I've had some notes in draft form since August that I've been wanting to share….and today, thanks to Lou and Bill-o,….is the day.

First, this short video from WorldNetDaily on July 30, 2009….

"I beheld Satan as lightning fall from heaven." (Luke 10:18)

When I started doing a little research, I found the Greek word for 'lightning' is 'astrape', and the Hebrew equivalent is 'Baraq,'" said YouTube contributor "ppsimmons," a self-described Christian with a theological education and many years in the ministry, who spoke to WND under condition of anonymity out of concern for members of his local church.

..[..]..

He then recalled Isaiah 14:14, where Lucifer, another name for Satan, is quoted as saying, "I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High."

"I wondered what the word 'heights' is," said ppsimmons, "and I looked it up in the dictionary, and it's 'Bamah.'"

Thus, on the video, the announcer notes, "If spoken by a Jewish rabbi today, influenced by the poetry of Isaiah, he would say these words in Hebrew … 'I saw Satan as Baraq Ubamah.'"

ppsimmons goes on to say this…

"I'm not proclaiming he (Obama) is the antichrist, or that I'm some kind of a Hebrew expert, but the word associations are indisputable…."

"Word associations." When it comes to America's first black president, winger-games of "word association" have broken out all over like a bad case of teenage acne. There's nothing wrong with that, of course. This is America…and an American, or group of Americans, can damn near say anything in public or private, no matter how ridiculous it might sound. For example, just consider most anything that Sarah Palin says on any given day. God bless the former 1/2 term Alaskan governor.

The casual reader might just dismiss the biblical exegesis by WorldNetDaily and ppsimmons with his Hebrew word association games…as wild-eyed, religious foolishness. But what do we do when the most popular cable teevee "news-analysis-bullsh*tting" program…The O'Reilly Factor….has a segment like this…

At first…I thought these two ass-clowns, Lou and Bill-o, were trying to be humorous. I know that when I first heard O'Reilly ask ex-CNN xenophobe, Lou Dobbs, "Barack Obama, is he the devil?"…..I laughed out loud…..but Bill-o remained grim faced, almost stoic…..so he must have been, like, Serious. Color me perplexed.

Then Lou Dobbs, fresh from getting his big "birther" ass kicked by CNN, didn't break a smile either at Bill-o's question. In his most Serious of faces (and Lou has many), Dobbs responds, "He's not the devil…..(mumble, mumble)…Afghanistan….(mumble, mumble)….1/6 of the economy….(mumble)..",….then Bill-o cuts Lou's mumbling off by rephrasing Lou's mumbling this way…

"So, you don't think he's the devil…but you think he's mismanaging the country at this point?"

Dobbs responds…"I think…..absolutely."

Saturday Night Live couldn't possibly have done any better. That's some funny stuff.

It's a close call for Dobbs…..Obama is not quite the devil yet, but "mismanaging the country"……well…..that's getting pretty close.

There's one thing I hadn't envisioned about Villager and Wingnut Media. I knew that they twisted stories and propagandized on an hourly basis…..I knew that they would come at Obama with all their Villager Little-Tykes Wingnut Weaponry…..and I knew guys like Bill O'Reilly and Lou Dobbs were irredeemable morons of mass stupidity….

…but I confess, I never thought they would be this funny.

Virginia Democratic Senator Jim Webb on AG Eric Holder's announcement that five of the 9-11 plotters will be tried in New York federal court…..

Those who have committed acts of international terrorism are enemy combatants, just as certainly as the Japanese pilots who killed thousands of Americans at Pearl Harbor. It will be disruptive, costly, and potentially counterproductive to try them as criminals in our civilian courts.

..[..]..

And we must be especially careful with any decisions to bring onto American soil any of those prisoners who remain a threat to our country but whose cases have been adjudged as inappropriate for trial at all. They do not belong in our country, they do not belong in our courts, and they do not belong in our prisons.

House representative Jim Moran (D-Va)….has a different take….

"They (Republicans, neo-cons, wingnuts) see this as an opportunity to demagogue," he said. "They will seize on any opportunity to do that, and that means they'll even take a stand that's un-American."

"It's un-American to hold anyone indefinitely without trial," Moran added. "It's against our principles as a nation."

"Opportunity to demagogue? Yep…like this….

