How Jon Stewart Went From Hero To Zero To Appease The Elite

The Daily Show has been one of the few shows on TV that I actually look forward to seeing. When I heard that he was going to have Clifford May on, I thought, “Cool. Now Jon can show this numbskull to the world for what he truly is… a neocon mouthpiece with zero credibility.

During the interview they had a bit of a heated discussion where Jon, when asked if Harry Truman was a war criminal for dropping the nukes of Japan, answered, “yes”.

Dayum!

I couldn’t believe it and after only a few seconds of self-consideration of his point (that Truman could have set a bomb off 25 miles off the coast and then warn the Japanese that the next would be on the mainland and this could have stopped the aggression and the avoided killing all of those people).

The next day (maybe two later) he comes on and apologizes for those remarks.

more about “Harry Truman Was Not a War Criminal |…“, posted with vodpod

But as I think more clearly on the subject, of course he is correct. Truman could and SHOULD have done what Jon suggests. He didn’t and mercilessly killed untold numbers of people (on that fateful day and for decades to follow). He truly conducted a war crime… one that is likely one of the largest war crimes in all of human history that occurred in such a small amount of time (of course there were millions of Jews killed over years and years of the Nazi criminality).

But this isn’t about comparing war crimes. This is about naming and claiming what is the truth. Jon named it, claimed it, then back tracked.

The question becomes why and I read an article today that somewhat explains it.

From Anti-War.com:

Jon Stewart: Wimp, Wuss, Moral Coward

Can a Democrat commit war crimes? Of course not!

by Justin Raimondo, May 06, 2009

I was a bit surprised, albeit pleasantly, to see Jon Stewart nail Harry Truman as a war criminal. After all, Stewart is a typical Hollywood liberal, whose politics are by now a staple of the corporate, anodyne culture that permeates the airwaves, and this naturally excludes everything that might challenge the liberal groupthink that constitutes the conventional wisdom in the Age of Obama.

Certainly, in “respectable” quarters, criticism of anything or anyone connected to the great liberal “anti-fascist” crusade, the “Good War,” is strictly verboten, and surely an intelligent guy like Stewart knows this. Yet – contrary to what he said later – this wasn’t an argument that arose in the heat of the moment, in the context of a robust discussion with obnoxious neocon Clifford May on the alleged merits of torture.

No, Stewart had apparently thought this one out, at least to some extent, because when May asked him if he thought Truman was a war criminal for nuking two Japanese cities, he didn’t just say “Yes” – he went into a whole riff about how, if we had first demonstrated the power of this new weapon on an uninhabited atoll somewhere, and then informed the Japanese government that they’d better surrender, or else that would happen in Japan, then and only then would it be okay to drop the Big One. The audience cheered him on, as he took apart the frenetically hysterical May, whose ferret-like features and organizational affiliations make him the perfect spokesman for a policy described by Stewart as “temporary insanity.” Yet, a few days later, Stewart was back to the same subject, minus the rabid ferret, this time reversing his stance – and apologizing for calling the little haberdasher a war criminal.

My, that was quick.

Alas, apparently not quick enough for the executives at whatever network Stewart appears on – yes, I know, I have to be the only person in America who doesn’t watch his show – who no doubt would have preferred that he never said it at all. It was clearly the execs who reined in the freethinking Stewart and laid down the law, and the first law of “controversial,” “provocative,” and indubitably “edgy” television commentary is to never – ever, ever! – allow a deviation from the conventional wisdom that falls outside the contemporary Left/Right paradigm.

Rule number one in this game is that everybody must play their assigned role. You’ve always got to be “in character.” If you’re on the Left, you can take on George W. Bush, murderer of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis – but not Harry Truman, killer of even larger numbers of innocent Japanese civilians. Rightists regularly excoriate the crimes of Stalin, yet they are expected to remain silent when it comes to war crimes committed by the U.S., such as the “Phoenix program” during the Vietnam conflict – and they rarely disappoint.

