NewsWeek and Jon Stewart Decree the War on Christmas is Over…

By Marion Algier – The War on Christmas verses the Spirit of Christmas Series at AskMarion – 12

Leftist comedian Jon Stewart recently introduced his annual skewering of the “war on Christmas” with a montage of Fox News personalities breathlessly reporting the latest outrages against the holiday’s religious origins. “Let’s face facts, the annual Fox ‘war on Christmas’ has become a little predictable”, Stewart said, kicking off his own predictable seasonal faux war on Fox and especially Bill O’Reilly.

Illustration by Sean McCabe; Source: Ryan McVay / Getty; Peter Breiehagen / Photographer's Choice-Getty; Stockbyte-Getty; Stockbyte-Getty; Jamie McCarthy / Getty)

The Daily Beast: For several years now, there have been signs the war on Christmas is running out of ammunition. Google Trends shows a peak in news articles mentioning the Christmas clashes in 2005, after which they slowed to a small annual blip. In 2007 the Springfield, Ill., State Journal-Register remarked that the paper had received hardly any letters about the war on Christmas. “If there still is a War on Christmas going on, its soldiers must have gone underground,” they wrote in a Christmas Eve editorial. Despite occasional flare-ups, like 2010’s “billboard war” between Catholics and atheist groups outside New York City, the battle over the December holidays gradually became the stuff of social-media memes, Onion parodies, and Daily Show takedowns.

Hmmm… or is it just that the mainstream media has stopped reporting on the War on Christmas?!?

How did this cultural flash point slide into oblivion, with Bill O’Reilly virtually the last person continuing to fight?, the Daily Beast asks.  Some Christmas soldiers say it’s because their side won. According to the American Family Association, 80 percent of the ­retailers the group profiled for its inaugural “naughty and nice” list in 2005 used religion-neutral terminology like “holidays” in their advertising and store signs. Now an overwhelming majority have ­reverted back to using the word “Christmas.” ­Randy Sharp, a spokesman for the AFA, says that “there has been a correction.” Retailers, he says, realized “people weren’t offended by being wished a ‘Merry Christmas,’ but those of us who celebrate the historical significance of the birth of Christ are offended when you downplay that.”

Bill Donohue, the president of the conservative Catholic League, which has skirmished with atheist groups over Christmas displays, said his organization has received far fewer reports of alleged discrimination against Christmas this year.

Though the war on Christmas may no longer be an annual ‘news’ event, its legacy remains in ongoing local battles over religious expression in schools and on government property. Anecdotally, some Americans say that anger over the perceived purging of Christmas from society was simply absorbed into the right’s more general resentment toward the forces of multicultural inclusion. “It’s become part of the background noise,” said Charlie Digiglio of Waxahachie, Texas, describing conversations he’s overheard among friends and co-workers. “For many people, it’s just an assumed reality that’s hardly worth mentioning anymore.”

Don’t tell these people the war on Christmas is over:  Atheists intimidate Santa Monica into eliminating Nativity… And So the War on Christmas and Freedom of Religion Continues – Churches Thwart Nativity Ban By Putting Up Living Displays In Santa Monica Or how about the seniors who were told no Christmas Trees? Or the school that had to change their field trip to see a live version of A Charlie Brown Christmas because it was taking place at a church?

Jon Stewart addressed one of Bill O'Reilly's more impassioned "War on Christmas" moments during a Monday Monologue about guarding America from creeping secularism.

Video:  Bill O'Reilly Confronts Atheist Leader Over The War On Christmas

O'Reilly, who is the undisputed leader of "War on Christmas" coverage, had a slightly shouty (by which we mean it was surprising chairs weren't thrown) conversation with an atheist on his show last week. Besides calling his guest a "fascist," he also claimed that Christianity is a philosophy, not a religion.  Followed by an interview with Dennis Miller.

Video: The War On Christmas Discussed - Dennis Miller Time - Bill O'Reilly - 11-28-12

But we are here to say to the Daily Beast… “Not so fast!!”  The war on Christmas is alive and well and the war on religion… on Christians and Jews has accelerated in the United States and around the world!!  Let us all remember that just because the mainstream media isn’t reporting on something does not mean it isn’t so or isn’t happening.