Of all the mindless memes that non-reality-based adherents blare out like zombie pod people…..this one about "American soil" is the most ignorant. That's saying something….because the extreme right TeaBagger-FOX-Beck-Rush Group LLC….says a whole bunch of ignorant stuff on an hourly basis.

Giuliani is a discredited authoritarian moron, so it's easy to dismiss his grandstanding gibberish. But Rudy represents the FOX-BeckerHead position…so it will be the most prominent, because whatever FOX-Beckerheads spout is to be taken very Seriously by the Village. And, as the 9-12'ers and Rupert Murdoch have made clear, all wingnut-media decisions are for the purpose of "destroying Obama."

Remember, the only Job One there is for Republicans, Teabaggers, Drug Addicts on the Radio and myriad Wingnut Zoo Animals….is to bring about, as South Carolina cracker-senator Jim DeMint said…."Obama's Waterloo."

Now the analysis.

Senator Jim Webb is mistaken when he compares Japanese pilots during WW2 with 9-11 hijackers. Japanese pilots were operating under the authority of the Japanese Emperor. Japanese pilots during WW2 represented a country, a nation of people who declared war against America with the Pearl Harbor attack. WW2 was a war of nations. The militaries of the Axis powers were ordered by their nation's leaders to wage war on Allied nations.

9-11 Islamic hijackers represented who, exactly? A tiny international band of stateless anarchist criminals. No state or country sponsored the 9-11 hijackers. 9-11 hijackers did not act on the orders of a state dictator, politician, leader, or representative. Bin Laden's al-Qaeda carried out acts of violence for THEMSELVES….no one else.

Islamic extremists are seeking to make a symbolic "political statement" with their acts of violence. The entire point of killing others while killing yourself is to shock others into believing they are not safe. Japanese pilots who dropped bombs on Pearl Harbor were not making a "political statement"……they were beginning a monumental war of one nation against another. Japanese pilots were seeking to defeat the U.S. military, and thus America, the nation. Japanese pilots were not just trying to shock U.S citizens…..there was nothing symbolic about Pearl Harbor.

The second bit of "demagogic" nonsense-hype by American wingnuts only seeking Obama's demise by foolishly arguing we can't try 9-11 masterminds on "American soil"….is the, "they're too dangerous" to be housed in New York prisons…nonsense. There's no question the 9-11 plot was sinister and evil, but the five radical Islamic masterminds to be tried in New York federal court ain't squat compared to the most vicious, brutal, bloodthirsty deviants we currently have safely locked away in federal prisons, including, by the way, over 100 Islamic "terrorists."

To take the position that these five are too dangerous to bring onto "American soil" is, at best, a wingnut admission that America is weak, vulnerable, unsure of it's power and that the Constitution and set of laws which guide us are, somehow, deficient.

The final point I want to make is over the stupid claim that if we try 9-11 conspirators in New York…then New York will automatically become the focus of new terrorist attacks. Besides being another admission that America is just too weak or vulnerable to protect itself….this ignorant meme, meant only to diminish Obama's leadership, ignores the fact that America currently occupies two Muslim countries with some 200,000 U.S. soldiers. Daily, we are killing Afghani citizens. Also ignored is the fact that the American military has killed, at the very minimum, some 128,000 Iraqi citizens in our war of imperialistic aggression. 4 million Iraqis were displaced.

What more incentive would a Muslim crazy need to "focus" their extremist bile on the U.S.?

Here are the facts. George W. Bush, though he did not act on it, stated clearly that he would like to see Guantanomo closed. But Bush was a Republican president with very low approval ratings. In comes a popular Democratic President Obama who agrees with Bush's view of closing Guantanomo. If Obama succeeds in closing Guantanomo…..well, you know the wingnut drill….then America "fails."

The ignorant and disingenuous blatherings about not trying 9-11 conspirators on "American soil" is for the sole purpose of seeing Obama "fail."

Not that complicated.

In the decade from 1994 through 2004, the amount of money spent on pet food, pet supplies, veterinary visits, medicines, live animals and services, more than doubled from $17 billion to $34.2 billion,……. In 2005 alone $36.3 billion was spent.

According to an August 6th 2007 issue of Business Week magazine, we spend 41 billion dollars on our pets annually.

Cable tv…..Americans spent $51 billion on cable teevee in 2008.