This enforcement of a dubious double standard, by the way, goes beyond the issue of war crimes and mass murder. If you’re on the Right, you’re allowed to express unlimited disdain for the thuggish Hugo Chavez – indeed, it’s a veritable obligation – but even a hint of contempt for the equally thuggish Benjamin Netanyahu and his neo-fascist foreign minister, Avigdor Lieberman, will earn you enough brickbats to build a Wall of Separation between your ideological comrades and yourself. Likewise, lefties are allowed to cuddle up to Fidel Castro while inveighing against Augusto Pinochet.

In any case, Stewart’s apology was embarrassing: for him, for the studio audience (which giggled nervously, and inappropriately, at awkward intervals), and for me. As he looked into the camera and babbled about how wrong he was – without giving a single reason, never mind a good one – you could almost see his strings being pulled by his corporate masters.

So let’s see if I get this straight: it is not okay to torture a member of al-Qaeda, who no doubt has information we need in order to stop terrorist attacks. Instead, we have to treat him as a prisoner of war according to the rules laid down by the Geneva Conventions. On the other hand, it is okay to murder hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians in cold blood, to incinerate entire cities and poison the land for generations to come, as long as your name is Harry Truman.

Am I getting this right so far?

I have stayed away from the torture “debate” for a number of reasons, because, after all, the issue isn’t debatable. Not in a civilized country, that is. We might as well debate the merits and demerits of infanticide or coprophagia. Normal people don’t argue about these things; they simply turn away in revulsion.

Another reason for my abstention from this ongoing brouhaha – which seems to have consumed the left wing of the blogosphere ever since Obama took office – is that there is something remarkably phony about the high moral dudgeon of the liberals when it comes to this non-question. How much moral moxie does it really take to come out, guns blazing, against torture? I mean, you don’t have to be a saint or anything to enlist in a campaign to ban pulling off the fingernails of defenseless prisoners, you just have to be halfway normal.

Furthermore, there is another reason to be suspicious of the liberals-against-torture campaign that now monopolizes the capacity of certain pundits for outrage: the amount of noise being generated about this issue very effectively – and conveniently – drowns out opposition to the rest of Bush’s ugly legacy, principally the ongoing occupation of Iraq and Obama’s escalation of the “war on terrorism” in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Exhausted by their 24/7 calls to expunge the stain of torture from America’s conscience – which is to be accomplished, supposedly, by trying Bush, Cheney, and the Republican gang for war crimes – the liberals have no moral energy to take on Obama’s wars.

Thus what passes for the Left in the America of 2009 is perfectly happy to make demands they know will never be met and rail against a practice that even those who advocate it in certain circumstances seem uneasy about. It’s so much easier than coming out against the foreign policy of a popular president whom liberals regard as the second coming of Abraham Lincoln and Martin Luther King combined.

It doesn’t seem to matter that those policies are murderous, just as Bush’s were, and potentially even more disastrous for the U.S. in terms of “blowback.” If we are signing on to an occupation of Afghanistan and the tribal areas of Pakistan that will make our activities in Iraq seem like the briefest of episodes, then liberals of the Kossack/Huffington Post/Jon Stewart sort don’t want to hear about it. That’s because they’re okay with it – as long as we don’t torture people individually, you see, by making them think they’re drowning or throwing them against a wall. Obama’s in the White House, and all’s right with the world!

Once Dear Leader has determined that it’s imperative we actually kill people en masse, for reasons that have little or nothing to do with the defense of the United States, as we are doing in Afghanistan and Pakistan – well, then, it’s nothing to get too excited about. Indeed, it’s actually praiseworthy, positively Truman-esque – and we all know what a heroic figure the gnome-like machine politician Truman was!

Cliff May and his ilk know what side they’re on, they know what they believe and what they want, and they are quick to home in on the many contradictions of ostensibly antiwar liberals like Stewart, whose instincts are good, but who don’t know anything but the permitted pieties about America’s role and actions during World War II. That’s why liberals are rendered practically speechless by ritualized neocon invocations of “Hitler” and “Munich” every time a supposedly deadly threat to the U.S. arises somewhere in the world.

