Showing posts with label Politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Politics. Show all posts

The rogues' gallery of German politics

German PoliticsSource: bing.com

Germany is known for its stable and efficient political system, but it hasn't been without its scandals and controversies. Over the years, the country has seen its fair share of political rogues, from corrupt politicians to extremist groups. Here's a look at some of the most notorious figures in German politics.

Adolf Hitler

Adolf HitlerSource: bing.com

No list of German political rogues would be complete without mentioning Adolf Hitler. He was the leader of the Nazi party and the Chancellor of Germany from 1933 to 1945. Hitler's regime was responsible for some of the most heinous crimes in human history, including the Holocaust, the genocide of six million Jews.

Angela Merkel

Angela MerkelSource: bing.com

Angela Merkel is the current Chancellor of Germany and one of the most powerful women in the world. However, her tenure has not been without controversy. Merkel has been criticized for her handling of the refugee crisis and her policies on immigration. She has also been accused of being too soft on Russia and not doing enough to address climate change.

Horst Seehofer

Horst SeehoferSource: bing.com

Horst Seehofer is a German politician who served as the Minister President of Bavaria from 2008 to 2018. He is a member of the Christian Social Union (CSU), a conservative political party in Germany. Seehofer has been criticized for his divisive rhetoric on immigration and his opposition to same-sex marriage. He has also been accused of using his position to benefit his own personal interests.

Alice Weidel

Alice WeidelSource: bing.com

Alice Weidel is a controversial politician who co-leads the Alternative for Germany (AfD) party, a far-right political party in Germany. Weidel has been accused of making racist and homophobic comments, and the AfD has been criticized for promoting far-right ideology and anti-immigrant sentiment. The party has also been linked to extremist groups and has been described as a threat to Germany's democracy.

Sigmar Gabriel

Sigmar GabrielSource: bing.com

Sigmar Gabriel is a German politician who served as the Vice Chancellor of Germany and the Minister of Foreign Affairs. He is a member of the Social Democratic Party of Germany (SPD), a center-left political party. Gabriel has been criticized for his controversial statements on Israel and his handling of the crisis in Syria. He has also been accused of using his position to benefit his own personal interests.

Wolfgang Schäuble

Wolfgang SchäubleSource: bing.com

Wolfgang Schäuble is a German politician who served as the Minister of Finance from 2009 to 2017. He is a member of the Christian Democratic Union (CDU), a center-right political party in Germany. Schäuble has been criticized for his handling of the Greek debt crisis and his support for austerity measures in Europe. He has also been accused of using his position to benefit his own personal interests.

Conclusion

These are just a few examples of the rogues' gallery of German politics. While Germany's political system is generally considered to be stable and efficient, it is not immune to corruption and controversy. These figures serve as a reminder that even in the most developed democracies, there are always those who seek to abuse their power and undermine the principles of democracy.

Related video of The Rogues' Gallery of German Politics

Share:

Obama Campaign Won't Attack Romney's Mormonism

Hardly necessary I would have thought, and afterall, one shouldn't mock the afflicted.

An interesting enough article from Jon Ward at HuffPo, highlighting the inextricable link between religion and Yanky politics. I might have passed it over as just another article of the genre, but there are some interesting links leading off, Dowd and Hitchens but to name two.

One link that isn't direct however is the one leading to: The Mormon/Jewish Controversy: What Really Happened. Quite lengthy I admit, but if you only breeze through it, it goes some way to exposing another bizarre practice of the Mormon cult. Not least the amount of effort that must have gone in to something that any sane person might reduce to basics and ask the question, 'why?'

It also, though far from its intention, makes me as a European reflect on how many miles of column inches will be printed about candidates religion before this circus comes to a close twelve months hence. Particularly given that no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States, and again as a European, the column inches that one might come across relating to the religions beliefs of European pols that find themselves in similar circumstances, would I think be, zero, a big fat nothing.

And of course there are always going to be some lighter moments, though again not intentional, when the crazies, no matter what stripe, explain some of tenets of there chosen brand of delusion.

From the Maureen Dowd article.

Kent Jackson, the associate dean of religion at Brigham Young University:

As for the special garment that Mitt wears, “we wouldn’t say ‘magic underwear,’ ” Bushman explains.

It is meant to denote “moral protection,” a sign that they are “a consecrated people like the priests of ancient Israel.”

And it’s not only a one-piece any more. “There’s a two-piece now,” he said.

Well that's alright then.

Romney's Mormonism To Be A Bigger Issue In The General Election, Say Evangelicals

WASHINGTON -- The loudest objections to Mitt Romney's Mormonism have not yet been raised, according to evangelical leaders and conservatives.

One month ago, an attack on Romney's faith by a Texas pastor supporting Texas Gov. Rick Perry renewed talk that Romney, who was a high-ranking official in the Mormon church from 1981 to 1994, would lose large chunks of the evangelical vote because of his faith.

That may prove true in Iowa, the first state in the Republican presidential primary process. And Romney's faith does give many protestants pause. But polls, and evangelical leaders, tell another story: If the former Massachusetts governor is the Republican nominee, his faith may be attacked and questioned more aggressively by liberals in the general election than it has been by conservatives in the primary.

"I assume that given the early signs of what an Obama campaign is going to look like, with this class warfare stuff, that every tactic imaginable will be used by the Obama campaign, including attacking the religion of his opponent," said Gary Bauer, president of American Values and a long time leader in the social conservative movement.

Other prominent evangelical leaders told The Huffington Post that they believe Romney will be ambushed by the press.

"The major networks are heavily invested in Barack Obama's reelection," said Richard Land, a leader with the Southern Baptist Convention who heads its ethics and religious liberty commission.

