Anger, Hate,and Fear Part One (An Introduction)

Recently it came out that Bill Sparkman, the Kentucky census worker who was found hanging dead from a tree with the word "FED" scrawled across his chest, killed himself. I had written a column a while back that insinuated that he was killed by a right wing zealot. Thankfully, I was wrong.

It may come as a surprise to most of you but I really was happy to be wrong. The last thing this country needs is another threat. I don't want to see the base rise up and start a second civil war. We have enough problems to deal with right now. Unfortunately, my admission of being wrong in this particular case does not mean that the problem has gone away.

Last October, I wrote a column which explored this problem on a local level. In it, I mentioned the Southern Poverty Law Center report on the threat from various right wing hate groups. This report has since been used as an example, by the base, as to how they are being victimized by...well...all the people and groups that are always out to get them. Again, I will admit that this report certainly does have bias in it and standing on its own should not constitute much concern. Combined with the DHS report on right wing hate groups should cause some, but not monumental, concern. Combine both of these with the new report from the Anti Defamation League and I think it's clear that there is most assuredly a problem. Is it a threat, though?

One thing is clear. The next time someone from the base tries to tell you that there is just as much intolerance on the left, show them this report and ask them to produce a similar one on left wing groups. It doesn't exist. Why? Because, as was written in the first comment on Amazon.com regarding Thomas Frank's The Wrecking Crew, "one side of the battle continues to play the game as politics, as elections won or lost and citizens swayed or not, while the other side approaches it as an act of war, a no-holds-barred contest in which the only goal is the complete and utter destruction of the other side.

The report that the ADL has published is a very detailed summation of what has been going on in our country since Barack Obama was elected. If you look at their mission, one can see why they came out with this document.

From the ADL web site.

The Anti-Defamation League was founded in 1913 "to stop the defamation of the Jewish people and to secure justice and fair treatment to all." Now the nation's premier civil rights/human relations agency, ADL fights anti-Semitism and all forms of bigotry, defends democratic ideals and protects civil rights for all.

A leader in the development of materials, programs and services, ADL builds bridges of communication, understanding and respect among diverse groups, carrying out its mission through a network of 30 Regional and Satellite Offices in the United States and abroad.

Before all of you in the base haul off and call this a liberal-faggot operation who wants to take away my guns and Bible, bear in mind that most of the ADL criticisms come from people like Noam Chomsky, CAIR, and the Nation of Islam. The latter are not surprising but the first certainly is and Chomsky's not the only liberal who rips the ADL on a regular basis. Essentially, the ADL get shit from everyone which means, in my opinion, they are probably doing something right.

For the entire week (unless something major happens), I will be examining this report and urge all of you to do the same. It will completely lay to rest any sort of notion that the left has as much anger, hate and fear as the current form of the base does. It will also show that right, sadly, sees people on the left within the confined context that they see themselves and the world around them. Their frame of reference is so skewed that they can't possibly begin to grasp that a) what they are espousing is terribly destructive and b) their "opponents" don't operate as they do.

In looking at the introduction, A Year of Growing Animosity, a few things jump out at me.

What characterizes this anti-government hostility is a shared belief that Obama and his administration actually pose a threat to the future of the United States. Some accuse Obama of plotting to bring socialism to the United States, while others claim he will bring about Nazism or fascism. All believe that Obama and his administration will trample on individual freedoms and civil liberties, due to some sinister agenda, and they see his economic and social policies as manifestations of this agenda. In particular anti-government activists used the issue of health-care reform as a rallying point, accusing Obama and his administration of dark designs ranging from “socialized medicine” to “death panels,” even when the Obama administration had not come out with a specific health care reform plan. Some even compared the Obama administration’s intentions to Nazi eugenics programs.

Essentially, what they are saying here is that these groups operate solely on the emotions of anger, hate and fear. There is no logic whatsoever to these central points mentioned above.

At rallies and public events around the country, as well as across the Internet, President Obama is being painted as someone intent on destroying American culture and values. He is portrayed as “the other,” a dangerous foreign element in the United States.

Ironic, that is actually them that seems to be intent on doing so. Worse still, is the "left" in this country doesn't seem to get how serious they are about their feelings hence the reason why everyone should read The Wrecking Crew.

The anti-government anger encompasses a large portion of the right side of the political spectrum. It emanates from mainstream groups and politicians, but also from undeniably extreme groups and individuals, such as the suddenly resurgent militia movement. Together these individuals and groups form a continuum of anti-government fervor, with few sharp divisions or distinctions.