For a moment, however, Stewart saw through the veil of myth and prejudice (yes, racial prejudice) that obscures the truth about what we did to Japan, which was ready to make peace on reasonable terms. Roosevelt’s insistence on unconditional surrender, upheld by Truman, rationalized mass murder on a scale never before seen, and at the time the liberals fell right into line, with nary a pip or a squeak from any of them.

It was inside the military and the U.S. government that dissent raised its head. Truman’s decision went against the advice of Generals Douglas MacArthur and Dwight David Eisenhower, not to mention his own secretaries of state and the Navy. In 1963, Eisenhower told Newsweek: “The Japanese were ready to surrender, and it wasn’t necessary to hit them with that awful thing.”

Oh, but please don’t confuse us with the introduction of needless facts. What are you, one of those obstructionist Republican extremists? In the wake of Stewart’s faux pas and subsequent Soviet-style self-criticism, one thing is clear: measures must be taken. It is necessary – in this, the Age of Obama – to establish a firm doctrine from which no one, no matter how popular, how “provocative,” or how “edgy” they might be, is allowed to dissent, and it is this: no Democratic president can ever be guilty of a war crime. No, not even Lyndon “Hey, hey, LBJ, how many kids did you kill today?” Johnson. Which means Obama has a license to obliterate Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Iran (as his secretary of state said she would like to do), and we can get on with the important business of conducting political show trials of our favorite Republican villains.

And all’s right with the world…

To conclude: yes, Stewart is a wimp, a wuss, and a moral coward – but he’s very far from alone.

1968

1968

The Odd Twist of weather…

http://cosmos.bcst.yahoo.com/up/player/popup/?cl=13319436

This is something I don’t think I had ever heard of before… well maybe just by saying ” Boy this is a bitch of a storm!”

Where Ya’ll Been?

I understand that the reTHUGlicans are ’bout braindead, but its nice to see you demoRATS are finally catching up to the REAL America. Maybe the rest of the idiot Obama Maniacs will finally realize how he has lied them into their state of idiocy and will break ranks.

Too bad you are so slow witted that this didn’t occur to you last year, when it really could have made a difference.

Damned Sheople!

h/t Undernews

Pew Research - Over the first four months of 2009, the Republican Party has continued to lose adherents. In total, the GOP has lost roughly a quarter of its base over the past five years.

But these Republican losses have not translated into substantial Democratic gains. So far in 2009, 35% of adults nationwide identify as Democrats, about the same as in 2008 (36%). While GOP identification has fallen seven points since 2004, the Democrats have gained only two points over that period. Instead, a growing number of Americans describe themselves as independents, 36% in 2009 compared with just 32% in 2008 and 30% in 2004.

Looking at the individual monthly surveys since December suggests that both political parties are facing declining membership in the wake of an engaging election cycle. In the Pew Research Center’s April 2009 survey, 33% identified as Democrats, down from 39% in December 2008. Over the same period, the share calling themselves Republicans has fallen from 26% to 22%. By contrast, the number of independents has risen from 30% in December to 39% now.

Happy Cinco De Mayo Dance!

more about “Dailymotion – Susan Boyle and Simon C…“, posted with vodpod

Lie To Me… And Tell Me Everything Is Alright

Its as if Americans would RATHER hear lies… ANYTHING to tell them everything is alright (I don’t know about you, but this dude can freaking jam):

Lie To Me by Jonny Lang

Anybody else like The Onion?

Nation Ready To Be Lied To About The Economy Again

WASHINGTON—After nearly four months of frank, honest, and open dialogue about the failing economy, a weary U.S. populace announced this week that it is once again ready to be lied to about the current state of the financial system.

Tired of hearing the grim truth about their economic future, Americans demanded that the bald-faced lies resume immediately, particularly whenever politicians feel the need to divulge another terrifying problem with Wall Street, the housing market, or any one of a hundred other ticking time bombs everyone was better off not knowing about.

In addition, citizens are requesting that the phrase, “It will only get worse before it gets better,” be permanently replaced with, “Things are going great. Enjoy yourselves.”