"And they're all going to run detailed specials, now that we have the first Mormon nominee for president: 'What does the church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints believe?' And they're going to go into all the beliefs of Mormonism, hoping to scare the 40 percent of independents who make up the decisive vote in the electorate to not vote for someone who believes such things." more

Extra: Top Romney Adviser Tied to Militia That Massacred. Mother Jones That's massacred period, not massacred Mother Jones.
Share:

More Republican Nose In Your Womb

I'm going to strangle the next huckster that quotes the 'sanctity of life.'

How many wars is the US engaged in at present?

This story is tangential to my previous post: Sorry Ladies The Sanctity of Life Doesn't Extend to You which in itself was an update on: Women's Reproductive Rights: America The Next Nicaragua

Sort them out at the ballot box ladies.

After Confusing Himself, Cain Decides That Rape Victims Should Be Forced to Carry Pregnancies to Term

Newly emerged GOP presidential frontrunner Herman Cain does not do well under public scrutiny. He has “no idea” how his gimmicky 999 tax plan works in practice. He mixes up our nation’s founding documents. And hisweak grasp of foreign policy even inspired his fellow GOP contender Newt Gingrich to worry that Cain is “not ready for prime time.”

So it probably should be surprising that last week Cain actually managed to confuse himself — and everyone at Fox Business’s Stossel show — over a much more basic yes or no question: Should abortion be legal?

At first, Cain offered a simple answer: “I’m pro-life from conception, yes.” But when host Stossel asked whether there are any cases in which abortion should be legal (such as rape or incest), Cain then declared, “I don’t think government should make that decision.” Recognizing the conflict, Stossel endeavored to clear up exactly where Cain stood on abortion — an attempt that led Cain to completely contradict himself by offering three different positions. He began with his anti-choice stance:

CAIN: I support life from conception. No people shouldn’t be free to abort because if we don’t protect the sanctity of life from conception, we will also start to play God relative to life at the end of life.

An understandably “confused” Stossel then asks Cain whether a rape victim should have the right to get an abortion. Cain then offers position 2:

CAIN: That’s her choice. That’s not government choice. I support life from conception.

STOSSEL: So abortion should be legal.

CAIN: No abortion should not be legal.

A now thoroughly perplexed Stossel asserts, “I’m not getting it, I’m not understanding it” and helps Cain understand the obvious flaw: “If it’s her choice, then that means it’s legal.” Cain replies with position 3:

CAIN: No! I don’t believe a woman should have an abortion. Does that help to clear it up?

STOSSEL: Even if she is raped.

CAIN: Even if she is raped or she is the victim of incest because there are other options. We must protect the sanctity of life and I have always believed that. Real clear.



Cain has tried to have it both ways on an issue before. But his struggle to fully reject a sexual assault victim’s freedom offers a window into just how radical this increasingly common positionamong the right-wing is. Not only does such a blind position defy the constitution, it callously robs a victim who had no choice in whether or not to be assaulted her last remaining choice in regards to her own body. It is also important to note that Cain’s “life at conception” policy couldcriminalize pregnancy prevention methods for women as well.

Cain is no closer to figuring out exactly how he feels about this ludicrously radical position. On NBC Sunday, he declared that abortions should be illegal “under any circumstance” even in cases of rape or incest. However, when asked about whether the procedure should be allowed to save the life of the mother, he once again deviated from his position. “If it’s the life of the mother, that family is going to have to make that decision.” AlterNet



Share:

Just WHO Does God Want In The White House?



Grand Rapids, Michigan (CNN) -- Vote for me or burn in hell. I can't imagine someone running for office saying that. And yet four candidates -- Michele Bachmann, Herman Cain, Rick Perry and Rick Santorum -- have said they had a sense that God was leading them to run. How far can we be from "vote for me or burn in hell" when it seems we're already comfortable with "vote for me, I've been called by God"? There was a time when if a candidate wanted to inject faith into a campaign he or she would be photographed going to church or shaking the Rev. Billy Graham's hand. Now it seems many GOP campaigns aren't complete without claiming God's seal of approval, which suggests the other candidates may be running without it. Such a sentiment is an ideological piñata for comedians like Bill Maher and Jon Stewart, but for conservatives trying to secure the GOP nomination, it's a highly manipulative campaign tool. Consider the words of Rick Perry's wife, Anita. During a stop in South Carolina last week she said her husband was being brutalized by the media because of his faith and that while his GOP opponents are "there for good reasons. And they may feel like God called them, too ... I truly feel like we are here for that purpose." When Perry was asked about his wife's comments on "Good Morning America," he said "I think she's right in both cases. My understanding is that she said I'm the most conservative candidate in the race and, 'He's a Christian.'" Cain was a guest on the Christian Broadcasting Network recently and recapped a conversation he said he had with God before entering the race. "I felt like Moses when God said, 'I want you to go into Egypt and lead my people out.'" Cain said. "Moses resisted. I resisted. ... But you shouldn't question God." Repeat: You shouldn't question God. OK, fine. But why aren't we questioning the candidates who make these kinds of statements the same way we would question whether God actually wanted a particular athlete to win a game? I do believe a person's faith is personal, but I'm not the one using it to get votes. Four candidates have claimed a level of divine intervention with their campaign, which either means the creator of heaven and Earth is hedging his bets or somebody's mistaken. When a candidate claims to have a plan to create jobs or turn our economy around, we expect thoughtful analysis, as we have seen with President Obama's jobs package and Cain's 9-9-9 plan. Why are we not demanding the same level of critical thinking with respect to these candidates? Is the media so afraid to appear to be attacking someone's faith that interviewers don't bother to ask follow-up questions? If I could trade places with Anderson Cooper, who is moderating Tuesday's debate, I would ask, "Now which ones of you were really called by God and which ones are hearing voices in your head?" then let them discuss among themselves. It seems like a fair line of questioning, especially when you consider Cain is telling a particular voting bloc that he is like Moses and Perry is telling the same voters that Cain and others misheard God. Why wouldn't conservative Christians want to hear this line of questioning, since they are the sheep who are potentially being targeted by deceptive, power-hungry wolves? Now I know it seems as if I'm picking on Republicans, but trust me, I'm equally disgusted by Democrats who use religion to win elections. I still recoil in horror at the memory of then Sen. Hillary Clinton, on the eve of the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr.'s birthday in 2008, standing in front of a Baptist church in Harlem, trying to out-black preach then Sen. Barack Obama, who was visiting Ebenezer Church in Atlanta the same day. And at both locations, the crowd was just eating it up, like extras in a Tyler Perry movie. When people ask why I'm not a Democrat, this is one of the reasons I give. But not even in the heat of those moments did I hear them say they were called by God to run. Not because Democrats are not religious, but because they seem to know where the line is. This current GOP candidates seem to have no idea that there is a line, let alone its location. It is beginning to feel like if we don't start pushing back soon, in the next election we're going to see campaign slogans like, "Vote for me or God won't bless America." "Vote for me, or you'll be left behind." "Vote for me... Jesus did." On August 4, 2010, just before 10:30 p.m., former longtime Rep. Pete Hoekstra stood in front of a group of supporters in a small city in Michigan to deliver a concession speech. The Republican had just lost his bid to be governor, a job he said he left Congress to pursue because of "God's plan." "God's got something better in mind for us," he said, and in January he finished his term in the House. Today Hoekstra is back in Michigan. Running for Congress. No word yet if God told him to do so or if this is the "something better" the Almighty had in mind. CNN
Yes, when you talk to God, it's called praying, when he talks to you, it's called schizophrenia. Two from the time before last, I missed the last election, I was busy wasting my time looking for a bit of justice. I think this one was in response to a handful of Repub contenders denying evolution, on national television I remind you. Well I suppose they will have two to go at this year, evolution and climate change. Only in Amerki folks, only in Ameriki. This one is educational. For those of you who might have wondered how Noah built his ark 1500 years before the Iron Age, well here's your answer. That Lord, he really does work in mysterious ways, don't he. Just. And we couldn't have a FSM post without my masterpiece. Tickets please. And sure, isn't it nearly Christmas.
Jeezy!
Share:

