Texas Lawmakers Notice Wildfires, Slash Funding To Firefighters

Some teabagger Republicans in the Texas legislature noticed on Newsmax or whatever that Texas is currently on fire, the whole state. And then they heard something about firefighters apparently trying to fight these catastrophic fires, which is communistic, so the Texas Forest Service will have its current low budget slashed by another third — $34 million — to teach everybody a lesson about “relying on socialist fire departments when JESUS wants your shitty tract house to burn down.” READ MORE »

Bachmann Pledges To Defend Veterans Benefits After Proposing To Cut Them By $4.5 Billion In January

THINK PROGRESS

When it comes to caring for our nation’s veterans, Republican presidential candidate Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN) has undergone an astonishing transformation in the last nine months. In January, she proposed a wildly unpopular plan to slash $4.5 billion in veterans services and reduce disability compensation for 150,000 veterans. Veterans groups blasted the proposal as “heartless,” “totally out of step with America’s commitment to our veterans,” and “showing contempt for American servicemembers’ sacrifices.” Facing an avalanche of criticism, Bachmann eventually withdrew her proposal.

But now that she’s running for president, Bachmann is billing herself as a great defender of veterans benefits. The Washington Independent reports that during a speech at the annual convention of the American Legion in Minneapolis last Thursday, Bachmann vowed to support and strengthen veterans medical care:

“It is our duty, first and primarily, to protect our veterans and to make sure that you receive not only the respect, but also the care that you have paid for very heavily with your service to our nation,” Bachmann told members of the American Legion Thursday.

“As president, I will assure that those who serve today as well, and in the past, have the highest access to the best care, both of health, mental health and rehabilitative care that the world has to offer.”

But Bachmann’s January plan, which was touted as a way to avoid raising the debt ceiling, would have brought about dramatic cuts to veterans services.

Bachmann’s plan would have frozen the Veterans Affairs Department’s health care spending and reduced the amount veterans receive in Social Security Disability Income. The congresswoman offered no explanation for her sharp reversal on the issue, but it’s hard to interpret her promise to strengthen veterans benefits nine months after trying to cut them as anything other than empty pandering to an important political constituency.

But regardless of the circumstances, it’s nice to see Bachmann embrace the sort of government-run health care program she typically denounces during her campaign stops as “unconstitutional” and “the crown jewel of socialism.” The Department of Veterans Affairs health care program is perhaps the best example of an entirely government-administered health care system, complete with its own doctors and hospitals.

Bachmann Campaign Manager Quits For ‘Romney-Perry’ Health Reasons

Lunatic pill-head Michele Bachmann’s veteran campaign manager Ed Rollins is stepping down for “health reasons,” and, he added, “it’s a Romney-Perry race” is the name of his illness. We hear you, Ed Rollins, that is a tough disease to battle on campaign hours, seven days a week, with only the “hope” of certain death at the end of the tunnel. And it’s apparently contagious: the deputy campaign manager is also leaving. Not even the pill-stuffed trailer towing Michele Bachmann’s tour bus across America has enough Ambien and Ecstasy to make an exhausting failure of a campaign sound fun anymore. Sad! READ MORE »

Robert Gates Says Israel Is an Ungrateful Ally

Jeffrey Goldberg

It was an extraordinary scene: President Barack Obama, sitting impassively in the Oval Office in May as Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu lectured him, at considerable length and at times condescendingly, on Jewish history, Arab perfidy and the existential challenges facing his country.

What was extraordinary wasn’t the message -- it was not an untypical Netanyahu sermon. What was notable was that Netanyahu was lecturing the president live on television, during a photo opportunity staged so that the two leaders could issue platitudes about the enduring bonds between their nations.

That display of impudence left the president and his team feeling unusually angry. Shortly afterward, Obama’s chief of staff, William Daley, called the Israeli ambassador in Washington, Michael Oren, to communicate the displeasure of the White House in a reportedly heated way. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who watched her husband battle Netanyahu in the late 1990s, also expressed anger and frustration about the prime minister within the administration.

Nothing in Return

But it was Robert M. Gates, the now-retired secretary of defense, who seemed most upset with Netanyahu. In a meeting of the National Security Council Principals Committee held not long before his retirement this summer, Gates coldly laid out the many steps the administration has taken to guarantee Israel’s security -- access to top- quality weapons, assistance developing missile-defense systems, high-level intelligence sharing -- and then stated bluntly that the U.S. has received nothing in return, particularly with regard to the peace process.

