Joe Nocera, who writes the Executive Suite column for the New York Times, has done an interesting thing today. He 1) points out banks are lying about their involvement in subprime mortgages, he 2) notes that Barney Frank is absolutely wrong to defend them and 3) offers documents that support his claim. This is something we used to call "journalism," and I'm happy to see it:

“There has not been a case made that there is an enforcement problem with banks,” Edward Yingling, the head of the American Bankers Association, said last week. “There is a problem with enforcement on nonbanks.”

As I wrote in my column last week, this has become something of a mantra for the banking industry. We aren’t the ones who brought the world to the brink of financial disaster, they proclaim. It was those awful nonbanks, the mortgage brokers and originators, who peddled those terrible subprime loans to unsuspecting or unsophisticated consumers. They’re the ones who need to be regulated!

Apparently, when you say something long enough and loud enough, people start to believe it, even when it defies reality. Here, for instance, is the normally skeptical Barney Frank on the subject: “What happened was an explosion of loans being made outside of the regular banking system. It was largely the unregulated sector of the lending industry and the underregulated and the lightly regulated that did that.”

To which I can now triumphantly reply: Oh, really???

Last weekend, after the column was published, an angry mortgage broker — someone who felt she and her ilk were being unfairly scapegoated by the banking industry — sent me a series of rather eye-opening documents. They were a series of fliers and advertisements that had been sent to her office (and mortgage brokers all over the country) from JPMorgan Chase, advertising their latest wares. They were dated 2005, which was before the subprime mortgage boom got completely out of control. They’re still pretty sobering.

“The Top 10 Reasons to Choose Chase for All Your Subprime Needs,” screams the headline on the first one. Another was titled, “Chase No Doc,” and described the criteria for a borrower to receive a so-called no-document loan. “Got Bank Statements?” asked a third flier. “Get Approved!” In a number of the fliers, Chase makes it clear to the mortgage brokers that the bank doesn’t need income or job verification — it just needs to look at a handful of old bank statements.

“There were mortgage brokers who acted unethically, absolutely,” my source told me when I called her on Monday. (She asked to remain anonymous because she still has to work with JPMorgan Chase and the other big banks.) “But where do you think mortgage brokers were getting the subprime mortgages they were selling to customers? From the big banks, that’s where. Chase, Bank of America — they were all doing it.” So enough already about how the banks weren’t the problem. Of course they were. Here’s the evidence, right here. Read ’em and weep.

Listening to the golden boy, Paul Ryan present his argument about how to reform health care is the disease that needs to be given immediate health care attention to. Turning to the free market has failed America and he knows it and admits that too, but can't break from his party to tell the truth on how we should fix it. However, Barney Frank corners him into admitting that Republicans/conservatives, (whatever you call the party of George Bush) failed to reform health care for the eight years that they ran the country.

FRANK: I just want to ask Paul one question. … When did you figure that out? Because apparently for the 12 years that the Republicans were in control — eight of which had a Republican president — that hadn’t occurred to you. So I’m glad you now understand that. Can you tell me at what moment the revelation occurred?

RYAN: First of all, I introduced on this subject about six years ago.

FRANK: You had control of the Congress. Why didn’t the Republican Congress fix it?

RYAN: I will have a moment of bipartisan agreement. We should have fixed this under our watch and I’m frustrated we didn’t.

I doubt he's frustrated because Republicans never, ever wanted to fix health care for America. Michael Moore's movie called "Sicko" really was instrumental in shining a light on our health care nightmares to the country and made it a problem that no longer could be ignored. He deserves a lot of praise for that. And Frank gets major props for getting Ryan to admit that at least they failed under Bush. The next question is to ask the media: why then should we give a good damn about what conservatives have to say about health care if all they do is make outrageous claims about death panels and obstruct in an effort to discredit the president?

Ho hum! Another Monday, another story of official indifference to the lack of affordable health care. In the words of Barney Frank: On what planet do these people live?

The affordability question vexing Democrats is whether those with moderate income will be able to afford health insurance, even with the subsidies the legislation would provide and all sorts of new rules aimed at controlling costs.

Because the legislation would require nearly all Americans to obtain health insurance, affordability is a potentially serious political issue. That is particularly so because most people would incur a financial penalty — payable along with income taxes — if they did not obtain coverage.