The video gaming industry is projected to post revenues of $57 billion in 2009.

Gross revenues from legalized gambling reached a record-high $78.6 billion in 2003.

Americans spend approximately $228 billion per year of "disposable income" on the four above industry's products. Products, which, at best, we call entertainment.

Yet, according to conservatives and Republicans, America cannot afford universal health coverage for it's citizenry. Americans, if you listen to conservatives and Republicans, can afford to spend over $228 billion per year on entertaining themselves with adolescent foolishness….but they can't afford to pay $100 billion per year for universal health care coverage.

Here are some more products that Americans, apparently, can afford….

Starbucks…

At the end of Starbucks fiscal year (September 2007), the company has grossed $9.4 billion.

Movie Theaters $9.5 billion in ticket receipts.

Cosmetic surgery $12-18 billion

Professional sports revenue…..$16 billion.

Failing to prioritize the expenditure of one's resources is the mark of adolescence. And that's, really, all America is…..an adolescent nation. During the last 8 years, under the adolescent leadership of George W. Bush and fiscally conservative Republicans in Congress, 1 trillion dollars was spent on wars of adventurism and occupation, and another 1 1/2 trillion dollars of the Treasury's revenues was given back in tax cuts, the majority of which, benefitted the wealthiest.

That's 2 1/2 trillion dollars totally wasted. That much money would have paid for the next 25 years of the Democrat's proposed universal health care reform. 25 years. But see?….like when we were teenagers….it's just so much more fun and thrilling to blow that much money and have nothing to show for it afterwards. You know, the thrill of the moment…just like Mission Accomplished.

Congress is currently being held hostage by conservative adolescents from both parties…..silly juveniles like Evan Byah, Joe Lieberman, Ben Nelson, and all 40 of the Senate Republicans. Curiously, those are the same people who had no problem, whatsoever, in recklessly voting in favor of throwing away $2 1/2 trillion from America's Treasury during the fearless, clusterf*ck-rave-party-leadership of The Decider and his Dick.

That's just how adolescents act though….isn't it? While Americans are blowing over $200 billion every year on silly and non-productive personal entertainment…..the government which represents those Americans…..voted consistently to blow $2 1/2 trillion on adolescent-minded, non-productive, yet politically entertaining, joyrides of destruction.

So, when you hear the oh-so-very-serious-and-solemn warnings by the usual conservative suspects in the next few weeks…..repeatedly telling us that America simply can't afford health care reform, can't afford to extend health insurance to all it's citizens…..keep this in mind…..you're listening to pimply-faced, petulant adolescents who would rather enjoy the thrill of smoking political pot while driving the country's car 100 miles per hour….than studying hard to pass the nation's very difficult exam.

Back in August I wrote about the totally dishonest attempt by congressional representatives to discriminate against reproductive-age women by singling out the medical procedure of abortion as the only medical procedure banned from any "health exchange" insurance policies coming out of the Obama-led health care reform legislation.

Last night, the following House Democrats joined with GOP women's-rights bashers voting to forbid abortion coverage, and abortion coverage only, from all federally subsidized health insurance policies…..

OH-1,… Driehaus, Steve; OH-6,…. Wilson, Charles; OH-9,… Kaptur, Marcy; OH-16,… Boccieri, John; OH-17,…. Ryan, Timothy;…. OH-18 Space, Zachary.

Before last night's vote took place, Digby had this to say…

I suspect that the leadership decided that abortion was the least important thing they could throw to the slavering Blue Dogs to take home as a victory over the liberals in this debate. And they had to find a hippie to punch to make the thing acceptable to the villagers, so they decided to punch the desperate pregnant girl. She's used to it.

Since the Republicans have made themselves irrelevant with their obstructionism the Democrats have decided that in order to further the president's edict to change the tone and further bipartisanship they will just have to compromise with themselves.
Democrats everywhere will now be able to brag about furthering the Godly cause of forced pregnancy, while having also voted to pass health care.

Exactly.

Last night's House vote approving health care reform legislation passed by 220-215…just barely. And that was after a woman's legal right to a medical abortion was isolated as the only medical procedure unworthy of coverage by a subsidized national health care plan.

Those, you know, hyper-liberal Democrats in the House, approved by a 240-194 margin, Bart Stupak's (D-MI) amendment, which will….