Related:

The Need For A Christian Worldview of Freedom And Economics

BECK GOES GLOBAL, MEETS WITH CATHOLIC CLERGY & INTERNATIONAL TEA PARTY LEADERS IN ROME

Carolling… or Caroling and Christmas Music

Nativity – The Reason for the Season

Christmas Trees

Hanukkah, Hanukah, Chanukah

European Markets or Christkindlmarkts Capture the Christmas Spirit

St. Nickolas Day

So Where Is the War on Christmas Coming From? – A Worthwhile Read!

Best Holiday Movie Classics – A Merry Christmas From Hollywood

God Rest Ye Merry Merchants – Christmas: An American Holiday and Tradition to Love and Preserve

Advent – The Season of Anticipation and Hope

The War on Christmas verses the Spirit of Christmas Series at AskMarion – with comments from Ben Stein

Red Kettles & Bell Ringers

Black Friday Holiday Shopping Kick-off Overshadows True Meaning of Christmas

What Movies in History Best Captures the Spirit of Thanksgiving?

“Holidays Are Great and Fun To Share With Our Pets, As Long As We Avoid the No-No Foods” - Animal Nativity

Christianity & Gun Owners in the Crosshairs: Chilling Tactic Exposed

How Should Christians Respond to Atheist ‘Hatred’ & the War on Christmas? This Priest Has Some Advice

A great read: Losing Our Religion: The Liberal Media’s Attack on Christianity

Technorati Tags: War on Christmas,Christmas,spirit of Christmas,charity,holidays,Hanukah,American Traditions,American values,War on Christianity,War on Religion,The War on… The War on Christmas,Jon Stewart,Dennis Miller,Bill O'Reilly,atheists,secularism,religion,war on religon,Christians,Jews,Catholics sue

Have You Heard About The 16 Trillion Dollar Bailout The Federal Reserve Handed To The Too Big To Fail Banks?

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
America's Next TARP Model
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor & Satire Blog The Daily Show on Facebook

Video:  America’s Next TARP Model – with Jon Stewart on the Daily Show

What you are about to read should absolutely astound you. During the last financial crisis, the Federal Reserve secretly conducted the biggest bailout in the history of the world, and the Fed fought in court for several years to keep it a secret.

Do you remember the TARP bailout? The American people were absolutely outraged that the federal government spent 700 billion dollars bailing out the "too big to fail" banks. Well, that bailout was pocket change compared to what the Federal Reserve did. As you will see documented below, the Federal Reserve actually handed more than 16 trillion dollars in nearly interest-free money to the "too big to fail" banks between 2007 and 2010. So have you heard about this on the nightly news? Probably not. Lately Bloomberg has been reporting on some of this, but even they are not giving people the whole picture. The American people need to be told about this 16 trillion dollar bailout, because it is a perfect example of why the Federal Reserve needs to be shut down. The Federal Reserve has been actively picking "winners" and "losers" in the financial system, and it turns out that the "friends" of the Fed always get bailed out and always end up among the "winners". This is not how a free market system is supposed to work.

According to the limited GAO audit of the Federal Reserve that was mandated by the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, the grand total of all the secret bailouts conducted by the Federal Reserve during the last financial crisis comes to a whopping $16.1 trillion.

That is an astonishing amount of money.

Keep in mind that the GDP of the United States for the entire year of 2010 was only 14.58 trillion dollars.

The total U.S. national debt is only a bit above 15 trillion dollars right now.

So 16 trillion dollars is an almost inconceivable amount of money.

But some other dollar figures have been thrown around lately regarding these secret Federal Reserve bailouts. Let's take a look at them and see what they mean.

$1.2 Trillion

A recent Bloomberg article made the following statement....

The $1.2 trillion peak on Dec. 5, 2008 -- the combined outstanding balance under the seven programs tallied by Bloomberg -- was almost three times the size of the U.S. federal budget deficit that year and more than the total earnings of all federally insured banks in the U.S. for the decade through 2010, according to data compiled by Bloomberg.

The $1.2 trillion figure represents the peak outstanding balance on these loans, not the total amount of all the loans. On December 5, 2008 the "too big to fail" banks owed this much money to the Federal Reserve. Many of them could not pay these short-term loans back right away and had to keep rolling them over time after time. Each time a short-term loan got rolled over that represented a new loan.