Geraldine Finucane To David Cameron: Shove It Up Your Ass

''Trust me I'm a British politician.''

''My fucking hole I will.''

That's a bit of Irish, for those that want an English lesson.


Finucane Family Angered By Cameron

The widow of murdered Northern Ireland solicitor Pat Finucane said today she felt “angry” and “insulted” after David Cameron told her he was proposing a barrister-led review of her husband’s case.

After meeting the prime minister in Downing Street, Geraldine Finucane told reporters the whole family was “very disappointed” and would not support the initiative.

The family wants a full independent inquiry into the loyalist shooting in 1989.

Mr Finucane was shot by the UDA as he sat eating a Sunday meal at home. His wife was wounded in the attack, which was witnessed by the couple’s three children.There were allegations that some members of the security forces collaborated with loyalist paramilitaries to the extent that they could have stopped the killing.

Speaking in Downing Street, Mrs Finucane said: “I am so angry and so insulted by being brought to Downing Street today to hear what the Prime Minister had on offer.

“He is offering a review. He wants a QC to read the papers in my husband’s case and that is how he expects to reach the truth. All of us are very upset and very disappointed.”

She added that she was “so angry with the prime minister that I actually called a halt to the meeting”.

Mr Finucane’s son Michael, who also attended today’s meeting with Mr Cameron and Northern Ireland Secretary Owen Paterson, accused the prime minister of “reneging on a commitment that the previous government made to hold a public inquiry”.

He said Mr Cameron gave the “feeble” explanation that public inquiries had not worked in similar cases. “He seemed oblivious to the fact that the absence of participation by our family would mean we simply couldn’t support what he proposed,” he added. more
Share:

Rick Santorum Please Sit Down You're Starting to Make Perry Look Sane

This bloke, he isn't really running for President?


Absurd Rick Santorum Tries to Blame Poor Economy on Single Mothers




GOP Clown Car crewmember Rick Santorum has figured out how to save our economy: marry off all the single mothers.
“Look at the political base of the Democratic Party: it is single mothers who run a household,” he said on the American Family Association’s radio show Today’s Issues.

“Why? Because it’s so tough economically that they look to the government for help and therefore they’re going to vote. So if you want to reduce the Democratic advantage, what you want to do is build two parent families, you eliminate that desire for government.”

Yeah that's right, Rick Santorum is blaming the economy on unwed single mothers, who of course only vote in order to further drain the resources of hard working men, the succubi they all are or something. Gosh, if we got rid of single moms, America would be great again.

“We need to have a policy that supports families, that encourages marriage, that has fathers take responsibility for their children,” he said.

“You can’t have limited government — you can’t have a wealthy society if the family breaks down, that basic unit of society. And that needs to be included in this economic discussion.”

Is this the part where I mention GOP Rep. Joe Walsh being a deadbeat dad who owes his wife and kids more than a hundred grand while loaning his campaign tens of thousands of dollars? If only we could be more like upright, family oriented Republicans like Newt Gingrich, eh? Would also help if Republicans stopped blocking efforts to equalize gender pay so that women can earn more, but that's apparently not crossed their minds either.

Nope, easier to blame women. AlterNet

Share:

Pain and Batshit On The Perry Campaign Trail


“A mind may be a terrible thing to waste, but if you waste 15 million of them, apparently you get Texas.” - Keith Olbermann.


Anita Perry: We know pain of unemployed because our banker son quit his job
The fading candidate's wife makes two questionable campaign-trail statements in two days
by Alex Pareene
14 Oct 2011

Anita Perry, Rick Perry’s wife, is, it seems, a positive influence on the right-wing Texas governor. Her guidance is seen in his support for HPV vaccines and fundraising for victims of domestic violence. But she’s also, it turns out, awful at speaking off-the-cuff in the middle of a high-stakes presidential campaign.