"…..explicitly bar the public plan from covering the procedure. The amendment, approved 240 to 194, with 64 Democrats in favor, also would prohibit people who received insurance subsidies from purchasing private plans that covered abortion."

But wait…there's more…..

"The amendment would bar the new government insurance plan from covering abortions, except in cases of rape, incest, or where the life of the mother is in danger. The Democrats' original legislation would have allowed the government plan to cover abortions, if the Health and Human Services secretary decided it should."

See?….If a female was forced against her will to have sex, or was dominated to have sex by a family member,…..then government money will be permitted to be used to cover an abortion, should that female become pregnant. Or if the female might die as a result of pregnancy. But, by god, if the female consented to the sex, you know, enjoyed it….then, no way can tax dollars subsidizing health care exchanges be used to pay for an abortion.

This is as clear a case of anti-female, anti-sex, discrimination as we've seen since the dreadful Hyde Amendment.

The American forced pregnancy lobby now has a clear path forward. Having successfully restricted government subsidy money from paying for health insurance which includes specific medical procedures for women…and only those procedures……it seems obvious that a new floodgate of hateful discrimination will follow.

If it's the case that tax dollars cannot go to pay for health care insurance, either public or private, unless the American woman impregnated did not enjoy the sex….then wouldn't it also follow that any tax dollars….ANY TAX DOLLARS….could not be used to pay for an abortion, or health insurance which included coverage for abortion?

Wouldn't that mean that all federal employees, and independent contractors working for the federal government, could not pay for an abortion with their tax-payer-paid wages? Still tax dollars..right?Furthermore….wouldn't it also follow that all federal employees and independent contractors, you know, whose wages are paid with tax dollars, would also be prohibited from spending those tax-payer-paid wages on health insurance which included coverage for abortions?

Shouldn't a woman who got pregnant, and, you know, enjoyed the sex….who also happened to work for the federal government…and who wanted to exercise her legal right to choose…..shouldn't she have to document where the money will come from to pay for an abortion? Her wages come from the federal government…..that means that she only receives tax dollars….and as we now see, tax dollars CAN NEVER be used to pay for abortion AND tax dollars can never be used to pay for health insurance that includes abortion procedures (unless the sex was forced.)

Finally, as long as the Stupak amendment voters are being ridiculous….why not go all the way? Cash money is printed by the federal government and is processed by banks regulated by that same federal government. Since the federal government cannot, in any way, be involved in any aspect of payment for an abortion or insurance that might cover abortion…..doesn't the blindingly stupid Stupak amendment set the precedent that abortion can no longer be paid for…at all (unless the sex was forced)?

Perhaps women who wish to exercise their legal right in America will have to resort to bartering with their reproductive doctors,….perhaps baked-goods, or seamstress work…..in order to pay for their right to choose.

That's if…you know….they enjoyed the sex.

Like Columbine, like the D.C. sniper case, the tragic killing spree Thursday at Ft. Hood defies explanation. There really are no answers.

Major Nidal Malik Hasan killed 13 and wounded over 30 other soldiers and civilians in a crazed act of violence.

Unfortunately, the fact that Hasan was a Muslim will give cause to the American wingnut fringe to further discriminate against American Muslims.

I'm sure that Hasan's wicked act will lead some Republicans, who are already beating the drum to open an investigation into CAIR for allegedly secretly installing Muslim spy-interns in Congress, to embarass themselves and the nation by making wildly irresponsible comments about this terrible tragedy. But I suppose that's to be expected.

Hasan had been harassed because of his Muslim faith….but was not an extremist.

Hasan denounced the war on terror as a war on Islam.

Hasan shouted "Allahu Akbar" before opening fire on Thursday.

Law enforcement officials said they are trying to confirm if Hasan wrote Internet postings that include his name about suicide bombings and other threats, equating suicide bombers to soldiers who throw themselves on a grenade to save the life of fellow soldiers. Link

There's still no confirmation that Hasan wrote the internet posting cited. I would also add that if Hasan actually said that suicide bombers find some equivalency with soldiers who throw themselves on a grenade to save the life of fellow soldiers…….that isn't all that radical.

Hasan is a 39 year old Army psychiatrist who counseled soldiers returning from American wars in the middle east region.

Hasan is unmarried, kept to himself, and was not outspoken.