Basically, what I have been saying all along.

This hostile wave of anti-Obama anger and paranoid anti-government conspiracy theories goes well beyond mere transgressions of civil political discourse. Anti-government agitators launch many attacks that do not merely disagree with government policies or positions, but rather attempt to delegitimize the government itself. Indeed, an increasing number of anti-government activists are convincing themselves, or have already done so, that the government is illegitimate.

Yep. And I still think it's going to get worse. Wait until the health care bill passes. Even though it will be terribly watered down and one giant blow job to the insurance industry, the emotional minds of the base will convince their "rational" minds that our country has turned into the former Soviet Union.

These growing beliefs threaten to create a large pool of people more susceptible to extreme anti-government conspiracy theories and even calls to resistance on the part of extremist groups and movements, such as the militia movement, which may grow as a result.

Grow into what, though?

Some of these notions have even percolated beyond extremist groups and movements into the mainstream. One example is the Appleseed Project (also known as the Revolutionary War Veterans Association), a marksmanship program that combines firearms training with historical/political lectures on the battles of Lexington and Concord in the Revolutionary War. Trainees are taught not only marksmanship but the idea that they are equivalent to the Revolutionary War patriots and might have to fight for their liberty in the near future.

Great. So in addition to being a communist, a socialist, a Marxist, and a fascist, President Obama is now King George.

And isn't it funny that these same people who claim to know the "real" meaning of the Constitution also know the "real" meaning of the Bible? I don't think it's a coincidence that the base is largely made up of people who FEEL this way.

Now that we have defined the general issue, in part two of this series I will be taking a look at the next how this anger, hate and fear has become specifically mainstream.

Serendipity

Given the recent line of comments in various threads and what we here daily from the GOP, I thought this quote would very appropriate today.

What is objectionable, what is dangerous about extremists, is not that they are extreme, but that they are intolerant. The evil is not what they say about their cause, but what they say about their opponents.
--Robert Kennedy

Just...wow...

Even I didn't see this one coming.

Amazing.

Last Night

I was looking for one thing in last night's speech by President Obama regarding our country's new direction in AfPak. This was it.

In the past, we too often defined our relationship with Pakistan narrowly. Those days are over. Moving forward, we are committed to a partnership with Pakistan that is built on a foundation of mutual interests, mutual respect, and mutual trust. We will strengthen Pakistan's capacity to target those groups that threaten our countries, and have made it clear that we cannot tolerate a safe-haven for terrorists whose location is known, and whose intentions are clear. America is also providing substantial resources to support Pakistan's democracy and development. We are the largest international supporter for those Pakistanis displaced by the fighting. And going forward, the Pakistani people must know: America will remain a strong supporter of Pakistan's security and prosperity long after the guns have fallen silent, so that the great potential of its people can be unleashed.

My chief complaint thus far regarding President Obama's policy in AfPak has been relying to heavily on the weak government of Pakistan to go after Al Qaeda. It appears "those days are over. " I fully support the President in this endeavor and think that we will be, by and large, successful now that a more thorough plan for AfPak has been created.

Most Excellent, Sir...

In a recent thread over at TSM, a commenter named Mastiff left this most excellent post.

A primer in the proper relationship between intellect and emotion, according to Jewish mysticism.

You can imagine the human mind as being made of two components: the rational mind, and the emotional mind.

The rational mind can reason, but cannot impel action. In this model, it takes emotion to do that. A person totally devoid of emotion would starve to death.

If you decide on a course of action with the rational mind, and then lend motive force to your decisions with the emotional mind, then you are doing things the right way. For example, considering the phenomenon of slavery with the rational mind, you conclude that it is a gross offense against humanity. Then, your emotional mind conveys the full force of what that means, driving you with anger and righteous fury to do something about it.

If you decide on a course of action with your emotional mind, and then let your rational mind justify a decision already made (i.e. engage in "rationalization"), you are doing things the wrong way. For example, you want to have sex with a drunk girl. Therefore, you direct your rational mind to justify the decision to have sex ("she knew what could happen, she clearly wants it, she won't remember anyway," etc.), so that your conscience does not interfere with the pleasure of the act. Or less so, anyway.

As we watch President Obama's prime time address tomorrow night regarding his plan for Afghanistan, pay attention to the reaction. Who are the ones that "let their rational minds justify a decision already made?"