Senior administration officials told me that Gates argued to the president directly that Netanyahu is not only ungrateful, but also endangering his country by refusing to grapple with Israel’s growing isolation and with the demographic challenges it faces if it keeps control of the West Bank. According to these sources, Gates’s analysis met with no resistance from other members of the committee.

Frustration and Resentment

Gates has expressed his frustration with Netanyahu’s government before. Last year, when Vice President Joe Biden’s visit to Israel was marred by an announcement of plans to build new housing units for Jews in East Jerusalem, Gates told several people that if he had been Biden, he would have returned to Washington immediately and told the prime minister to call Obama when he was serious about negotiations.

Gates’s frustration also stems from squabbling with Netanyahu over U.S. arms sales to Saudi Arabia and other Arab allies. In an encounter in Israel in March, according to U.S. and Israeli sources, Netanyahu lectured Gates at length on the possible dangers posed to Israel by such sales, as well as by Turkey and other regional U.S. allies. Gates, a veteran intelligence officer, resented Netanyahu’s tone, and reminded him that the sales were organized in consultation with Israel and pro-Israel members of Congress.

Palestinian State

The reason the administration’s hard feelings toward Netanyahu matter now -- and the reason several officials spoke to me on this subject last week -- is that the U.S. is once again going to the mat for Israel at the United Nations, where Palestinians intend to seek recognition of an independent state in September.

The White House plans to contest this resolution in the General Assembly (where the move already has majority support), and the U.S. would most likely veto it in the Security Council. The Obama administration is right to oppose this ploy, which would undermine the chances of reconciliation and could lead to an explosion of violence on the West Bank. But they’ll oppose it in spite of Netanyahu, not to help him.

Dislike of Netanyahu has deepened in a way that could ultimately be dangerous for Israel. Time after time, the White House has taken Israel’s side in international disputes -- over the UN’s Goldstone Report, which accused Israel of committing war crimes in Gaza; over Israel’s confrontation with the pro-Hamas Turkish “flotilla,” in which nine people were killed; and on many other issues.

Yet the Netanyahu government does little to dispel the notion among its right-wing supporters that the Obama administration is at best a wavering friend. This is self- evidently foolish, especially at a time when Israel faces an existential threat from its menacing neighbor Iran.

A Blunt Articulation

Gates’s feelings about Netanyahu are particularly consequential, in part because he’s not considered hostile to Israel, and in part because he’s a well-regarded figure who articulated bluntly what so many people in the administration seem to believe. Gates declined to comment for this column through his former spokesman, Geoff Morrell. But Morrell told me that Gates “worked extremely hard throughout his four and half years as secretary of defense to address Israel’s security concerns.”

A Pentagon spokesman, George Little, said that Gates’s successor, Leon Panetta, “agrees with what President Obama and former Secretary Gates have both said, which is that our defense relationship with Israel is stronger than ever.”

When I asked Oren, the Israeli ambassador, about Gates’s often-expressed feelings toward Netanyahu, he said, “We have nothing but the highest regard for Secretary Gates, and as allies, we don’t exchange accusations, we have communications. Israel deeply appreciates the excellent security relationship we have with the Obama administration.”

Netanyahu’s alienation of the White House has not gone unnoticed in Israel. Tzipi Livni, the head of the Kadima Party, said in a recent interview with me and Atlantic editor James Bennet that the average Israeli is more attuned to the importance of maintaining good relations with the U.S. president than is the current prime minister.

“For Israelis,” she said, “when they wake up in the morning and ask themselves, what is the general situation today, the litmus test for them is the health of the relationship between Israel and the United States.”

(Jeffrey Goldberg is a Bloomberg View columnist and a national correspondent for the Atlantic. The opinions expressed are his own.)

What's a Christian to do about Ayn Rand?

Elizabeth Hansen

Two months after the release of Atlas Shrugged: Part 1 in theaters, discussion and debate over Ayn Rand, Objectivism and the philosopher-novelist's disdain for altruism and Christianity continues, including a column on First Things' website last Wednesday that pulled no punches in arguing why the philosophy espoused by Rand's fictional heroes is incompatible with Christianity.

"Rand's doctines are Satanic," writes Joe Carter -- and he means that literally, with the rest of his piece, "The Fountainhead of Satanism," describing how the founder of the modern day Church of Satan -- Anton LeVay, who also penned The Satanic Bible -- openly credited Rand as his inspiration. Carter writes:

Perhaps most are unaware of the connection, though LaVey wasn’t shy about admitting his debt to his inspiration. “I give people Ayn Rand with trappings,” he once told the Washington Post. On another occasion he acknowledged that his brand of Satanism was “just Ayn Rand’s philosophy with ceremony and ritual added.” Indeed, the influence is so apparent that LaVey has been accused of plagiarizing part of his “Nine Satanic Statements” from the John Galt speech in Rand’s Atlas Shrugged.