Hasan wanted out of the Army and had hired a lawyer to assist him in that effort. Hasan was willing to repay the government for the cost of his medical training.

Hasan was about to be deployed to either Iraq or Afghanistan. He had made several personal farewells to the few people he regularly came in contact with.

His family members have openly denounced Hasan's despicable action.

Why did Hasan do what he did? I don't think there's any answer.

No question, Hasan did not want to go to Iraq or Afghanistan. Did he choose to slaughter other soldiers so he would be incarcerated, preventing him from being deployed? Did he expect to be killed in the violence he precipitated? Was he taking out his frustrations on being harassed as a Muslim… on fellow soldiers?

Mainstream media, to it's credit thus far, hasn't gone off the deep edge on this story. I'm positive that FOX will groundswell this tragedy into yet another wingnut meme, if they aren't doing so already……but I don't think that's appropriate for the situation and, for sure, it won't be helpful.

My personal opinion at this point is that this Army psychiatrist, outwardly calm and under control, inwardly was suffering from sever mental illness….the kind that is so unpredictable, and often results in bloodbaths of horrendous proportion.

Next Tuesday Ohio voters will decide the outcome of three statewide initiatives. The Reverend's recommendation is for Ohio voters to vote "no" on all three.

Issue 1 is, I think, a symbolic initiative, a feel-good intitiative which proposes to give Ohio servicepeople, especially those who have served in Iraq or Afghanistan, up to a $1000 bonus as a symbol of Ohio's appreciation for their service.

If the state of Ohio were not scambling just to figure out what spending to cut next…..or what gambling games to legalize in order to close a big state budget deficit…..then symbolic bonuses to servicepeople could be seriously considered.

But Issue 1 includes the floating of bonds. $200 million worth of bonds. Ohio doesn't have any extra money to pay military bonuses to Ohio military personnel…..so if Issue 1 passes, Ohio will be committed to paying bonuses with the proceeds from selling bonds AND returns on those bonds when they come due, with money Ohio does not have.

Issue 2 is tricky, I think. A yes vote on 2 will permanently establish a Livestock Care Standards Board by amending the Ohio Constitution. This Board will set standards for animal care and well being at Ohio's farms. Issue 2 is being sold as a vehicle to protect Ohio's "farms and families", to maintain "food safety", to encourage "locally grown and raised food."

Issue 2 is pre-emptive. It is an attempt to get out in front of a possible 2010 Ohio ballot initiative making it a criminal offense to confine animals in tiny restricted spaces. California passed something like that in 2008.

Issue 2 is meant to benefit agribusiness interests in Ohio. Nothing wrong with that, really. However, rewriting the Ohio Constitution in order to shield Ohio agribusiness from accountability in raising food animals…….except from a farmer-friendly State Board…..I'm thinking…..is not the way forward for the Buckeye State. Vote no.

Issue 3 is deja-vu all over again, Yogi. A yes vote will put a casino in four Ohio cities, Cincinnati, Cleveland, Columbus and Toledo. That's it. Ohio has rejected statewide gambling efforts 4 times, yet, here we go again.

Now that Governor Strickland's effort to place slots at race tracks to help the state's budget deficit is in limbo, Issue 3 may just have a chance of passing. It shouldn't. Ohioans should vote no.

When it comes to casino gambling or slots, Ohio is late to the party. Other states are already positioned. Yes, Ohioans take a lot of their money over to adjacent state casinos right now. That is no excuse to pass some hastily-arranged new limited-casino plan, benefitting only a couple of big corporate gambling players.

If Ohio intends to introduce casino gambling into the state…..something I am for on the merits…..it has to be done with much more planning and creative thinking. Issue 3 does neither.

In addition, Issue 3 is, like Issue 1, a Constitutional Amendment. Once passed…..very difficult to change.

The Reverend encourages Ohio voters to just say no…..on Issues, 1, 2 and 3.

Democratic representatives Jane Harmon and Loretta Sanchez, both of California, and both self-labeled Blue Dog Democrats, have come out strongly in favor of a public option insurance provision in the final health care reform bill. Good for them.

If you've noticed, Blue Dogs are the darlings of corrupt mainstream media,…oddly though,…. only when Democratics hold power in Congress. Often the media gasbags, themselves pawns of big corporate interests, refer to the opposition of the Mighty Blue Dogs as the Genuinely-Serious concern of great patriots who serve only to resolutely stand watch over our tax dollars.