“I thought I wanted a new era of transparency and accountability, but honestly, I just can’t handle it,” Ohio resident Nathan Pletcher said. “All I ever hear about now is how my retirement has been pushed back 15 years and how I won’t be able to afford my daughter’s tuition when she grows up.”

“From now on, just tell me the bullshit I want to hear,” Pletcher added. “Tell me my savings are okay, everybody has a job, and we’re No. 1 again. Please, just lie to my face.”

The national call for decreased candor began last month, after the Department of Labor released another soul-crushing report that most Americans agreed “wasn’t helping anything” and “didn’t need to be so specific, at least.”

The report estimated that 663,000 private and public sector jobs were lost in the month of March—a revealing statistic many people found shockingly blunt. Responding to the new information, an overwhelming majority of citizens said they believe that, during these extremely uncertain times, our leaders have a responsibility to come together, sit the American people down, and lie through their teeth about everything from misappropriations of taxpayer dollars to the severity of the credit crisis.

“I don’t need to be constantly reminded that the lack of regulations on Wall Street compounded with failing institutions like AIG basically plunged the world economy into a global recession,” said 32-year-old office manager Alexis Harrington. “What I want is for someone to tell me with a straight face that the GDP is through the roof so that I can feel better and instantly forget what all these terms even mean.”

“For the first time in my life I know who the secretary of the treasury is,” Harrington continued. “And I don’t like it.”

Reluctantly informed citizens like Harrington have also asked that CEOs of the nation’s five largest banks release a joint statement saying that the October bailout worked perfectly, normal lending has resumed, and that we’re nowhere close to having the entire monetary system collapse upon itself like a house of cards.

According to a CBS News/New York Times poll, 98 percent of Americans no longer appreciate President Barack Obama’s attempts to break down the economic crisis into simple terms they can understand. Instead, many say the president should have the decency to insult their intelligence by using complex jargon to confuse and deceive them, perhaps even implying that the subprime mortgage fallout was just a big misunderstanding that resulted from a clerical error.

“I know when he’s telling the truth, and it bothers me,” recently laid-off schoolteacher Mary Hanover said of Obama. “He gets this serious expression on his face and says things like, ‘This is the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression.’ Who needs to hear that? For Christ’s sake, smile a bit and say we just found a diamond mine under Montana that’s going to pay for everything. I’ll believe you.”

“Please, treat me like a child. Treat me like a five-year-old,” Sacramento resident David Cooke, 64, wrote in a letter to Congress. “I lost everything when the Dow tanked, and I’m too old to start working again, so why punish me further by explaining in detail the clever ways these investment firms ripped me off and how they’re all going to get away with it?”

Thus far, many policymakers in Washington have responded favorably to their constituents’ requests, saying they respect and understand the public’s need for dishonesty.

“I think we can accommodate the American people on this,” Senate majority leader Harry Reid (D-NV) told reporters. “Why, just today we made excellent progress with GM, whose CEO Fritz Henderson told us that every penny of federal and taxpayer funds would go directly to the construction of three new auto plants in Detroit that will create over 90,000 new jobs and spark the economic rebound we’ve been waiting for.”

Continued Reid, “Things are looking very, very bright.”

And on another note, The Treasury Department is recalling all American Dollars (before they give you the Swine Flu):

more about “untitled“, posted with vodpod

B’Man’s Hypocrite Watch: The Liberal Hypocrite List

I received a list from ListVerse that was done to point out the hypocrisy of some liberal folks that are/were in the spotlight. They acknowledge that some readers may not like it (and also claim that they are not partisan). I would be interested in seeing their Conservative Hypocrisy list, but I cannot argue much with their choices.

In a few of the examples, I, too, already pointed out hypocrisy regarding some of their targets.

The article is called, “10 Cases of Liberal Hypocrisy“. I won’t share the entire post (please go read it for yourself), nor will I highlight what I consider the worst abuse of the 10. But I will point to one that parallels a thought about gun ownership and a person who has said some very hard things against people like me who do feel like gun ownership is a right and a necessity.

For whenever I hear a very rich person tell me that hunting (or fishing) is unnessecary, it proves that they are totally out of touch with the reality on the ground, in the southeast USA, anyway.