Devotees of Rand may object to my outlining the association between the two. They will say I am proposing “guilt by association,” a form of the ad hominem fallacy. But I am not attacking Rand for the overlap of her views with LaVey’s; I am saying that, at their core, they are the same philosophy. LaVey was able to recognize what many conservatives fail to see: Rand’s doctrines are satanic.

I realize that even to invoke that infernal word conjures images of black masses, human sacrifices, and record needles broken trying to play “Stairway to Heaven” backwards. But satanism is more banal and more attractive than the parody created by LeVay. Real satanism has been around since the beginning of history, selling an appealing message: Your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God.

Hyperbolic or a fair assessment of the roots and reach of Objectivism?

Striking a more tempered note -- though no more forgiving of Rand's many flaws, both personal and philosophical -- is an article by Fr. Robert Sirico of the Acton Institute, posted on Patheos.com the day after Carter's ran on First Things.

"Who Really Was John Galt, Anyway?" Fr. Sirico asks, referring to the iconic hero of Atlas Shrugged whose climactic speech championing the individual and railing against collectivism was considered by Rand herself as the most concise summary of her philosophy. Fr. Sirico writes:

There is in Rand an undeniable and passionate quest, a hunger for truth, for the ideal, for morality, for a just ordering of the world. She is indeed frequently adolescent in this quest, yet this may be just what appeals to so many idealistic young people who read her before reading the Tradition in depth.

One of the most famous opening lines in literature is the question she poses and uses as a device throughout Atlas, a question now on display at Tea Party rallies: "Who is John Galt?" The answer is not immediately given in the book; it (he) remains mysterious throughout much of the novel. Yet it inexorably emerges: Galt is for Rand the ideal man—the Man of the Mind (the logos); the One upon whom the world and its creative capacity depend. He is, in a real sense for Rand, the God-Man.

"I disagree profoundly with Rand; her attenuated definition of faith as unreason and her notion of sacrifice as wholly lacking dignity are unrecognizable to a Christian," he continues toward the end of the piece. He goes on, however, to quote G.K. Chesterton: "Every man who knocks on the door of a brothel is looking for God."

"...[T]here is in each heart an innate human thirst for beauty and Truth," Fr. Sirico concludes. "The question Rand poses at the outset of Atlas Shrugged reveals more of this sad woman than I think even she realized. One can only pray that in the infinite mercy of the God in whom she did not believe, that Rand in the end may actually have found out who John Galt really is."

Despite their different tones, are Carter and Fr. Sirico essentially pointing out the same theme in Rand's work? In articulating her philosophy of radical individualism, and in exalting John Galt as Objectivism's Christ-figure in the world of Atlas Shrugged, Rand's grasp for truth devolved into an ideology that exalts -- demands, really -- each person's self-interest in all realms of life, from morality to economics. In her revolt from the Socialism of her Russian homeland, Rand rejected one godless ideology, but for what? Another cold system, one that supplanted mercy and compassion with self-interest? Doing away with God, man's reason and self-determination take His place; in place of the God who gave His life for man is a man who rises above the collectivist masses by embodying Rand's Objectivism and declaring, "I swear -- by my life and my love of it -- that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine."

Her system -- like any other ideology -- is a narrow prism through which to view the world in an attempt to make sense of it. And like any other prescription for happiness, freedom and fulfillment crafted by human hands, it will fall short. There is only one Ideal Man whose "life was the light of the human race," and no charismatic businessman, economic system, philosophy -- or fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil -- can take His place.

Fox Doctors Hoffa Speech To Fabricate Call For Violence

http://mediamatters.org/blog/201109050003

Right-wing bloggers misled by dishonest Fox News video editing are attacking Teamsters President James Hoffa, Jr. for supposedly urging violence against Tea Party activists during a Labor Day speech. Conservatives are also attacking President Obama, who appeared at the event, for "sanctioning violence against fellow Americans" by failing to denounce Hoffa. But fuller context included in other Fox segments makes clear that Hoffa wasn't calling for violence but was actually urging the crowd to vote out Republican members of Congress.

