obama’s decision-making has a rational, scientific basis resulting from a consideration of facts, data, and logic.

Two men, two very different presidencies. Due to Republican obstruction in the Senate and Republican control of the House, Obama has been unable to dismantle much of the Bush legacy that has nearly destroyed this country. If Obama had a cooperative Congress like Bush had, they would be even more different from each other.

In fact, it’s likely a more liberal agenda would have been pursued by the Obama Administration, meaning the country would be stronger, healthier, and better than the nightmare that reigned during the Bush years.

It will take many more years to clean up the mess conservatives left for Obama. And if Americans turn Congress blue in 2014, the clean up effort will go a whole lot quicker.

All Three GOP Manufactured Scandals Falling Apart

By Egberto Willies

I stated from the beginning that all of the current scandals (Benghazi, IRS, AP) afflicting the President at this time have been manufactured; manufactured through lies, deception, and misinformation by the GOP. 

Most importantly, the President and many liberals have found it expedient to accept more responsibility than is necessary in the attempt to “stop the bleeding.” This is no different from an innocent person pleading guilty in order to get a deterministic sentence instead of an unknown sentence that could be more or less than warranted.

To be sure, there are problems with this administration in many areas. But, sadly, those areas like “support” for the Keystone pipeline, support for some sort of austerity, however minimal, and policies in general that are not progressive enough have not been the cause of GOP ire as much as those are the things they actually support.

I have been waiting for a real assessment on the scandals. Lo and behold, Lawrence O’Donnell finally did it: The IRS scandal did not occur in this President’s administration. It occurred in 1959. As explained by O’Donnell:

The law defines such groups as “civic leagues or organizations not organized for profit but operated exclusively for the promotion of social welfare.” Since 1959, the IRS has been reading “exclusively” as “primarily.”
[Source]

Ezra Klein did one better. In his piece “The Scandals Are Falling Apart,” he goes through the autopsy of each scandal. His basic conclusion is as follows:

On Tuesday, it looked like we had three possible political scandals brewing. Two days later, with much more evidence available, it doesn’t look like any of them will pan out. There’ll be more hearings, and more bad press for the Obama administration, and more demands for documents. But — and this is a key qualification — absent more revelations, the scandals that could reach high don’t seem to include any real wrongdoing, whereas the ones that include real wrongdoing don’t reach high enough.
[Source]

America’s corporate-controlled mainstream media continues to allow the GOP and the right wing to distract Americans. They continue to run stories that are pushed by this faction in order to have Americans dissuaded from looking at real issues that materially affect their lives. They are then able to affect their will with policies that further pilfer the middle class without any political cost.

---

LIKE My Facebook Page – Visit My Blog: EgbertoWillies.com
Follow @EgbertoWillies

Republicans practice the politics of distraction

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

World-class political nincompoopism

Posted by Jim Hightower

Listen to this Commentary

My state of Texas seems to have an inordinate share of nincompoops in public office. But it's only fair that office holders from other states be considered before deciding which one is the nincompoopiest of all.

Give credit to Pennsylvania, for example, whose GOP governor, Tom Corbett, recently scored big nincompoop points by explaining why his state ranks 49th in job creation. "Many employers," the guv grumbled, during a radio interview, "say 'we're looking for people, but we can't find anybody that has passed a drug test'." Yes, the old my-constituents-are-a-bunch-of-drug-addicts dodge! That's world-class nincompoopery. Did I mention that Tom's voter approval rating is down to 38 percent?

But compare Corbett to one of the Lone Star State's congress critters, Steve Stockman. Steve's re-election campaign has put out a bumper sticker with this uplifting thought: "If babies had guns, they wouldn't be aborted." Wow – that's two nincompoopisms in only eight words!

Still, even Steve can't hold a candle to Rep. Louie Gohmert, the mouth that never shuts. Vice-chair of a House homeland security sub-committee, Gohmert recently revealed an astonishing piece of intelligence on the terrorist threat to the US of A. Al Qaeda, he informed the whole world, has set up radical Islamist camps on the "other side" of the Texas-Mexico border. Really? No. But the Islamist alarmist proceeded to tell us that Mexican drug gangs are teaching al Qaeda infidels how to cross the border into Texas, and they're also being trained "to act like Hispanics."

