Home » Archives by category » News » Politics (Page 1668)

Hundreds if not thousands of people are dead due to a devastating earthquake and tsunami in Japan. But at least it gave Barack Obama an avenue to remind everyone he was born in Hawaii. That's the silver lining for MSNBC's Chris Matthews. “Was this sort of a good opportunity for the president to remind everybody that he grew up in the United States and Hawaii?” [We're working on clipping video and will post it shortly] That's a question that Chris Matthews posed to MSNBC host and White House corresondent Chuck Todd about President Obama taking a question from a Japanese reporter during a news conference earlier today at the White House. Matthews pegged this question on the fact that there are many persons of Japanese heritage who live in the Hawaiian islands, which were themselves impacted by smaller tsunami resulting from the earthquake. “That's the first thing I thought of,” Matthews insisted. “Such a large number of people believe he grew up in [Kenya], they're buying this thing that's coming from Huckabee,” Matthews insisted. A somewhat visibly flustered Todd politely rejected Matthews's argument: TODD: Look, do I think they thought this was another chance? No. I mean, they called this press conference because they hadn't had an opportunity to speak about gas prices…. This was a case where events crowded out the whole purpose of the press conference. That's an interesting theory. It certainly did give him an opportunity to remind folks of where he grew up and the folks he grew up with.

Continue reading …
Between Wisconsin Senate and Assembly Vote, Power Plant Sales Reappear

A big thank-you to xoff at UppityWisconsin for this find . Remember that power plant provision ? It wasn’t in the document passed by the Senate on Wednesday. But guess what! It was changed before the Assembly vote on Thursday to include it. Thursday, the fiscal bureau was forced to correct its memo describing the bill, after unearthing some more buried treasure. Seems there were a few things the original memo forgot to mention: There are two items in the LFB’s March 10 document that are not reflected in the March 9 document. 1. The March 10 document includes a provision of the substitute amendment on the Earned Income Tax Credit (page 3, #1). 2. The March 10 document includes a provision of the substitute amendment on the Sale and Contractual Operation of State-Owned Power Plants (page 20, #1) . Here are images of the table of contents: Wednesday’s version – PDF (This was the one I used for my analysis ): enlarge Thursday’s version – PDF (voted on by Assembly as amended): enlarge Here’s the language in the second version of the document: 1. SALE AND CONTRACTUAL OPERATION OF STATE-OWNED POWER PLANTS Governor: Allow the Department of Administration (DOA) to sell any state-owned heating, cooling, or power plant or contract with private entities for the operation of any such plant, with or without solicitation of bids, for any amount the Department determines to be in the best interest of the state. As a reminder, that power plant provision points directly to Koch Industries , who is already advertising for power plant managers. Someone just pulled a fast one in Wisconsin. A fast one that should be illegal for so many reasons I can’t count them all. But let’s just call it this: Fraud. When will the Attorney General investigate? In the meantime, Scott Walker makes the specious and disgusting claim that the only dirty tricksters are the heroic Wisconsin 14. He gives the term “sociopath” new meaning. Click here to view this media

Continue reading …
Another ‘isolated incident’: Alaska militiamen arrested in conspiracy to kill state troopers, judges

