The Robin Hood Tax.

This is the video which Richard Curtis has put out on You Tube to promote a Robin Hood tax which would force bankers - the people who tax payers have bailed out to the tune of billions, whilst still paying themselves massive bonuses - to donate 0.05% levied on each bank trade ranging from shares to foreign exchange and derivatives, creating a cash pile to be spent on measures to combat domestic and international poverty as well as fight climate change.

A slick advertising campaign by Empire Design features slogans such as: "This is the first tax you'll be in favour of" and "Small change for the banks, huge changes for the world".

"As a result of the financial crisis there are suggestions there's no money to fight climate change, there's talk about cuts to schools and there's concern where the money will come from to meet the Millennium Development goals," Curtis said. "There is money in the banking system. There has been a huge expansion in banking activities. And yet we may all have to pay more VAT on everything we buy.

"I understand it is complicated and contentious and there are other ideas on the table, but what we are trying to create is an instinctive link between fixing banks and the huge challenges facing people on this planet. Do we drop promises on child poverty or do we tax the British public? Or do we work with banks to find a solution?"

The tax has long been demanded by campaigners but brushed aside by politicians and bankers as an impossible dream. Buoyed by the support of the UN, Gordon Brown last year became the first global leader to publicly call for its introduction as a way for banks to compensate society for causing the global financial crisis.

It's a tiny amount to ask the banks to pay and it could generate as much as $700 billion worldwide to be spent on worthwhile causes.

I am glad that Curtis has put his weight behind this. It is not unreasonable that we ask the banks to give something back. After all, if they can afford to give themselves bonuses, they can afford to give 0.05% of their dealings to good causes.

Click here for full article.

Tags: Robin Hood tax, Nighy, Curtis, banking crisis

Right-wing media jump to defend Palin after "crib note" criticism.

I didn't comment on Sarah Palin reading from her hand during the question and answer session following her speech to the tea party convention because I really didn't think it a big deal.

I did point out the irony of her attacking Obama for reading off a teleprompter whilst wondering whether or not "around the world, people who are seeking freedom from oppressive regimes wonder if Alaska is still that beacon of hope for their cause." I thought that a valid thing to highlight. It's a boob that she would, perhaps, not have made had she availed herself of a teleprompter.

However, it really is amusing to watch the people of Fox News rush to defend their heroine for using crib notes so shortly after attacking Obama for using a teleprompter.

Gretchen Carlson replied, "I think she did it on purpose. Yeah, because I think it's an exact opposite of reading off the teleprompter. Reading off a complete script written for you with every word in a sentence, and here she's just taking crib notes on her hand. It makes it look as if she can just talk off the cuff and that she just jotted down a few couple notes before she went off to give a big, long speech." Later, co-host Brian Kilmeade called it "folksy," and "down to earth."

Very few politicians give speeches without a script, whether it be written in front of them or on a teleprompter, which is what makes the Republican attack on Obama so very, very lame.

But to watch the way they defend one of their own for doing the very thing which they have attacked Obama for is simply hysterical. They leap through hoops of hypocrisy rather than simply state the obvious: ALL politicians use prompters. We should limit our argument to the points which they are making, not the method by which they remember those points.

Tags: Fox News, Palin, Obama, teleprompters

Liasson points out that shoe-bomber Reid was Mirandized without a "hue and cry".

Someone, at last, says it:

Liasson: ...don't forget Richard Reid, the shoe bomber was also mirandized and I don't remember a hue or a cry about that at the time either. This is I think really unfortunate all around if you think that politics should stop at the water's edge, it should also stop at national security matters and alleged terrorists attacks.

Why are the Republicans allowed to spout this hypocritical nonsense and never get pulled on it?

Tags: Republicans, homeland security, Democrats

Cabinet did not need to hear legal doubts over Iraq invasion, says Straw.

This video is the moment when Alastair Campbell - Tony Blair's right hand PR man during the build up to the Iraq war - is said to have broken down on TV. He doesn't actually break down, but he appears flustered by Andrew Marr's question which is: If the intelligence does not show that the evidence about Iraq's WMD's was "beyond doubt", as Blair claimed it did, has Tony Blair mislead parliament?

Campbell's answer is that a decision was made and that Blair is an honourable man. It's clearly not an answer to the question.

Blair appeared recently on Fox News and attacked the hunt for a "conspiracy" and a "scandal" over his decision to commit British troops to the war.

On Fox news today, asked why the UK had had a succession of such probes into the invasion, Blair said: "Partly because we have this curious habit – I don't think this is confined to Britain actually – where people find it hard to come to the point where they say: we disagree; you're a reasonable person, I'm a reasonable person but we disagree.

"There's always got to be a scandal as to why you hold your view. There's got to be some conspiracy behind it, some great deceit that's gone on, and people just find it hard to understand that it's possible for people to have different points of view and hold them … for genuine reasons. There's a continual desire to sort of uncover some great conspiracy, when actually there's a decision at the heart of it."

That's what Blair and Campbell's defences have now come down to: "you're a reasonable person, I'm a reasonable person, but we disagree". Blair made "a difficult decision" - and from Blair's world view difficult decisions are always to be applauded - and that's where we have a fundamental disagreement. Blair is now arguing that we are being unreasonable to even question the logic of his decision and to question whether or not he was telling parliament the truth when he made statements, some of which we now know to be false, in order to persuade parliament to vote in favour of the war Blair was proposing.

Blair now sees even asking these questions as "a continual desire to sort of uncover some great conspiracy", rather than what they actually are. An attempt to discover whether or not Blair over played his hand when trying to get the country to agree to the Iraq war. An attempt to clarify whether or not Blair "sexed up" - to use Gilligan's famously disputed phrase - his case for war.

Blair now objects even to that question being asked. One gets the distinct feeling - when one looks at both Blair and Campbell's reactions - that they are starting to circle the wagons.

Now, Jack Straw goes back to the Chilcot inquiry to claim that there was no need for the cabinet to be told that the legality of the war was questionable.