During the segment that the bloggers have latched onto, Fox edited out the bolded portion of Hoffa's comments:

HOFFA: Everybody here's got to vote. If we go back and keep the eye on the prize, let's take these son of a bitches out and give America back to America where we belong! Thank you very much!

In an initial report on Hoffa's speech at 1 p.m. on Fox News, Ed Henry reported that Hoffa said that "we'll remember in November who's with the working people" and "said of the Tea Party and of Republicans, 'let's take these sons of bitches out.'"

Henry made clear during that segment that Hoffa's comments were references to voting out Republican members of Congress, not to violence. And roughly 20 minutes later, he explained on Twitter that the "full quote" of the "take these son of a bitches out" comment is "Everybody here's got to vote. If we go back & keep the eye on the prize, let's take these sons of bitches out":

But in a second segment that ran at roughly the same time as Henry's tweet, Fox News dishonestly edited the speech in the manner seen above. Andrew Breitbart's Big sites, Real Clear Politics, The Daily Caller, the Media Research Center, and the Drudge Report have all highlighted that footage, using it to condemn "the violence emanating from union thug bosses" and demand that Obama "denounce" the comments.

In the Fox News segment that included the dishonestly cropped video, Republican consultant Brad Blakeman decried the comments as "thuggery at its best" and "the kind of remarks you'd expect out of Tony Soprano," and commented that "when a union president says 'let's take these sons of bitches out,' that usually means someone's legs are going to get broken, somebody's going to disappear." Meanwhile, anchor Megyn Kelly somehow did not mention Henry's previous explanation that the comments were references to voting Republicans out of office.

Andrew Breitbart operative and CNN contributor Dana Loesch quickly followed up the attack on Twitter, claiming soon after the Fox segment and Henry tweet that Hoffa "threatens tea party voters" and that if Obama "doesn't condemn then he is sanctioning violence against fellow Americans by silence":..........................................

Regulations, taxes aren't killing small business, owners say

WASHINGTON — Politicians and business groups often blame excessive regulation and fear of higher taxes for tepid hiring in the economy. However, little evidence of that emerged when McClatchy canvassed a random sample of small business owners across the nation.

"Government regulations are not 'choking' our business, the hospitality business," Bernard Wolfson, the president of Hospitality Operations in Miami, told The Miami Herald. "In order to do business in today's environment, government regulations are necessary and we must deal with them. The health and safety of our guests depend on regulations. It is the government regulations that help keep things in order."

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce is among the most vocal critics of the Obama administration, blaming excessive regulation and the administration's overhaul of health care laws for creating an environment of uncertainty that's hampering job creation.

When it's asked what specific regulations harm small businesses _which account for about 65 percent of U.S. jobs — the Chamber of Commerce points to health care, banking and national labor. Yet all these issues weigh much more heavily on big corporations than on small business.

"When you look at regulations in many respects, what a lot of people don't take into account is their secondary impacts," said Giovanni Coratolo, the vice president of small business policy for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. "They pay the price, regardless of whether they are primarily the recipient of the regulation or they are secondarily getting the impact of it. They pay the price in higher costs, whether it is fuel or health care or whether it's being able to find access to capital."

McClatchy reached out to owners of small businesses, many of them mom-and-pop operations, to find out whether they indeed were being choked by regulation, whether uncertainty over taxes affected their hiring plans and whether the health care overhaul was helping or hurting their business.

Their response was surprising.

None of the business owners complained about regulation in their particular industries, and most seemed to welcome it. Some pointed to the lack of regulation in mortgage lending as a principal cause of the financial crisis that brought about the Great Recession of 2007-09 and its grim aftermath.

Wolfson's firm is readying to open a Hampton Inn this year in Miami on land purchased from a condo developer during the housing downturn. His business could be in line for higher taxes if President Barack Obama allows the current, lower rates on the richest Americans to expire in 2012 and return to previous levels.

That didn't seem to bother Wolfson, who through his partnership declares profit and loss as a pass-through on his personal income taxes, as many small businesses do.

"Higher taxes are not good for business, but some of the loopholes and deductions should be looked at," he said.

The answer from Rick Douglas — the owner of Minit Maids, a cleaning service with 17 employees in Charlotte, N.C. — was more blunt.

"I think the rich have to be taxed, sorry," Douglas said. He added that he isn't facing a sea of new regulations but that he does struggle with an old issue, workers' compensation claims.

Douglas told The Charlotte Observer that he's hired more workers this year, citing pent-up demand from customers.