Senator Charles E. Grassley of Iowa, the senior Republican on the Finance Committee, last week attacked the requirement to have insurance, the so-called individual mandate, as potentially imposing a crippling penalty of $1,500 on a family earning as little as $25,000 a year.

“It’s a pretty heavy burden for low-income families,” Mr. Grassley said in committee debate.

You know it's bad when Chuck Grassley is the voice of the working poor.

Some liberal Democrats are already suggesting that the legislation may not be worth adopting if it will end up forcing Americans to buy health coverage they really cannot afford.

“I am sympathetic, and I understand the concerns, and I appreciate as well the political volatility around the question of mandating or requiring coverage,” said Senator Debbie Stabenow, Democrat of Michigan, who is also on the finance panel. “The big question we have all grappled with is how do you make sure everybody is in, and that’s a tough one. It comes down to whether or not ultimately in this bill we can say this is affordable for people.”

Well, Debbie, I'd say the big question is: Who benefits? I don't doubt your sincerity, but I don't think everyone on the committee sees it the same way you so. Ultimately, is this a billion-dollar giveaway to insurance companies, a balm to the massive egos on the Senate Finance committee, or an actual solution to a very serious problem - namely, lack of affordable health care? I'm guessing the last is not all that important to the boys of the Senate Millionaires Club.

There are two obvious ways of making coverage more affordable, and neither is workable.

One would be to sharply reduce the cost of health care across the board, thereby limiting the cost of insurance. This is a chief aim of the Democrats’ bill, but it would require sweeping improvements in efficiency, including higher-quality, lower-cost treatment and better use of technology — all goals of the legislation, but not about to happen anytime soon.

The other obvious way would be to sharply increase government subsidies to help middle-class people buy insurance. Ms. Stabenow, for instance, has proposed capping the amount moderate-income Americans would have to pay for insurance premiums at 6.5 percent of income, with the subsidies paying the balance. The legislation now sets that cap on premium costs at 12 percent.

But President Obama has already sealed the top of the affordability box, telling everyone in his speech to Congress on Sept. 9 that he will not accept a health care bill that costs more than $900 billion over 10 years. And subsidies are already the biggest-ticket item.

Because after all, maintaining all those wars is expensive! Gotta prioritize here!

Some top White House officials, however, see a third way, a potential escape hatch: exempting more families and individuals on the basis of income from the penalty for failing to buy insurance, a fine that for families could run as high as $1,900.

The bill proposed by Senator Max Baucus of Montana, the Finance Committee chairman, would waive the penalty if the cheapest insurance, even with subsidies, would cost 10 percent of a family’s income.

Lowering the waiver threshold to 5 percent of income is a risky move, because limiting the threat of a penalty could leave more people uninsured, undermining a main point of the legislation.

Oh, come on. We all know the point of the current legislation as it stands. It's to put 40 million new victims on the insurance company rolls, thus ensuring massive quantities of campaign cash in the bank accounts of the cooperative politicians.

The Congressional Budget Office estimates that while there would be 29 million fewer uninsured people as a result of the legislation, a separate 25 million people would still be uninsured in 2019 — about one-third of them illegal immigrants.

Sparing more people from the penalty would certainly increase the projected number of uninsured, by tempting more people, particularly younger Americans, to continue going without insurance. But White House officials think the number of people willing to risk going uninsured would not rise by much, perhaps two million people. The budget office has not issued projections yet, and some Democrats warned that the erosion could be much worse.

Oh well! What's another two million college students who can't afford a doctor when they get the swine flu - a disease that has disproportionately fatal results in their age bracket?

And in the end, that may be the smallest price to pay to avert what could be a devastating political argument against the Democrats’ plan: that working-class Americans would be penalized heavily for not buying insurance they say they cannot afford.

Think of how amoral that argument is. People aren't really human, they're merely chips to be used in a high-stakes political poker game. Nice 'hope and change' there, President Obama.

Barney Frank is weakening the administration's proposed regulation of predatory lending because, well, the conservative Blue Dogs won't go along with the original version. The industry, of course, is taking that as encouragement, and they're pushing for an amendment that would neuter state consumer protection laws:

He would also drop language requiring providers to adhere to a “reasonableness” standard in offering products; in other words, financial institutions would have been required to asses whether there products were clearly understandable to consumers. That language was seen as too vague and would leave providers open to legal challenges.