Hmmm, wondered many Latinos on "this side," how does Louie think one would "act" Hispanic? Sing "La Cucaracha," drive a low-rider, dress up as landscapers?

But "think" is not part of Gohmert's shticks. Which is what puts him atop the world of political nincompoops."

Lawrence O'Donnell reminds politicians of the real IRS scandal

By Evan Puschak

The Last Word

House Speaker John Boehner wants to know “who’s going to jail” over the recent IRS scandal, in which agents targeted Tea Party-related groups with unequal scrutiny. A far as MSNBC’s Lawrence O’Donnell is concerned, “That may be the single stupidest thing ever said by a Speaker of the House.”

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

As O’Donnell has been saying since Monday, the so-called IRS scandal is only the consequence of an older and more basic problem with the organization’s reading of the tax code–specifically, with its reading of Section 501(c)(4), which exempts social welfare groups from paying taxes.

The law defines such groups as “civic leagues or organizations not organized for profit but operated exclusively for the promotion of social welfare.” Since 1959, the IRS has been reading “exclusively” as “primarily.”

“By doing that they made IRS agents judges of political activity, investigators of political activity,” O’Donnell explained in the Rewrite Thursday. “IRS agents were then forced to evaluate just how political a given 501(c)(4) organization might be. And it is very clear that if the words “Tea Party” or the name of any political party at all appears in the title of your 501(c)(4) you absolutely do not qualify for 501(c)(4) status under the law.”

Some politicians, however, still don’t seem to understand the interplay between this law and how it’s enforced.

“We must pass a law that makes it much clearer that the so-called social welfare organizations must make their priority promoting social welfare rather than engaging in politics…From my standpoint they should not have any political purpose, and I would hope we could change the law on that,” said House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi Thursday.

“Now, I don’t expect Nancy Pelosi to be watching this show,” O’Donnell said, “but someone on her large staff should have picked up what I’ve been saying about this by now, and whispered something in her ear about it.”

O’Donnell said he hopes someone at Friday’s Ways and Means Committee hearing on the IRS scandal will bring up the actual law defining 501(c)(4)s. His bet is Rep. Sander Levin (D-Mich.), older brother of Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.), who has questioned the IRS about the exclusively/primarily discrepancy in the past.

Obama's record on civil liberties ‘has been worse than the Bush administration'

Guest host Mark Thompson, author David Cay Johnston, “The War Room” contributor Brett Erlich, Ana Kasparian, and Jayar Jackson debate whether Barack Obama’s time in office has been a “lost presidency” for protecting the civil rights of American citizens. Kasparian says, “He was a constitutional law professor, and his record on foreign policy and his record on civil liberties has been a complete and utter disaster.”

Fox News Does What Florida Refused To Do: Give Allen West A Job

By Lorraine Devon Wilke • May 18, 2013

Read more: http://www.addictinginfo.org/2013/05/18/fox-news-does-what-florida-refused-to-do-gives-allen-west-a-job/#ixzz2TdU1BPTc

Zoe Saldana Needs A Dictionary & A Clue

May 16, 2013 by Yesha Callahan

the hair is luxurious

 

First let me state, that I have no problem with Zoe Saldana as an actress. I neither like her or loathe her.  I’ve only seen one film, Colombiana, and it was just “meh”. I wasn’t buying the “emaciated assassin avenges her family’s murder” plot.  But recently,  Saldana has been making the press rounds for her new Star Trek movie and seems to suffer from “foot in mouth” disease.
First there’s this comment about the Nina Simone movie:

“Let me tell you, if Elizabeth Taylor can be Cleopatra, I can be Nina — I’m sorry,” Saldana said, unapologetically, according to Allure. “It doesn’t matter how much backlash I will get for it. I will honor and respect my black community because that’s who I am.”