I've been thinking quite a bit lately about the classic "liberals lead with their feelings, conservatives lead with thinking" meme. I believe it was Last in Line that first uttered that little ditty on here way back in the day. I think I've heard it said...oh...A BAZILLION TIMES....since then by pretty much every conservative I know.

In fact, it was recently repeated at the gym by an airport policeman I have become friendly with of late. He went on to say that's why most women are liberal because they lead more with their feelings. Of course, right after he said this a woman walked up to him and told him she was conservative and he was full of shit which I found amusing.

I then proceeded to ask both of them who they thought kept the country safer...Dick Cheney or Barack Obama? They both chuckled and said "Dick Cheney, of course!!" When I asked them what their basis for this was, they gave me several "thinking" (not "feeling") gems such as "Obama's weak...he talks to our enemies" and "Cheney's not afraid to do what it takes to win...like put the screws to the terrorists." When they asked me who I thought was a better leader, national security wise, I said President Obama. They laughed and wondered why.

I said that, unlike Bush and Cheney, President Obama is actually going to increase the troop levels significantly in Afghanistan. In fact, he'll have done it twice. I told them that it's been over 8 years and we still haven't caught or killed Osama bin Laden or Ayman Al Zawahari...the two men who lead Al Qaeda...who were responsible for the worst attack in our country's history....an attack which occurred on the watch of Dick Cheney. Naturally, they proceeded to blame Bill Clinton and said I was being "mean" to Dick. After reading them Mastiff's 5th paragraph above and perfectly illustrating how they were the living embodiment of it (as is the majority of the GOP base these days), they then became furious and the woman called me a traitor...walking away saying she couldn't talk to me because I "hated America."

Eh, well...as long as they say "I think you are a traitor" instead of "I feel you are a traitor." That makes it all OK.

Oh Yeah?

Hey, Dick...I have two words for and your dithering ass...

Fuck (and) Off.

Thankful for the Truth

For those of you who want to know what ACTUALLY happened on the first Thanksgiving, check this out.

Origin myths do not come cheaply. To glorify the Pilgrims is dangerous. The genial omissions and false details our texts use to retail the Pilgrim legend promote Anglocentrism, which only handicaps us when dealing with all those whose culture is not Anglo. Surely, in history, "truth should be held sacred, at whatever cost."

Simply Beautiful

They had SEVEN YEARS to get Afghanistan right, and now they accuse Obama of "dithering."

---blk in comments.

Remember, they can make believe anything they want:)

Attack! Kill! Now!

Recently, Dick Cheney accused President Obama of "dithering" on Afghanistan. As expected, the right has pounced on this and fallen back into the "Obama is weak, they's a comin', he'll encourage terrorists to attack us" meme. Many have said that the president should listen to Generals MacChyrstal and Patraeus and approve the troop surge immediately.

The only problem with this opinion is that's not what General Patraeus has said. From the Defense Department web site.

n Iraq, getting the right strategy was just as important as the surge in personnel, the general said. “The real key in Iraq was the surge of ideas, not just the surge of troops,” Petraeus said. “Yes, the 30,000 additional troops that ended up being deployed during the surge enabled us to … implement time-honored counterinsurgency concepts more effectively and more rapidly than we could have.”

Multinational forces began living in the communities. They began protecting the people and securing their neighborhoods. “You cannot commute to the fight,” Petraeus said, and the command built 77 stations for coalition forces in Baghdad alone.

As attention shifts to Afghanistan, Petraeus said, people must remember that Afghanistan is not Iraq.

“All counterinsurgencies are local,” he explained. “You have to recognize the need for a truly nuanced and granular appreciation for local circumstances.”

Americans going to the country must understand the local customs and culture and the local power structures. “We are trying to help Afghanistan re-establish traditional ruling structures: the traditional [religious leaders], the traditional tribal leaders, who in many areas have been pushed aside, or killed, or run off by the Taliban or the more extreme leaders,” he said.

Wait, what? General Patraeus has said that it's a good thing to wait and get it right? Hmm, I wonder how long it will take for the base to call him General "Betray Us."

Corporate Abuse

Recently, I was asked in comments

What specific power has a corporation used to abuse you?"

Setting aside the fact that only an ostrich with his head buried quite deeply in the sand couldn't see how corporations of this country abuse and essentially enslave us, I do actually have a specific example.

Take a look at this postcard (left) I received in the mail from Center Point Energy, a private corporation.

