A "Brownshirt Police Force" with Stethoscopes and Scalpels?

Here's a "Frequently Emailed theme" that my father has recently sent in the form of a video.

Essentially, this viral theme boils down to the accusation that, in the recent health care bills that have passed Congress, President Obama has somehow sneaked in provisions allowing him to have a domestic police force that will allow him to enforce the law as he sees fit.

Okay... considering that Congressional leaders actually wrote the law and sent it to the president for his signature, it seems a little unlikely that the President "secretly" did anything.  But if you want to look at my father's video, you can see it here on YouTube at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=htw7shWR3oU.

To the videographer's credit:  This is slightly less hysterical than most right-wing viral nonsense.  This vlogger acknowledges that the new health care bill doesn't actually create a new "civilian army".  He acknowledges that this is an expansion of an already existing agency - the United States Public Health Service.  And he acknowledges that this expansion is set aside for "reserve officers" that will serve in times of national emergency.

And after that... he goes into a long-winded fantasy about how these "reserve officers", under President Obama, will be used to enforce left-wing political orthodoxy.  With guns and police powers, if the need arises.

Well, let's get our facts straight here.  The United States Public Health Service was created in 1798, under our second president, John Adams.  Over 200 years ago.

And for over 200 years, no president has attempted to use this force for anything other than providing health care.  So there's no clear reason to believe that such an "expansion" of the Health Service's mission (published here) would start now.

They only recruit health care professionals, veterinarians, engineers capable of working on public health projects, and information technology specialists.  Making this service very poorly suited for the recruitment of "political police" officers.  And much less suitable for the task than any current military service, intelligence agency, or law enforcement agency.

And the idea that people would want to create a "reserve force" for "national emergencies" seems very reasonable - considering that part of their mission is to "Provide urgently needed public health and clinical expertise in response to large-scale local, regional, and national public health emergencies and disasters".  As they've recently done in recent hurricanes, earthquakes, and other man-made disasters.

So, overall, a request for a "reserve force" for such emergencies sounds very reasonable.

Okay, I suppose a skeptical reader might ask, "How do we know that the Public Health Service might be transformed into a civilian police force some time in the future?"

Okay, I suppose that the leader of this service is called the "Surgeon General", just like the Post Office used the title "Postmaster General" a few years back.  But, in order to be a police force, this service will either need to:

• Start hiring police, intelligence, and/or military officers.
• Start training it's cadre of physicians, nurses, scientists, and health care statisticians in law enforcement.

None of these things can happen invisibly.  People need to be hired.  Training manuals need to be written.  Training centers need to be established.

If anyone finds any evidence that any of these things are happening - I'll admit I was wrong.

Until then... there's no reason to call this "conspiracy theory" anything other than baseless hysteria.

Obama said it... In My Imagination

Over time, viral right-wing claims are becoming more and more unbelievable.

Here's a huge whopper:

Yes, he told us in advance what he planned to do. Few were listening. 

The following is a narrative taken from a 2008 Sunday morning televised "Meet The Press'. 

From Sunday's 07 Sept. 2008 11:48:04 EST, Televised "Meet the Press" THE THEN Senator Obama was asked about his stance on the American Flag.  General Bill Ginn' USAF (ret.) asked Obama to explain WHY he doesn't follow protocol when the National Anthem is played.  The General stated to Obama that according to the United States Code, Title 36, Chapter 10, Sec. 171...During rendition of the national anthem, when the flag is displayed, all present (except those in uniform) are expected to stand at attention facing the flag with the right hand over the heart. Or, at the very least, "Stand and Face It". 

NOW GET THIS !! 

'Senator' Obama replied: 

"As I've said about the flag pin, I don't want to be perceived as taking sides".. "There are a lot of people in the world to whom the American flag is a symbol of oppression.." "The anthem itself conveys a war-like message. You know, the bombs bursting in air and all that sort of thing." 

(ARE YOU READY FOR THIS???) 

Obama continued: "The National Anthem should be 'swapped' for something less parochial and less bellicose. I like the song 'I'd Like To Teach the World To Sing'. If that were our anthem, then, I might salute it. In my opinion, we should consider reinventing our National Anthem as well as 'redesign' our Flag to better offer our enemies hope and love. It's my intention, if elected, to disarm America to the level of acceptance to our Middle East Brethren. If we, as a Nation of waring people, conduct ourselves like the nations of Islam, where peace prevails - - - perhaps a state or period of mutual accord could exist between our governments ....." 

When I become President, I will seek a pact of agreement to end hostilities between those who have been at war or in a state of enmity, and a freedom from disquieting oppressive thoughts. We as a Nation, have placed upon the nations of Islam, an unfair injustice which is WHY my wife disrespects the Flag and she and I have attended several flag burning ceremonies in the past". 

"Of course now, I have found myself about to become the President of the United States and I have put my hatred aside. I will use my power to bring CHANGE to this Nation, and offer the people a new path..My wife and I look forward to becoming our Country's First black Family. Indeed, CHANGE is about to overwhelm the United States of America " 

WHAAAAAAAT, the H**l is that??? 

Yes, you read it right. 

I, for one, am speechless!!! 

Dale Lindsborg , Washington Post EVERYONE IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NEEDS TO READ THIS, KEEP IT GOING ! !SAVE AMERICA BEFORE IT'S TOO LATE ! !

Of course, in the years since Obama's election, we're all aware of his immediate withdrawal from all military action, and his famous proposals to redesign the American flag and to replace the National Anthem with a Pepsi slogan.

Oh, wait.  None of these things actually happened.

So, what about these supposed sources?

Well, the transcript to the September 7th 2008 "Meet the Press" is available on-line.  And neither Barack Obama nor General Ginn were on it.

Politifact went further, and discovered that no Dale Lindsborg was found on the Washington Post directory, either.