Being a candidate’s spouse is really a horrible gig. Most candidates’ spouses are non-politicians forced suddenly to act like politicians. Dumb things will be said. But the grandiose victimology on display in Anita Perry’s talk before a South Carolina college yesterday is still pretty egregious. You may have seen it:

“We’ve been brutalized and eaten up and chewed up in the press,” she said.

“It is a comfort to know that I am in this place where I can feel the presence of God. We are being brutalized by our opponents, and our own party,” she said. “So much of that is, I think they look at him because of his faith.”

Rick Perry, running for the Republican nomination for president, is falling in the polls because he loves God too much. Yes, that’s it exactly. And the press won’t stop “brutalizing” her poor husband, solely because he is the world’s best Christian. (She’s also using “brutalize” incorrectly — unless those press attacks have utterly dehumanized poor Rick — but basically everyone does, so we’ll let that go.)


Rick Perry bravely stood by his wife’s comments.

But the “brutalized” routine was not half as silly as what Anita Perry said today at a diner. Apparently, the Perrys know all too well the pain of unemployed Americans, because their own son has lost his job. Not just that, but he was made jobless by the Obama administration’s onerous regulations! The conservative nightmare scenario played out right in their own family!

“My son had to resign his job because of federal regulations that Washington has put on us,” Mrs. Perry said while campaigning for her husband in South Carolina, after a voter shared the story of losing his job.

She is speaking of Griffin Perry. Griffin Perry, who worked at Deutsche Bank until recently, when he had to quit in order to work on his father’s presidential campaign.

“He resigned his job two weeks ago because he can’t go out and campaign with his father because of SEC regulations,” she continued, referring to the Securities and Exchange Commission. “He has a wife… he’s trying to start a business. So I can empathize.”

“My son lost his job because of this administration,” she said a few minutes later.

She can relate to the downtrodden because Barack Obama forced her son the banker to quit his job in order to help his father run for president. Griffin Perry is the 53 percent.

Maybe Perry should take his wife off the campaign trail for a while? I am positive she’d appreciate it. Salon


Try a bit of Mitt & Sons, only in Ameriki folks, only in Ameriki! h/t Maren.

Share:

It's 2011 -- Why Is God Still Involved In American Politics? Speaking For God

I should have had this post out earlier in the week, but I have been in recovery. Not from too much grog, or even bad drugs, no something far more brain damaging than either of those. Mormonism! I've been reading about Mormonism, the tenets of Mormonism to be exact.

No linky for you just yet, because there is, once I've made myself a tin-foil hat, hopefully a post in the making. And if I can do justice to the thing, it should be of such incredulity, that you yourselves might have to retire to the bed chamber, quite possibly, with more than just a touch of the vapours. Of that though, another day.

Just a couple of paragraphs to get the feel, and then on to the article proper.

Things that used to be considered beyond the pale in politics, such as religious intolerance or ministers blatantly claiming they know who God supports in an election, have become normalized to the point where someone like Mitt Romney, who is odious in most respects but has never really made much of a fuss over his faith, is seeing religious tests becoming a major issue in his campaign.

Yes, just like the revival tent, going beyond the pale is just but a memory. But not so for those that speak for God; modern day Elmer Gantries! we got 'em coming out the woodwork. Ain't we Glenn? ain't we Pat?


Glenn Beck, Unhinged in Texas A read in its own right.

But it's this bit that's the cracker. Believe in the most outlandish batshit crazy stuff that you could possibly dream up and you are qualified to run for office. Believe in reality, and you haven't a snowball in hell's chance of being elected. Or if by some miracle (In the name of Noodles, the Most Beneficent, the Most Merciful) that you do manage to slip through the net, then beware, for "The Christians immediately drove him out into the wilderness. And he was in the wilderness forty days, tempted by Satan; and he was with the wild beasts; and the angels ministered to him." (Not)

I think ministering angels are a bit thin on the ground in North Carolina, not unlike Christians I shouldn't wonder.

Atheists already face discrimination when it comes to running for public office. A number of states ban atheists from holding public office, even though the U.S. Constitution explicitly forbids religious tests for office. Of course, it’s difficult for an atheist to win enough votes to get office, so this conflict hasn’t been tested much, although one atheist city council member found himself under fire by religious bigots who wanted to use North Carolina’s ban on atheists holding office to push him out for not swearing his oath of office on the Bible.




I have embedded the short Rachel Maddow clip leading from the A number of states ban link. Perhaps it might be as well watching it first; whatever?





It's 2011 -- Why Is the Christian God Still Involved In American Politics?

The Mormon-bashing directed at Mitt Romney should concern everyone for what it reveals about the undue influence of religion in American elections.
By Amanda Marcotte
October 12, 2011

As an atheist and a liberal, it’s been tempting for me to simply laugh at Republicans fighting each other over the issue of whether or not Mitt Romney, a Mormon, gets to consider himself a Christian. From the non-believer point of view, it’s like watching a bunch of grown adults work themselves into a frenzy over the differences between leprechauns and fairies. But watching the debate unfold, I’ve become concerned about what it means to make someone’s religious beliefs such a big campaign issue, because it’s indicative of a larger eroding of the separation of church and state, which concerns not just atheists but all people who understand the importance of maintaining a secular government.