"My theory is that the people that do have jobs are working harder and they have less time to clean. People were holding back for such a long time, and then they started spending a little more," he said.

Then there's Rip Daniels. He owns four businesses in Gulfport, Miss.: real estate ventures, a radio station and a boutique hotel/bistro. He said his problem wasn't regulation.

"Absolutely, positively not. What is choking my business is insurance. What's choking all business is insurance. You cannot go into business, any business — small business or large business — unless you can afford insurance," he told Biloxi's Sun Herald.

Since 2008, Daniels has opened one business and expanded another, hiring as many as 15 people thanks to lower labor costs and an abundance of overqualified job candidates. He credits the federal stimulus effort with helping to keep some smaller firms afloat.

"It allowed those folks to spend and have money and pay for the essentials," said Daniels, whose business pays corporate taxes. He grudgingly supports closing some business tax deductions to reduce the federal budget deficit.

"Who wants to pay more? I certainly don't. I want to pay my fair share, and I do," Daniels said, adding that he wouldn't resist loophole closures to cut deficits.

For Zajic Appliance in south Sacramento, California's capital city, business also has picked up. The company hired two workers this year, bringing the total to 18, said Christopher Zajic, who manages the family business.

One odd reason for his improving business: sales of bank-owned properties in a city that's among those hardest hit by the housing crash. When these houses sell, he said, their new owners generally replace appliances.

California used some of its federal stimulus money to pay for a "Cash for Appliances" program last year, a rebate program for purchases of energy-efficient washing machines and refrigerators.

"It spiked sales," Zajic told The Sacramento Bee, adding that he thinks the effort simply compressed sales into a shorter time period rather than created new demand.

For many small businesses, their chief problem is an old one: navigating the bureaucracy of the Small Business Administration to secure government-backed loans.

"My biggest problem is the current status of the banking system and how it's being over-regulated," Dennis Sweeney, a co-owner of Summit Sportswear Inc., told The Kansas City Star. "I want to grow this business, and I'm using the same credit line that I've been using for five years."

Kansas City-based Summit, 20 years old, supplies college-licensed clothing to university bookstores in four Midwestern states. Sweeney hired his fourth employee in August. He's adding licenses to sell apparel to colleges in the Southeast and Atlantic region, but his company doesn't have inventory or other collateral that bankers usually want to secure loans.

And the small local banks Summit deals with frown on the red tape required for SBA loans, after a loan he got in 2008 took three months of nightmarish documentation.

"It was only $35,000," Sweeney said. "Our bank basically said it would never do that again."

Other small firms say their problem is simply a lack of customers.

"I think the business climate is so shaky that I would not want to undergo any expansion or outlay capital," said Andy Weingarten, who owns Almar Auto Repair in Charlotte. He's thinking about hiring one more mechanic.

Added Barry Grant, the regional president of Meritage Homes Corp., in California, "It starts with jobs. ... There's an awful lot of people sitting on the fence; they're waiting for a sign."

One reason hiring remains dampened is the prolonged slump in the housing sector, a driver of the pre-crisis economy. Meritage builds homes in California and six other states. It'll build fewer than 1,000 homes in the Golden State this year, well below the 2,500 annually it built during boom times.

Another cause of sagging demand for new houses, Grant told The Sacramento Bee, is the planned October change to loan limits in order for a homeowner to qualify for a federal government-insured home loan. It was boosted to as high as $769,000 in parts of the country during the financial crisis, but Republicans in Congress have pushed for a return to lower limits and less government involvement in the housing market.

In Sacramento County, the change would mean a new loan limit of $474,000 to qualify, well below the current $580,000. Around the nation, the loan-limit change has created uncertainty.

"Any uncertainty in the market makes people hold off," said Grant. "It builds a certain level of uncertainty."

Sometimes a small business's struggle has nothing to do with government at all.

Lynn Swager, a co-owner of Brass on Ivory in Edgewater, Md., sells, rents and repairs musical instruments. She faces a completely different sort of challenge.

"The thing that chokes us, believe or not, is the Internet. There are so many things that are accessible on the Internet that they can purchase for less than I can purchase from my distributor," Swager told McClatchy. "Everybody thinks the Internet is this great thing that is happening to the world, but it is really, I think, killing a lot of small business. People that we talk to that are no longer in business say the same thing exactly."

The Assault On The Right To Vote

We'll be coming back to this story often during the course of the 2012 elections, but if you've only caught bits and pieces of the new, concerted, coordinated Republican attack on voting rights at the state level here's a good rundown to get up to speed with.

— David Kurtz