In other words - it's a fabricated quote made out of some right-wing liar's basement.  And it deserves no further attention.  Or forwarding.

The Biggest Filter Bubble - It's In Your Skull

And, the latest hit from my email box:

And you thought the web was an alternative to the mainstream media with its biased reporting. 

Think again. Startling video. 

http://www.wimp.com/filterbubbles/

Actually, the video wasn't bad.  Personally, I prefer to watch it from it's original source.  However, this is one case where the collective right-wing email chain hasn't edited the original video.

But I find the viral forwarding by the right wing chain... curious.

Maybe they stopped listening once they saw Facebook "filtering" wall posts from conservative writers.

But the speaker clearly explained this - it's because he clicks on wall posts from liberal writers more often.  And, Facebook, being a social service, rather than a news agency, prioritizes the posts from the people you most often read.

And, yes, if I read more travel articles than news articles, a vague Google search for "Egypt" will prioritize travel.

Does it really change the content that's out there?  No.

If I go to The Economist, the New York Times, or the Christian Science Monitor, I'll always see the same articles that everyone else sees.

Same if I go to Rush Limbaugh or Keith Olbermann's site.

As to what sites you choose to receive your news from - that's up to the filter bubble that's in your own head.

And if you think that the "mainstream media" is too liberally biased to listen to - maybe that's the biggest filter bubble of them all.

And if you think that viral email provides more accurate information than the people who stake their careers and reputations on the truth of what they write... that "filter bubble" is an amazing thing indeed.

Congress Has Committed a lot of Crimes - In My Imagination.

And, once again, another email decrying the congresspeople that other people elected:

Even if you aren't a Sports Fan this is Very Interesting!

****************
36 have been accused of spousal abuse
7 have been arrested for fraud
19 have been accused of writing bad checks
117 have directly or indirectly bankrupted at least 2 businesses
3 have done time for assault
71, I repeat 71
Cannot get a credit card due to bad credit
14 have been arrested on drug-related
Charges
8 have been arrested! For shoplifting
21 currently are defendants in lawsuits,
And
84 have been arrested for drunk driving
In the last year !

Can you guess which organization this is?
Is it the NBA Or NFL?
Give up yet?
Scroll down,



Neither,
it's the 535 members of the
United States Congress
The same group of Idiots that crank out
Hundreds of new laws each
Year Designed to keep the rest of us in line.

You gotta pass this one on!

First of all, even if this was based on actual research (rather than just making things up), it's been circulating around folks' email boxes since 1999, originating from a set of articles in "Capitol Hill Blue".

But, if you look at the articles online, you'll notice a very important thing:  These statistics aren't in the article anymore.

As it turns out, a lot of people wrote to "Capitol Hill Blue".

It seemed a little funny - the previous articles cited sources, and named names.  This list did not.

And a lot of journalists asked for Capitol Hill Blue to do so.  Each time they were asked, they refused.

Finally, according to FactCheck, these "statistics" suddenly disappeared.  When FactCheck asked Capital Hill Blue about this, the proprietor replied, "I did not double check the facts (which I should have done), nor did I write or edit the stories. But they are still my responsibility."

So, there you go.  Even the original author won't stand by what he said.  And neither should your email forwarders.

He's Not a Psychologist, But He Plays one on the Internet.

Here's a longwinded diatribe on Barack Obama's (supposed) mental health.  I reprint it here for sake of completeness.  But, readers who value their own sanity will probably just skim it, and move on to the history of this (ahem) interesting bit of viral email.

Take the time and read this important message...

  ----- Israeli Psychologist on Obama 

Be sure to read all the way to the end. 

Dr. Sam Vaknin is an Israeli psychologist. Interesting view on our president. Dr. Vaknin has written extensively about narcissism. 

Dr. Vaknin States "I must confess I was impressed by Obama from the first time I saw him. At first I was excited to see a black candidate. He looked youthful, spoke well, appeared to be confident -- a wholesome presidential package. I was put off soon, not just because of his shallowness but also because there was an air of haughtiness in his demeanor that was unsettling. His posture and his body language were louder than his empty words. Obama's speeches are unlike any political speech we have heard in American history. Never a politician in this land had such quasi "religious" impact on so many people. 

The fact that Obama is a total incognito with Zero accomplishment, makes this inexplicable infatuation alarming. Obama is not an ordinary man. He is not a genius. In fact he is quite ignorant on most important subjects." 

Dr. Sam Vaknin, the author of the Malignant Self Love believes "Barack Obama appears to be a narcissist." Vaknin is a world authority on narcissism. He understands narcissism and describes the inner mind of a narcissist like no other person. When he talks about narcissism everyone listens. Vaknin says that Obama's language, posture and demeanor, and the testimonies of his closest, dearest friends suggest that the man is either a narcissist or he may have narcissistic personality disorder (NPD). 

Narcissists project a grandiose but false image of themselves. Jim Jones, the charismatic leader of People's Temple, the man who led over 900 of his followers to cheerfully commit mass suicide and even murder their own children was also a narcissist. David Koresh, Charles Manson, Joseph Koni, Shoko Asahara, Stalin, Saddam, Mao, Kim Jong Ill and Adolph Hitler are a few examples of narcissists of our time. All these men had a tremendous influence over their fanciers. They created a personality cult around themselves and with their blazing speeches elevated their admirers, filled their hearts with enthusiasm and instilled in their minds a new zest for life. They gave them hope! They promised them the moon, but alas, invariably they brought them to their doom. 

When you are a victim of a cult of personality, you don't know it until it is too late. One determining factor in the development of NPD is childhood abuse "Obama's early life was decidedly chaotic and replete with traumatic and mentally bruising dislocations,"says Vaknin. "Mixed-race marriages were even less common then. His parents went through a divorce when he was an infant two years old. Obama saw his father only once again, before he died in a car accident. Then his mother re-married and Obama had to relocate to Indonesia, a foreign land with a radically foreign culture, to be raised by a step-father. At the age of ten, he was whisked off to live with his maternal (white) grandparents. He saw his mother only intermittently in the following few years and then she vanished from his life in 1979. "She died of cancer in 1995." 