Being one person who really didn’t care if Saldana was portraying Simone, this analogy is just ridiculous.  Believe me Zoe, if there was social media back in Elizabeth Taylor’s heyday  the complaints would have been heard all over the world. Hell, my grandmother still complains after all of these years. But back then, there wasn’t tons of “ethnic” looking actresses running around Hollywood, like there are tons of talented black actresses today. Not that it made it right for them to cast Elizabeth Taylor as an Egyptian, but it’s Hollywood and supply was limited.  But if I were to jump on the bandwagon of  ”there’s so many better people to play Nina Simone because of their looks”, then sorry, I’m not Team Zoe and can’t agree with her this time, even though I was one of the few people to support her quest in becoming Nina.

Then there’s her abuse of the word “androgyny” when she speaks about possibly being able to fall in love with a woman, marry one and raise a family.

In the magazine, Saldana, 34, describes herself as “androgynous.” She says she may “end up with a woman raising my children…that’s how androgynous I am!” When asked to clarify if she was open to the idea of raising a child with another woman as her partner? She said, “Yes, I was raised that open.”

Then she went on the Today Show, talking about androgyny again. Saying she could see herself living with and loving a woman.

That is not androgyny. That is called being bi-sexual, since you’ve also have had long term relationships with men, and say you still like men.

For the record, the meaning of androgyny is:

 

1: having the characteristics or nature of both male and female

2a : neither specifically feminine nor masculine

 b : suitable to or for either sex 

 

Please someone tell Zoe to stick to talking about Star Trek, because anything else is making her look a little bit odd. Did Bradley Cooper drive her crazy or something?

On-call shifts: The latest corporate shame

Posted by Jim Hightower

Listen to this Commentary

Step right up, folks, and take your chances in the Amazing New American Workplace. Constantly high unemployment! Low wages always! No employee bargaining power! A corporate paradise!

This paradise has enriched the already-rich investor elite and rewarded top executives with multimillion-dollar pay packages. It also lets corporations treat the masses of people in today's workforce like Kleenexes: Just use 'em and toss 'em – after all, they're cheap, plentiful... and disposable.

Indeed, taskmasters-in-suits have now redefined the term "hired" to mean that you're tethered to a corporation full-time, but you actually work and get paid for only the few hours a week when the boss calls.

This nefarious practice, known as "on-call shifts," is all the rage among national retail chains. Such giants as Abercrombie & Fitch, Gap, and Urban Outfitters require employees to work without set schedules and to be available to have their strings yanked at any time, day or night, even on weekends, with as little as two hours' notice.

Likewise, if customer traffic in a store is slow, retail workers who got dressed up, battled the morning commute, and reported on time, can simply be sent away after an hour or so – with no pay for their lost hours.

A recent survey of some 400 retail employees in New York City found that only 17 percent have a set schedule. Those with no set hours, also have no set income – and no life. If you're at the beck and call of the boss, what do you do with your children, how do you make a doctor's appointment, what if you're taking a class or trying to work a second job?

This shameful "on-call" practice says that the corporation owns you and that abuse of workers is a legitimate business practice in America. To help stop it, contact the Retail Action Project: www.RetailActionProject.org

Why are homeless veterans in LA being blocked from using Brentwood land donated for their shelter?

Jon Wiener, contributing editor for The Nation, tells Current TV’s John Fugelsang about an ACLU lawsuit involving a plot of Brentwood, Calif. land donated to the Veterans Administration specifically to house disabled veterans more than 100 years ago. The land is now used for a variety of purposes — the site includes both a parking lot and a dog park —while more than 6,300 veterans remain homeless in Los Angeles according to a Dec. 2012 Housing Department report.

“The VA says that while they have an obligation to provide medical care for veterans, they have no obligation to provide housing even though this lawsuit is about severely mentally ill vets who are unable to get the medical treatment they need unless they’re provided with housing on site, basically,” Wiener says.

“It seems like the main reason the VA doesn’t want to house homeless vets on the Brentwood campus is that it’s a very upscale neighborhood – these are multimillion homes sort of down the block, around the corner, and in L.A. the homeowners groups have immense power.”