Total bunk.

But, just like with so-called Republican fiscal conservatives, the fiscal scolding by Blue Dogs is mostly all done for political perception purposes. In other words, the rhetoric of the Blue Dogs, like that from Republicans, can't be taken seriously.

From The Nation…..

The Blue Dogs parade as "fiscal conservatives" and "moderates," false advertising that the mainstream press mindlessly echoes. In fact, they are the epitome of a Washington captured by moneyed interests. They aren't working to ensure that healthcare reforms are paid for; they are laboring on behalf of insurance companies to protect their obscene profits. The Blue Dogs are maneuvering on behalf of Big Pharma to make sure the government won't negotiate reasonable drug prices. They're doing their best to derail reasonable tax hikes on the affluent, hikes that would make insurance affordable for working- and middle-class families. Even on the Blue Dogs' signature issue–the "pay-go" rules, which they insist must be passed into law–they exempt reductions in the estate tax on the wealthiest Americans and, of course, the cost of any military adventure whatsoever.

Are Blue Dog Democrats really fiscal conservatives? Of course not. Take a look….

In a bid to wrangle concessions from the Blue Dog Coalition on healthcare reform, House leaders Thursday (Sept. 24) released CBO estimates for liberals' preferred version of the public option that show $85 billion more in savings than for the version the Blue Dogs prefer.

..[...]..

The original House bill required the public plan to pay providers 5 percent more than Medicare reimbursement rates. But as part of a package of concessions to Blue Dogs, the House Energy and Commerce Committee accepted an amendment that requires the HHS Secretary to negotiate rates with providers. That version of the plan will save only $25 billion.

Including a public health care option tagged to Medicare reimbursement rates would save $85 billion additional dollars, many of them tax subsidy dollars.

Newsweek's Ezra Klein puts it this way….

In other words, the conservatives want to spend $85 billion more than the liberals do. Moreover, the CBO is estimating savings to the government. That is to say, the $85 billion reflects reduced federal spending on subsidies because premiums in the public plan will be lower. Savings to individuals and businesses paying lower premiums will be much larger than $85 billion, and politically, much more important.

But I thought the Blue Dogs' primary obsession was with saving federal tax dollars. So what's up here?

Mike Ross (D-AR), is the Blue Dog Democrat leading the charge against health care reform. In the health care "debate", Blue Dog Ross is standing sentry over America's tax dollars. It's why he exists.

Or not. Check out the first five minutes here….

It's no wonder that Ross liked the health insurance windfall bill (without public option) that just passed out of Mad Max Baucus' Senate Finace Committee…

Sen. Max Baucus's (D-Mont.) proposed healthcare compromise is "an idea worth serious consideration," a key centrist Blue Dog Democrat said Monday.

Having got his Blue Dog way by INCREASING the cost to tax payers by some $85 billion in the House Energy and Commerce Committe version of pending health reform bills….he quickly books over to a different justification for his fiscally non-conservative insistence….

If it (public option) had been based on Medicare rates, I can assure you that it would have eventually ended up resulting in a single payer-type system, because Medicare has really good rates, because they’re negotiating for every senior in America. Private insurance companies could not have competed with that. And so we would have at the end of the day ended up with single payer.

That is what moving the goalposts looks like…..but is Ross' new sleight of hand excuse for INCREASING federal spending…..the public option must be resisted because it's a Trojan Horse trick which will result in single payer for all while destroying private inusrers …is that even true?

No…..

The Lewin Group estimates that a public plan option that is limited to individuals and small businesses and must negotiate with doctors and hospitals will attract only 10 million Americans, and the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office has made a similar estimate.

The Lewin Group is a wholly owned public relations arm of United Health Care, hardly an objective source….and even they disagree with what Change-up Mike Ross uses for his excuse to RAISE costs to American consumers and the federal government.

What was it that the Blue Dogs stood for again?

There is no more self-satisifed, arrogant, repellent fellow in Congress than Senator Joe Lieberman (I-CT). As a Democrat, he couldn't get his nose up George W. Bush's derriere far enough. Lieberman, like all totally discredited neo-conservatives, not only cheered every bloody move by Bush/Cheney in Iraq, but encouraged the Terror Twins to attack Iran as well.