One must never underestimate the manipulative genius of pathological narcissists. They project such an imposing personality that it overwhelms those around them. Charmed by the charisma of the narcissist, people become like clay in his hands. They cheerfully do his bidding and delight to be at his service. The narcissist shapes the world around himself and reduces others in his own inverted image. He creates a cult of personality. His admirers become his co-dependents. Narcissists have no interest in things that do not help them to reach their personal objective. They are focused on one thing alone and that is power. All other issues are meaningless to them and they do not want to waste their precious time on trivialities. Anything that does not help them is beneath them and does not deserve their attention. 

If an issue raised in the Senate does not help Obama in one way or another, he has no interest in it. The "present" vote is a safe vote. No one can criticize him if things go wrong. Those issues are unworthy by their very nature because they are not about him.Obama's election as the first black president of the Harvard Law Review led to a contract and advance to write a book about race relations. The University of Chicago Law School provided him a lot longer than expected and at the end it evolved into, guess what? His own autobiography! Instead of writing a scholarly paper focusing on race relations, for which he had been paid, Obama could not resist writing about his most sublime self. He entitled the book "Dreams from My Father". 

Not surprisingly, Adolph Hitler also wrote his own autobiography when he was still a nobody. So did Stalin. For a narcissist no subject is as important as his own self. Why would he waste his precious time and genius writing about insignificant things when he can write about such an august being as himself? 

Narcissists are often callous and even ruthless. As the norm, they lack conscience. This is evident from Obama's lack of interest in his own brother who lives on only one dollar per month.. A man who lives in luxury, who takes a private jet to vacation in Hawaii, and who raised nearly half a billion dollars for his campaign (something unprecedented in history) has no interest in the plight of his own brother. Why? Because, his brother cannot be used for his ascent to power. A narcissist cares for no one but himself.This election was like no other in the history of America . The issues were insignificant compared to what is at stake. What can be more dangerous than having a man bereft of conscience, a serial liar, and one who cannot distinguish his fantasies from reality as the leader of the free world? 

I hate to sound alarmist, but one is a fool if one is not alarmed. Many politicians are narcissists. They pose no threat to others. They are simply self serving and selfish. Obama evidences symptoms of pathological narcissism, which is different from the run-of-the-mill narcissism of a Richard Nixon or a Bill Clinton for example. To him reality and fantasy are intertwined. 

This is a mental health issue, not just a character flaw. 

Pathological narcissists are dangerous because they look normal and even intelligent. It is this disguise that makes them treacherous. Today the Democrats have placed all their hopes in Obama. But this man could put an end to their party. The great majority of blacks voted for Obama. Only a fool does not know that their support for him is racially driven. This is racism, pure and simple. 

The downside of this is that if Obama turns out to be the disaster I predict, he will cause widespread resentment among the whites. The blacks are unlikely to give up their support of their man. Cultic mentality is pernicious and unrelenting. They will dig their heads deeper in the sand and blame Obama's detractors of racism. This will cause a backlash among the whites. The white supremacists will take advantage of the discontent and they will receive widespread support. I predict that in less than four years, racial tensions will increase to levels never seen since the turbulent 1960's.Obama will set the clock back decades. America is the bastion of freedom. The peace of the world depends on the strength of America , and its weakness translates into the triumph of terrorism and victory of rogue nations. It is no wonder that Ahmadinejad, Hugo Chavez, the Castrists, the Hezbollah, the Hamas, the lawyers of the Guantanamo terrorists, and virtually all sworn enemies of America are so thrilled by the prospect of their man in the White House. 

America is on the verge of destruction. There is no insanity greater than electing a pathological narcissist as president.

The origin of this email is interesting, to say the very least.  Snopes attributes this email to a web posting by Ali Sina.  Although Mr. Sina's writings are prefaced by requests to be cited for his original work, I find very few differences between what Mr. Sina has to say, and what Mr. Vaknin has publicly said during interviews.

They both seem to make the same incoherent arguments, and come to the same conclusion:  That President Obama is mentally ill, and that Joseph Biden should relieve him of duty under the 25th ammendment.  Hallmarks of the recent recent campaigns by perennial presidential candidate, Lyndon LaRouche.  (See the caption under the photo of page 45 of the Vaknin interview.)

Do you find yourself agreeing with Lyndon LaRouche?  Perhaps you'll agree with more of his theories.  Including:

• Adolf Hitler was put into power by the British monarchy.  (And I'm sure that the bombing of London was just a little quarrel amongst friends?)
• The Beatles were created as a British psychological-operations unit.
• Henry Kissinger served two terms as acting president of the United States, and created government programs for genocide under the auspices of the National Security Council and State Department.
• Judaism never existed before Christianity.
• "A journalist not on someone's intelligence-service pad is the rarest of all species, perhaps as rare as the Dodo."
• "From its beginnings under Quaker-linked Attorney General J. Mitchell Palmer, the FBI was intended to become a political 'Gestapo,' serving the interests of foreign supranational powers dedicated to subverting and taking over the United States."

So, you can see why the "argument" for Barack Obama's insanity, itself, seems like insane prattle.  Because there's a lot more of it where Lyndon LaRouche came from.

Okay, maybe Lyndon LaRouche isn't the most reliable source of facts.  But our email author says that Sam Vaknin is a world-respected psychologist and expert on narcissism.

Really?

First of all, in order to call yourself a "psychologist", in any clinical sense of the word, you must complete an accredited Ph.D. program in Psychology, as well as an accredited internship.