enlarge Schaeffer Cox, center, with some of his fellow Alaska militiamen Gee, I wonder if Bill O’Reilly is still so certain that the radical right isn’t the country’s most significant domestic-terrorism threat: Five people in the Fairbanks area were arrested Thursday by state and federal law enforcement on charges connected with an alleged plot to kidnap or kill state troopers and a Fairbanks judge, according to the Alaska State Troopers. Francis “Schaeffer” Cox, Lonnie Vernon, Karen Vernon, Coleman Barney and Michael Anderson are accused of conspiring to commit murder, kidnapping, and arson, as well as weapons misconduct, hindering prosecution and tampering with evidence, according to trooper spokeswoman Megan Peters in a written statement late Thursday. An investigation “revealed extensive plans to kidnap or kill Alaska state troopers and a Fairbanks judge,” the statement said. The plans included “extensive surveillance” on the homes of two Fairbanks troopers, the statement said. “Investigation also revealed that extensive surveillance on troopers in the Fairbanks area had occurred, specifically on the locations of the homes for two Alaska state troopers,” the statement said. “Furthermore, Cox et. al. had acquired a large cache of weapons in order to carry out attacks against their targeted victims. Some of the weapons known to be in the cache are prohibited by state or federal law.” U.S. Attorney Karen Loeffler said Lonnie Vernon, 55, was arrested for threatening to kill a federal judge. She said more information about federal charges would be released today Fairbanks Police Chief Loren Zager said the operation involved multiple police actions related to Fairbanks-area members of the “sovereign citizen” movement. Of course, we were pointing out earlier this week how law enforcement officers are the first in line to be targeted by these extremists — which is why conservative hysterics over disseminating intelligence about these extremists can be so harmful. Clearly, the troopers in Alaska were well aware of the nature of the problem they had on their hands. Because it’s been around awhile. Notably, in the more recent past, Cox and his pals were part of the militia faction that supported Joe Miller in his Palin-sponsored run for the Senate. David Holthouse at Media Matters has more. It appears Cox’s issues with law enforcement first cropped up in a court hearing in December : Schaeffer Cox appeared at the Fairbanks courthouse Wednesday morning as scheduled despite saying last week he would treat another court date “like an invitation to a Tupperware party.” However, Cox, the 26-year-old head of the Alaska Peacemakers Militia, did not address the issue of a trial date on a weapons charge as the hearing was intended to do. He instead attempted to serve criminal papers and a restraining order from a “de jure court” on District Court Judge Patrick Hammers. He also told an Alaska State Trooper after the hearing the militia has the troopers “outmanmed, outgunned and we could probably have you all dead in one night.” But Cox added he could not see himself shooting someone who lives in the same town as him. About a half-dozen supporters and members of the militia accompanied Cox at the hearing. Initially, militia member Ken Thesing spoke for Cox, calling himself Cox’s representative and “counsel before God.” Hammers identified himself as a judge at Cox’ request, which was not enough to dissuade Cox in his belief that the Alaska court system is a for-profit corporation. Cox, who also refused to take off his trademark hat in the courtroom, insists the positions of the state judiciary were never actually filled and the court system is a “pre-processing company” with no jurisdiction over Alaskans. “You’re now being treated as a criminal engaged in criminal activity and you’re being served in that manner,” Cox said. As with so many other cases where law enforcement is being targeted, “sovereign citizenship” ideology appears to be a significant component of Cox’s belief system: Cox, who is facing a misdemeanor weapons misconduct charge for not immediately letting a Fairbanks police officer know he was carrying a concealed weapon last March, has in recent weeks been advocating for the concept of “sovereign citizenship.” Cox claims he and all Americans are sovereigns, or kings and queens, and no one is required to obey laws unless not doing so would directly harm other sovereigns. Much of his claims center around the belief President Lincoln subverted the original Constitution and replaced it with a copy that incorporated the United States. Much more on “sovereign citizens” here.

Continue reading …
Wisconsin Can Repeal Walker’s Anti-Union Bill In 2012

Click here to view this media As Rachel discussed with the AFL-CIO’s Richard Trumka, one resolution to these awful union-busting laws we’re seeing passed in States like Wisconsin and Ohio is to get them up as ballot measures in those states and give the voters a chance to overturn them. Here’s more from Think Progress with what’s going on in Wisconsin. Wisconsin Can Repeal Walker’s Anti-Union Bill In 2012 And Amend The State Constitution In 2013 : Last night, Wisconsin Senate Republicans abandoned any remaining pretenses that a bill stripping state workers of their collective bargaining rights has anything whatsoever to do with the state’s finances, and rammed the bill through the senate without any Democrats present. Yet even if Gov. Scott Walker (R) succeeds in signing this bill into law, Wisconsin voters have the power to ensure that his victory is short lived. Third , Wisconsin also has the power to ensure that no future lawmakers can repeat Walker’s assault on working familes : Constitutional amendments. SECTION 1. Any amendment or amendments to this constitution may be proposed in either house of the legislature, and if the same shall be agreed to by a majority of the members elected to each of the two houses…and if, in the legislature so next chosen, such proposed amendment or amendments shall be agreed to by a majority of all the members elected to each house, then it shall be the duty of the legislature to submit such proposed amendment or amendments to the people in such manner and at such time as the legislature shall prescribe; and if the people shall approve and ratify such amendment or amendments by a majority of the electors voting thereon, such amendment or amendments shall become part of the constitution In other words, the Wisconsin Constitution can be amended in a three step process: 1) the current legislature must approve the amendment; 2) after the next election, the new legislature must approve the amendment; 3) the voters must ratify the amendment by a majority vote. Under this procedure, Wisconsin could amend its constitution to permanently protect working families as soon as 2013. In Ohio, pro-worker lawmakers are already planning a ballot referendum to overrule an anti-worker bill that is moving forward in that state. Wisconsin law will require working families and their supporters to jump through a few more hoops to reverse Walker’s actions. Nevertheless, they unambiguously have the power to repeal Walker’s bill in 2012 and to ensure that similar bills can never become law again in 2013.