Straw told the inquiry that the cabinet included a number of "strong-minded people", among them Gordon Brown, John Prescott, David Blunkett, Charles Clarke and Margaret Beckett: "None of them were wilting violets; their judgment was that it was not necessary to go into the process by which Peter Goldsmith came to his view. I don't recall cabinet as a whole receiving legal advice on the matter," Straw told the inquiry. "All [the cabinet] wanted to know was: is it lawful or is it not lawful?" What was required in the end was "essentially a yes or no decision" from the attorney general, he added.

The inquiry has heard how Sir Michael Wood, the FO's legal adviser, and his deputy, Elizabeth Wilmshurst, said an attack was unlawful without a fresh UN resolution. In a memo, Wood warned Straw: "Force without security council authority would amount to a crime of aggression." Straw, now justice secretary, replied: "I note your advice but I do not accept it."

The fact that the questionable legality of the proposed war was kept from the cabinet only strengthens the appearance that Blair was intent on war at all costs, if that was what Bush decided upon.

It is easy to see why Blair wants this entire escapade to be viewed as merely "a difficult decision" which he had to take, for that's the only way to look at it which casts him in a honourable light.

My problem with Blair in the run up to the Iraq war was that I found it impossible to believe - as he often claimed at the time - that he looked at evidence and made "a difficult decision". I got the distinct impression that he was doing the very opposite. He had made a decision to stand beside Bush no matter what, and he then started looking for evidence to back that decision.

The entire process was back to front. And that's why Blair and Campbell and others are so outraged at the current line of questioning.

Their mendacity is coming under the spotlight.

Click here for full article.

Tags: Chilcot Inquiry, Straw, Blair, Campbell, Iraq war

Palin: 'It Would Be Wise of Us To Start Seeking Some Divine Intervention in This Country Again'

During the Question and Answer session which followed her speech, Sarah Palin revealed her big plan for getting the US back on it's feet.

And then I think kind of tougher to, kind of tougher to put our arms around but, allowing America’s spirit to rise again by not being afraid, not being afraid to kind of go back to some of our roots as a god fearing nation where we’re not afraid to say, especially in times of potential trouble in the future here, we’re not afraid to say, you know, we don’t have all the answers as fallible men and women so it would be wise of us to start seeking some divine intervention again in this country, so that we can be safe and secure and prosperous again.

So, that's the plan? Pray?

Leaving aside the small matter of separation of church and state, didn't the Republicans just have a president who took the country into a disastrous war because God told him to do it? Why would a repeat of that be a good thing?

I mean the last holder of Obama's office was such a religious nutcase that he wasn't even embarrassed telling President Chirac that he wanted to invade Iraq because “Gog and Magog are at work in the Middle East".

And, despite Palin's claim, that asking for divine intervention shows how fallible men are, in the case of the Bush administration it produced a degree of certainty which meant that facts mattered less than the president's own beliefs.

People are ten times more dangerous - and far less open to reasoning - when they believe that they are doing God's own work. So, no Sarah, that's a simply terrible idea.

Tags: Palin, tea party protests, divine intervention

Cameron Clutches at Straws.

There seems to be no end to David Cameron's political opportunism. Three Labour MP's and one Tory peer face charges over the expenses scandal and have threatened to claim parliamentary privilege to avoid prosecution. Personally, I think it's a ludicrous defence, as parliamentary privilege is there to protect an MP's right to speak freely without fear of prosecution, it is not there to prevent prosecution for MP's who have broken the law. However, that is a matter for the courts to decide, which is why I find Cameron's intervention here so opportunistic.

In a speech on new politics, Cameron will tomorrow pledge to introduce a Parliamentary Privileges Act to ensure that MPs cannot invoke a 300-year-old bill that protects parliamentarians from legal liability "for words spoken or things done in the course of, or for the purposes of or incidental to, any proceedings in parliament".

Pledging to prevent this happening in future, the Tory leader will say: "Look how [Gordon Brown] tolerates the disgusting sight of Labour MPs taking parliamentary privilege designed to help MPs fight for their constituents; for truth and justice, and abuse it in order to avoid prosecution for fraud and wrongdoing. I can announce today that I have asked George Young [shadow leader of the commons] to prepare a new Parliamentary Privilege Act to clarify the rules of parliamentary privilege, to make clear that they cannot be used by MPs to evade justice."

Cameron also criticised Labour after the party's lawyer agreed to act on behalf of the MPs. Labour dismissed the ­criticisms because the MPs, who have been barred from standing for the party at the ­election, instructed the lawyer themselves. ­Hanningfield, who lost the Tory whip on Friday, is also claiming parliamentary privilege.

Once again, Cameron is so keen to be seen "doing something" that he is promising action where none is needed. I don't think there is an intelligent being alive who thinks that this defence has a hope in Hell of succeeding, so why is Cameron promising to change the law?

The time to change the law is if a ludicrous defence like the one being proposed by the three Labour MP's and the Tory peer succeeds. Should this defence fail, as everyone thinks it will, then the law will be shown to have worked perfectly well and there will be no need to change it.

As Number 10 has stated, Cameron is acting with "desperation". He imagines that this makes him look decisive, but it simply reeks of opportunism. He should let the court do it's job, then decide whether or not the law works. He shouldn't be second guessing the court's decision before it has occurred. And he certainly shouldn't be proposing changing the law until we have seen whether or not it works.

Click here for full article.

Tags: Cameron, Brown, MP's expenses scandal

Republican: Non-Christians Should Leave US.

I really like Cenk's take on this. The US was actually set up to ensure that all religions could be practised freely, rather than the very narrow definition which Tancredo gave to the Convention.

And, as I look at footage of that Convention, I am really hard pushed to see any person of colour anywhere amongst the throng.

Tags: Tancredo, Republicans, Palin, tea party

Another Thought...

As Palin does what Republicans always appear to do, aligning herself and her fellow tea partiers with "ordinary folks"and"truck drivers", two things strike me as odd about this claim.