According to Sam Vaknin's resume, he attended "nine semesters in the Technion – Israel Institute of Technology, Haifa".  Over 8 years.  His resume does not mention anything about completing a bachelor's degree.


Pacific Western University gave him a Ph.D. in Philosophy.  Which is interesting - because the business activities he cites in his resume brought him nowhere near California.  Pacific Western University is not an accredited institution (several citations here).  And in a film documentary, he outright admits that the diploma is fraudulent.


As for his "extensive writings on narcissism"?  He did self-publish a book.  It's no longer in print.  If you're really motivated, he'll sell you an electronic copy of all of his writings on narcissism, for the low, low price of $79.90.


Meanwhile, according to a search on Google Scholar, his book has been cited by 44 authors since it's publication in 1999.  Only three of these citations are from peer-reviewed psychological journals, and these, in turn, have been cited by less than 5 authors each.  This is shockingly few, compared to more recognized experts in personality disorder treatment.

Okay, maybe he's not a world-recognized authority on the diagnosis and treatment of "psychopathic narcissists".  Could he still be right?

Well, first of all, he doesn't use standard diagnostic criteria.  He uses his own.

And, if you watch the documentary about Mr. Vaknin, he repeatedly diagnoses himself as being a psychopathic narcissist.  I'm not sure about his diagnosis - but he does openly talk about his past convictions for fraud, as well as engaging in a business model of providing bogus "psychological treatment" to "people who've been victimzed."

Oh, and in his documentary, he also says that one of history's great psychopathic narcissists is - Jesus Christ.

The official diagnostic criteria for Antisocial Personality Disorder (synonymous with "psychopathic personality") are published here.

And, unless you're a rabid anti-Christian or anti-religion freak... I doubt you'll think he qualifies.

Okay.  I've beaten him up enough.

The Communists Took Over in 1934. Too Bad You Missed It.

Right wing emails have a tendency to be overdramatic.  Usually, any idea that doesn't fit within extreme right-wing dogma is decried as a step toward socialism.

This email took it a step further.

Obama must have seen this and is taking it literally.
FYI THIS IS ALSO VERY SCARY!!! Sound familiar??!!
Cartoon from 1934       
 
This cartoon was in the Chicago Tribune in 1934. Look carefully at the 'Plan of Action' in the lower left corner.

"Those who do not remember the past are doomed to repeat it."

The date on the lower right corner is probably from a reprint.  But, yes, during the days of the new deal, many folks were declaring that government spending and new social programs would end life in the United States as we know it.

Let's see how accurate these predictions were.

Money spent on recovery - check.  Plenty of "make work" programs were created.

Government bankrupted - Nope.  Still had money to fight World War II, which was even more expensive than any "recovery" spending.

Constitution junked - Nope.  It's still there, and still the law of the land.

Dictatorship declared - Nope.  As of this writing, the government is still arguing about the debt ceiling.  There is definitely no dictator in charge.

We've joined the Soviet Republic - Oh, wait.  They aren't even around anymore.

Seems to me that if you're going to be a "chicken little", you wouldn't want to point out how wrong you've been before.

Vatican Blames Jews for Coptic Christian Bombings?

You know?  This viral article wouldn't be so bad.  If it weren't for the headline.

Islamists Slaughter Christians, and Jews Are Blamed

It’s about time for the Church to learn from its mistakes in World War II and instead try speaking out against its true enemies – the radical Islamists who seek to cleanse the Middle East of both Jews and Christians.
Posted By Evelyn Gordon On December 27, 2010 @ 8:14 AM In Contentions | http://www.commentarymagazine.com/blogs/index.php/evelyn-gordon/385074/print/
The recent wave of deadly attacks on Iraqi Christians must have cast a pall over Christmas celebrations worldwide this year. But one can’t help wondering whether it also prompted any soul-searching at the Vatican.
After all, it was just two months ago that a synod of Middle East bishops proclaimed Israel the main source of Middle East Christians’ woes. As the Jerusalem Post reported [1], it “blamed the Israeli-Palestinian conflict for spurring the flight of Christians from the Middle East” and “laid much of the blame for the conflict squarely on Israel.” The synod’s president, Archbishop Cyrille Salim Bustros, even implied that Jews had no right to a state here at all and that Israel should be eradicated through the “return” of millions of descendants of Palestinian refugees. And though the Vatican disavowed that comment, Pope Benedict XVI also said [2]that Middle East peace – a term usually synonymous with “Israeli-Arab peace” – was the best way to halt Christian emigration.
In reality, of course, the plight of Palestinian Christians pales beside that of their Iraqi brethren. More than half of Iraq’s Christians – hundreds of thousands in all – have fled their country since 2003, after being targeted in numerous deadly attacks. And not even Al-Qaida has tried to link these attacks to Israel’s treatment of the Palestinians, though it’s not shy about inventing “justifications”: For instance, it deemed [3]October’s bloody siege at a Baghdad church retaliation for an alleged offense by Egypt’s Coptic Church.
Compare this to the booming business scene [4] in Bethlehem, where tourism is up 60 percent over 2009 despite Israeli “oppression.” One astute Palestinian businessman attributed the boom to the Palestinian Authority’s efforts to reduce violence – a tacit (and correct) acknowledgement that what previously destroyed the PA’s economy was not Israel, but Palestinian terror. Or compare Iraq’s Christian crisis to the fivefold [5]increase in Israel’s Christian population, from 34,000 in 1949 to 152,000 in 2009.
This month, the New York Times reported that [6] many fleeing Iraqi Christians “evoked the mass departure of Iraq’s Jews” after Israel’s establishment in 1948.
“It’s exactly what happened to the Jews,” said Nassir Sharhoom, 47, who fled last month to the Kurdish capital, Erbil, with his family from Dora, a once mixed neighborhood in Baghdad. “They want us all to go.”
It’s eerily reminiscent of Pastor Martin Niemoller’s famous statement about the Nazis: “They came for the Jews, and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Jew. Then they came for me. And by that time, there was no one left to speak for me.”
But there’s one crucial difference. The Church, as the synod statement shows, isn’t merely remaining silent; it’s actively speaking out against the Jews – and thereby collaborating with its own enemies, the radical Islamists.
It evidently hopes to thereby turn the Islamists’ wrath away from Christians. But as the recent attacks show, appeasement hasn’t worked.
So perhaps it’s time for the Church to learn from its mistakes in World War II and instead try speaking out against its true enemies – the radical Islamists who seek to cleanse the Middle East of both Jews and Christians.