Continue reading …
Bill O’Reilly Compares the Koran to Mein Kampf and then tries to deny it and then re-compares it again.

Click here to view this media Bill O’Reilly pulled another one of his I didn’t it, but I really didn’t because it’s me, that’s why. C&L Flashback: O’Reilly defends his use of Nazi analogy because it’s different when HE does it:UPDATED with the KKK Yes, a familiar tune he’s played before. Instead of the topic being Nazis, Bill is saying that a NY Times piece was misleading when it said that O’Reilly compared the Koran to Mein Kampf because he only meant “the books.” Do you understand now? O’Reilly: In July 2002 we criticized a professor who wanted to require incoming freshman to read a book explaining the Koran. In the body of that discussion I said this: I wouldn’t read the book and I’ll tell you why. I wouldn’t read Mein Kampf either. If I was going to UNC in 1941 I would have said with all due respect you professor said read Mein Kampf all do respect I would have said shove it. I ain’t reading it. I looked at the Koran and I have nothing against it the Koran by the way. There are some things in it that are good and there are some things in it that aren’t good. Same thing in the Old Testament … So obviously I wasn’t comparing Koran, the book to Mein Kampf, the book. What I did do was criticize the mandatory reading of a controversial book in the face of the war on terror. Professor Ahmed and the NY Times absolutely took the situation out of contex t. That’s his defense. Aren’t they both books? If he wasn’t making a comparison to Mein Kampf, then why didn’t he use a bad romance novel? At least a bad romance novel isn’t evil and while it still wouldn’t be cool to do, I don’t think the love story of Melody and Drake was responsible for millions of people to be gassed. Mein Kampf was not considered a religious holy book by billions of people. It was a sick and twisted vision of Hitler that only the Nazis were required to read and forced to follow. The Koran is the Muslim equivalent to the Bible and it’s treated with reverence around the world. And by the way, the professor was trying to get students to get an understanding of the Koran after the attacks because of what he feared Peter King would be doing years later with his McCarthyesque hearing. Then he went on to attack the NY Times op-ed section and complained that the piece attacking him wasn’t vetted. Just like the WSJ’s op-ed’s aren’t vetted. have you ever heard him complain about their lunatic op-eds? PHD, Professor Ahmed joins The Factor and Bill asks him if he should be apologized to by the Professor. Ahmed: Bill, you owe me one because I was brought up by some wonderful Catholic priests who taught me in my boarding school in Pakistan, something that they drummed into our heads was ‘never say anything that will be painful or hurtful to anyone who thinks something is sacred and I think that’s a lesson in life so you know even comparing or hinting at the Koran which is a sacred book to millions and millions of Muslims to this vile evil book Mein Kampf, written by an evil man really was very hurtful and upsetting. I’m glad you corrected the record Bill. I’m glad you said you did not compare the Koran to Mein Kampf and I am grateful Wow, the segment should be done, The controversy is over. Ahmed accepted Bill’s apology so that should end the segment, yes? O’Reilly: But I’m not apologizing because I think you absolutely took the situation out of context and I think you’re smart enough to know it and I’m not being condescending. I was actually saying, you heard my own words alright, that a mandatory reading of the Koran in the face of the war of terror , remember this is 2002, was akin to after WWII started a mandatory reading of Nazi propaganda. Again, it had nothing to do with the Koran itself, it had nothing to do with Mein Kampf itself. It was the act of forcing students to read something that obviously was flying in the face of what the times were, you know that. Oh, sh*t. He just compared the Koran to Nazi war propaganda now. Dammit Bill, and you almost escaped unscathed. What flew in our faces on 9/11 were Muslim extremists led by Osama Bin Laden and not Prof. Ahmed’s. Maybe Bill doesn’t understand the meaning of the word ‘akin”. That’s what Colbert would say anyway.

Continue reading …
Bill O’Reilly Compares the Koran to Mein Kampf and then tries to deny it and then re-compares it again.