Let me explain something: I know people so poor that the meat they put in the freezer is what helps sustain them and their families. The vegetables they grow in their garden help keep their children alive and healthy.

Just because you don’t have that need, it should never be assumed that others don’t. So, for some rich bitch to blather shit like Rosie O’Donnell did, it carries no credibility, for she has absolutely no understanding of the situation. Not long ago I had an interaction with a person over this subject and it went along the same lines. Hunting is unnecessary because there is plenty of meat available in the world.

Poppycock (or whatever kind of cock you want)!

Hypocrisy: No Guns For You, But My Guy Packs Heat

On her television show, April 19, 1999, O’Donnell had this to say about gun owners: “I don’t care if you want to hunt. I don’t care if you think it’s your right. I say, ‘Sorry.’ It is 1999. We have had enough as a nation. You are not allowed to own a gun, and if you do own a gun I think you should go to prison.” Several months later, a bodyguard in her employ applied for a concealed gun permit from the Greenwich (Connecticut) Police Department. When queried about whether her bodyguard should carry a gun on May 24, 2000, she said, “I don’t personally own a gun, but if you are qualified, licensed and registered, I have no problem.”

BTW: I am a Rosie fan, to a certain extent. I appreciate her vigor and out spokeness over the 9/11 issue and healthcare (amoung other issues). But when you start spouting out shit like this, it simply proves that you have no idea about the reality on the ground and what some people revert to just to make ends meet.

Wake up, Rosie. (Oops, she must have awoken when it comes to protection)

Now, ListVerse, time for that Con List (and right off the top of my head, that list is far more criminal and embarassing for America).

B’Man’s Sabbath Watch: Torturing Church Goers

I know that I felt tortured during more than one sermon… but I digress.

You have probably heard about the Pew Center Survey that showed that Christians don’t have much of a problem with torturing other people. The more often you go, the more likely for you to endorse it.

See the interactive results of the poll here. The survey asked specifically:

“Do you think the use of torture against suspected terrorists in order to gain important information can often be justified, sometimes be justified, rarely be justified, or never be justified?”

Roughly half of all respondents — 49 percent — said it is often or sometimes justified. A quarter said it never is.

From the CNN article:

The more often Americans go to church, the more likely they are to support the torture of suspected terrorists, according to a new survey.

More than half of people who attend services at least once a week — 54 percent — said the use of torture against suspected terrorists is “often” or “sometimes” justified. Only 42 percent of people who “seldom or never” go to services agreed, according to the analysis released Wednesday by the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life.

White evangelical Protestants were the religious group most likely to say torture is often or sometimes justified — more than six in 10 supported it. People unaffiliated with any religious organization were least likely to back it. Only four in 10 of them did.

The analysis is based on a Pew Research Center survey of 742 American adults conducted April 14-21. It did not include analysis of groups other than white evangelicals, white non-Hispanic Catholics, white mainline Protestants and the religiously unaffiliated, because the sample size was too small.

Yep, and its the whities, by and large. Imagine that. More white Christians endorse torture than others. Only one in eight “Evangelicals” (you know, the ones who are REALLY worried about your soul) would be against it. This explains so very much when it comes to your inactivity and nonchalance of what is and has always been known as atrocious torture. I don’t know if Con09 is a Christian, but I would be almost willing to bet he is.

Gimme that Olde Tyme Religion, eh?

You sickening hypocrites wouldn’t know Jesus Christ if He slapped the Holy Fuck out of you.

Conservative09 (The Fake Conservative) Has Lost His Mind

You may have remembered the dude calling himself Conservative09 who rears his head every now and again. Well, I tried to reach out and discuss something with the guy, especially about torture and it led to various posts at his place and comments here where he was challenged (I guess) to look into water boarding and to determine if it was torture and thus, war crimes.

He sent me this today in an email (with his letter to a newspaper attached: read it at his blog, if you like) and either this dude has totally succumbed to some mental deficiency or he is “getting my goat“. For I simply cannot believe that any rational person could write such idiocy and expect any serious consideration.