First, how many "ordinary folk" can afford to spend $549 to attend a political rally?

And secondly, when Tom Tancredo implies that Obama was only elected because the people who voted for him were either stupid or immigrants who could not speak English:

Tom Tancredo, a former Republican congressman who ran for president in 2008 on an anti-illegal immigration platform, said of the voters who elected Mr Obama: “They could not even spell the word ‘vote’ or say it in English and they put a committed socialist ideologue in the White House — Barack Hussein Obama!”

In his most incendiary comment, he invoked the segregationist methods of the southern states, saying that Obama had been elected because "we do not have a civics, literacy test before people can vote in this country".

As Obama was actually elected by 52.3% of the popular vote, just who exactly is being elitist here?

Tags: Palin, Tancredo, tea party protests

Palin: People seeking "freedom from oppressive regimes wonder if Alaska is still that beacon of hope for their cause"

She starts her speech by saying how proud she is to be an American.

She then asks the audience, "Do you love your freedom?" She then repeats, in case the birthers assembled in front of her didn't catch it the first time, "I am so proud to be an American" and then polishes the cliché ridden opening off by stating, "Happy birthday Ronald Reagan!"

The video is about 1minute and 21 seconds into it's 59 minute and 11 seconds playing time and I am bored already. I know this woman only speaks in platitudes but, even by her standards, this is shocking.

Talk about giving them what they want. And, apparently, they are paying her $100,000 for this gunk. Which is possibly why, so early on in her speech, she states, "I look forward to attending more tea party events in the near future." At $100,000 a pop I would look forward to that.

The New York Times report that she fed these eleven hundred people, paying over $500 a pop, "exactly what they wanted to hear."

Ms. Palin gave the Tea Party crowd exactly what they wanted to hear, declaring the primacy of the Tenth Amendment in limiting government powers, complaining about the bailouts and the “generational theft” of rising deficits, and urging the audience to back conservative challengers in contested primaries.

“America is ready for another revolution!” she told the crowd, prompting the first of several standing ovations.

The speech was closely watched as a potential signal of Ms. Palin’s political future and the extent to which the convention would embrace her. But Ms. Palin, while aligning herself firmly with the Tea Party, nevertheless urged the 1,100 delegates who had gathered in a hotel ballroom not to let the movement be defined by any one leader.

“This is about the people, and it’s bigger than any one king or queen of a tea party, and it’s a lot bigger than any charismatic guy with a teleprompter,” she said.

That was just one of several digs at President Obama. “How’s that hopey-changey thing workin’ out for you?” she asked at one point.

In her most frontal assault on Obama she cites the Christmas Day bomber and decries the Democrats for treating his attempted terrorist attack as a crime rather than "an act of war" and says, "We need a Commander in Chief, not a professor of law standing at a lectern". It's a line designed to please this audience and they duly loved it.

She then hits Obama a few times for relying on teleprompters, and - ironically - swiftly shows why politicians find them useful by stating:

And around the world, people who are seeking freedom from oppressive regimes wonder if Alaska is still that beacon of hope for their cause."

It struck me as an instant reminder of her gaffe filled election campaign with McCain, where every single interview and speech appeared as mine fields to be manoeuvred with the greatest care and one found oneself feeling embarrassed by her blatant lack of knowledge.

From the subjects she hit upon tonight (North Korea, Iran, Japan) one can only hope that she has brushed up a lot since then. But she continues to give the impression of someone who can only speak in the broadest of terms, terms which it appears she has learned at the feet of Glenn Beck.

The Tea Party crowd simply adore this stuff, but, if I am honest, I find it shrill and rather boring.

Click here for whole speech.

Tags: Palin, tea party convention

Buchanan: Democrats lose the tea party protesters "because you show contempt for them".

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

According to Pat Buchanan, the Democrats lose the tea party protesters "because you show contempt for them".

This exchange becomes heated when Joan Walsh uses the phrase "birthers".

Apparently, according to Pat's world view, it's perfectly acceptable for people to question the president's place of birth and his right to hold the office which he holds, but it's simply outrageous to think up a derogatory name for such people. He now actually blames the Democrats for the fact that the tea party protesters hate them.

The people who turned up at rallies with posters like this are suddenly very thin skinned about name calling.

Buchanan has always lived in a separate universe as far as I am concerned, but this is simply a new low.

The notion that the tea party protesters would support Obama were it not for name calling from some Democrats is simply laughable.

They have called him a socialist Kenyan Marxist dictator, and now Buchanan can sit there with a straight face and spout this nonsense?

He now seeks to make the Democrats responsible for the behaviour of the more extreme elements of his own party.

Tags: Buchanan, Walsh, tea party protesters

BAE admits guilt over corrupt arms deals.

There were many of us who were outraged at the time by Tony Blair's decision to directly interfere with a criminal investigation, when he stopped an investigation into the Al-Yamamah deal.

Blair's reasoning, that continued investigation would result in the Saudis refusing to share intelligence with the UK, was outrageous. The notion that companies and country's could avoid criminal culpability by issuing threats went against everything which most people know to be fair and right.

Thankfully, the Americans decided to take the case on and investigate what Blair was refusing to allow the British legal system to look into.

And, in truth, the findings are no great surprise. There was obviously a reason why Blair was so keen for people to stop asking questions.

The arms giant BAE yesterday agreed to pay out almost £300m in penalties, as it finally admitted guilt over its worldwide conduct, in the face of long-running corruption investigations.

For 20 years, the firm refused to accept any wrongdoing, despite mounting evidence of alleged bribes and kickbacks, much of it uncovered by the Guardian.

But BAE yesterday said it would plead guilty to charges of false accounting and making misleading statements, in simultaneous settlement deals with the Serious Fraud Office in the UK and the department of justice in Washington.

The admissions in the US covered BAE's huge £43bn al-Yamamah fighter plane sales to Saudi Arabia and smaller deals in the Czech Republic and elsewhere in central Europe. In the UK, the admissions cover a highly controversial sale of a military radar to poverty-stricken Tanzania, which the development secretary Clare Short said at the time "stank" of corruption, but which the then prime minister, Tony Blair, forced through the cabinet.