$7.7 Trillion

Bloomberg is reporting that the Federal Reserve had made a total of $7.77 trillion in financial commitments to the big banks by the end of March 2009....

Add up guarantees and lending limits, and the Fed had committed $7.77 trillion as of March 2009 to rescuing the financial system, more than half the value of everything produced in the U.S. that year.

But as mentioned above, a one-time limited GAO audit of the Federal Reserve that was mandated by the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act covered an even broader time period and revealed even more bailout loans.

According to the GAO audit, $16.1 trillion in secret loans were made by the Federal Reserve between December 1, 2007 and July 21, 2010. The following list of firms and the amount of money that they received was taken directly from page 131 of the GAO audit report....

Citigroup - $2.513 trillion
Morgan Stanley - $2.041 trillion
Merrill Lynch - $1.949 trillion
Bank of America - $1.344 trillion
Barclays PLC - $868 billion
Bear Sterns - $853 billion
Goldman Sachs - $814 billion
Royal Bank of Scotland - $541 billion
JP Morgan Chase - $391 billion
Deutsche Bank - $354 billion
UBS - $287 billion
Credit Suisse - $262 billion
Lehman Brothers - $183 billion
Bank of Scotland - $181 billion
BNP Paribas - $175 billion
Wells Fargo - $159 billion
Dexia - $159 billion
Wachovia - $142 billion
Dresdner Bank - $135 billion
Societe Generale - $124 billion
"All Other Borrowers" - $2.639 trillion

This report was made available to all the members of Congress, but most of them have been totally silent about it. One of the only members of Congress that has said something has been U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders.

The following is an excerpt from a statement about this audit that was taken from the official website of Senator Sanders....

"As a result of this audit, we now know that the Federal Reserve provided more than $16 trillion in total financial assistance to some of the largest financial institutions and corporations in the United States and throughout the world"

So where is everyone else?

Why aren't leading Republicans and leading Democrats crying bloody murder over this report?

This scandal should have been front page news for months when it was revealed.

But it wasn't.

And Guess what?

Not only did the Federal Reserve give 16.1 trillion dollars in nearly interest-free loans to the "too big to fail" banks, the Fed also paid them over 600 million dollars to help run the emergency lending program. According to the GAO, the Federal Reserve shelled out an astounding $659.4 million in "fees" to the very financial institutions which caused the financial crisis in the first place.

In addition, it turns out that trillions of dollars of this bailout money actually went overseas. According to the GAO audit, approximately $3.08 trillion went to foreign banks in Europe and in Asia.

So why were our dollars being used to bail out foreign banks while tens of millions of American families were deeply suffering?

That is a very good question.

Also, it is important to remember that many of these bailout loans were made at below market interest rates, and this enabled many of these financial institutions to rake in huge profits.

According to a recent Bloomberg article, the big banks brought in an estimated $13 billion by taking advantage of the Fed’s below-market rates....

While the Fed’s last-resort lending programs generally charge above-market interest rates to deter routine borrowing, that practice sometimes flipped during the crisis. On Oct. 20, 2008, for example, the central bank agreed to make $113.3 billion of 28-day loans through its Term Auction Facility at a rate of 1.1 percent, according to a press release at the time.

The rate was less than a third of the 3.8 percent that banks were charging each other to make one-month loans on that day. Bank of America and Wachovia Corp. each got $15 billion of the 1.1 percent TAF loans, followed by Royal Bank of Scotland’s RBS Citizens NA unit with $10 billion, Fed data show.

So once the financial crisis was over, were adjustments made to the financial system to make sure that this type of thing would never happen again?

Of course not.

Today, the "too big to fail" banks are larger than ever. The total assets of the six largest U.S. banks increased by 39 percent between September 30, 2006 and September 30, 2011.

So now they are more "too big to fail" than ever.

But this is what happens when we allow unelected central bank bureaucrats to run our financial system.

Most Americans do not realize this, but the truth is that the Federal Reserve is not part of the government. In fact, it is about as "federal" as Federal Express is. The Federal Reserve has admitted that they are a privately owned institution in court many times, and you can see video of a Federal Reserve employee admitting that the Federal Reserve is privately owned right here.

The Federal Reserve is an out of control monster that is throwing around trillions of dollars whenever it wants to. Nobody should be allowed to do this. Nobody should be allowed to give bailouts to banks and corporations without the express permission of the U.S. Congress and the president of the United States.