The Administration is willing to go along. In an appearance Sept. 23 before Frank’s committee, Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner acknowledged some of the criticism of the Administration’s proposals and called Frank’s proposed changes, “a pragmatic helpful way to make sure you have the choice for protection.”

“There are lots of different ways to make sure that you don’t create too much unbridled authority that would be damaging to what’s an important part of our financial system,” Geithner said, according to the Associated Press.

Frank is also seeking to clarify just who would be regulated by the new agency, to address complaints by the US Chamber of Commerce that every small business that provides credit to its customers, or the service providers such as CPAs or advertisers who work for them, would be regulated by the new agency. Administration sources from economics chief Larry Summers on down have dismissed those criticisms as nothing more than “scare tactics” but they have nonetheless been effective. In an effort to eliminate that confusion and take it off the table as an issue, Frank will propose language that clarifies that many such businesses will not be included in the new agency’s mandate. Only bona fide providers of consumer finance offerings will be included.

In proposing the changes, Frank is “bowing to political reality” says Howard Glaser, a former top lobbyist for the Mortgage Bankers Association who now runs his own firm. In a note to clients, he points out that the Administration’s proposal was running into trouble with conservative Blue Dog Democrats.

They appear to have raised many of the concerns that have been voiced by the financial services industry and its allies at the US Chamber of Commerce, who have been lobbying heavily against the plan for the last couple of months. They argue that the proposed agency would cut back on the availability of credit, discourage innovation, and tie up many banks and small businesses in a new web of regulation. The Chamber and the community bankers have been taking the lead in fighting off the Administration’s proposal, since small business folk and local bankers who serve them win far more sympathy than do big banks and mortgage brokers at the moment.

Not that Frank’s moves are likely to slow them down. Even amidst news reports this AM that Frank was pulling back on the proposal, the Chamber announced a press conference for tomorrow morning once again criticizing the agency and how it would hurt small business.

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: (120)

PLAYS: (475)

From Hardball's Sideshow segment, some highlights of Barney Frank during Jay Leno's 10 @ 10.

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: (121)

PLAYS: (332)

Andrea Mitchell ask Barney Frank if he will support a bill that will as Mitch McConnell claims, but Medicare by nearly half a trillion dollars and without a public option. Frank rejects McConnell's accessment and says Obama's mistake was trying to get any bipartisan support. He then states something that should be said over and over again.

Frank: Let's just put it this way. If we hadn't waged that foolish, expensive, devastating war in Iraq we could have paid for health care two times over, so I reject the notion that there's no other way to find the funds for health care.

Amen brother.

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: (1141)

PLAYS: (9544)

Rachel Maddow talks to Congressman Barney Frank about the President's speech, the Republican response and whether there's any point in negotiating with them given how far to the right the Republican party is now.

Some of the better parts of this interview- Frank on Joe Wilson’s outburst:

I’d say what Wilson did was a mark of their frustration and you know, Barack Obama is a big boy. I think I must say that any Republican, particularly a Joe Wilson who’d want to get into a debate with Barack Obama is tugging on Superman’s cape and pulling the Lone Ranger’s mask, but if that’s what he wants to do… free country.

On bipartisanship:

The Republicans represent an extremely conservative faction and the notion that those of us who won the election with a solid majority should compromise 50/50 with those who won’t… well then why have elections?

[…..]

[T]his annoys me a little bit, this kind of like, I’m above the battle. I think the President underestimated when he came into office exactly how right wing the Republicans are and I’m glad he asked them today to join. I have no great hopes for it because they are in the control of the most conservative, knowing how right wing the Republican party has become, my only bad moment with Barack Obama during the campaign was when he said he was going to be post-partisan, and I got post-partisan depression, because I knew that that meant dealing with these people.

[…..]

Again, I think they forced him to get to the basics. I think he may have thought that they were more reasonable than they are. This collection of loons that you scrolled down there, I’ve got to say those people, if anybody needs a health plan in America, it’s those people who are in severe need of mental health services.