The deal with Tanzania was particularly despicable. In this instance Tanzania was sold a £28 million military air traffic control system, which only becomes outrageous when one realises that Tanzania does not have an air force.

Claire Short: "Every way you looked at it, it [the deal] was outrageous and disgraceful. And guess who absolutely insisted on it going through? My dear friend Tony Blair, who absolutely, adamantly, favoured all proposals for arms deals.

"It was an obviously corrupt project. Tanzania didn't need a new military air traffic control, it was out-of-date technology, they didn't have any military aircraft – they needed a civilian air traffic control system and there was a modern, much cheaper one. Everyone talks about good governance in Africa as though it is an African problem, and often the roots of the 'badness' is companies in Europe."

There's no way that Blair will ever issue regret over what he did, the man has simply become incapable of feeling such an emotion.

But, at last, the Americans have revealed what Blair wished to keep hidden: there was corruption involved in those arms deals, even if the details of that corruption will remain hidden.

And I am pleased to see that Tanzania are to be compensated:

The Serious Fraud Office said in its announcement yesterday that some of the £30m penalty BAE was to hand over in the UK would be "an ex gratia payment for the benefit of the people of Tanzania".

It's taken a while, but now that Blair is out of office the light is finally being shone on much of the stuff which he, when in office, worked so hard to keep from public view.

Click here for full article.

Tags: Blair, Saudi Arabia, Tanzania, BAE

Jon Stewart on The O'Reilly Factor Round Two.

Part two of Billo's interview with Jon Stewart. The right wing clichés fall out of Billo's mouth with such speed that they are tripping over each other.

UPDATE:



What were they thinking? Fox have put the whole unedited version on their website. I think Stewart takes O'Reilly and Fox News apart.

My favourite statement from Stewart about Fox News and their blatant hypocrisy now that a Democrat is in the White House was this:

I know what this is. I come from Jersey—it's the same thing: "I'm not saying your mother's a whore. I'm just saying she has sex for money. With people."

[..]

[F]ox News used to be all about, you don't criticize a president during wartime. It's unacceptable, it's treasonous, it gives aid and comfort to the enemy. All of a sudden, for some reason you can run out there and say, "Barack Obama is destroying the fabric of this country."

O'Reilly was the one who used to insist that people should back Bush at a time of war or "Shut up!" The US is still at war, but the rules have changed now that a Democrat is in charge.

Tags: Jon Stewart, Bill O'Reilly

Tea Party turns nasty: ‘It’s our country – let’s take it back’

The Tea Party conference has opened revealing what the London Times has called "a dark underbelly of xenophobia" beneath all their talk of independence and self sufficiency.

Yet the speech that opened the Nashville event yesterday, an address greeted with whoops and cheers from the mainly white audience, reflects a movement that also appears to have a less attractive side to it.

Tom Tancredo, a former Republican congressman who ran for president in 2008 on an anti-illegal immigration platform, said of the voters who elected Mr Obama: “They could not even spell the word ‘vote’ or say it in English and they put a committed socialist ideologue in the White House — Barack Hussein Obama!”

Decrying America’s multiculturalism, Mr Tancredo said that Republicans and Democrats had voted for a black man because they felt they had to. To a standing ovation, he shouted: “We really do have a culture to pass on to our children: it’s based on Judaeo-Christian values.”

“This is our country,” he declared. “Let’s take it back!” He added, to applause: “Cultures are not the same. Some are better. Ours is best!” The crowd, some wearing recently purchased T-shirts saying “Keep the change — I’ll keep my FREEDOM my GUNS and my MONEY”, loved it.

Whenever these people speak of taking their country back I become uncomfortable. Take it back from whom?

I really dislike the suggestion that something has been stolen from these people. There was an election and the party which they now seek to influence - the Republicans - had been in power for eight years, during which time the deficit had ballooned and America's international reputation was seriously damaged by an illegal war and by the fact that the world's only superpower had started to engage in torture.

Obama offered America a way out of all of that. America, unsurprisingly, decided to boot out the party which had led them down such a dark path.

I said at the time of the election that I expected the Republican party to splinter, in much the same way as the Labour party splintered in the eighties, with the more extremist elements claiming that they lost because they were not right/left wing enough.

The Tea party movement fit into that analogy perfectly.

They claim that they are actually independents, but all of the things which get them fired up are age old right wing canards.

Tancredo said nothing that surprised me. And neither will Palin when she takes to the stage later tonight.

She campaigned by trying to appeal to "real Americans" - which is obviously how this sub group choose to view themselves - and she will do more of that later.

But it's simply impossible listening to Tancredo speak, to ignore the fact that colour is part of what is enraging these people.

In his most incendiary comment, he invoked the segregationist methods of the southern states, saying that Obama had been elected because "we do not have a civics, literacy test before people can vote in this country". Southern segregationist states used to prevent black people having the vote by setting them restrictively difficult qualification tests, a historical allusion lost on few of the delegates present.

Tancredo's crime here is that he has verbalised what has, until now, usually been left unsaid.

UPDATE:

As the editors at Imagine 2050 observed:

It is obvious that Beck and Tancredo are trying to push the issue of immigration to the forefront of the tea party movement, something that was explicitly clear during Tancredo’s speech.

Click here for full article.

Tags: Tancredo, Palin, tea party protests

O'Reilly Denounces Kos Poll as a "Fraud".

I've spoken before about the new Daily Kos poll which highlights the insane things some Republicans believe.

Now, Bill O'Reilly has come out and said that the poll is "a fraud".

As Olbermann and Markos Moulitsas point out, O'Reilly should actually be proud of that poll as it means that Fox News are being successful in selling the message which they are pushing.

But it's fascinating to watch Fox News attack Kos for pointing out that some of the themes which their network has been pushing are actually believed by some of their viewers.