This is a point that I made in my article yesterday. The Federal Reserve decided this week that it is going to provide "liquidity support" to Europe. If the American people do not like this move, that is just too bad. We do not get a say in the matter.

Are you starting to understand why I keep pushing the idea that it is time to shut down the Federal Reserve?

Please share this information about the secret 16 trillion dollar Federal Reserve bailout with your family and your friends.

If we can get enough people to wake up, perhaps there is still time to change the direction that this country is headed.

From the Economic Collapse Blog

Video: The Fed Grants $7.77 Trillion in Secret Bank Loan - Now Do You Understand Occupy Wall Street?

Kucinich bill seeks to end the Federal Reserve:

Kucinich bill seeks to end the Federal Reserve!
http://www.godlikeproductions.com/forum1/message1718844/pg1
Kucinich bill seeks to end the Federal Reserve
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/12/01/kucinich-bill-seeks-to-end-the-federal-reserve/

Related:

WHAT THE HELL? The U.S. Secretly loaned 7.7 TRILLION To Banks Without Interest. Then Borrowed Back WITH Interest
http://www.godlikeproductions.com/forum1/message1718942/pg1

America's Next TARP Model
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-december-1-2011/america-s-next-tarp-model

A Bloomberg report reveals that the U.S. government loaned banks $7.7 trillion in secret bailout funds at no interest and then borrowed the money back at interest.
Bloomberg reports 7.7 trillion in loans to big banks and Wall Street
http://reading-sage.blogspot.com/2011/11/bloomberg-reports-77-trillion-in-loans.html?m=1pg1

h/t to Jean Stoner

On Torture And War Criminals

Jon Stewart says Truman was a ‘War Criminal’ because he ordered the use of the atomic bomb against Japan.  Forget that it saved hundreds of thousands of American soldiers who didn’t have to die during a land invasion of Japan.  America killed it’s enemies, and now that’s wrong.  Apparently...

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	M - Th 11p / 10c
Cliff May Unedited Interview Pt. 2
thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Economic Crisis First 100 Days

As Allah notes, “Behold the face of mindless anti-torture absolutism." Like what you see?

For the record, during the debates, both Obama and Hillary listed Truman as among their most admired Presidents.  Who knew that Obama condoned war crimes?

But now that Obama and the liberal Democratic Congress have opened the door to the notion that like a Banana Republic the United States should retroactively judge and prosecute former leaders and administrations instead of being the shining example that we have always been of  the smooth and perfect transfer of power after a civilized election… people like Jon Stewart think it is acceptable to judge and disparage a former wartime president that has always been praised by his peers and for generations since, for his courage and decisiveness at a time when we needed it.  

These types of statements and behavior and what they lead to is only the beginning of the drama caused by the release of the Top Secret classified CIA memos:

Cliff May was a guest on the Daily Show and posed a series of interesting questions to host Jon Stewart regarding interrogation, war and war crimes.  It comes at about the 5:50 mark. Cliff May asks Stewart whether Truman's use of the atomic bomb was a war crime, Stewart ruminates and then responds with an unequivocal "yes." He's certainly not the only American who would take that view, but it's a useful reminder that the most vocal and popular criticism of the Bush administration's war on terror policies comes from people who, if they were being as honest as Stewart, would also judge Lincoln (suspension of habeas), FDR (internment), and Truman (use of nuclear weapons) as war criminals or tyrants or worse.

Stewart repeats the charge again later in the interview, but you have to wonder whether this was one of the rare times that he just got outmaneuvered on his own show. Serious people have debated Truman's decision for 60 years, but even those who disagree with that decision rarely describe it as "criminal." And if it was criminal, whatever crimes the left alleges of President Bush seem pretty trivial in comparison.

See Video:  Cliff May Unedited Interview Pt. 2

“Hundreds of thousands of lives were saved by averting a U.S. invasion of the Japanese home islands, and all ‘this tool’ can do is point a finger and mumble ‘yes’ in response to whether Truman’s a war criminal or not.”

As always, it is hard to tell whether Stewart's clown nose is off or on, but it appeared to be off at that moment -- that is, he was giving a serious answer, not one intended to get laughs.