Click here to view this media Bill O’Reilly pulled another one of his I didn’t it, but I really didn’t because it’s me, that’s why. C&L Flashback: O’Reilly defends his use of Nazi analogy because it’s different when HE does it:UPDATED with the KKK Yes, a familiar tune he’s played before. Instead of the topic being Nazis, Bill is saying that a NY Times piece was misleading when it said that O’Reilly compared the Koran to Mein Kampf because he only meant “the books.” Do you understand now? O’Reilly: In July 2002 we criticized a professor who wanted to require incoming freshman to read a book explaining the Koran. In the body of that discussion I said this: I wouldn’t read the book and I’ll tell you why. I wouldn’t read Mein Kampf either. If I was going to UNC in 1941 I would have said with all due respect you professor said read Mein Kampf all do respect I would have said shove it. I ain’t reading it. I looked at the Koran and I have nothing against it the Koran by the way. There are some things in it that are good and there are some things in it that aren’t good. Same thing in the Old Testament … So obviously I wasn’t comparing Koran, the book to Mein Kampf, the book. What I did do was criticize the mandatory reading of a controversial book in the face of the war on terror. Professor Ahmed and the NY Times absolutely took the situation out of contex t. That’s his defense. Aren’t they both books? If he wasn’t making a comparison to Mein Kampf, then why didn’t he use a bad romance novel? At least a bad romance novel isn’t evil and while it still wouldn’t be cool to do, I don’t think the love story of Melody and Drake was responsible for millions of people to be gassed. Mein Kampf was not considered a religious holy book by billions of people. It was a sick and twisted vision of Hitler that only the Nazis were required to read and forced to follow. The Koran is the Muslim equivalent to the Bible and it’s treated with reverence around the world. And by the way, the professor was trying to get students to get an understanding of the Koran after the attacks because of what he feared Peter King would be doing years later with his McCarthyesque hearing. Then he went on to attack the NY Times op-ed section and complained that the piece attacking him wasn’t vetted. Just like the WSJ’s op-ed’s aren’t vetted. have you ever heard him complain about their lunatic op-eds? PHD, Professor Ahmed joins The Factor and Bill asks him if he should be apologized to by the Professor. Ahmed: Bill, you owe me one because I was brought up by some wonderful Catholic priests who taught me in my boarding school in Pakistan, something that they drummed into our heads was ‘never say anything that will be painful or hurtful to anyone who thinks something is sacred and I think that’s a lesson in life so you know even comparing or hinting at the Koran which is a sacred book to millions and millions of Muslims to this vile evil book Mein Kampf, written by an evil man really was very hurtful and upsetting. I’m glad you corrected the record Bill. I’m glad you said you did not compare the Koran to Mein Kampf and I am grateful Wow, the segment should be done, The controversy is over. Ahmed accepted Bill’s apology so that should end the segment, yes? O’Reilly: But I’m not apologizing because I think you absolutely took the situation out of context and I think you’re smart enough to know it and I’m not being condescending. I was actually saying, you heard my own words alright, that a mandatory reading of the Koran in the face of the war of terror , remember this is 2002, was akin to after WWII started a mandatory reading of Nazi propaganda. Again, it had nothing to do with the Koran itself, it had nothing to do with Mein Kampf itself. It was the act of forcing students to read something that obviously was flying in the face of what the times were, you know that. Oh, sh*t. He just compared the Koran to Nazi war propaganda now. Dammit Bill, and you almost escaped unscathed. What flew in our faces on 9/11 were Muslim extremists led by Osama Bin Laden and not Prof. Ahmed’s. Maybe Bill doesn’t understand the meaning of the word ‘akin”. That’s what Colbert would say anyway.

Continue reading …
Bill O’Reilly Compares the Koran to Mein Kampf and then tries to deny it and then re-compares it again.