Tags: O'Reilly, Moulitsas, Fox News, Republicans

Palin Camp Rips Limbaugh, Hits His “Retard” Comment As “Crude And Demeaning”.

When Rahm Emanuel called the liberal activist strategy on health care, “f–king retarded" Sarah Palin called for him to be fired.

So, many people were fascinated at what she as going to say when Rush Limbaugh came out with this:

“Our political correct society is acting like some giant insult’s taken place by calling a bunch of people who are retards, retards,” Rush said, adding that Rahm’s meeting yesterday with advocates for the mentally handicapped was a “retard summit at the White House.”

Her spokeswoman has since issued a statement:

“Governor Palin believes crude and demeaning name calling at the expense of others is disrespectful.”

Okay, so she has said that Rush's words were "crude and demeaning", but I note that she is not calling for him to be fired. That's a punishment which she appears to think only Emanuel deserves.

Funny that...

Click here for full article.

Tags: Palin, Limbaugh, Emanuel

Obama urges civility: 'Surely, you can question my policies without questioning my faith -- or for that matter, my citizenship'.

It's becoming a theme of Obama's presidency; civility.

That there is another way for politics to be conducted.

Obama: Civility also requires relearning how to disagree without being disagreeable -- understanding, as President [Kennedy] said, 'Civility is not a sign of weakness.' Now I am the first to confess I am not always right. Michelle will testify to that. But surely, you can question my policies without questioning my faith. Or for that matter, my citizenship.

He is, of course, right. And it's interesting that, even at the venue at which he chose to appear, the National Prayer Breakfast, the audience warmly applauded him when said there was no need to question his citizenship.

The National Prayer Breakfast is "organized by the fundamentalist religious organization and prominent D.C. institution, the Fellowship Foundation (a.k.a The Family)", so it's about as right wing as you can get. And yet even they can see how insane some of tea party members charges against Obama's presidency actually are.

Tags: Obama, National Prayer Breakfast, birthers

Most Israelis disapprove of Netanyahu.

Benjamin Netanyahu's popularity is starting to wane in Israel, but not for the reasons that I had imagined.

But the main reason for the drop in his popularity is his decision to freeze construction in the settlements - something no right-wing prime minister before him ever dared to do. The dry facts tell the whole story: Netanyahu is losing support among right-wing voters (though not in the Likud). At the same time, he is gaining popularity among the center and the left. The voters on the right side of the political spectrum are disappointed with him. They still backed him after he declared his support for the two-state solution, but once he took a concrete step they started to turn a cold shoulder.

So, the right wing in Israel are okay with him talking about a two state solution, but they are simply furious when he starts to do anything which could help to make that two state solution more likely.

Perhaps they thought, as I did, that Netanyahu was simply mouthing words to please Obama. After all, there is nothing in his past which would lead one to believe that he is serious about making peace with the Palestinians. And there are precious few actions he has taken since becoming Prime Minister which would lead one to believe that this is what he wants.

I happen to think that the right wingers have no need to worry. Netanyahu is not going to make any serious steps towards peace unless Obama applies real pressure to him, and I see no hint of Obama even considering doing that.

But their fury at him for freezing some settlement building shows that the Israeli right have no intention of ever coming to a deal with the Palestinians.

That's what Obama is actually having to deal with here, I just wish he behaved as if he understood that. He appears, to me, to be waiting for unreasonable people to behave reasonably. That's simply never going to happen.

Click here for full article.

Tags: Israel, Palestine, Netanyahu, Obama, Likud, settlement building

Large Portion Of GOP Thinks Obama Is Racist, Socialist, Non-U.S. Citizen: Poll.

What the Hell is wrong with the Republicans? A new poll shows that, amongst self identifying Republicans, an astonishing set of beliefs have taken hold.

The numbers speak for themselves -- a large portion of GOP voters think that President Obama is racist, socialist or a non-US citizen -- though, when considering them, it is important to note that a disproportionate percentage of respondents are from GOP strongholds in the South (42 percent) as opposed to the Northeast (11 percent). Also note that this is a poll of self-identified Republicans, which means that independent Tea Party types are not included.

The full figures just beggar belief:

• 39 percent of Republicans believe Obama should be impeached, 29 percent are not sure, 32 percent said he should not be voted out of office.
• 36 percent of Republicans believe Obama was not born in the United States, 22 percent are not sure, 42 percent think he is a natural citizen.
• 31 percent of Republicans believe Obama is a "Racist who hates White people" -- the description once adopted by Fox News's Glenn Beck. 33 percent were not sure, and 36 percent said he was not a racist.
• 63 percent of Republicans think Obama is a socialist, 16 percent are not sure, 21 percent say he is not
• 24 percent of Republicans believe Obama wants "the terrorists to win," 33 percent aren't sure, 43 percent said he did not want the terrorist to win.
• 21 percent of Republicans believe ACORN stole the 2008 election, 55 percent are not sure, 24 percent said the community organizing group did not steal the election.
• 23 percent of Republicans believe that their state should secede from the United States, 19 percent aren't sure, 58 percent said no.
• 53 percent of Republicans said they believe Sarah Palin is more qualified to be president than Obama.

39% of self identifying Republicans believe that Obama should be impeached? For what? And more than half of them think that Sarah Palin is more qualified to be president than Obama?

When you start talking about wanting a president to be impeached before there has even been a whiff of scandal, then I think you have lost your marbles. And the notion of a Sarah Palin presidency is simply too bonkers to even contemplate.

Click here for full article.

Tags: Republicans, Obama, socialist

Ed Schultz Pleads For Health Care Reform, Calls Lieberman A 'Coward' .

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

I am with Ed Schultz when he speaks of all the things which the US had got right, and with him even more when he states that, when it comes to healthcare, the US has buggered it up big time.

It astonishes me that the world's most powerful country does not offer healthcare free at the point of need to it's citizens. And it leaves me baffled when I hear people like John McCain imply that the US healthcare system is better than that of the Canadians or the Brits, when the facts simply don't support such a claim.