If you do not call immediately, Centerpoint Energy will be required to take appropriate legal action to obtain access.

This is not the federal government trying to beat down my door. This is a PRIVATE company.

The only mention of the government in all of this is a federal statue that says that this private company can invade my home any time they want to and if I don't let them, then they can...what exactly? Sue me? Send Blackwater agents into my house to subdue my family and inspect the meter?

What's funny is that it's not even Center Point that does the inspections. It's a sub contractor. I did call and have someone come to my home. This company, RMR services, caught blazing hellfire for this card from Centerpoint customers...which is pretty much anyone with a furnace in my area. In fact, they are the only choice I have for gas in my area. So much for free will. Oh wait. That's right. I can burn a pile of wood in my front room. Great.

Someone care to explain to me how the "gubmint" is running the show here? It seems to me that Centerpoint greased the politicians to essentially have an organized monopoly and uses them if they need a tool to get into my home. Wooo-wee...them Feds have got me a quakin' now!

They's A Comin'

Talking Points Memo has an excellent piece today on the silly arguments about bringing the Gitmo detainees here to the continental US. There are many points made in the article that are quite accurate but my favorite is this one regarding the wetting of the pants by the right by what hirabis might say in court.

I cannot imagine anything KSM or his confederates would say that would diminish America or damage us in any way. Are we really so worried that what we represent is so questionable or our identity so brittle?

Yes, it is. Or, more specifically, their faith is weak. And by "they" you know who I am talking about. In essence, the central and motivating factor for the behavior of the right is that they really aren't very secure in their beliefs. It's why they accuse the left of going more with their "feelings" than their reason...ludicrous because, in addition to being the WORST fucking example of giving in to emotion, we are human beings who (gasp!) do have emotion. It's also ludicrous considering fear is all they really know.

It's why they have to have more people believe as they do otherwise there's a chance they might be wrong because less do. So, it's either you're with us or agin' us. Things have to be simple because complexity leads to doubt. And there can be no doubt. It's why they can't admit fault because their insecurity is so great that to do so would mean the end times.

The fact is that there is nothing the Kalid Sheik Mohammed could say that would change America. We are a country based on freedom and peace. He is a mass murderer who believes in putting the world in chains. The more he rants, the better it is for the world to see how much more integrity we have.

Quaking With Fear

I've had a few debates here and more than several over at TSM regarding government power. My friends on the right are convinced that government has more power than ever before. I contend that the real power lies within the private sector and the people that run our government are simply stoolies for the corporations of this country. I have pointed to K street and the massive growth of lobbyists as evidence but conservatives will not budge. The "Gubmint" is threatening me with a gun, they cry. Corporations are not.

Yet, an article in today's New York Times seems to suggest otherwise. Genentech, a bioengineering company, sent several talking points, through emails from lobbyists, to members of both parties. These talking points, in some cases the same language, were used in speeches on the floor of Congress during the debate over the health care bill. Essentially, we have a private company shaping policy and directing communication over a public issue: health care. I suspect that this will not be the only example to come to light.

Wow, folks. I'm quaking with fear at the awesome power of our "gubmint" who can now plainly be seen as nothing but over glorified middle men pretending to serve the public. Let's just dispense with the pretense (and the waste of tax payer money) and have the corporations of this country appoint a CEO of America INC.

Barf.

Back to the Bill

If I could pick one complaint about the House version of the health bill, I would say it really does seem to give insurance companies a break. A few of the Democrats that voted against the bill, including Dennis Kucinich, did so because of the mandate that decrees that everyone must have health insurance. If you can't afford it, the federal government would provide subsidies to insurance companies so that you can have insurance.

My question is how is this any different than bailing out AIG?

To me, this part of the new bill is reminiscent of Massachusetts universal care which vastly benefits the private sector. One way or another, the Man is getting his third vacation home with our money.

Of course, I can bitch about this all I want but I don't really see another alternative. Corporations of this country are so powerful that there will NEVER be a system like there is in Canada or Great Britain. And, with at least 30 million people believing that any government run system is going to cause our country to become EXACTLY like the Soviet Union in the year 1955, our plutonomy is going to roll merrily along.

Honor Them.

Find a veteran today, touch them on the arm, look in their eyes, and say thank you.

The Restroom Urinal at the Train Station

Bill Maher is right. The "public option" does indeed sound like the urinal at the train station. Who would want the public option? It just sounds gross. You can almost smell how disgusting it is.