John Fugelsang plays ‘Are you qualified to criticize Obama?’ with special guest Dick Cheney

Bakersfield police seize eyewitness footage after allegedly beating a man to death

Mark Thompson, Ana Kasparian, Jayar Jackson, and The Young Turks producer Hermela Aregawi break down the allegations that Bakersfield, CA police officers beated a man to death, and forced witnesses to surrender recorded evidence.

Republicans go on Sunday morning fishing expedition

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Will Obama back down on social security, Medicare cuts?

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

$59,820 After Incorrect Terminal Illness Diagnosis

By Evan Bleier, Fri, May 10, 2013

A judge in Montana has ordered a hospital to pay almost $60,000 to a man after incorrectly diagnosing him with brain cancer and telling him he had only a few months to live.

U.S. District Judge Donald Molloy ordered the Fort Harrison VA Medical Center to compensate Mark Templin and his family for the distress they suffered because of Dr. Patrick Morrow's "negligent failure to meet the standard of care" in delivering the 2009 diagnosis.

Molloy decided Templin should receive an award of $500 per day for the initial period of severe mental and emotional distress immediately after the diagnosis.

After being told he was going to die, Templin quit his job, sold his pickup truck, celebrated a "last" birthday,  contemplated suicide and even bought a prearranged funeral service. His son-in-law also constructed a box to hold his ashes.

As Templin began to feel better, he underwent more testing that eventually revealed that he had suffered several small strokes. The judge ordered that he receive $300 per day for that time period. Including repayment for cost of the birthday party and funeral, Templin was awarded $59,820, CBS Local reported.

"It is difficult to put a price tag on the anguish of a man wrongly convinced of his impending death," Molloy wrote in his decision. "Mr. Templin lived for 148 days ... under the mistaken impression that he was dying of metastatic brain cancer."

He added: “While under the impression that he was afflicted with metastatic brain cancer, Mr. Templin wondered each day whether it would be his last.”

Templin, who's in his 70's, was given two drugs to treat brain cancer. One of those drugs was not supposed to be prescribed to stroke patients.

He also was ordered to undergo hospice care.
 

Sources: CBS Local, The Independent Record   

Is the US already a complete surveillance state?

Cenk Uygur, journalist David Sirota, The Guardian reporter Glenn Greenwald, and Buzzfeed’s Michael Hastings debate how seriously Americans should take claims that every citizen is constantly being recorded by the US government.

‘Doomsday Preppers’ Are Prepared To Take Up Arms Against The Government

By Abby Miller • May 8, 2013

It started as a joke. One night, with not much else to watch on television, I turned on “Doomsday Preppers” on the National Geographic channel. Within a few minutes, I was hooked. People aren’t really this paranoid, right? I’d heard of being prepared for things like natural disasters, but these people were extremists. And extremists have always fascinated me.

I started looking into the movement and what I found is unsettling. Speaking, of course, in general (nothing is ever universal except for change), preppers are a very secretive bunch. Estimated to be about 3 million strong (but difficult to get a solid number since they are so well hidden), they actually look down on those who agree to be on the show. They say the Preppers who go on the show only make them all look like paranoid, tinfoil hat-wearing, gun-nut bigots with anti-government ideas. 

But that’s not a fair depiction at all, they exclaim. After all, they are just God-fearing, Constitution-loving, traditional marriage-favoring, guns-are-for-keeping-government-tyranny-in-check patriots!

So they happen to have a few guns. So they happen to have thousands of rounds of ammunition. So they happen to know how to make their own ammo. So they happen to hate anyone who has ever needed public assistance, is homosexual, a minority, liberal, or educated. What harm could they possibly pose to society? (Don’t believe me on the hate? Check out the comments on this blog.)

 I’ve spent months lurking in their online forums. I am of the belief that the anonymity (or at least perception of it) of the Internet lets people speak more freely than they would in person. This is certainly true in these forums. In the safety of their online community, they show their true colors. 