By the way, I had the chance to be waterboarded.  I could say it isn’t torture after that experience, and I will.  I coughed a lot, but it felt like coming up for air after wrestling with someone under water.  Hell, I did it at home.  That is how available it is.  Sure, it isn’t exactly the same thing, but it’s close, for now.  I did not use the cloth or plastic wrap; I don’t understand why it is even there.  I would think pouring water directly onto the face is worse, right? I know how hard it is to believe someone else on a political issue until you’ve seen what they’ve seen, and in this situation it’s hard unless you’ve experienced what the other person has experienced.  If you do get the chance to be waterboarded under controlled conditions, go for it.  Seriously.

I replied and asked him if he actually wrote that and said…

Because if you did, you are a mindless idiot.

It MUST be a joke or something, but it shows you have no idea of the brevity of torture.

Do you seriously believe that you experienced “water boarding” in your experiment? Will you say or imagine any sort of crazy assed bullshit to defend something? Or are you really an insane asshole who has evaded mental help who’s family and neighbors are in danger?

Do you think anyone, even a person who has actually conducted real water boarding (or even Dick Cheney, himself) would say what you did to yourself, at home, was water boarding?

When finished, did you have a glass of wine and slice of cheese?

You imbecile: Let me explain something. IF you were ever actually a prisoner who had experienced whatever goes on in interragation and harsh treatment via stress positions, cold and 11 sleepless nights (who knows what)… and you were the “ticking timebomb” person being water boarded, there is not a chance in hell you would say that what you “did at home” (God, I cannot believe that someone could actually write such shit) would be remotely the same as water boarding. Incredible naivety and stupidity.

I am seriously amazed that you sent this to me, if this is serious.

I can’t wait to post about this.

(LOL: you fucking nutcase)

A little blunt, maybe, but if this is the mindset of “conservatism”, then the wasting away of that fake movement is obviously understood by this interaction. I am incredulous that anyone has the audacity to pen such words. It cannot be real.

What do you think?

Where In The World Is Universal HealthCare?

Perhaps the most accurate way to ask this question is,

“Where In The World Is NOT Universal HealthCare?”

For that is an easier question to answer. A cursory look at Universal Healthcare in Wikipedia has a very blunt answer:

Universal health care is implemented in all but one of the wealthy, industrialized countries, with the exception being the United States.^[1][2] It is also provided in many developing countries and is the trend worldwide.

The very healthcare system enjoyed by EVERY wealthy, industrialized nation EXCEPT the United States.

Please let that sink in. Let the fact that the “greatest country in the world” is the ONLY ONE that doesn’t make Universal healthcare the system of choice. How can it be that we have allowed ourselves to be last in anything? We are America, right?

My buddy Kelso replied to a comment and had this single sentence that touched off this rant and rationale for a series of posts showing the extremes of hypocrisy that the American people have been duped into believing:

Alan Garcia, Far Right Wing President Of Peru and former Reagan era death squad leader, has Single Payer Health Care.

I admit my ignorance to many things on the world stage, especially the politics involved with countries like Peru. It is simply a case of where I, too, have fallen for the screaming meme of “America is the greatest country”, even in light of the horrific and dubious roles we play in South Americans lives (not to mentioned everywhere else in the world we don’t belong). Why care about those “little brown people” if I live in the “greatest country in America”? I mean, surely those backwoods little brown people don’t know shit from shinola, right?

I have to admit that while studying President Garcia’s history, it did cause me to question just how intelligent these people may be if they re-elect a man who’s policies help usher in a devestating financial breakdown. But politics are truly local and when you review how the election was set up, you see how it could be made possible.

From a BBC News Profile on Alan Garcia:

Under his rule, inflation multiplied, reaching four figures; the Shining Path guerrilla insurgency had surged unchecked; corruption was rampant.

Mr Garcia fled the country in 1992, facing corruption charges and with troops despatched to arrest him.

Nine years later he returned to Peru to stand in presidential elections.

He lost to Alejandro Toledo – but only by a slender margin. Mr Garcia had signalled that he was back.

And in 2006, to the astonishment of many onlookers, Mr Garcia triumphantly regained the presidency.