The rapid end to the War in the Pacific was a blessing to many Americans.

I don't believe that President Truman was a "war criminal" and the rapid end to the War in the Pacific was a blessing to many Americans.  You can bet that neither Jon Stewart’s mindless comment nor the clip will make it to the Truman Library in Independence, Missouri.

Torture? No. Except...

WASHINGTON -- Torture is an impermissible evil. Except under two circumstances. The first is the ticking time bomb. An innocent's life is at stake. The bad guy you have captured possesses information that could save this life. He refuses to divulge. In such a case, the choice is easy. Even John McCain, the most admirable and estimable torture opponent, says openly that in such circumstances, "You do what you have to do." And then take the responsibility.

Some people, however, believe you never torture. Ever. They are akin to conscientious objectors who will never fight in any war under any circumstances, and for whom we correctly show respect by exempting from war duty. But we would never make one of them Centcom commander. Private principles are fine, but you don't entrust such a person with the military decisions upon which hinges the safety of the nation. It is similarly imprudent to have a person who would abjure torture in all circumstances making national security decisions upon which depends the protection of 300 million countrymen.

The second exception to the no-torture rule is the extraction of information from a high-value enemy in possession of high-value information likely to save lives. This case lacks the black-and-white clarity of the ticking time bomb scenario. We know less about the length of the fuse or the nature of the next attack. But we do know the danger is great. We know we must act but have no idea where or how -- and we can't know that until we have information. Catch-22.

Under those circumstances, you do what you have to do. And that includes waterboarding.

Did it work? The current evidence is fairly compelling. George Tenet said that the "enhanced interrogation" program alone yielded more information than everything gotten from "the FBI, the Central Intelligence Agency and the National Security Agency put together."

Michael Hayden, CIA director after waterboarding had been discontinued, writes (with former Attorney General Michael Mukasey) that "as late as 2006 ... fully half of the government's knowledge about the structure and activities of al-Qaeda came from those interrogations." Even Dennis Blair, Obama's director of national intelligence, concurs that these interrogations yielded "high value information." So much for the lazy, mindless assertion that torture never works.

Asserts Blair's predecessor, Mike McConnell, "We have people walking around in this country that are alive today because this process happened." Of course, the morality of torture hinges on whether at the time the information was important enough, the danger great enough and our blindness about the enemy's plans severe enough to justify an exception to the moral injunction against torture.

Judging by Nancy Pelosi and other members of Congress who were informed at the time, the answer seems to be yes. In December 2007, after a Washington Post report that she had knowledge of these procedures and did not object, she admitted that she'd been "briefed on interrogation techniques the administration was considering using in the future."

Today Pelosi protests "we were not -- I repeat -- were not told that waterboarding or any other of these other enhanced interrogation methods were used." She imagines that this distinction between past and present, Clintonian in its parsing, is exonerating.

On the contrary. It is self-indicting. If you are told about torture that has already occurred, you might justify silence on the grounds that what's done is done and you are simply being used in a post-facto exercise to cover the CIA's rear end. The time to protest torture, if you really are as outraged as you now pretend to be, is when the CIA tells you what it is planning to do "in the future."

But Pelosi did nothing. No protest. No move to cut off funding. No letter to the president or the CIA chief or anyone else saying "Don't do it."

On the contrary, notes Porter Goss, then chairman of the House Intelligence Committee: The members briefed on these techniques did not just refrain from objecting, "on a bipartisan basis, we asked if the CIA needed more support from Congress to carry out its mission against al-Qaeda."

More support, mind you. Which makes the current spectacle of self-righteous condemnation not just cowardly but hollow. It is one thing to have disagreed at the time and said so. It is utterly contemptible, however, to have been silent then and to rise now "on a bright, sunny, safe day in April 2009" (the words are Blair's) to excoriate those who kept us safe these harrowing last eight years.

By: Charles Krauthammer - a 1987 Pulitzer Prize winner, 1984 National Magazine Award winner, and a columnist for The Washington Post since 1985.

Related Resources:

• Muslims: 'We Do That On First Dates'
  
• The West Coast Plot: An "Inconvenient Truth"
  
• Hoekstra: Congress Knew About Memos
  
• U.S. Presidential Libraries
  
• Video:  Top Intelligence Republican:  Ready Fire, Aim