They hate everyone who isn’t white, Christian, and a Prepper. (Because if you aren’t a prepper, you’re going to die when the “SHTF” or “shit hits the fan.”) One of the most popular topics among Preppers is what will trigger TEOTWAWKI (tee-ought-wa-kee), or “the end of the world as we know it.” (Cue R.E.M!) Some think nuclear war, some think economic collapse, others think Obama is going to declare himself dictator and mandate martial law. Whatever they think the cause will be, one thing is agreed upon: the end is near, and societal collapse is inevitable.

But that isn’t the scary part. The scary part is that these people are excited about this. They are waiting for it. They look forward to it. They see the collapse of American society as “pressing the reset button on America.” They can’t wait. Some even see themselves as Noah, warning those around them of the coming flood and telling them to prepare. I call them “Prepper Preachers.” They relish in the idea of being the survivors, the only ones left to rebuild society in their ideal. It’s a romantic notion for them.

It is this anticipation of the end of the world that makes Preppers a dangerous bunch. Combine this with the rampant rumors of Obama banning guns and black powder via executive order, and you have an angry, irrational percentage of the U.S. population that are in a near frenzy. This group is very well armed, and more than willing to use force.

My fear is that this small, well-armed group is so desperately anticipating societal unrest that they will be the ones to bring it on. Yes, I believe that there will be another Civil War in this country, and this time it will be a fight over the 2^nd Amendment. There is already talk among the online Prepper community about how they will protect their guns, using phrases and terms such as “NOMI” or “not one more inch,” and “Molon Labe,” a term meaning “come and take.”

Here is the promotional trailer for Doomsday Preppers Season 2:



They are ready. Are we?

Fat Ass Chris Christie Had Weight Loss Surgery In February

By STEVE PEOPLES, GEOFF MULVIHILL and KATIE ZEZIMA 05/07/13 10:00 PM ET EDT

NEWARK, N.J. — Gov. Chris Christie, who once famously called himself "the healthiest fat guy you've ever seen," disclosed Tuesday he had secretly undergone weight-loss surgery, a major new step by the potential Republican presidential contender to address both his health and a political vulnerability.

The stakes are high for Christie, with medical professionals and campaign strategists alike suggesting there is no more serious barrier to his personal well-being and national ambitions than his weight.
It's not about politics, he said. It's about turning 50 and wanting to be around as his children grow up.

"This is a hell of a lot more important to me than running for president," Christie, a father of four, said at a news conference in Newark. "This is about my family's future."

Christie, who appeared thinner than he did earlier this year, said he decided around the time of his birthday in September to have the surgery and initially planned to have it done in November. But Superstorm Sandy's destruction in New Jersey pushed back the procedure until February. In the operation, a band was surgically placed around his stomach to restrict how much food he could eat.

Christie has not previously disclosed his weight, and he didn't on Tuesday. But it has been an issue throughout his political career. Comedians have often made fun of it, and in interviews with David Letterman, Oprah Winfrey, Barbara Walters and others, Christie has both joked about the issue and said solemnly that he was trying to shed pounds.

During a February appearance on "The Late Show with David Letterman," the governor pulled out a doughnut and said his girth was "fair game" for comedians.

Over the next few days, he was asked repeatedly about his weight. At one point, he said he had a plan. "Whether it's successful or not," he said, "you'll all be able to notice."

The next day, he responded angrily to comments from a former White House physician who said she hoped he would run for president but worried about him dying in office. The governor said the doctor should "shut up."

Ten days after that, on Feb. 16, Christie had the surgery. He said the operation lasted 40 minutes and he was home the same afternoon. He was back at work on Feb. 19 for a full day of events.

Christie, who is in the midst of a re-election campaign, said he has been eating less because he hasn't been as hungry. He also has been working out with a personal trainer.

He said he had told only a few top staffers – not his communications office or campaign staff – and his communications director was caught by surprise Monday when a New York Post reporter asked directly if he'd had the procedure. The Post first reported the surgery on Tuesday. Christie said he'd used an alias at the hospital.