The Congressional Budget Office, however, seems to think that the public option is no big deal. In fact, in a letter sent to the House, the CBO estimates that the public option portion of the bill will only attract about 6 million enrollees. They estimate that most Americans will stay with their private plans. They also estimate that the bill will reduce the deficit by 104 billion dollars over 10 years.

The CBO goes on to say that the public option would likely charge higher premiums than private insurers. This is due to their estimate that the people who would seek the public option would be higher risk patients and the fact that the public option would “engage in less management of utilization." So, the contention that the public option would drive private insurance out of business is not accurate.

Here is the CBO's breakdown of both the House bill and the Senate Bill.

CBO Score Of House Bill	CBO Score Of Baucus Bill
Costs	Reduce deficits: $104B/10yrs Cost: $894B/10yrs Spends on subsidies: $605B/10yrs On Medicaid/CHIP: $425B/10yrs On Small Employer Credit: $25B/10yrs	Reduce deficits: $81B/10yrs Cost: $829B/10yrs Spends on subsidies: $461B/10yrs On Medicaid/CHIP: $345B/10yrs On Small Employer Credit: $23B/10yrs
Insured	Uninsured reduced by: 36M Uninsured in 2019: 18M In Exchanges: 30M | Public Plan: 6M In Medicaid: 15M	Uninsured reduced by: 29M Uninsured in 2019: 25M In Exchanges: 23M In Medicaid: 14M
Revenue	Mandate penalty: $33B/10yrs Pay-Play penalty: $135B/10yrs New taxes: $572B/10yrs	Mandate penalty: $4B/10yrs Free rider penalty: $23B/10yrs New taxes: $196B/10yrs
Medicare and Medicaid	Total savings: 426B/10yrs Medicare Advantage: $170B/10yrs	Total savings: 404B/10yrs Medicare Advantage: $117B/10yrs

Now, the CBO has been touted by those who are against this bill as being sound financially. One would think this would be good news for them. In addition, if only six million people are going to use the program, that isn't exactly a "Soviet style takeover."

So, the bill...

Late Saturday night, the United States House of Representatives passed landmark health care legislation by a vote of 220-215. Over the next few days, we'll be taking a look at what's in the bill and what it means for you. Rather than tackle everything at once, I thought I would focus on one part per day (and perhaps the strands that trail out from that) and discuss it.

Many of you have asked me why I support a bill like this even though there are items in it that I would not find agreeable. For the first couple of days, I'm going to talk why I supported this bill singling out those specific points which I think have merit. The first one is the ejection from the capsule of pre-existing conditions. Thank God.

Under this new bill, a person can't be denied coverage because of a pre-existing condition. Not only do I support this from the point of view of a human being but it also makes sound financial sense. If someone is denied coverage but ends up in the ER or in ICU, the rest of us will still end up paying for it through higher premiums. Without this regulation in place, less and less people will be able to afford health care because insurance companies will simply raise their rates. Has anyone ever seen them go down?

Of course, the argument could be made that we could just let these people die but I think we are a better country than that. Somehow, their care is going to have to be paid for and whether it's through the government or private insurance, we will be the ones to pay. The insurance industry has shown that it has done a poor job regulating itself. Even with their higher premiums, they still needed to be bailed out by Uncle Sam (AIG etc) and then used that money for lavish vacation retreats (see: US plutonomy).

The government certainly isn't the perfect mechanism for this but what is the alternative?

220-215

The House passed its version of the health care bill last night in a vote of 220 to 215. Interestingly, one Republican, Joseph Cao from Louisiana, voted for the bill. "I have always said that I would put aside partisan wrangling to do the business of the people. My vote tonight was based on my priority of doing what is best for my constituents," Cao said. Maybe there is some hope for the Republican Party after all.

I was also interested at the bipartisan press conference after the signing in which both sides claimed victory and said they were happy (??) with the bill. For the Republicans, this was largely due to the Stupak amendment that bans federal money for abortions.

So my initial thoughts are fairly positive. In listening to Michelle Bachmann, it sounded like we were all going to be thrown into a boiling pit of sewage. I also thought the partisanship would turn even more acrimonious. Tomorrow, I'll start putting up some of the finer points of the bill and we can talk about them.

Reaching Out

We've been talking about "reaching out" to the right in comments lately so I thought I would share a recent Facebook status update of a friend of mine whom I call John Smith.

JOHN SMITH is going to grill meat and use lots of coals to emit as much carbon as possible and piss of the global warming nut jobs.