On some Republicans now complaining about their party's fringe:

I noticed last week in the New York Times that the responsible conservatives are starting to complain now that the arguments against the Obama plan and against our effort to do health care are being dominated by the crazies. Well, that’s their fault. They were very happy to have the crazies getting out there doing Hitler stuff and etc. But I think the Republicans, they don’t have good arguments. When people make ridiculous arguments against something, it’s because that’s all they’ve got.

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: (2412)

PLAYS: (21917)

Anyone who is aware of all Internet traditions has by now seen the footage of Barney Frank taking down the Larouchie who asked him if he would support a "Nazi policy" by asking her, "On what planet do you spend most of your time?" But Rep. Frank was in rare form that night, standing up to the uninformed shrieking of the right and offering a real lesson in how to argue with conservatives. Rep. Frank's office provided C&L with the tapes of that town hall meeting in Dartmouth from last week, and I put together a sort of greatest hits reel.

Frank explains what deficit hawks should concern themselves with:

"I am struck by those who say, well, you don't care about the deficit. No, I do. I do care about the deficit. That's one of the reasons, not the only one, why I voted against the single most wasteful expenditure in the history of America. The Iraq war. If we hadn't gone to the war in Iraq, which I thought was a terrible mistake and voted against, we would have had more than enough money to pay for health care."

He argues with a "tenther" who thinks that Congress isn't authorized to provide health care for their citizens:

Frank: Do you think Medicare is unconstitutional, sir?

Teabagger: I think that Medicare needs to be reformed.

Frank: Do you think it's unconstitutional? You said that the Constitution doesn't give us the authority to do it, but Medicare was done. And, do you think Medicare is unconstitutional?

Teabagger: I think that Medicare needs to be reformed.

Frank: But you won't tell me whether you think it's unconstitutional, which you said--

Teabagger: I am not a Constitutional scholar-

Frank: Then why did you start off arguing about the Constitution?

That's really a fantastic exchange, where Frank digs an inch below the surface and finds nothing. He insists on having this questioner back up the rhetoric he cribbed off of Free Republic or wherever he got it, and the guy just couldn't do it.

And this is my favorite part:

Teabagger: Can you pledge to all of us here tonight, that if a new government single-payer system is instituted, that you will opt out of your Cadillac insurance?

Frank: Yes I am in favor of single payer, and that's why I like Medicare. (yelling) You act as if you people have discovered it is August. I have been a co-sponsor of the single payer bill, I think it would be better...

Teabagger #2: But we watch tapes of Obama and everyone else secretly say they're in favor of an eventual single pay system.

Frank: I haven't... sir, it's been 21 years since I've had a secret. (Laughter) And I don't have one now! You have discovered that I'm for single payer! I've been a sponsor of single payer for years!

What you see here is several things: 1) Rep. Frank is always in control; 2) he concedes nothing; 3) he allows his opponents to hang themselves with the outlandish logic of their own claims; 4) he knows when to throw in a well-timed bon mot. At one point, Frank says, "When you say things that people can't refute, they try to drown you out. That's understandable." That's someone who is confident in their beliefs. Democrats could learn something from that.

One week ago we started a Netroots-wide action at Blue America, inspired by Darcy Burner's closing keynote speech at Netroots Nation, thanking the 65 stalwart progressives who have promised-- in letters to Speaker Pelosi and HHS Secretary Sebelius and to activists from Firedoglake-- to stick with the public option, even after the bribe-besoted Senate tries to kill it in the Conference Report this fall. Since then more than 6,400 donors have contributed almost $400,000.

Every member on the list has received over $3,000 from grateful donors, but some have been given way over that. People have asked me why some congressmembers-- like Barney Frank ($11,717), Lloyd Doggett ($9,173), Anthony Weiner ($9,836), Dennis Kucinich (7,622), Donna Edwards ($7,457)-- have wound up with so much more money than some of the others. After all, 60 of them signed Grijalva's letter to Sebelius clearly stating that they "stand in strong opposition to your statement that the public option is 'not the essential element' of comprehensive reform. The opportunity to improve access to healthcare is a onetime opportunity. Americans deserve reform that is real-- not smoke and mirrors. We cannot rely solely on the insurance companies' good faith efforts to provide for our constituents. A robust public option is essential, if we are to ensure that all Americans can receive healthcare that is accessible, guaranteed and of high-quality. To take the public option off the table would be a grave error; passage in the House of Representatives depends upon inclusion of it... a final proposal for the President's signature, MUST contain a public option."