But, again, I digress. Peruvians elected the man and they get what they pay for and when he said the following, it must have changed their minds somehow:

Do you think I want my tombstone to read: ‘He was so stupid that he made the same mistakes twice’?

And believe me, all us big fat white people are no smarter than those little brown people… we DID re-elect W, didn’t we? As a matter of fact, it just proves a point that any electorate can be fooled with fear and almost any shiny little object to sway our attention from prescient matters to those of nothingness and fear.

Now back to my point. This year, as Kelso points out, President Garcia helped usher in a Universal, single payer healthcare system in Peru. From wiki:

Perú

On April 9, 2009 the Government of Peru published the Law on Health Insurance to enable all Peruvians to access quality health services, and contribute to regulate the financing and supervision of these services. The law enables all population to access diverse health services to prevent illnesses, and promote and rehabilitate people, under a Health Basic Plan (PEAS). ^[14][15]

Not only that, but yesterday, they actually took it a step farther by implementing this (from LivinginPeru):

The Peruvian government has extended public health insurance coverage to laid-off workers for an additional  period of six months, according to a decree published today in El Peruano official gazette.

This decision is intended to help families to overcome the effects of the global financial crisis.

The ones who can make use of this benefits are those who get laid off between January 1st, 2009 and July 31st, 2010.

The decree sets up a temporary special regime of coverage for the unemployed and their families, which will allow them to access to Essalud (the National Social Security System) complete health services, provided they had already been included in the  Essalud system during at least five months.

Think about that and then consider your Blue Cross Blue Shield Cobra plan since you lost your job.

Is there any “real” American in this country that can stand against healthcare for all? How can you be “Christian” and do so? How can you have a moral bone in your body and deny others? How can you mimic Christ in any realistic way when supporting large scale murder and carnage (via our military), yet deny the very basic healthcare to any person alive? How do you live with yourself and the blatant hypocrisy?

As an American, are you embarrased that we are the ONLY freaking industrialized country that won’t do it? The “Greatest Country?”

As Bro’ kelso stated (and Brother Jeremiah Wright once said):

GOD BLESS AMERICA? NO, GOD DAMN AMERICA

Let me just say to all you faux Christians out there, running around immersed in hate and reproach for others, when the Christ was noted saying:

Blessed are the merciful: for they shall obtain mercy

Do you think he had your merciless ass in mind? Do you think that when He healed someone, he asked if they were “covered” or needed their “co-pay”? Do you think you should be “happy” or be “shown favor” by God (that is what “blessed” means) if you believe that people should not be healed if they can’t pay for it?

American people: It is high time you stop your idiotic head burying and begin to force these medical and insurance company backed politicians into doing what the REST OF THE WORLD is doing and get rid of the profit in healthcare and make sure our people are cared for and well-treated.

If you don’t, don’t call yourself a Christian. Just call yourself a uncaring scumbag.

The hypocrisy is making me puke.

Thirsty?

Richard Noggin’ Saturday: America’s Own Torture Doctors- Bruce Jessen and Jim Mitchell

Jonathon Turley posts about how lucrative it is in the Torture Business for the “Doctors” involved.

I mean, shit: why would anyone ever want a regular physician’s practice when you can make money like this and still get your rocks off as people are tortured before your very eyes? Think about it: no insurance to deal with, all your paperwork is handled by the Government, surely pretty decent hours and only the occasional death to deal with.

Winner all around, right?

According to ABCNews, either Jessen or Mitchell were previously involved in interrogations and had simply been used in the training of pilots to prepare them for capture and interrogation. They were reportedly paid $1000 a day to lend their endorsement to the torture program — that comes to a rate of roughly $360,000 a year as torture consultants, not bad wages in the world torture market.

Harry Reid Says Paying Income Taxes Is Voluntary

Is Taxation Voluntary?

Jan Helfeld interviews Senator Harry Reid about government coercion. Reid maintains that taxation is voluntary despite all evidence to the contrary.

WTF?

OK, Harry. This is the best news I have heard in a very long time.

It’s a year old but I am just seeing it. h/t DeProgram