Tags: universal healthcare, United States

Stewart: Fox turns "reasonable concerns" about Obama, economy into "panic attack about the next coming of Chairman Mao."

I simply love this guy. I can fully understand why he is one of the most trusted people on American television.

Here he tells O'Reilly what's wrong with Fox. And I simply love O'Reilly's notion that Glenn Beck is an "independent." If that's right, then I'm a ballerina...

UPDATE:





Here's the whole thing. I love how he compares O'Reilly being the most reasonable voice on Fox News to "being the thinnest kid at fat camp."

Tags: Jon Stewart, Bill O'Reilly, Fox News, Glenn Beck

Barak: make peace with Palestinians or face apartheid.

Ehud Barak has stood up and made the exact same point which I have been harping on about for ages.

Ehud Barak, Israel's defence minister, last night delivered an unusually blunt ­warning to his country that a failure to make peace with the Palestinians would leave either a state with no Jewish ­majority or an "apartheid" regime.

His stark language and the South African analogy might have been unthinkable for a senior Israeli figure only a few years ago and is a rare admission of the gravity of the deadlocked peace process.

There are only so many ways that this conflict can be resolved, and Netanyahu's intransigence is no less than an inability to face facts.

You can have a one state solution, a two state solution, ethnic cleansing or an apartheid regime.

Those are the stark choices facing Israel and the two state solution is the only solution which suits the Israelis, which is why Netanyahu's refusal to countenance it means he is unwilling to accept reality.

Barak, a former general and Israel's most decorated soldier, sought to appeal to Israelis on both right and left by saying a peace agreement with the Palestinians was the only way to secure Israel's future as a "Zionist, Jewish, democratic state".

"As long as in this territory west of the Jordan river there is only one political entity called Israel it is going to be either non-Jewish, or non-democratic," Barak said. "If this bloc of millions of ­Palestinians cannot vote, that will be an apartheid state."

He described Israel and the Palestinian territories as the historic "land of Israel" to which Israelis had a right.

"We have to demarcate a border within the land of Israel," he said.

"We have a linkage, we have a right, but the reality of standing on the stage of history in realistic terms requires us to pay attention to ­international constraints."

Barak is to be applauded for saying what he has said. The truth is, as Obama articulated it, that peace will be good for Israel, good for the Palestinians and good for the Americans.

It is ideological blindness which prevents Netanyahu from coming to the table. For even if he gains what he wants, an Israeli state incorporating both Judea and Samaria, Israel loses. Palestinian demographics will see to that.

One has to be wilfully ignoring that fact, or simply unable to bring oneself to accept it, to continue to behave in the way Netanyahu behaves.

Obama should take Barak's words as an encouragement to put more pressure on Netanyahu to give up his stupid stance.

Click here for full article.

Tags: Barak, Netanyahu, Obama, Israel, Palestine

Clare Short: Blair misled us and took UK into an illegal war.

Her evidence came as no surprise to anyone - after all she had resigned from the government over the Iraq war - but she, nevertheless, painted a fascinating picture of how the government was functioning in the weeks leading up to the conflict.

During nearly three hours of testimony, the then international development secretary, who resigned soon after the March 2003 invasion as a result of what she called broken promises, described the atmosphere within the government during the runup to war. It was chaotic and fraught, she said, adding: "We were in a bit of a lunatic asylum."

Blair she said, closed down all normal communications, and worked at making sure that the forthcoming Iraq conflict was never really discussed in cabinet. And she summed up Blair's attitude towards the truth in a way which really resonated with me, it's certainly the exact same conclusion which I have reached.

"There was a lot of misleading parliament by the prime minister of the day … I'm not saying he was insincere. I think he was willing to be deceitful about it because he thought it was right."

I have always said that Blair acted like a lawyer, meaning that the truth didn't ultimately matter to him, he was more obsessed with making an argument which resonated with the public and allowed the invasion to take place.

And she spoke of Blair's ludicrous obsession with blaming the French for the Iraq war, because of their threat to use a veto.

"In my view that was a lie, a deliberate lie," she said, referring to claims that President Jacques Chirac said France would veto a fresh UN resolution in any circumstances. "Blame the French, concoct the legal authority and off we go," she said. "The British government's capacity to think better than that is thrown away, to our eternal shame."

She was applauded as she left the inquiry. Clearly what she said resonated with the families of the bereaved.

Click here for full article.

Tags: Clare Short, Iraq war, Blair

Iran president Ahmadinejad accepts nuclear deal terms.

Well, well, well...

I spoke the other day of Obama increasing the pressure on Tehran:

The US will provide new anti-missile systems to at least four Arab countries, and help Saudi Arabia triple the size of a 10,000-man force protecting its most important potential military targets from attack. America's Navy will also begin deploying ships capable of intercepting medium-range nuclear missiles off the Iranian coast at all times.

And, almost immediately, we have a result:

Iran's president has said it is ready to send its enriched uranium abroad for further enrichment under a deal to ease concerns about its nuclear programme.

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad told state TV that Iran would have "no problem" if most of its stock was held for several months before being returned as fuel rods.

Correspondents say that such a decision would be a major shift in Tehran's position.

The US said that if this was a new offer, it was "prepared to listen".

Now, if Obama was prepared to use that same carrot and stick approach with Netanyahu, then I am sure he could go some way towards forcing the restarting of meaningful peace talks between the Israelis and the Palestinians.

At the moment, bugger all is happening, because Obama seems unwilling to apply any pressure to Israel. But, as appears from the situation with Iran, sometimes pressure works.

Click here for full article.

Tags: Obama, Ahmadinejad, Iran, nuclear proliferation

Krugman Hits Ailes for Fox's 'Deliberate Misinformation' on Health Care Bill.

Krugman tells Ailes - to his face - that his network engages in "deliberate misinformation".

And that really is the whole point with Fox News; it's not a news organisation, it's the broadcasting wing of the Republican party.