So, my question is this...how do I reach out to John, hmm?

Without Comment

Yep, pretty much.

Recovering conservative, Frank Schaeffer has had quite a bit to say these days about his former party. Schaeffer, whose father was close to President Reagan, President Bush (41), President Ford and Jack Kemp, has a new book out entitled Patience with God: Faith for People Who Don't Like Religion (or Atheism) and has been ripping out some zingers on his tour hawking it. Here are a few choice ones with which I happen to agree.

Combined with the fact that we began to lose parts of the culture war, when it came to other Americans beginning to recognize gay rights, expanding women's rights, abortion rights and such, the Religious Right and the Republican Party infected gun-toting America with a chip on its shoulder about a mile wide. This led to the myth that "they" (fill in the blank, gays, Jews, blacks, liberals --- whatever) are "taking away our country from 'us'"...

This would be the fear of the "other" that I have been talking about lately.

Conservative" means that you believe it's right to legalize torture, but reject health care for all.

Wow. I've never heard it put so succinctly before but yes, that is what it means to be conservative.

These days to be a conservative means that you hate the United States government elected by the people and believe that if millions of citizens are out of work that it's their own fault and that the rest of the community should not help them by spending tax dollars.

Yep.

To be a conservative means you believe that healthcare reform will lead to "death panels"; that the president of the United States is not a "real American"; that a university education is a dangerous thing; that Americans who live in big cities are less American than those who live in small towns; that brown people, blacks, progressive whites, gays, public school teachers, Hispanics, immigrants, are somehow conspiring to subvert the "real America" with a "gay agenda" or a "Muslim agenda" or at least the browning of "our" white America.

Oh no he di-int! The right is not racist!!! THE RIGHT IS NOT RACIST!!! THE RIGHT IS NOT RACIST!!! THE RIGHT IS NOT RACIST!!! THE RIGHT IS NOT RACIST!!! THE RIGHT IS NOT RACIST!!! THE RIGHT IS NOT RACIST!!!

(keep chanting this and maybe someday it will be true)

And now, the coup de grace.

In other words to be a conservative today is to be an anti-American, nihilistic libertarian know-nothing who believes in unregulated consumerism and the theology of dominion. It is in fact what conservatives of the 60s said the hippies were: selfish brats with no sense of responsibility to anyone. It's also a party of armed revolution not so subtly egging on its lunatic fringe to commit violence. It applauds white rubes who show up at public meetings carrying loaded assault weapons "to make a point" and signs reminiscent of Timothy McVeigh and his famous T-shirt; "the tree of Liberty must be watered with the blood of tyrants" and the like are held up by Murdoch/Beck/Fox and company --- those profiteers off the unregulated market --- as paragons of good sense and free enterprise and gun rights.

My question for conservatives who post here...how is he wrong? Virtually everything I have seen over the years on this blog and in discussions with the right adheres to the paragraph above. And it's getting worse every day.

Of course, it's not enough just to rip the psychotics who run the GOP now. What should they actually be?

An actual conservative believes in community and accountability to a moral tradition that puts the greater good of others ahead of oneself. Take a look at the way the very conservative communities of New England's Puritan towns were arranged around the village green known as "the commons."

Shared public spaces were owned by the community, for instance grazing land, and town meetinghouses. People were obliged to show up and participate in the fledgling democracy and vote. Taxes were dispensed by committees for charitable purposes. A duty to government and obligations placed on citizens by other citizens --- when it came to putting the life of the community ahead of the self --- were the norm. The free-market and individual enterprise were strictly curtailed based on not just the needs of the community but, when it came to things like banking and lending, the Old Testament teachings that frowned on "usury" --- in other words banks making more money than they should from ordinary people-- were upheld.

And the line that is sure to explode heads...

President Obama is a conservative. He believes in the brotherhood of all people. He believes in the freedom of the individual to make moral decisions. He believes that sexuality, religion and skin color should not define us but the content of our characters should define us. He believes that we are our brother's keeper. He believes in loyalty to community and country --- in other words patriotism, whether that's the honor of serving in the military or the honor of paying taxes to support not just national defense but how we treat what the Bible calls the least amongst us.

I agree completely. And I think many on the right know this which is why they have become hyper ragers right now. How dare President Obama try to out conservative the conservatives! Let's paint a Hitler moustache on him and scare some people. Yeah, that'll work!

Mr. Schaeffer's right, dudes. What the fuck happened to your party?