Robert Jeffress, an influential pastor who is the senior pastor of the First Baptist Church of Dallas, went on "Focal Point" with Bryan Fischer and declared that one shouldn’t support Mitt Romney for president because Romney, a Mormon, isn’t a real Christian. This created a media dustup that was silly even by the usual standards of ever-sillier mainstream media campaign coverage. John King of CNN interviewed Jeffress, focusing strictly on the question of who Jeffress believes deserves to be called a Christian, and how firmly he believes that only people he calls Christians should hold public office. Candy Crowley of CNN dogged both Herman Cain and Michele Bachmann on the question of whether or not they believe Romney is a Christian, and then she got irate with the candidates when they refused to answer the question, claiming that it’s irrelevant.



These interviews are remarkable for what the CNN anchors didn’t discuss, which was the most important question of all: the separation of church and state. Even though our nation has a tradition of pastors staying out of partisan politics -- in fact, it is illegal for ministers to endorse candidates from the pulpit -- it seemingly never occurred to King to challenge Jeffress for overstepping his bounds by telling people that God wants an evangelical Christian who is a Republican for president. By making the story about whether or not Mormons are Christians, CNN left the viewer with the impression that only Christians deserve to hold public office, and that the only thing left to debate is whether or not someone “counts” as a Christian, making him or her eligible for office.

We’re a long way from the days when John Kennedy assured the public that he respected the separation of church and state and would keep his faith separate from his policy-making decisions. Now, even mainstream reporters take it as a given that politicians will let religion govern their actions, and the only thing left to debate on theology is how many angels any single politician believes dance on the head of a pin. Things that used to be considered beyond the pale in politics, such as religious intolerance or ministers blatantly claiming they know who God supports in an election, have become normalized to the point where someone like Mitt Romney, who is odious in most respects but has never really made much of a fuss over his faith, is seeing religious tests becoming a major issue in his campaign.



The ramifications for this shift affect more than conservative Mormons trying to win as Republicans. By not challenging the assertion that only Christians should hold office, mainstream journalists encourage bigotry against all religious minorities, including atheists. Atheists already face discrimination when it comes to running for public office. A number of states ban atheists from holding public office, even though the U.S. Constitution explicitly forbids religious tests for office. Of course, it’s difficult for an atheist to win enough votes to get office, so this conflict hasn’t been tested much, although one atheist city council member found himself under fire by religious bigots who wanted to use North Carolina’s ban on atheists holding office to push him out for not swearing his oath of office on the Bible.



There’s a reason the Founding Fathers wrote a national constitution that forbade religious tests for office and required the separation of church and state. It’s not just protection against the escalating religious bigotry we're seeing lately, but also because religion should have no place in politics in the first place. Neither atheists nor believers benefit when leaders are guided more by religious dogma than by rationality. Angels and demons might be a fine thing to worry about when you’re in church on Sunday, but when you’re trying to govern real people in the real world, it’s far better to rely on evidence and empirical facts, interpreted through reason and not through the guesswork of faith. This is why Kennedy defended himself against questions about his faith by saying, “I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute, where no Catholic prelate would tell the president (should he be Catholic) how to act, and no Protestant minister would tell his parishioners for whom to vote.”



People like Robert Jeffress, when they propose religious tests for office--even ones held privately by voters--should face more challenges than reporters simply asking if they consider Mormons “real” Christians. They should be confronted with Kennedy’s words and asked directly why they disagree with our former president about the separation of church and state. They should be asked why they believe only a certain breed of Christians should hold office, and asked why they think it’s appropriate to demand that politicians put religious dogma before evidence-based and rational approaches to policy. Anything less than that is aiding the religious right in its mission to remake our secular democracy into a theocracy. It shouldn’t be tolerated. AlterNet



Share:

Mitt Romney's Mormonism: Pastors Say Mormons Not Christians, But Defend His Right To Be Batshit Crazy

Updated here.

Not too much of a shocker is it? Not in a country where Catholics are barely Christian and Italians are barely white it's not.

''WE defend anybody's right to be batshit, because we're all fucking batshit.''


Mitt Romney's Mormonism: Pastors Say Mormons Not Christians, But Defend Candidate Against Attacks
by Jaweed Kaleem

The debate over whether a largely Protestant nation is uneasy with a potential Mormon president was reignited this week after back-to-back attacks on Republican front-runner Mitt Romney's Mormonism at the high-profile Values Voters Summit in Washington, D.C.

After prominent Texas megachurch pastor Rev. Robert Jeffress told audiences on Friday that Mormonism is a "cult" (shurely some mishtake?) and conservative Christian activist Bryan Fischer took the stage the next day to echo similar views, a new survey released Saturday afternoon says that three out of four pastors agree, at the least, that Mormons are not Christians.

As part of a larger survey conducted by Nashville-based Lifeway Research a year ago, 1,000 pastors were polled from around the country who represented dozens of denominations. Results, originally scheduled to be released in the coming weeks, were put out early after reporters requested data because of attacks on Romney at the summit, said Ed Stetzer, president of the Southern Baptist-affiliated organization.

"The view that Mormons are not Christians is the widely and strongly held view among Protestant pastors. That does not mean they do not respect Mormons as persons, share their values on family and have much in common. Yet, they simply view Mormonism as a distinct religion outside of basic teachings of Christianity. Many of these pastors may know Mormons who consider themselves Christians, but Protestant pastors overwhelmingly do not consider them such," said Stetzer. "I know this is an unpleasant question to many, and one that some will use as a hammer on evangelicals."

Mormons differ from most Protestants in how they view the Trinity. They also have scripture in addition to the Bible, such as the Book of Mormon, and believe in prophets such as Joseph Smith, Jr., who founded the Latter Day Saint movement.

While the Lifeway survey indicates that a majority of pastors may not support the Mormon religion, surveys on whether Americans would support a Mormon candidate are more mixed. A Pew Research Center survey from the summer said that one in four voters would be less likely to vote for a Mormon candidate and found that 34 percent of white evangelical Protestants held this view. A Gallup poll released in June also found that almost 20 percent of Republicans and independents would not vote for a Mormon president, compared to 27 percent of Democrats who said the same.