Article printed from Commentary: http://www.commentarymagazine.com/blogs
URL to article: http://www.commentarymagazine.com/blogs/index.php/evelyn-gordon/385074
URLs in this post:
[1] reported: http://www.jpost.com/International/Article.aspx?id=192474
[2] also said : http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/oct/24/pope-mideast-peace-possible-urgently-needed/?page=2
[3] it deemed : http://www.haaretz.com/news/international/al-qaida-threat-on-iraq-christians-linked-to-egypt-1.333187
[4] the booming business scene: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-12-21/bethlehem-business-reborn-as-christmas-tourism-boosts-statehood.html
[5] fivefold : http://www.cbs.gov.il/shnaton61/download/st02_02.xls
[6] reported that: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/13/world/middleeast/13iraq.html

Wait... the Vatican is blaming the state of Israel for the recent Egyptian Coptic Church bombing?  Okay, maybe the article doesn't go quite that far.  But the headline certainly does.

Let's take a second look.  Here's the article about the Vatican Synod.

Date of the article: October 23rd, 2010.

Date of the bombing: January 1st, 2011.

So, the vatican synod blamed Israel for a future bombing of the Coptic Christian Church?

I didn't know they had that power.  If they did, I wish that the Vatican would have had the good sense to warn the church.  It would have saved a lot of lives - a laudible goal in the Christian faith.  At least, the last time I checked.

But if you really wanted to see where the Vatican places blame for the bombing, you wouldn't have to look far.  The Pope himself has issued the following public statement:

"Yesterday we heard with great pain of the ferocious attack against the Christian Coptic community in Alexandria. This vile gesture of death, like that of putting bombs near to the houses of Christians in Iraq to force them to leave, offends God and all of humanity, when just yesterday we prayed for peace and started the New Year with hope."     

So, clearly, the Vatican has placed blame for the bombing where it's due: Upon the bombers. And not the state of Israel.

What do Bernie Madoff and Social Security Have In Common? Not Much.

It seems the Right-Wing Viral Message folks enjoy calling government officials "crooks".

Here's one where they take it too far.

Why did Bernie Madoff go to prison?  To make it simple, he talked people into investing with him.  Trouble was, he didn't invest their money.  As time rolled on he simply took the money from the new investors to pay off the old investors.

Of course, they've overlooked the whole "used the money to buy mansions, yachts, and live the high life" part...

Finally there were too many old investors and not enough money from new investors coming in to keep the payments going.

Of course.  Because he spent the money on himself.  And represented an unrealistic expectations of his ability to obtain returns on his investments.  And hid his operational details from regulators.  That's why it was fraud.

Next thing you know Madoff is one of the most hated men in America and he is off to jail.

You got that right...

Some of you know this.  But not enough of you. 

Maybe.  If "you" refers to "the average right-wing email forwarder".  Their average intelligence and knowledge of world events seems pretty spotty to me...

Madoff did to his investors what the government has been doing to us for over 70 years with Social Security. 

A bold statement, my friend - actually accusing the developers of social security with fraud.  Let's see the proof.

There is no meaningful difference between the two schemes, except that one was operated by a private individual who is now in jail, and the other is operated by politicians who enjoy perks, privileges and status in spite of their actions.

Restating what you've already said isn't proof, yet.  Sure, congressmen live pretty nicely.  But any citizen has access to the operating details of the social security trust fund.  And, yet, in spite of this transparency, this emailer can provide no proof that this money has directly lined the pockets of our congressmen. 

Do you need a side-by-side comparison here?  Well here's a nifty little chart.


BERNIE MADOFF
Takes money from investors with the promise that the money will be invested and made available to them later.
Instead of investing the money Madoff spends it on nice homes in the Hamptons and yachts.
When the time comes to pay the investors back Madoff simply uses some of the new funds from newer investors to pay back the older investors.
When Madoff's scheme is discovered all hell breaks loose.  New investors won't give him any more cash.
Bernie Madoff is in jail.

Again, seems like more of the same thing.  But the basics seem right - he said he'd invest the money, promised an impossible return, kept phony books, kept most of the money, and used new investors to pay old investors during times they wanted to cash out.  This is illegal.

SOCIAL SECURITY

Takes money from wage earners with the promise that the money will be invested in a "Trust Fund" (Lock Box) and made available later.  Instead of depositing money in a Trust Fund the politicians  transfer it to the General Revenue Fund and use it for general spending and vote buying.

All with complete transparency, to anyone who watched.  Voted into law in open congress, and signed by the president - all of whom were elected.  Democracy isn't perfect.  Bad laws happen.  (As far as whether a transfer was bad policy is a legitimate topic for reasoned debate.)  But bad laws aren't fraud -they're just bad laws.  As far as "vote buying" goes - our unnamed writer doesn't provide any specifics.  I wonder why?

When benefits for older investors become due the politicians pay them with money taken from younger and newer wage earners to pay the older geezers.

When you're a government, with the powers of an unlimited lifetime and the ability to print money, this might be okay.  As long as the end results are accounted for.  If they haven't (a debateable point, for forums other than this one) - they should be taken to task for this.  But, reasonable people disagree on this point.  And even if it is correct, bad ideas are just bad ideas.  It may be bad policy.  But it isn't outright fraud.