Lieberman so offended Connecticut Democrats by his continual sucking-up to the worst executive branch in U.S. history that they disowned him, running him out of the party and picking Ned Lamont instead to represent Connecticut's Democrats in the 2006 election cycle. Though Lieberman won the Conn. senatorial race as an independent, largely with the help of neo-conservative Republican voters, true liberals have never forgotten, nor forgiven, Joementum for his unacceptable behavior.

Joe made a decision last fall to campaign openly for the Republican losers of the last presidential election, McCain/Palin. Outrageously, Lieberman was a prominent speaker at last fall's Republican National Convention. Lieberman said of Barack Obama…“I’d hesitate to say he’s a Marxist, but he’s got some positions that are far to the left of me and I think mainstream America.” Mainstream America elected Obama with 53% of the popular vote and a virtual landslide of electoral college votes.

In spite of all that, Senate Democrats kept him in their caucus clubhouse as a member in good standing. While compromise is the hallmark of governing, compromising with the devil, they say, is always a losing proposition. And so it is with Mr. Joe Lieberman.

Though mistakenly attributed to Senator Harry Reid (D-NV), this statement captured the foolishness of congressional Democrats in acting as though Lieberman's turncoat performance had no meaning….

A member of the Senate Democratic leadership, who insisted on not being identified, said: “The bloggers want us to get rid of him. It ain’t happening.” He added: “We need every vote. He’s with us on everything but the war.”

And, rightfully, the "bloggers" still want to get rid of him. This is how Joe Lieberman is "with" Democrats on, you know, everything but the Iraq war….

Joementum in August…

Morally, everyone of us would like to cover every American with health insurance but that’s where you spend most of the trillion dollars plus, or a little less that is estimated, the estimate said this health care plan will cost. And I’m afraid we’ve got to think about putting a lot of that off until the economy is out of recession. There’s no reason we have to do it all now.

Lieberman believes it is "moral" when America attacks a sovereign nation, like Iraq, killing hundreds of thousands of Iraqis in the process, when Iraq posed no threat to the U.S. He believes it was "moral" to borrow endless amounts of money to attack and occupy Iraq. Lieberman believes that it is "moral" for the nuclear-armed country of Israel to hold the defenseless Palestinian people in a continual state of apartheid. Lieberman thinks it was "moral" for Israel to brutally attack Gaza with helicopter gunships, an action the U.N. has called a war crime. Lieberman thinks unilaterally attacking Iran is the "moral" thing to do.

That's what Joe means when he uses the word, "morally."

Outrageous health care costs have helped to fuel the current deep recession, but according to the "moral" Lieberman, we shouldn't address health care reform because, "morally", we're in a deep recession. Pure Republican-Speak. The language of the assholians.

So…surprise….Joe Lieberman, faux-chum of Democratic chumps, really ISN'T "with us on everything but the war", is he? The bloggers proven correct yet again, but, you know, those curseword-using bloggers have Cheetos dust (or something) on their keyboards.

It looks like Joe may very well join a Republican filibuster to stop a public option from being passed. Now, that would really be showing Democrats how much he is "with us on everything but the war." Huh?….

With Joe Lieberman, as with many narcissistic political assh*les, everything is all about him,…..or Israel, who he incessantly rushes to protect and defend. But one thing is for sure….Joe Lieberman does not represent the American people. Don't be surprised if Joe-Boy starts making a lot of appearances on whore-teevee-media, trying to make the final battle in the Senate over health care reform, as he does with most issues, all about himself.

See also….Joe Lieberman does his best to cover up war crimes.

You need to see this silent video warning President Obama to "give us our country back" by October 15th….or else….

It advises President Obama and other prominent people (“Our Dear Leader and co.”) to “leave now and give us our country back” and to do so by next week.

“If you stay,” the silent video message continues, “ ‘We, The People’ will systematically dismantle you, destroy you and reclaim what is rightfully ours. …

“We are angry and we are ready to take back the rights of the people. We will fight and We will win. …

“Dead line [sic] for your national response: October 15, 2009

“Thank you to all patriots who support our cause. … Be prepared for when the fateful day of the declaration of war is nationally announced.”

Listen to what this "Soldiers of Freedom" spokeswoman/actress says here…..

Now I'm sure that this type of revolutionary rhetoric is nothing but innocent free speech expression, protected and patriotically spoken free speech, as many on the right will most assuredly remind me.