Tags: Krugman, Ailes, Fox News

Exclusive: Vote of no confidence in Tory economic policies.

As the election gets nearer more and more people want David Cameron to be specific about exactly what he would do were he elected. Cameron has, so far, managed to lead the polls simply by not being Brown, but that poll lead is starting to slip as more people realise that they don't know what it is that he planning to do.

The ComRes survey found that 82 per cent of people want Mr Cameron to be clearer about what he would do on the economy – including 82 per cent of Tory supporters. Only 24 per cent believe the recession would have ended sooner if the Tories had been in power, while 69 per cent do not.

Strangely, it is on the economic front that I find the Tories to be at their weakest, an area in which they have traditionally led Labour.

Cameron's position on the recent economic collapse was shocking. He wanted to simply allow the market to have it's way and argued against intervention of any kind. This was a position which was emulated by no other serious political party.

Yesterday Lord Mandelson attacked the "confusion and disarray" over the Tories' economic strategy. He described Mr Cameron as "bobbing around like a cork in water" and portrayed him and Mr Osborne as a "Laurel and Hardy duo". The Business Secretary said: "David Cameron should level with the British people. If he refuses to be clear, if he will not be honest, people will conclude that – for electoral reasons – he is hiding the truth and that the Conservatives' proposed cuts will indeed eat into the recovery and throw Britain back into recession and lost jobs."

This attack by Labour is long overdue. For months now the Tories have been allowed to speak utter nonsense publicly and for this to remain unchallenged.

For years Cameron and George Osborne were allowed to say more or less anything and the dysfunctional Downing Street machine never challenged them. Apparently part of the conversation between Mandelson and Osborne when they met famously on a boat in the Greek sunshine two summers ago related to the lack of any Labour onslaught against Tory speeches. Over a glass or two Mandelson told Osborne that he thought a speech the Shadow Chancellor had delivered to Demos that August had been preposterous. Osborne gave Mandelson the impression that he could not believe his luck at the lack of any scrutiny from Labour, in respect to that speech or any other. Finally it seems Labour responds.

The Tories are in a terrible mess when it comes to the economy, and can't seem to make up their minds what it is that they intend to do. At first they set out to sound tough, but they have been backpedalling away from that position recently, trying to reassure people that they won't actually do very much at all.

Now Cameron and Osborne choose to sound less austere. They will make a start with public spending cuts, but they will not do very much at first. The emergency budget becomes slightly less of an emergency. They planned to climb Mount Everest and were intending to make a first big leap, but have opted for a little preliminary jog on the ground instead.

It's no wonder that there is public confusion over just what exactly David Cameron is wanting to do, because David Cameron doesn't appear to really know what he wants to do.

He wants what he has always wanted: elected. And he'll say anything if he thinks it will make that more likely.

However,as the election approaches, the public are saying that they want more specifics. Cameron can only get away with being all things to all people for so long. And it feels as if the electorate are running out of patience.

Click here for full article.

Tags: David Cameron, Tories, economic policy, UK election 2010

UN find challenges Israeli version of attack on civilian building in Gaza war.

Israel has submitted a 46 page report to the UN challenging the findings of Goldstone, who stated that both Israel and Hamas had committed war crimes during the war in Gaza.

However, one of the claims Israel is making has been challenged.

The Israeli report looked in detail at a handful of incidents, including the attack on the al-Badr flour mill in northern Gaza, which was severely damaged.

The UN mine action team, which handles ordnance disposal in Gaza, has told the Guardian that the remains of a 500-pound Mk82 aircraft-dropped bomb were found in the ruins of the mill last January. Photographs of the front half of the bomb have been obtained by the Guardian.

This evidence directly contradicts the finding of the Israeli report, which challenged allegations that the building was deliberately targeted and specifically stated there was no evidence of an air strike. Goldstone, however, used the account of the air strike as a sign that Israel's attack on the mill was not mere collateral damage, but precisely targeted and a possible war crime.

The flour mill attack was not the most serious incident of the war: although nearly 1,400 Palestinians and 13 Israelis were killed in just three weeks, no one died at the mill. However, because it was a civilian building producing food – the only operational mill in Gaza – the incident received particular criticism from Goldstone, who concluded that the building was hit by an air strike, the attacks were "intentional and precise", and they were "carried out for the purpose of denying sustenance to the civilian population". He added that the attacks violated the fourth Geneva convention and customary international law and may constitute a war crime.

The Israelis are anxious to dismiss the claim that they deliberately attacked the flour mill, as such an attack is an obvious attempt to starve the local population, but the flour mill was not the only place of production which was hit.

Gaza's largest concrete factory, at a different site a few miles away, was also destroyed, as were several large food processing plants.

The Israelis greatly damaged their reputation during the war on Gaza by, amongst many other things, sending forth Mark Regev to set out their defence. His defence at times bordered on the ridiculous.

He eventually started claiming that one could not trust the evidence of any victims who lived under authoritarian regimes as they could be lying for fear of reprisal. He provided no evidence to counter the charges made against Israel but, instead, simply insisted that one should not believe the victims. It was an extraordinarily clumsy and unconvincing defence.

So, I am not surprised that the report Israel have submitted to the UN has been found to contain factual inaccuracies. Her defence of her actions in Gaza were clumsily contrived at the time and have not improved since.

Related Articles:

Robert Fisk: Israel feels under siege. Like a victim. An underdog.

Israel: Oops, We Did Shell U.N.'s Gaza Compound With White Phosphorus!

Click here for full article.

Tags: Israel, Gaza, Hamas, Mark Regev, war crimes

David Gregory to Axelrod: 'Shouldn't Obama Move to the Center?'

Where exactly is the middle in American politics?

MR. GREGORY: Let me move on to domestic matters and that pretty extraordinary appearance on Friday in Baltimore at the House Republican retreat. The president came there, a kind of British style question-and-answer period. He even gets the blueprint for the Republican agenda from the House side. I wonder whether the decision to accept that invitation-- was there recognition on the president's part that if he wants to be more than a one-term president, he's got to govern from the middle?