When Social Security runs out of money the politicians try to force the taxpayers to send them some more; or they cancel S/S to all those who paid into it.

Show me the proposed bills.  Because I don't see any.  Sure, there are some that delay benefits to future recipients - but no one talking about cancelling social security.  Except, perhaps, for asking folks to "volunteer" to put some money into private accounts.

Politicians remain in  Washington .. with fat medical and retirement benefits.

Do you want the job?  It's potentially yours.  All you have to do is get elected.

Oh, you can't win against more qualified opponents? Good.  I'm glad that they're paying enough for people to want to compete for the job.

Oh, I get it.  You're only for free enterprise when it suits you.  Gotcha.

Frequently Assumed Falsehoods: My Chat with a Birther

My dad hasn't been sending me many emails lately.  Actually, this is probably a good thing - I'd like to see him doing stuff other than obsessing over this stuff.

Fortunately, an acquaintance of mine gave me enough material to write a different article.

Usually, this friend seems pretty normal.  Which is why this message surprised me.

Impeachment !!!!

How much more proof is needed?
 


Obama admits not being born in Hawaii .   (He made this statement before he learned that he had to be a natural born in this country to "citizens" of this country........We may not be as crazy as the press would want us to be.)  Circulate this before they yank it from the internet.

Will some one tell me why this guy is not being impeached??? 
 If you just watch the first 30 seconds your mouth will drop open.

 Obama admits he is not a citizen
Hmmm...maybe the "birthers' are on to something...
THE AMAZING PART OF THIS TRAVESTY IS AMERICANS CONTINUE ALLOWING THEMSELVES TO BE RULED BY AN ILLEGAL ALIEN.
Watch it before it’s pulled!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MwhKuunp8D8&feature=player_embedded

The birther phenomenon has always fascinated me.  The proof of President Obama's citizenship is overwhelming, in my opinion (details later).  And, yet, birthers persist.  Kind of like the folks who still believe that the earth is flat.  But, until now, I didn't think I knew any real birthers.  Even my father only said that they should look into it, and only because he'd rather see him impeached.  Whether the charges are true or not.

But let's set aside the "trying to overrule a legitimate election" thing.  If my friend was the real thing, I wanted to learn more.

I'm curious - I don't run into many real "birthers".

What, to you, would be considered proof that Obama was born in the US?

Here are some folks who've actually looked at the documents:

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html

She replied:

Really Scott, why should we look for any more proof (he was born in the US) when he has already admitted HERE he was born in Kenya?  Did you watch the excerpts where he admitted he was born in Kenya? What's up with that? This email proves he was born in Kenya because he is in the picutre speaking about being born in Kenya. Sorry if I seem contentious. Our Constitution does not allow an alien to sit as president.  He  needs to be IMPEACHED!!! and quit occupying the White House.

Oh, boy.  Yes, I did see the video.  It was an obvious forgery.  I even looked into it further and replied:

Really?  I thought the video was a very obvious forgery.  (And in the beginning, it was intended to be, it turns out.)  They explain it here even better than I can.

http://www.politifact.com/rhode-island/statements/2010/aug/05/chain-email/e-mail-sends-readers-youtube-video-where-obama-adm/

So, why do you insist on believing in a video with very obvious changes in pitch, the fact that his face isn't visible during key admissions, there's no reaction from the audience that was seated RIGHT THERE in the audience, the fact that no news organization (not even Fox News) picked it since it's been up in March?  And why ignore all of other evidence that he's a citizen?

Again, why do people seem to grasp at any excuse to believe that he's not a citizen?  Despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary?

Please explain.

She replied:

I perused the Obama clip again.  It doesnt seem bogus to me. I dont put much credence in East Coast or West Coast political views. Yes, there are different takes in the clip; that dosnt make it bogus.
We have studied Islam forty years.  Obama is a muslim.  Muslims hate Jews. Goes back to Ishmael and Jacob----brothers, but not the same mother. The mother of Ishmael was Egyptian. Jacobs's mother ( and wife of Abraham) was a Jew. The hatred has lasted thousands of years. It will never end-----until Messiah comes.
The old adage------"If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck............).
Obama is a muslim and muslims hate Jews. Dont look for him to do anything for Israel. 

Okay...  Got it.  She's got that special edition of the bible that says Obama is a Muslim.  Forget the fact that his family and Reverend Wright's church go back for decades.  Forget the fact that he's publicly been seen drinking, and has never been seen observing any dietary restrictions, observing Muslim Sabbath or Ramadan, attending calls to prayer, or making a pilgimage to Mecca.  And forget that this video is a very obvious forgery.

We're clearly in crazy-land now.  Maybe a little bit of talk will bring her back to rationality.  Because I really do want to understand this movement...

The original author of the video has admitted it was meant as a joke.  Don't know what else need to be said.  Unless you think Superman and Avatar were real too, because you saw them on film.

I didn't vote for Obama either.  I just think the energy of the "birther" movement would be much better spent on debating his policies, than debating the overwhelming evidence in favor of the fact that he's a citizen.

She gets a little more rational.  But only a little.

I dont mean to belabor this topic, but would you send me the link that will prove the "original author of the video admitted it was a joke"?  Although Obama does come close to being a cartoon character, unfortunately he is real.
The energy of the birthers HAS been spent on debating his policies, but it has fallen on deaf ears.  Some Americans are now waking up, but it is too late.  They  awoke in Oz. 

Like I said, only a little.  And, clearly, she didn't read my original reference to the video.  So, I spelled it out for her:

In the opening seconds of the original video:

http://www.youtube.com/user/ObamaSnippetsDotCom#p/u/7/dJUxsFBwcbs

And, there you have it.  It's timestamped by YouTube.  If any birther can point out a source with an earlier timestamp, I'll admit I was wrong.  But I doubt it's going to happen.

I never heard from her again.