Generally speaking the members with the most donations and the highest totals are the ones who have spoken out the most forcefully during the recess. Barney Frank's contributions shot to #1 after a Larry King Show YouTube went viral (over a million views) showing him answering a crazed and delusional teabagger comparing President Obama to Hitler. GOP propaganda whore Rush Limbaugh pushed Barney's donations even higher when he went off on a snide homophobic tirade the next day.

Similarly, the way Lloyd Doggett handled a disruptive mob of teabaggers at his town hall meeting early in the month won him a great deal of admiration from progressives, not just in Texas but across America. Anthony Weiner's aggressive and spirited defence of the Public Option on Morning Joe bumped him through the roof.

Donna Edwards' unimpeachable record of leadership has been an inspiration for progressives inside and outside of Congress. Last week she reiterated her commitment to real healthcare reform:

I just want to be absolutely clear-- comprehensive reform must include a robust public health insurance option. Otherwise, we're just tinkering around the edges and run the risk of giving even more power to the already too powerful insurance and pharmaceutical industries and their overpaid CEOs. I am unequivocal, unwavering, and unapologetic about my support of a robust public option-- in and outside of the Congress. Indeed I appeared on the CBS Evening News just this week urging Democrats to move forward on healthcare reform, including a robust public option, with or without Republican support since they seem more interested in the politics of taking down President Obama than healthcare for millions of Americans.

It is important that we stay focused on getting a robust public option included in the House version of the bill-- nothing watered down. As a progressive member of the House of Representatives, I can't spend time guessing or speculating about what the Senate will do. I do know that if we don't do our work to get a strong bill out of the House, we won’t be able to beg, borrow or steal a robust public option from the Senate. And, the naysayers and opponents of reform know this-- they know what's at stake. That's why they've tried to use August to kill reform. With your help, it hasn't worked and it won't work.

To accomplish our goal, we must be vigorous advocates for a public option that uses the Medicare provider network, starts immediately without triggers, and has a payment system that encourages quality patient care. We're almost there, and that's why it will take your voices outside of Congress and those of us inside to encourage our colleagues and our President to be courageous to the end. I hope you will continue to join me in this fight for comprehensive health care reform.

No more tinkering.

No more dictates by the big insurers and pharmaceutical companies.

No more deceptions and distractions.

Let's fight for a robust public option to ensure quality, affordable healthcare and lower costs for everyone and provide transparency and accountability. I know we can do this. I will keep fighting, but I need you to keep fighting with me.

Friday Steve Kornacki at PolitickerNY emphasized how powerful Jerry Nadler's message on health care has been and Nadler is assigning credit to the grassroots efforts inspired by Darcy Burner's epic speech.

“If they try to get a bill through the Senate with 60 votes without a public option, it won’t pass the House,” he said. “We will make sure it doesn’t pass the House.”

Other House progressives have been making similar threats, and Nadler admits he’s not sure how seriously the House leadership and the White House have been taking them-- until now.

He described a conference call this week for all House Democrats in which “people who you’d be surprised at” spoke up and told Pelosi they’d reject any bill without a public option. It was only a few weeks ago, after she struck her deal with the Blue Dogs, that Pelosi seemed to sneer at the threats of progressives.
But now, Nadler said, “I think she’s probably going to take that more seriously.”

“We’ve got to draw the line somewhere,” he added. “And this is where we’re drawing it. And we have to draw it here. We probably should have drawn it a little closer in.”

So what happens, I asked Nadler, if the House is ultimately presented with a bill with a cop-op provision instead of a public option-- and if the White House and House leadership then tell progressives that it was the best they could do and that if it fails, the Obama presidency might be sunk?

“They can’t allow it to come to that situation, because I’ll vote no,” he replied. “They cannot allow it to get there, and that’s what we’re telling them now. If it comes to that, enough members, I think, will vote no. And they certainly don’t want to test that.”