Click here to view this media Bill O’Reilly pulled another one of his I didn’t it, but I really didn’t because it’s me, that’s why. C&L Flashback: O’Reilly defends his use of Nazi analogy because it’s different when HE does it:UPDATED with the KKK Yes, a familiar tune he’s played before. Instead of the topic being Nazis, Bill is saying that a NY Times piece was misleading when it said that O’Reilly compared the Koran to Mein Kampf because he only meant “the books.” Do you understand now? O’Reilly: In July 2002 we criticized a professor who wanted to require incoming freshman to read a book explaining the Koran. In the body of that discussion I said this: I wouldn’t read the book and I’ll tell you why. I wouldn’t read Mein Kampf either. If I was going to UNC in 1941 I would have said with all due respect you professor said read Mein Kampf all do respect I would have said shove it. I ain’t reading it. I looked at the Koran and I have nothing against it the Koran by the way. There are some things in it that are good and there are some things in it that aren’t good. Same thing in the Old Testament … So obviously I wasn’t comparing Koran, the book to Mein Kampf, the book. What I did do was criticize the mandatory reading of a controversial book in the face of the war on terror. Professor Ahmed and the NY Times absolutely took the situation out of contex t. That’s his defense. Aren’t they both books? If he wasn’t making a comparison to Mein Kampf, then why didn’t he use a bad romance novel? At least a bad romance novel isn’t evil and while it still wouldn’t be cool to do, I don’t think the love story of Melody and Drake was responsible for millions of people to be gassed. Mein Kampf was not considered a religious holy book by billions of people. It was a sick and twisted vision of Hitler that only the Nazis were required to read and forced to follow. The Koran is the Muslim equivalent to the Bible and it’s treated with reverence around the world. And by the way, the professor was trying to get students to get an understanding of the Koran after the attacks because of what he feared Peter King would be doing years later with his McCarthyesque hearing. Then he went on to attack the NY Times op-ed section and complained that the piece attacking him wasn’t vetted. Just like the WSJ’s op-ed’s aren’t vetted. have you ever heard him complain about their lunatic op-eds? PHD, Professor Ahmed joins The Factor and Bill asks him if he should be apologized to by the Professor. Ahmed: Bill, you owe me one because I was brought up by some wonderful Catholic priests who taught me in my boarding school in Pakistan, something that they drummed into our heads was ‘never say anything that will be painful or hurtful to anyone who thinks something is sacred and I think that’s a lesson in life so you know even comparing or hinting at the Koran which is a sacred book to millions and millions of Muslims to this vile evil book Mein Kampf, written by an evil man really was very hurtful and upsetting. I’m glad you corrected the record Bill. I’m glad you said you did not compare the Koran to Mein Kampf and I am grateful Wow, the segment should be done, The controversy is over. Ahmed accepted Bill’s apology so that should end the segment, yes? O’Reilly: But I’m not apologizing because I think you absolutely took the situation out of context and I think you’re smart enough to know it and I’m not being condescending. I was actually saying, you heard my own words alright, that a mandatory reading of the Koran in the face of the war of terror , remember this is 2002, was akin to after WWII started a mandatory reading of Nazi propaganda. Again, it had nothing to do with the Koran itself, it had nothing to do with Mein Kampf itself. It was the act of forcing students to read something that obviously was flying in the face of what the times were, you know that. Oh, sh*t. He just compared the Koran to Nazi war propaganda now. Dammit Bill, and you almost escaped unscathed. What flew in our faces on 9/11 were Muslim extremists led by Osama Bin Laden and not Prof. Ahmed’s. Maybe Bill doesn’t understand the meaning of the word ‘akin”. That’s what Colbert would say anyway.

Continue reading …
Bill O’Reilly Compares the Koran to Mein Kampf and then tries to deny it and then re-compares it again.