Why are viral emails attacking programs that CREATE jobs?

Somewhere, in the bowels of government, there's an unsung agency.

Most folks haven't really heard about it.  I suppose that it's presence, so far, has been pretty uncontraversial.

After all:

• This agency doesn't cost the federal government anything.  In fact, the operation of this agency has netted a 4.9 billion dollar profit to taxpayers over the last 16 years.
• This agency is on track to securing 24 billion dollars in business to American companies providing goods and services, in this year alone.
• It's estimated that these efforts are supporting 200,000 private sector American jobs this year alone.

I doubt it's a perfectly run agency.  But it sounds like a pretty darned good deal for the American taxpayer, and to our flagging economy.

You might think that, given our current economic woes, that the right-wing email folks would find better agencies to attack, right?

You'd be wrong.  Arriving in my email box yesterday:

Brazilian  Oil Drilling
Thank God for Fox News and Glenn Beck!

This is a perfect example why many refrain from watching news onABC, NBC, CBS, or MSNBC.
Last week on a segment of the "Glenn Beck Show" on FOX(Fox Cable News) was the following:

Even though President Obama is against offshore drilling for our country,he signed an executive order to loan $2 Billion of our taxpayer dollars(which we can't afford to loan since we're broke) to a Brazilian Oil Exploration Company  the  8th largest company in the entire world)  to drill for  oil  off thecoast of Brazil! The oil that comes from this operation is for the sole purpose and use of China and NOT THE USA !

Now here's the real clincher...the Chinese government is under contract to purchase all the oil that this field will produce, which is hundreds of millions of barrels"... We have absolutely no gain from this transaction whatsoever!

Wait, it gets more interesting.

Guess  who  is the largest  individual stockholder of this  Brazilian Oil Company and who would benefit most from this? It is American BILLIONAIRE, George Soros, who was President Obama's most generous financial supporter during his campaign.

If you are able to connect the dots  and  follow the money, you are probably asupset as I am. Not a word of this transaction was broadcast on any of the other news networks! Are they doing their job? Think about it.

Forward this factual e-mail to others who care about this country and where it is headed. Also, let all your Government representatives know how you feel about this.

Below is the Wall street Journal articl confirming this information.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203863204574346610120524166.html

"REMEMBER...   POLITICIANS  AND  DIAPERS SHOULD BE CHANGED OFTEN AND FOR THE SAME REASON"

"America will never be destroyed from outside.If we falter and lose our freedoms,it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham  Lincoln

IN GOD WE TRUST, NOT OUR GOVERNMENT

Snopes and Factcheck.com have already written great articles debunking this nonsense.  And confirm that this email originated much earlier than the BP oil spill.  Suffice it to say:  This loan was unanimously approved by a bipartisan committee selected by George W. Bush, and President Obama had no influence on the approval decision.  This loan can only be used to purchase American-Made supplies and American labor.  They will repay the loan with interest, and make a profit on the transaction.  China does not have sole access to the oil produced.  And George Soros definitely lost "profit", due to the fact that he sold shares while this deal was negotiated.  Which, again, was under Bush administration, who he actively campaigned against.

So - no.  There's definitely no political conspiracy here.  Only a baseless attack on a government organization that seems to be successful at what it's doing.

Frequently Assumed Falsehoods: Barney Frank Caused the Financial Meltdown

You know, a lot of these email messages keep saying that Barney Frank caused the recent financial crisis.
They say a lot of things that aren't true, don't they?

Well, yeah.  But they say it a lot.
I hear you.  Doesn't mean it's true.

Well, did he actually do anything that might make people say this?
There are a few things.  But it's almost impossible to say that these things caused the financial crisis.

They keep on mentioning Barney Frank's opposition to regulation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac as the cause of the meltdown.
They can say that.  But it seems pretty darned unlikely to anyone who looks at facts, rather than just bulk-forwarding emails that support whatever beliefs they already had.

Probably.  You know these emails.  But why would Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac be involved in such a scheme?
Well, they did create and securitize mortgage-backed securities.  And, as you know, mortgage-backed securities provided a central role in the financial crisis.

Aha!  So, if there were better regulation on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the mortgage-backed securities would not have failed, and the economic crisis wouldn't have happened, right?  And Barney Frank opposed this regulation?
We'll get to the second part of that question later.  But for the fist part?  Uh... No.  Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were far from the only companies producing mortgage-backed securities.  Little companies like Countrywide, Goldman Sachs, Lehman Brothers, and many others also created these securities.  And sold them aggressively.

Okay, so Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac didn't create all of these toxic assets.  But they made some pretty risky loans in low-income neighborhoods, didn't they?
Depends what you mean by "pretty risky".  If you mean the floating rate, low down payment, interest only (or negative amortizating), or no-documentation types of loans made to folks with low credit scores?  They took less risk than the private market did.

Private market?  You mean that the Government was producing these toxic assets?
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were started by the government, under FDR's administration.  But, until the meltdown occurred, they were private companies.  Many investors, however, thought they were safer than private companies, under the assumption that the government might bail them out if they got into trouble.

But - the government DID bail them out.  So that assumption turned out to be correct!
True.  But they also bailed out AIG, which was threatening to go bankrupt in it's attempt to securitize mortgage based securities that were not issued by Fannie and Freddie.   I don't think anyone had reason to believe AIG had government support...

Okay, so Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were only part of the problem.  So, what did Barney Frank do to cause so much trouble?
He's made some awkard statements, and done some awkward things.  And he did hold a role on the congressional committee that these regulations would have come from.

Okay... What regulation did he block?
As far as I can tell?  None.

Okay, maybe I asked the wrong question.  What regulation is he accused of blocking?
Well, in 2003, the Bush administration suggested moving supervision of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac from congress to a division of the Treasury department.

And Barney Frank objected, right?
He initially expressed objections.