Strong stuff, huh? Yesterday's biggest recipient of netroots money on our page was Maxine Waters, who sent an unequivocal message to the Democratic Leadership that the line in the sand is for real. She spoke at a town hall meeting in a part of L.A. where teabaggers and nightriders don't venture and she made it crystal clear that without a public option she will oppose whatever the Insurance Industry and their congressional shills try shoving down our throats. I doubt there's much Emanuel can do to her-- except take her off the White House Christmas card list. Addressing President Obama directly, she reminded him that "[t]he people of this country elected you and gave you a Democratic majority in the House and the Senate... Yes, we know that you are a nice man, that you want to work with the opposite side of the aisle. But there comes a time when you need to drop that and move forward. We're saying to you, Mr. President, 'Be tough. Use everything that you've got. Do what you have to do. And we have your back.'" As for the corrupt members of the House of Lords... I don't think Rep. Waters will have their backs any time soon.

"Not only are we going to do everything we can to organize and put pressure on the senators-- some of whom are Neanderthals-- we're going to say to the president, 'We want you to use every weapon in your basket in order to get those senators to do what they should be doing,' " Waters said.

So... if you haven't said thanks yet, I'd recommend today would be a good day to think about Maxine Waters, Jerry Nadler, Donna Edwards, Barney Frank... and any of the other members you've heard speaking out forcefully about the public option. You can donate to one or two or as many of the 65 members of the House who have promised to stand firm as you'd like at the Blue America page.

From The Colbert Report:

Barney Frank has no interest in arguing with a dining room table, but he can't stifle the voice of American furniture on Stephen's watch.

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: 1425

PLAYS: 14067

Pam Spaulding happened upon this character named Steven Anderson, who preaches from the pulpit at Faithful Word Baptist Church in Tempe, Arizona. I compiled some of the more, ah, interesting bits from the sermons I surveyed into the 20-minute audio above.

As you can hear, this is pure eliminationism with a Biblical veneer. First he demands that all gays and lesbians face the death penalty:

The same God who instituted the death penalty for murders is the same god who instituted the death penalty for rapists and for homosexuals, sodomites and queers!

That's what it was instituted for, okay? That's God, he hasn't changed. Oh, God doesn't feel that way in the New Testament ... God never "felt" anything about it, he commanded it and said they should be taken out and killed.

You know why God wanted the sodomites in the Old Testament to be killed? You know why every good king of Israel, the Bible says they got rid of the sodomites in the land? You know, the good kings that came after the bad kings who had allowed the sodomites to infest their land, they had infiltrated ... King Asa got the sodomites out of the land, Jehoshaphat exterminated the sodomites that were left from the days of his father, Asa. Why? Because the sodomites are infectious, that's why. Because they're not reproducers, that goes without saying, they're recruiters.

How are they multiplying? Do you not see that they're multiplying? Are you that blind? Have you noticed that there's more than there were last year and the year before, and the year before that? How are they multiplying? They're reproducing right? No, here's a biology lesson: they're not reproducers, they're recruiters! And you know who they're after? Your children. Remember you dropped off your kids last week? That's who they're after. You drop them off at some daycare, you drop them off at some school somewhere, you don't know where they're at. I'll tell you where they're at: they're being recruited by the sodomites. They're being molested by the sodomites. I can tell you so many stories about people that I know being molested and recruited by the sodomites.

They recruit through rape. They recruit through molestation. They recruit through violation. They are infecting our society. They are spreading their disease. It's not a physical disease, it's a sin disease, it's a wicked, filthy sin disease and it's spreading on a rampage. Can't you see that it's spreading on a rampage? I mean, can you not see that? Can you not see that it's just exploding in growth? Why? Because each sodomite recruits far more than one other sodomite because his whole life is about recruiting other sodomites, his whole life is about violating and hurting people and molesting 'em.

[Via RightWing Watch.]

Then he rips into Barney Frank, blaming him for the economic collapse:

I'm here to preach the Bible. And I'm sick to death -- hey, let me tell you something. Our country is run by faggots. You know who wrote this 700-billion-dollar bailout bill? You know who was the man who was the architect of the bailout? His name is Barney Franks, he is a pedophile, he has been arrested for uh, interacting with boys that are in their teenage years when he's in his 50s, it's in the news, he's been arrested for it. He is a pedophile, he is a homosexual, he has stood up in the floor of the sacred halls of justice and said, 'I am gay, I am a sodomite.'