Click here to view this media Bill O’Reilly pulled another one of his I didn’t it, but I really didn’t because it’s me, that’s why. C&L Flashback: O’Reilly defends his use of Nazi analogy because it’s different when HE does it:UPDATED with the KKK Yes, a familiar tune he’s played before. Instead of the topic being Nazis, Bill is saying that a NY Times piece was misleading when it said that O’Reilly compared the Koran to Mein Kampf because he only meant “the books.” Do you understand now? O’Reilly: In July 2002 we criticized a professor who wanted to require incoming freshman to read a book explaining the Koran. In the body of that discussion I said this: I wouldn’t read the book and I’ll tell you why. I wouldn’t read Mein Kampf either. If I was going to UNC in 1941 I would have said with all due respect you professor said read Mein Kampf all do respect I would have said shove it. I ain’t reading it. I looked at the Koran and I have nothing against it the Koran by the way. There are some things in it that are good and there are some things in it that aren’t good. Same thing in the Old Testament … So obviously I wasn’t comparing Koran, the book to Mein Kampf, the book. What I did do was criticize the mandatory reading of a controversial book in the face of the war on terror. Professor Ahmed and the NY Times absolutely took the situation out of contex t. That’s his defense. Aren’t they both books? If he wasn’t making a comparison to Mein Kampf, then why didn’t he use a bad romance novel? At least a bad romance novel isn’t evil and while it still wouldn’t be cool to do, I don’t think the love story of Melody and Drake was responsible for millions of people to be gassed. Mein Kampf was not considered a religious holy book by billions of people. It was a sick and twisted vision of Hitler that only the Nazis were required to read and forced to follow. The Koran is the Muslim equivalent to the Bible and it’s treated with reverence around the world. And by the way, the professor was trying to get students to get an understanding of the Koran after the attacks because of what he feared Peter King would be doing years later with his McCarthyesque hearing. Then he went on to attack the NY Times op-ed section and complained that the piece attacking him wasn’t vetted. Just like the WSJ’s op-ed’s aren’t vetted. have you ever heard him complain about their lunatic op-eds? PHD, Professor Ahmed joins The Factor and Bill asks him if he should be apologized to by the Professor. Ahmed: Bill, you owe me one because I was brought up by some wonderful Catholic priests who taught me in my boarding school in Pakistan, something that they drummed into our heads was ‘never say anything that will be painful or hurtful to anyone who thinks something is sacred and I think that’s a lesson in life so you know even comparing or hinting at the Koran which is a sacred book to millions and millions of Muslims to this vile evil book Mein Kampf, written by an evil man really was very hurtful and upsetting. I’m glad you corrected the record Bill. I’m glad you said you did not compare the Koran to Mein Kampf and I am grateful Wow, the segment should be done, The controversy is over. Ahmed accepted Bill’s apology so that should end the segment, yes? O’Reilly: But I’m not apologizing because I think you absolutely took the situation out of context and I think you’re smart enough to know it and I’m not being condescending. I was actually saying, you heard my own words alright, that a mandatory reading of the Koran in the face of the war of terror , remember this is 2002, was akin to after WWII started a mandatory reading of Nazi propaganda. Again, it had nothing to do with the Koran itself, it had nothing to do with Mein Kampf itself. It was the act of forcing students to read something that obviously was flying in the face of what the times were, you know that. Oh, sh*t. He just compared the Koran to Nazi war propaganda now. Dammit Bill, and you almost escaped unscathed. What flew in our faces on 9/11 were Muslim extremists led by Osama Bin Laden and not Prof. Ahmed’s. Maybe Bill doesn’t understand the meaning of the word ‘akin”. That’s what Colbert would say anyway.

Continue reading …
Bill O’Reilly Compares the Koran to Mein Kampf and then tries to deny it and then re-compares it again.