Maybe.

But what if it isn't? What if this stuff is really what it appears to be….an open seditious threat to the U.S. President and the U.S. government?

What then?

Been meanng to write about this….

The Logan Act says that anyone who without government authorization “directly or indirectly commences or carries on any correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government or any officer or agent thereof, with intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government or of any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, or to defeat the measures of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.”

On June 28, democratically elected Honduran President Manuel Zelaya was removed from power….

Opponents ousted democratically elected Manuel Zelaya for trying to hold a referendum on rewriting the constitution. They accuse him of wanting to get rid of the single-term limit, a charge he denies. In a pre-dawn raid, the military seized a pajama-clad Zelaya and sent him to Costa Rica.

The Honduran Supreme Court of Justice issued this statement…..

"Today's events originate from a court order by a competent judge. The armed forces, in charge of supporting the constitution, acted to defend the state of law and have been forced to apply legal dispositions against those who have expressed themselves publicly and acted against the dispositions of the basic law,"

A man by the name of Roberto Micheletti was sworn in as the new Honduran president by the National Congress hours after Zelaya was arrested.

What's all this have to do with a U.S. law called the Logan Act?

The new Honduran leader has no real lawful authority because of how he was installed and how Zelaya was ousted. As a result…

"… the Obama administration and the rest of the world have shunned the Central American country, cutting off aid and travel visas."

No one accepts the legitimacy of the newly installed Honduran leader,….

This is a coup that has been denounced by everyone from the Organization of American States to the United Nations, which passed a resolution calling “categorically on all states to recognise no government other than that” of the elected president, Manuel Zelaya. No state has recognized Micheletti as president.

No state, that is, except the state of American Republicans….

Nine Congressional Republicans – including seven in the past week as the crisis heats up — have now met with Roberto Micheletti, who took power after a military coup June 28.

That's where the Logan Act applies. Even though no country recognizes the new Honduran leader, including the U.S., and President Obama has called for the democratically elected leader, Zelaya, to be re-installed as Honduras' rightful leader….

There have been three Republican trips to Honduras to meet with Micheletti: a July trip by House members Connie Mack (R-Florida) and Brian Bilbray (R-California); last week’s trip by Senators Jim DeMint (R- South Carolina), Aaron Schock (R-Illinois), Peter Roskam (R-Illinois), and Doug Lamborn (R-Colorado); and Monday’s visit by House members Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-Florida), Lincoln Diaz-Balart (R-Florida), and Mario Diaz-Balart (R-Florida).

Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen….

“Some people tell me 'de facto' government, but under the Constitution of the Republic I am seated here with the president of this country and it’s a great honor.”

Sen. Jim DeMint…..

“We saw a government working hard to follow the rule of law, uphold its constitution, and to protect democracy for the people of Honduras.”

To me, this looks like an open and shut violation of the Logan Act. The words and actions of these Republicans seems to be in brazen defiance of U.S. law. The kind of in-your-face lawlessness, bordering on treason, we often witnessed during the reign of Dick Cheney.

I can think of two reasons why these apparent GOP traitors are openly violating the Logan Act by working in diametric opposition to the United States President.

1) To openly defy the new American President in the hopes of weakening him somehow. Republicans have been the party of "hell, no" ever since Obama was inaugurated, openly wanting him to fail. Defying Obama on Honduras, most likely a violation of the Logan Act, is just another in-your-face "hell, no" activity. Just more daring.

2) Vicarious wishful thinking. As I predicted when Obama was elected, there is now a concerted effort by anti-democratic conservatives to impeach President Obama. Many of the signs at townhall bust-ups and TeaBag Parties have implied an impending patriotic civil war, "the tree of liberty refreshed with blood of patriots", "we came unarmed…this time", etc. There has been an unusual display of firearms at public political gatherings.

Perhaps those 9 Logan Act violating Republicans are rehearsing down in Honduras what they are wishing will/should happen in the U.S. I don't think this is far fetched in any way…especially after John Perry, Newsmax columnist, said recently that Obama….

"is inviting" a military coup and detailed the reasons he said officers might support such a "[m]ilitary intervention" with the end result being one in which "[s]killed, military-trained, nation-builders would replace accountability-challenged, radical-left commissars."

What do you think is going on here?