Christie said he never intended to make a public announcement and that he was "not going to be the guy who writes a book" about losing weight. The Republican, who has been a fixture in the national media spotlight, said the scrum of reporters at his news conference was "silly" and "ridiculous" at a time when there are other things going on.

He said he tried other ways to lose weight for years, but none seemed to work.

"It's not a career issue for me; it's a long-term health issue for me," he said.

Still, it's a way to confront a significant hurdle in his indisputable quest to emerge as a key leader in the Republican Party. He's in the top tier of those considered potential contenders for the presidential nomination in 2016.

Weeks after the surgery, Christie launched an aggressive national fundraising tour, fueling speculation that he's laying the groundwork for a White House bid.

In a country facing an obesity epidemic, more than 220,000 stomach-reducing procedures of various types are performed each year. Gastric bypass, sometimes called stomach stapling, is the most common, where surgeons shrink the stomach's size and reroute food to the small intestine. Christie had gastric band surgery. It's best known by the brand name Lap-Band, and is a less invasive alternative in which an adjustable ring is placed over the top of the stomach and tightened to restrict how much food can enter.

The adjustable Lap-Band has been available in the U.S. since 2001 for the most obese patients, and in 2011 the Food and Drug Administration expanded approval to somewhat less obese patients.

Candidates for gastric banding must have a body mass index of between 30 and 40 – plus a weight-related medical condition, such as diabetes or high blood pressure – or a BMI of 40 and higher. They also must have previously attempted to lose weight through diet and exercise.

"If you eat appropriately and chew your food, it works nicely," said Dr. Christina Li, a bariatric doctor at Sinai Hospital of Baltimore. She said Christie has the resources to have people help him eat right and get exercise. While the band is removable, she said patients are told to adjust to having it for the rest of their lives.

Li said risks include infection, and that it does not work for all patients.

Dr. Jaime Ponce, who practices in Dalton, Ga., and is president of the American Society for Metabolic & Bariatric Surgery, said people who have the procedure Christie had often lose 1 to 2 pounds per week.

Christie's procedure was performed by Dr. George Fielding, head of NYU Medical Center's Weight Management Program, who did the same procedure for New York Jets coach Rex Ryan three years ago.

"It basically teaches you how to eat like a human," Ryan said of the device in an interview last week with The Associated Press. "The Lap-Band goes: `No, no. You're only going to eat this or that,' and it trains your body how to eat right," said Ryan, who said he has lost 115 pounds from his pre-surgery weight of 348.

Few significantly overweight presidential candidates have succeeded in the modern political era, when television became a major factor in shaping voter attitudes. There are disputed reports that President William Howard Taft couldn't fit in a White House bathtub a century ago, but only a handful of presidents since have been considered obese. President Bill Clinton struggled at times with his weight, but he was substantially slimmer than the New Jersey governor.

"This has nothing to do with politics," said Christie adviser Bill Palatucci. "He said that he's doing this for his family and that's the right reason."

Backers publicly argue that Christie answered any questions about his weight's political impact in 2009, when he beat Gov. Jon Corzine despite the Democrat's reference in an ad to Christie "throwing his weight around" to get out of traffic tickets. Supporters say Christie's openness about his struggle is part of an authenticity people admire in him.

The governor's allies, medical professionals and even history suggest that his weight presents both practical and political problems.

"Gov. Christie's weight is an issue the same way that any candidate or official's health is an issue," said Michael Dennehy, a New Hampshire-based Republican strategist and veteran of presidential politics. "Anyone running for president will need to comfort Americans with an overall healthy picture for their future."

Mulvihill reported from Haddonfield, N.J., and Peoples from Providence, R.I. AP Medical Writer Lauran Neergaard in Washington, AP writers Thomas Beaumont in Des Moines, Iowa, and AP Sports Writer Dennis Waszak in New York contributed to this report.

Chris Christie, you donut eating fat tub of lard, no amount of surgery will get rid of that spare tire that you are carrying around your waist. I find your 30 chins terrible to behold. dlevere.