After the weekend's controversial statements on Romney's religion, prominent pastors are also coming to his defense. On Saturday, Rev. Myke Crowder, senior pastor of the Christian Life Center in Layton, Utah, and spokesman for the National Clergy Council, released a statement condemning Jeffress, who is a Southern Baptist.

"As an evangelical, born-again, Bible-believing Christian, and a pastor with more than 25 years' experience living with and ministering among a majority Mormon population, I find the comments by Pastor Jeffress unhelpful, impolite and out of place," he said. "I've been around long enough to remember when independent Baptists wouldn't pray with Southern Baptists, when fundamentalists called Southern Baptists compromisers and liberals, when Southern Baptists wouldn't keep company with Pentecostals and when Pentecostals wouldn't keep company with Catholics. That wasn't helpful to anyone. Insulting Mitt Romney adds nothing to the conversation about who should be president. We're picking the country's chief executive, not its senior pastor." huffpo with links







Spot the subliminal message, you wimin.



Share:

Mitt Romney's America: Even More of The Same

Just what the world and America needs.

Mind you, that's this week. The cartoon says everything that needs saying, but that man wants to be President so bad it's worrying, he'd sell his Granny for a vote.

America's saviour, the man in the magic underpants.


Romney: century of American dominance ahead

By Steve Peoples and Bruce Smith
October 7, 2011

CHARLESTON, S.C.—Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney said Friday the next president would face complex foreign policy decisions but offered few details on his plan for one of the nation's most protracted international entanglements -- the decade-old Afghanistan war.




Delivering his first major foreign policy address on the 10th anniversary of the conflict, the former Massachusetts governor said little about what he would do specifically about Afghanistan, where nearly 100,000 American troops are stationed today.

"I will order a full review of our transition to the Afghan military to secure that nation's sovereignty from the tyranny of the Taliban," Romney said near the end of his remarks, listing the Afghan war among eight priorities for his first 100 days in office. "The force level necessary to secure our gains and complete our mission successfully is a decision I will make free from politics."

The comment drew applause from the cadets and supporters who gathered at The Citadel, South Carolina's military college. But Afghanistan was almost an afterthought in Romney's speech, in which he made the case for a stronger military that would allow the United States to lead the world and help deter further violence.

He mentioned the name of the country three times in a speech that exceeded 2,800 words.

When pressed for details on Afghanistan during a morning briefing, a Romney foreign policy adviser declined to outline a Romney plan for Afghanistan and noted that the governor recognizes the difficulty of what America faces there.

On other issues, Romney said he would boost the number of Navy ships and pour more money into defense, outlining proposals to strengthen the military while rejecting multilateral institutions like the United Nations when necessary.

He also condemned the isolationist policies supported by some tea party activists.

"This is America's moment. We should embrace the challenge, not shrink from it, not crawl into an isolationist shell, not wave the white flag of surrender, nor give in to those who assert America's moment has passed. That is utter nonsense," he added.

Romney's first foreign policy speech as a candidate amounted to a show of force of sorts as he tries to position himself as the clear GOP frontrunner in the White House race. Some Republicans remain reluctant to support him but Romney has resumed his place atop national polling following Texas Gov. Rick Perry's recent stumbles and New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie's decision not to run.

The sometimes hawkish policies Romney outlined Friday may draw criticism from the libertarian wing of his party but are designed to confront what may be the former businessman's most glaring weakness. While he served as a Mormon missionary in France more than four decades ago, he has only limited foreign policy experience. As he says in nearly every campaign stop, he has spent most of his life in the business world. Go to page two


A few from last time he ran. Things don't change much, apart from Mitt's position d'jour.








The American electorate.

Poll: Nearly half of Americans can’t name a single GOP presidential candidate more
Share:

Sarah Palin Not Running For President: Neither is My Dog


Mrs Palin said in a statement that the decision came after much thought, and that she and her husband, Todd, "devote ourselves to God, family and country". BBC


For fuck's sake, pass the bucket. Don't you think the time might be better spent in adult education?

Sarah Palin, the only person I know that makes George Bush look like an Oxford Don.




Previous: Popcorn With Palin & It's Over For Palin! Don't Kid Yourself Stills missing! copyright? strange.

Update: A Blogger/Picasa balls up by all accounts. Leaving this link here in case I need it one day.
http://www.jensdesk.com/2011/08/how-to-get-rid-of-black-error-triangles.html
Share:

The Wonderful World of Tony Blair: Dispatches CH4 Video

h/t ICH for bringing this to my attention, but sad to say their copy of The Wonderful World of Tony Blair, Dispatches CH4 is very low res. No harm, you can watch a better quality stream via CH4 Youtube. Link below.

Not had chance yet to watch it myself, probably later.



Yes, I'd look fucking embarrassed too.


The Wonderful World of Tony Blair

Since resigning in June 2007 Tony Blair has financially enriched himself more than any ex-Prime Minister ever. Reporter Peter Oborne reveals some of the sources of his new-found wealth, much of which comes from the Middle East.

On the day Tony Blair resigned as Prime Minister, he was appointed the official representative Envoy of the Quartet on the Middle East. By January 2009 he had set up Tony Blair Associates - his international consultancy - which handles multi-million pound contracts in the Middle East.

It is so secretive we don't know all the locations they do business in. Dispatches shows that at the same time as Blair is visiting Middle East leaders in his Quartet role he is receiving vast sums from some of them. If Blair represented the UK government, the EU, the IMF, the UN or the World Bank, this would not be permitted. watch



Share:

GOP Presidential Race: Rain Man Loosing To Magic Underpants Man

But before I bring you that story, I just want to say a few words about to Jon Huntsman.

Get yourself sat down, you ain't got a bleedin' snowball in hell's chance of winning the nomination. Not only are you another magic underpants man, you believe in climate change and evolution.