MR. AXELROD: You know, David, I'd say a few things about that. First of all, the decision to attend was not a last-minute decision on our part, it was, it was, it was on the calendar, we were aware of it. The Republican caucus had been good enough to extend that invitation. And this is something that--we had visited the caucus before. But it's interesting the way you asked the question: Does he, does he--did he do it because he wants to be more than a one-term president? We don't sit around in the White House making calculations on that basis. The president of the United States has one concern, which is how do we move this country forward, how do we get people back to work, how do we lift incomes, how do we build some security for the middle class who have been facing economic challenges not just through this recession but for a decade or more? And, and that's what he's thinking about. And if we can get some cooperation from the other side to do that, we're going to be a stronger country for it. That's why he went to the caucus, and that's why we're going to continue to have a dialogue with Mr. Boehner and others.

MR. GREGORY: Does he feel, does he feel like he has to move to the middle to achieve?

Obama has hardly governed from the left as the left of his party have not seen, for example, a public option in his healthcare bill. So why do people like Gregory insist on implying that Obama is somehow too left wing?

Republicans seem to insist, as they did shortly after Obama was elected, that America is "a centre right" country and that the only way a Democrat can successfully run the country is if he adopts the very policies which the public rejected at the election.

There are no polls which support this position, with many stating that Obama is actually not going far enough with his proposals.

And yet, the American MSM continue with this babbling about Obama being too left wing.

If only....

Tags: Obama, Gregory, American MSM

Mahmoud Abbas: Israel's West Bank occupation leading to one-state solution.

Mahmoud Abbas is only stating the obvious when he says that there will come a day when a two state solution between the Israelis and the Palestinians is impossible and a one state solution will be the only way to end the crisis.

This is what I don't understand about the intransigence of people like Netanyahu. It is so spectacularly short sighted. Either he agrees to a two state solution or eventually he will be left with the choice of a one state solution - in which Israel, due to Palestinian demographics, essentially disappears - unless, of course, he imagines the world will be content to watch Israel ethnically cleanse the area of Palestinians or perhaps he thinks he can simply continue with Israel controlling the lives, water and air space of the Palestinians.

Abbas is now offering proximity talks with Israel and is still offering a return to full peace talks if only Israel will abide by her commitments under the 2002 road map and halt the illegal building of settlements. To this day, Netanyahu refuses to do so, which makes one wonder how serious Netanyahu is about achieving a political solution here.

I have also been greatly disappointed with Obama's handling of this, as it appears has Abbas:

Last month Obama conceded that the US had failed to achieve "the kind of breakthrough that we wanted" in the Middle East and might not have raised expectations as high if it had anticipated the political problems.

Speaking in London after meeting Gordon Brown and the foreign secretary, David Miliband, the Palestinian leader said he did not know why the Americans "backed off" their demand for a full freeze. He would consult with Arab allies before responding on Thursday to the US Middle East envoy George Mitchell's call for proximity talks.

"If there is any substance in the response from the Israeli side – for example, if they accept the framework of a two-state solution based on the 1967 borders and an end to occupation, with timelines and mechanisms – then there will be progress," Abbas said.

Israel is being pressed by the US to respond with confidence-building measures, including an end to military incursions, dismantling of checkpoints and release of prisoners, if indirect talks take place.

Abbas also said he would be prepared to resume full face-to-face peace negotiations if Israel froze all settlement construction for three months and accepted its June 1967 borders as the basis for land swaps. "These are not preconditions, they are requirements in the road map. If they are not prepared to do that, it means they don't want a political solution."

I have some sympathy for Obama because, had Olmert still been in power, he would have found it much easier to make progress here. However, he is stuck with Netanyahu; and Obama, for reasons best known to himself, seems reticent to take the old dog on.

This has only made Netanyahu even bolder and he now openly defies US policy in the Middle East by proposing the building of even more new settlements on Palestinian territory.

And he has done all this with the American president looking on as though he were helpless.

Well now Abbas is seeking to put some pressure on Obama's shoulders.

But if Israel continued to resist an end to occupation, he would resign and refuse to stand in new elections: "I will have to tell our people there is no hope and no use in my staying in office."

Abbas has long been touted by the American's as the "moderate" Palestinian with whom the Israelis can have dealings, rather than Hamas, who were the people the Palestinian electorate chose to represent them.

But, if even the "moderate" Abbas finds it a waste of time pretending that there is such a thing as a peace process in the Middle East, then Obama's Middle East policy will have failed. And, if it fails, it will have failed because Obama has become the latest in a very long line of American presidents who feared standing up to the Israelis.

It's not too late for Obama to show that he has a spine on this issue. I have long said that Netanyahu will not respond to attempts to cajole him into doing the right thing. Netanyahu is the man who marched in front of a coffin bearing the legend "Rabin is murdering Zionism" the last time a serious attempt was made to resolve this conflict. He does not want peace.

He will only respond to pressure and only Obama has the power to apply it. He should start do so, forcefully and immediately.

UPDATE:

Here's the way in which Obama shows his resolve with other nations which defy him. Obama offered Ahmadinejad a new way out of the current impasse and, for a while, it looked as if this avenue might bear fruit. However, no nuclear inspectors have been so far allowed access to Iran's nuclear facilities, so Obama has taken action.

The US will provide new anti-missile systems to at least four Arab countries, and help Saudi Arabia triple the size of a 10,000-man force protecting its most important potential military targets from attack. America's Navy will also begin deploying ships capable of intercepting medium-range nuclear missiles off the Iranian coast at all times.

This is what you do when you are getting nowhere, despite making reasonable offers to someone. You apply pressure.

Why can't Obama apply the same kind of pressure to Netanyahu? Threaten to withdraw American aid and remove the automatic veto of all criticism of Israel which the US supplies at United Nations. Obama, at the moment, does nothing no matter how blatantly Netanyahu defies him.

Click here for full article.

Tags: Abbas, Netanyahu, Israel, Palestine, Obama