Click here to view this media Bill O’Reilly pulled another one of his I didn’t it, but I really didn’t because it’s me, that’s why. C&L Flashback: O’Reilly defends his use of Nazi analogy because it’s different when HE does it:UPDATED with the KKK Yes, a familiar tune he’s played before. Instead of the topic being Nazis, Bill is saying that a NY Times piece was misleading when it said that O’Reilly compared the Koran to Mein Kampf because he only meant “the books.” Do you understand now? O’Reilly: In July 2002 we criticized a professor who wanted to require incoming freshman to read a book explaining the Koran. In the body of that discussion I said this: I wouldn’t read the book and I’ll tell you why. I wouldn’t read Mein Kampf either. If I was going to UNC in 1941 I would have said with all due respect you professor said read Mein Kampf all do respect I would have said shove it. I ain’t reading it. I looked at the Koran and I have nothing against it the Koran by the way. There are some things in it that are good and there are some things in it that aren’t good. Same thing in the Old Testament … So obviously I wasn’t comparing Koran, the book to Mein Kampf, the book. What I did do was criticize the mandatory reading of a controversial book in the face of the war on terror. Professor Ahmed and the NY Times absolutely took the situation out of contex t. That’s his defense. Aren’t they both books? If he wasn’t making a comparison to Mein Kampf, then why didn’t he use a bad romance novel? At least a bad romance novel isn’t evil and while it still wouldn’t be cool to do, I don’t think the love story of Melody and Drake was responsible for millions of people to be gassed. Mein Kampf was not considered a religious holy book by billions of people. It was a sick and twisted vision of Hitler that only the Nazis were required to read and forced to follow. The Koran is the Muslim equivalent to the Bible and it’s treated with reverence around the world. And by the way, the professor was trying to get students to get an understanding of the Koran after the attacks because of what he feared Peter King would be doing years later with his McCarthyesque hearing. Then he went on to attack the NY Times op-ed section and complained that the piece attacking him wasn’t vetted. Just like the WSJ’s op-ed’s aren’t vetted. have you ever heard him complain about their lunatic op-eds? PHD, Professor Ahmed joins The Factor and Bill asks him if he should be apologized to by the Professor. Ahmed: Bill, you owe me one because I was brought up by some wonderful Catholic priests who taught me in my boarding school in Pakistan, something that they drummed into our heads was ‘never say anything that will be painful or hurtful to anyone who thinks something is sacred and I think that’s a lesson in life so you know even comparing or hinting at the Koran which is a sacred book to millions and millions of Muslims to this vile evil book Mein Kampf, written by an evil man really was very hurtful and upsetting. I’m glad you corrected the record Bill. I’m glad you said you did not compare the Koran to Mein Kampf and I am grateful Wow, the segment should be done, The controversy is over. Ahmed accepted Bill’s apology so that should end the segment, yes? O’Reilly: But I’m not apologizing because I think you absolutely took the situation out of context and I think you’re smart enough to know it and I’m not being condescending. I was actually saying, you heard my own words alright, that a mandatory reading of the Koran in the face of the war of terror , remember this is 2002, was akin to after WWII started a mandatory reading of Nazi propaganda. Again, it had nothing to do with the Koran itself, it had nothing to do with Mein Kampf itself. It was the act of forcing students to read something that obviously was flying in the face of what the times were, you know that. Oh, sh*t. He just compared the Koran to Nazi war propaganda now. Dammit Bill, and you almost escaped unscathed. What flew in our faces on 9/11 were Muslim extremists led by Osama Bin Laden and not Prof. Ahmed’s. Maybe Bill doesn’t understand the meaning of the word ‘akin”. That’s what Colbert would say anyway.

Continue reading …

Naomi Klein warns us that Wisconsin is only the beginning of the attack on democracy: NAOMI KLEIN: Well, I just found out about this last night, and like I said, there’s so much going on that these extraordinary measures are just getting lost in the shuffle. But in Michigan, there is a bill that’s already passed the House. It’s on the verge of passing the Senate . And I’ll just read you some excerpts from it. It says that in the case of an economic crisis, that the governor has the authority to authorize the emergency manager—this is somebody who would be appointed—to reject, modify or terminate the terms of an existing contract or collective bargaining agreement, authorize the emergency manager for a municipal government—OK, so we’re not—we’re talking about towns, municipalities across the state—to disincorporate. So, an appointed official with the ability to dissolve an elected body, when they want to. AMY GOODMAN: A municipal government. NAOMI KLEIN: A municipal government. And it says specifically, “or dissolve the municipal government.” So we’ve seen this happening with school boards, saying, “OK, this is a failing school board. We’re taking over. We’re dissolving it. We’re canceling the contracts.” You know, what this reminds me of is New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina, when the teachers were fired en masse and then it became a laboratory for charter schools. You know, people in New Orleans—and you know this, Amy—warned us. They said, “What’s happening to us is going to happen to you.” And I included in the book a quote saying, “Every city has their Lower Ninth Ward.” And what we’re seeing with the pretext of the flood is going to be used with the pretext of an economic crisis. And this is precisely what’s happening. So it starts with the school boards, and then it’s whole towns, whole cities, that could be subject to just being dissolved because there’s an economic crisis breaking collective bargaining agreements. It also specifies that—this bill specifies that an emergency manager can be an individual or a firm. Or a firm. So, the person who would be put in charge of this so-called failing town or municipality could actually be a corporation. AMY GOODMAN: Whose government they dissolve, a company takes over. NAOMI KLEIN: A company takes over. So, they have created, if this passes, the possibility for privatization of a whole town by fiat. And this is actually a trend in the contracting out of public services, where you do now have whole towns, like Sandy Springs in Georgia, run by private companies. It’s very lucrative. Why not? You start with just the water contract or the electricity contract, but eventually, why not privatize the whole town? So— AMY GOODMAN: And what happens then? Where does democracy fit into that picture? NAOMI KLEIN: Well, this is an assault on democracy. It’s a frontal assault on democracy. It’s a kind of a corporate coup d’état at the municipal level.

Continue reading …