And that old son, if you didn't but know it, is the kiss of death to anybody's political aspirations in that emporium of ignorance, aka conservative America.

Gawdstruth, climate change and evolution, what a dreamer.

And it's not just meself that holds such opinions, here's another fellow that has a few words to say on the subject.



GOP Presidential Candidate Supports Evolution, Climate Change; Pisses Off His Party

Here is a recent tweet from Republican presidential candidate Jon Huntsman, clearly a jab at Texas Governor and Jesus freak Rick Perry, who stepped into the ring on August 13th:


You: Wait. WTF? Rewind that shiz. Did you just say a Republican presidential candidate admits he believes in evolution and global warming? Aren't Republicans as a party...y'know, kind of antithetical to that sort of thing? Doesn't the GOP view science as a big liberal, atheist, bike-fascist conspiracy?

Me: Whoa, that's a lot of questions. Yeah, I did just say that. And yeah, many Republicans are no friends of these two repeatedly verified, never falsified scientific theories (not to be confused with untested scientific hypotheses). The story gets even weirder when you hear what Huntsman had to say on ABC's This Week about members of his own party:

"The minute that the Republican Party becomes the party - the anti-science party, we have a huge problem. We lose a whole lot of people who would otherwise allow us to win the election in 2012."

The world must be ending. I want to agree with a GOP presidential candidate. more

I can't give you the relative clip, because the two blokes that have been uploaded the clips, belong to the same school of miserated fuckdoggery, and have disabled the embedded.

I can't bring you that, but I can bring you some magic underpants.




Will Perry's Halting Debate Lead to a Faltering Campaign?
Saturday 24 September 2011
by: Steven Thomma,

Orlando, Fla. - Is Rick Perry about to lose his momentum toward the Republican presidential nomination?

The Texas governor turned in a weak performance in a debate Thursday, raising questions about how ready he is for the rigors of a tough campaign and how much Republicans really know about the man.

At the same time, chief rival Mitt Romney scored with a sharp performance. And others shined in the eyes of Republican voters as well, including Herman Cain, Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum. Combined, the results heading out of the debate in Orlando suggest a party far from ready to coalesce behind Perry.

"It was Mitt Romney's best performance so far and Rick Perry's worst performance so far," said Republican researcher Frank Luntz.

"Perry created some doubt about himself," said Susan MacManus, a political scientist at the University of South Florida who attended the debate and a three-day gathering of more than 3,000 conservative activists.

"This is a world of people used to good speakers with clear views," she said. "They worry now about his ability to stand beside President Obama in a debate."

At the gathering of conservatives Friday in the same convention center as the debate, it was all but impossible to find anyone who thought Perry did well Thursday night. The criticisms included his style — uniformly described as halting and unsure — and the substance, particularly his defense of in-state college tuition breaks for children of illegal immigrants not available to citizens from other states.

"Perry looked uncomfortable. He got caught up on a couple of the questions. He was inconsistent," said Meg Shannon, a retired lawyer from Palm Beach Gardens, Fla., who attended the debate.

"I was leaning toward Mitt, but I wanted to hear the candidates," she said. "Mitt did very well."

Harold Armstrong, a pastor from St. Cloud, Fla., who attended the debate and a Conservative Political Action Conference on Friday, also came away unimpressed by Perry.

"I did not think Perry did well. He seemed a little tentative," Armstrong said.

He said that Romney "came across looking presidential" and that his own favorite, Newt Gingrich, scored by offering what he thought were the best answers. "He gives thoughtful replies, not canned responses," Armstrong said.

Jean Morris, a retired teacher from St. Cloud, walked away still leaning toward Perry. But she, too, acknowledged that he didn't do very well.

On the question of in-state tuition for illegal immigrants, for example, she said he fumbled by failing to stress that it also requires those students promise to seek permanent resident status as a condition for the tuition break. "It disappointed me that he didn't mention that," she said.

Perry's performance underscored how fast he surged to the lead when he jumped into the race just six weeks ago, how untested he is, and how unscrutinized his record is beyond his boast of creating jobs.

Perry all but acknowledged his weakness as a debater during a speech Friday to the Conservative Political Action Conference in Orlando.

"As conservatives," he said, "we know that values and vision matter. It's not who's the slickest candidate or the smoothest debater that we need to elect."

Despite his 10 years as governor, Perry had only faced rivals in a debate four times before he starting running for president. He's now debated three times on that stage.

Some analysts said he tires, and finishes poorly.

"He had a so-so performance," Republican political strategist Karl Rove said Friday on Fox News Channel. "He started off strong ... but as one observer put it, at about minute 42 he begins to fade."

Perry's also facing tough scrutiny over the less advertised parts of his record, such as the support for in-state tuition and opposition to a fence along the U.S.-Mexico border, both touchy subjects for conservatives.

William Gheen, president of the Americans for Legal Immigration Political Action Committee, a North Carolina group, said that 81 percent of Americans oppose in-state tuition breaks for the children of illegal immigrants. "Rick Perry is finished," he said.

From the podium Thursday, Perry brushed aside anyone who opposes the tuition breaks as heartless. That set up Santorum to score by noting that conservatives don't want to deny the students access to college, as Perry suggested, just the prudential tuition denied to citizens from other states.

"Perry made a fundamental mistake when he said you have no heart. That was the moment when Perry people said, 'We can't take this, it's too much,'" said Luntz, who conducted a focus group for Fox News of Florida Republicans watching the debate.

Another stumble came when Perry was asked why he hasn't produced a detailed plan to create jobs, as other candidates have done. He said only that he'll produce one later.

"They thought he was ill prepared," Luntz said. "They think at this point you should have a plan. He was caught flatfooted."

Ultimately, Perry still has enormous strengths in the still-developing campaign for the 2012 Republican nomination. He has a record of job growth in his home state to brag about. He has a generally conservative record. And he's got a warm style of campaigning one on one matched by charisma.