Well, why?
Well, the Bush Administration implied that Fannie Mae needed more capital reserves, in case it's underlying investments went bad.  He expressed concern that tightened capital reserves = less money to loan = less of a support mechanism for home sales in poorer areas.  As he said, ''These two entities -- Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- are not facing any kind of financial crisis. The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing.''

Wait - Fannie and Freddie needed government bailouts.  So there was a financial crisis.
Yeah, with 20/20 hindsight, that's a pretty regrettable quote to make.  But if so many people didn't believe in the safety of mortgage-backed securities, the financial crisis wouldn't have happened.  He was as wrong as most people were back then.

Is there any other reason that Barney Frank might have been against this?
I can't read minds.  I can only read what he's written, and make some assumptions based on what he did.

Well, I heard that his boyfriend was a Fannie Mae executive.
Yes.  He had a 11-year domestic partnership with Frank Moses.  The conservative blogosphere has varied statements regarding what role he had in the organization - some saying that he was Vice Chairman of New Product development, others saying he was a vice president.  They all cite the National Mortgage News as the source of this information.  Unfortunately, I'm unable to find any articles from them mentioning his name.  (You can try searching yourself at this website.)  Nor has the reference been linked to by any articles that normally cross-reference their sources.  (An example here.)

Isn't this a conflict of interest?
I think it might be worthy of further investigation.  But, considering we don't even know what Frank Moses' role was, it's hard to figure out what legislation Barney Frank may have proposed or voted on upon the advice of his domestic partner at the time.  And no one in the conservative blogosphere has made any specific links between Frank Moses' specific interests and specific actions of Barney Frank.  Other than vague insinuations that such a thing might have happened, based on the fact that they were an open homosexual couple.

Personally, I think the easier explanation of Barney Frank's actions is that he had a consistent record of advocacy for affordable housing measures.  Even when these measures were financially problematic.

That's it?
Well, when there are relationships, people consider them.  For example, when George W. Bush was a governor, no one criticized him for his educational policy initiatives because his wife was an educator.  They may have considered this connection when evaluating his statements and policies.  And they would be correct in doing so.

But no one claimed that a sitting governor's statements were corrupted by his relationship, or insinuated that he should remain silent on educational policy because of his "conflict of interest".

But... it's unseemly.
Well, maybe.  But their relationship was open and public.  Any statements Barney Frank would make could be considered in this light.  No one did - until the financial crisis hit.

And he accepted a lot of campaign contributions from Fannie Mae.  Isn't that kind of unseemly?
Yes, he did accept campaign contributions from Fannie Mae.  He's on the Financial Services committee - if anyone's going to get a contribution, it would be the members of that committee.

Now, as to whether such things should be allowed?  That's a legitimate area of debate, in my humble opinion.

Wait -- my paranoid brain is thinking --
Uh, oh...

Fannie Mae makes a ton of money at the height of the mortgage craze, and donates tons of money to politicians that let it go underregulated.  Fannie Mae goes under, and gets government bailouts.  So the Democrats created a giant campaign slush fund (the campaign donations) at the people's expense (the bailout), right?
Uhhm... that's an interesting conspiracy theory.  It's got a couple of fatal flaws though.

Oh, yeah?  What?
Well, for one, they spent a lot of money on Republicans too.  The Democrats got 7% more, yes.  That's $336,000 more (by my calculation) for the entire Democratic party than the Republican party.  It's more - but in competitive congressional races, spread out for the entire party?  It doesn't add up to much.

But it's still buying influence!
Apparently not enough.  Read the article again: Fannie Mae lobbied in favor of the Bush Administration proposal.  If Barney Frank were influenced by Fannie Mae's contributions, or by his boyfriend, wouldn't he have been more inclined to speak in favor of the proposal that their company favored?

Well, okay.  But he still blocked regulatory reform!
I don't see how he could.

Of course, he could block regulatory reform!  He's a powerful senator in the Financial Services committee!
At the time this legislation was proposed, he was the ranking minority member.  Giving him the awesome power of casting one vote.

But he could block the legislation, right?
No.  House subcommittee votes, even on procedural matters such as tabling a bill, are on majority vote.  And Barney Frank held one minority vote.  He didn't have the power to kill anything.

But - he worked with other people to block the bill in subcommittee, right?
No.  He takes credit for creating a compromise - increasing funds for other affordable housing initiatives, while providing Fannie Mae with oversight from the executive (rather than legislative) branch of government.  He voted for the compromise legislation in subcommittee.

So, he blocked it in the House, right?
Well, he voted against it on the floor.  According to him, a Republican amendment stripped out funding for affordable housing, and the compromise was essentially shot.  At least according to Barney Frank's tastes.

However, he didn't block it.  The legislation passed the house.  Over his "no" vote.

So - he worked with his buddies in the Senate to block the bill, right?
I can't find any evidence that he did.  The bill was tabled in the Senate - ostensibly because Bush threatened to veto the bill.  Apparently, the compromise legislation was still too generous for the sitting president.

So let me get this straight.  He made some statements skeptical of the need for Fannie and Freddie to be reformed.  But he voted a reform bill out of subcommittee, and it passed the house over his objections.  However, the Senate tabled the bill because the president threatened to veto it.   So, how did he block legislation that would have regulated Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac?
Beats me.  And it doesn't even answer the question of whether this oversight may have actually prevented their collapse - all it did was change the office that regulated their business.  And this argument doesn't address whether Fannie Mae's collapse was necessary for the current financial mess to occur.  After all, Fannie Mae wasn't the only producer of the "toxic" mortgage-backed securities.  There was a lot of market demand for them, after all.

Oh.  Well, thank you, Scott Grey, for your insightful analysis.
Thank you.  Feel free to email it to your right-wing friends (under the terms of the Creative Commons license, of course!).  Not that they'll listen.  But it might buy you a few seconds of quiet.