That's Barney Frank, that's who just sold our country into fascism. That's who just sold our corporations to the government. That's who sold out our country, a faggot! And I'm here to tell you something! I'm not going to stand for it, and let a faggot run the church! It's bad enough that we've got a bunch of faggots running the government!

Most disturbing of all, you can hear him, in his Aug. 16 sermon titled "I Hate Barack Obama," not only openly avow his complete and utter hatred of the president, but openly wish for his death -- because of his support for abortion rights and the "lewdness" he supposedly has brought to American society.

Continue reading »

From The Daily Show:

Barney Frank confronts a Nazi name-calling protester at a health care reform town hall meeting.

So what planet DO they spend their time on, Atticus?

Click here for larger. Open Thread below...

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: (2394)

PLAYS: (26794)

Don't ever ask Barney Frank a question if you don't want to know exactly how he feels about something. From Larry King Live, Frank is asked by a woman waving an Obama as Hitler picture at a town hall meeting why he is supporting his "Nazi policy" on health care. Frank didn't mince any words in responding.

Frank: When you ask me that question I'm going to revert to my ethnic heritage and answer your question with a question. On what planet do you spend most of your time?

[....]

You want me to answer the question? Yes. As you stand there with a picture of the President defaced to look like Hitler and compare the effort to increase health care to the Nazis, my answer to you is as I said before, it is a tribute to the First Amendment that this kind of vile, contemptible nonsense is so freely propagated. Ma'am, trying to have a conversation with you would be like trying to argue with a dining room table. I have no interest in doing it.

Larry asks Howard Dean what he thinks about what he just watched. As Dean points out, this has nothing to do with health care reform and "this kind of anger politics has been going on for thirty years".

h/t PoliticsNewsPolitics

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: (993)

PLAYS: (2772)

Another day, another hit piece on ACORN from Fox News. This time from Sean Hannity and Michelle Bachmann. Andy Birkey at the Minnesota Independent has the breakdown on this segment:

Rep. Michele Bachmann continued her campaign against Rep. Barney Frank and the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN) on Fox News’ Hannity on Wednesday. Despite Bachmann’s claims on the show, a new bill introduced by Frank will not funnel money to ACORN and ACORN is not “under indictment” in 12 states for “voter fraud.”

Frank recently introduced a bill to “use amounts made available under the Troubled Assets Relief Program of the Secretary of the Treasury for relief for homeowners and neighborhoods.” Described as a neighborhood stabilization program, the funds would go to help depressed communities hit hard by the foreclosure crisis.

But Bachmann sees an evil scheme to give money to ACORN.

“Now Barney Frank thinks that [TARP funds] should go out to his friends in ACORN,” she told Sean Hannity. “He is serious about this, about funneling this little bit of money back out to ACORN.”

That little bit of money? “This would be an additional $1.5 billion for ACORN,” she said. “And don’t forget, in over 12 states so far this year ACORN has been indicted for voter fraud.”

The bill itself never mentions ACORN. In fact, it specifically spells out who gets the money:

the Secretary of the Treasury shall transfer $1,500,000,000 to the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development and such Secretary shall use such amounts for assistance to States and units of general local government for the redevelopment of abandoned and foreclosed homes

And as noted in the article, ACORN has not been accused of voter fraud. Some of their employees have been accused of voter registration fraud. There is a big difference. There has been a raid on one of their Nevada offices, but after reading TPM's reporting on the topic, I've got to wonder if that was politically motivated as well. The right loves to demonize ACORN since they'd prefer as few poor and minority voters as possible actually get registered and have a chance to vote.

It's not up to the ACORN workers to verify those registrations. They can't throw them out because they think there are problems with them, and as BradBlog noted, it was the ACORN workers themselves that alerted election officials about the potential problems with some of the registrations they submitted in the first place.

They have to turn them in and let the local election offices sort them out. If that wasn't the case, I could decide to go volunteer for ACORN, and then proceed to throw out every registration from someone I assumed was a Republican because I didn't want them voting.

It's really disgusting to see these right wingers on Fox "News" turning ACORN into a dirty word day after day. I've got to wonder if it's not bad enough that ACORN might actually have a case against them for slander.