What he doesn't have, as this week showed, is an ability to face rivals and win in televised debates, one key element of the coming campaign for the nomination and then against Barack Obama.

"He has a presence," said Luntz. "They see it. They feel it. But he needs to acquire the ability to articulate to go along with that presence." Truthout


Share:

Putin For President: You Can't Keep A Good Dictator Down

I wouldn't profess to know a great deal about Russian internal politics, but I am told that the Ivans do like a strong leader. Well they have that alright.

Let me correct that, I know enough about Russian internal politics to know that Vlad won't have lost his touch for things presidential.



Don't Fuck With Vlad. Cancel that, see below.


Putin's return as Russia's president appears set

Russian President Dmitry Medvedev on Saturday proposed Vladimir Putin as presidential candidate for 2012, almost certainly guaranteeing Putin's return to the office four years after he was legally forced to step aside.

Medvedev made the proposal in an address to a congress of United Russia, the pro-Kremlin party that dominates Russian politics.

Putin, who currently serves as prime minister, took the rostrum immediately after Medvedev and launched into a lengthy lecture on changes and policies he saw necessary for Russia. That included a surprising suggestion that Russia's wealthy should pay higher taxes than average citizens.

The flat income tax that came into effect during Putin's 2000-2008 presidency has been widely praised as improving tax collection. But Putin's proposal for higher taxes for the wealthy appears to reflect growing discontent over the wide gaps between the grandiosely rich and the millions of Russians who continue living in poverty or marginal circumstances.

The congress must formally nominate its candidate, which appeared to be a foregone conclusion judging by the heavy applause that greeted Medvedev's proposal.

The proposal appears to end months of intense speculation over whether Medvedev would seek a second term or step aside in favor of his powerful predecessor.

Putin became prime minister in 2008 after two terms as president, stepping aside because of constitutional term limits, but as Russia's most powerful and popular politician he had been widely expected seek a return to the Kremlin.

Medvedev had been widely seen as simply a caretaker figure. As president, he has struck a reformist posture, calling for improvements in Russia's notoriously unreliable court system and for efforts against the country's endemic corruption. But his initiatives have produced little tangible result.

Medvedev on Saturday said he would continue his reform efforts and implied he would aim to stay in government after the presidential elections, for which a date has not been set.

Under constitutional changes, the presidential term in 2012 will be six years instead of four, putting Putin, if he wins, in a position of nearly unchallengeable power.

Putin, who built his popularity on the back of strong economic growth, told the party congress on Friday that salaries and pensions would continue to grow, and he promised increased funding for education, health care and housing.

But he also cautioned that the government may need to take unpopular steps to cope with the global financial turmoil.

"The task of the government is not only to pour honey into a cup, but sometimes to give bitter medicine," Putin said. "But this should always be done openly and honestly, and then the overwhelming majority of people will understand their government." CBS

Update:


The Cost of Britain's Thaw With Russia
By Alan Cowell
September 16, 2011

LONDON — Almost five years ago, on Nov. 1, 2006, Alexander V. Litvinenko, a former K.G.B. officer and self-exiled dissident, ingested a rare and highly toxic radioactive isotope, polonium 210, from a teapot at a hotel in Grosvenor Square.

Three weeks and one day later, he was dead after an excruciating decline. Almost to the last, investigators and physicians had no idea what killed him. And by the time the cause emerged, Mr. Litvinenko had died, never knowing what took his life. In a contentious, deathbed testament read out by a friend, Mr. Litvinenko laid the murder firmly at the door of the Kremlin and its boss, Vladimir V. Putin, who was then president.

“You may succeed in silencing one man, but the howl of protest from around the world will reverberate, Mr. Putin, in your ears for the rest of your life,” the declaration said. On Dec. 7, 2006, Mr. Litvinenko, who had acquired British citizenship weeks before the poisoning, was buried at Highgate Cemetery in London, just across the way from the tomb of Karl Marx.

The British authorities demanded the extradition on murder charges of Andrei K. Lugovoi, a former business associate, and ex-K.G.B. bodyguard, who had been with Mr. Litvinenko on Nov. 1 in the Millennium Hotel. When Russia refused, Britain expelled four of Moscow’s diplomats. Russia kicked out four Britons. A chill settled, reminiscent of the Cold War.

It is worth recalling some of the detail, the drama and the flavor of those days because, just this week, it seemed as if another kind of burial — political, diplomatic, pragmatic — was under way when Prime Minister David Cameron visited Moscow and seemed to signal readiness for a thaw.

True, Mr. Cameron made clear that the British legal system did not permit Britain to drop its demand for the extradition of Mr. Lugovoi, who has long proclaimed his innocence.

“But at the same time,” he told Russians, “we have a responsibility to recognize the many ways in which we do need each other, to end the old culture of tit-for-tat and find ways for us to work together to advance our mutual interests.”

And in case anyone failed to understand the nature of those mutual interests, contracts were signed for business deals worth £215 million, or $340 million — hardly a high price for the British offer to step around the central question: could a British citizen be murdered with impunity in Britain at the whim of hostile outsiders? (The answer so far: yes.)

On a note of disclosure: I wrote a book about the Litvinenko affair. In recent days, however, I have been struck not so much by the memory of a particularly gruesome murder, but by what this saga says about the remarkable long game played by the Kremlin, the limits of British influence and the distinctive nature of British foreign policy under Mr. Cameron.

That style began to emerge earlier this year when — in what seemed a remarkably dissonant signal — Mr. Cameron toured the Middle East, then aflame with the first crackling fires of the Arab Spring, leading a delegation packed with defense contractors who had sold their weapons to precisely the kind of autocratic leaders under attack by pro-democracy forces. more NYT

h/t Maren

Share: