Saturday, October 23

My First Obama Rally (w/Brown & Boxer at USC)!

I don't get out much. Not because I don't want to, but because I don't have a operational vehicle of my own and haven't had one for years. I often work from home, and when I do go out it's either to the office or grocery shopping with the wife. For me this was big deal, a great big F-ing deal - and I'll remember it for a long time.

Video of Rally Via C-Span.

I went with my 60 70 year-old mom, who is a die-hard Obama supporter so obsessive she records as many of his television appearances as she can (and is actually a bit obsessive and hoarder-ish about it) but such is the intensity that Obama has inspired in many, particularly those of her generation - who grew up in the Jim Crow South and never thought they'd live to see a Black President.

Thursday, October 21

Right Wigs out over Williams Firing

As Jed Lewison/s FB Diary points out, Palin and Huckabee (both Fox Employees) want NPR's Federal Funding Cut because they fired Juan Williams for saying "Muslims Scare Me".

But the fact is, that's just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to the big right wing flip out to defend the supposed "Free Speech" of a Faux Liberal.

Check out this from Glenn Beck...



Juan Williams was put up against the wall, and NPR shot him.


Wednesday, October 20

The Infectious Virus of the O'Donnell Doctrine

Troutfishing has a excellent Rec'd Diary up detailing the depth of the Counter-Factual "This is a Christian Nation" Doctrine that denies the Separation of Church and State, and how that has begun to slip into our military. But I want to take this back a bit to O'Donnell herself, who clearly thought she Nailed It when she desputed Chris Coons assertion that the First Amendment established the Separation of Church and State.



As Rachel takes us back to re-examine the tape, it's clear that O'Donnell really does think she's won on this point. That Chris Coons accurate quoting of the beginning of the First Amendment is ALL FAIL.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

The Constitution also says this in Article VI.

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

Taken together these two Constitutional clauses establish that Government will not impose religion on the people, and that religion will not be imposed or required of the agents of the government.

Behind this and the letters of Jefferson and Madison you have the Treaty of Tripoli from 1797.

As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.[

Although this seems self-evident to many of us, and has been affirmed in many court cases including Reynolds and Engle v Vitale (1962) which barred the state from imposing "Official" prayer in public schools. It's not just what's in the literal words of the Constitution, but it's also from multiple judicial interpretations of that phrase.

Further (ht Sam Wise Gingy) O'Donnell doesn't seem to realize that the scenario she suggests - that a local School Board has the "Right" to place Intelligence Design in their curriculum - has already failed before the Courts as it did in the Dover Case - where the Judge overruled the School Board and made this finding.

Teaching intelligent design in public school biology classes violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States (and Article I, Section 3 of the Pennsylvania State Constitution) because intelligent design is not science and "cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents."

Coons was absolutely, 100% correct.

But the Wingnuts see this in a completely different light. Sharron Angle says that Thomas Jefferson was "Misquoted" in his letters to the Danbury Church. Yeah, that's why Dan Burton has been cutting Jefferson out of Texas Textbooks, because he's been "Misquoted". Those are some easy examples and then there's the Big One.

And then there's - Rush Limbaugh.



Limbaugh: Christine O'Donnell was absolutely correct. The First Amendment says nothing about the Separation of Church and State.

And the left has taken this to say that religious people can not be in government. And that you can't teach something like creation in the schools while you can teach evolution because evolution isn't religion but creationism is. Intelligent design can't be taught because that's a religion, evolution is. Yet both require faith because neither can be proved.

Separation of church and state is not in the Constitution, and the fact that people laughed about this is what's really scary.

So Limbaugh feels she won too. What we're seeing here is part of a larger counter-factual dynamic coming from the right. They are deeply invested in things that are clearly not true, they deeply believe in things that can be called little more than a series of self-aggrandizing fantasies.

And Limbaugh isn't alone - here's the American Spectator on the O'Donnell Doctrine.

The political and pundit class is in a tizzy because Delaware Senate candidate Christine O'Donnell had the effrontery to question Supreme Court jurisprudence that has established a "wall of separation between Church and State."

But while O'Donnell may not have been as articulate as she should have been, she's nonetheless right: The phrase "separation of church and state" appears nowhere in the Constitution. It was penned, instead, by President Thomas Jefferson in a letter that Jefferson sent to the Baptist Association of Danbury, Connecticut.

And, as the Heritage Foundation has observed, far from being a "principled statement on the prudential and constitutional relationship between church and state," Jefferson's missive, in fact, was "a political statement written to reassure pious Baptist constituents that Jefferson was, indeed, a friend of religion."

See, from Jefferson own words "Separation of Church and State" they devise that he was a "friend of religion" - I guess because he agreed to refrain from using the power of government against them, even though they had opposed his Presidency, but then again - "Freedom of Religion and Expression" also stems from the First Amendment doesn't it?

Here's one more example from the "Freedomist.com".

In a debate at Widener University, with a leftist crowd of uneducated college students (who seem to believe the 1st amendment actually contains the phrase “separation of church and state”) Christine O’Donnell stood up to the leftist belief that religion has no place in the public square, that only secular godlessness reigns supreme in the public square. As a result, the leftist blogosphere is atwitter, literally, accusing Christine O’Donnell of not knowing what the 1st amendment means. Oops!

It turns out she does, and they don’t. The 1st amendment in no way shape or form articulates this mythological ‘separation of church and state’ that has been used by secular, godless, leftists to chase any religious value systems out of the public square in favor of so-callled value-neutral secular judgements.

Yeah, we leftists are such godless bullies against the faithful, because we seem to feel that if we were to establish State Sponsorship for religion, exactly which Religion would that be? Protestant? Catholic? Episcopalian? Anglican? Calvinist? Baptist? Mormon? Jewish? Muslim? Baha'i? Hindu? Kabala? Aqua Buddhist?

Which one would rule? Would it be the majority - what if that majority shifts demographically over time? What would happen to the freedom and faith of all the others when that occurs? Do we all have to become Wiccans if they gain electoral dominance and have to write the Pledge to Gaia into our Public School Curriculum?

It's all fun and games to them until someone suggests we have a weekly mass during 5th Period for Thor God of Thunder.

As you can see by how this is written, like O'Donnell, they think they're the smart ones - who have a Special Insight into Truth and we're the ones who are misguided and deluded. They simply don't get it. The only way to protect all faiths, is to ensure to no single faith becomes State sponsored and dominant. There will never be an Official Church of America.

They continue to think that "Intelligent Design" has something to do with Science, and that it should be Taught in Science class, even though it has No Basis in Science. They argue that Evolution is simply a "Theory" - ignoring that you could say the same thing about "Gravity", but I wouldn't recommended stepping off a cliff simply because you don't "Believe in the theory".

E=MC2 was just a theory too, until Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

The fact that Sunday Schools and Parochial Schools can already teach any religious doctrine they like, is simply not enough for them - they think Government should be able to mandate Religious Creationism-Lite such as Intelligent Design into our Public Schools. They can't pray enough at their own Church, they also have to Pray in Public and have the School Administration use it to intimidate and coerce everyone else to go along? That's all Fail.

Evolution is the core basis of our understanding of Biology, to deny and doubt it would undermine much of our Medicine and Biotech. For example we develop vaccines on the biological basis that living organisms adapt to their environment and can develop anti-bodies to fight off infection. In contrast to this "Intelligent Design" leads us to what Scientifically Valid Conclusions? That we can Pray our Cancer Away? If we fail to understand our own biology accurately, our ability to address disease, infection and injury can be dangerously diminished. That's not just a difference of opinion, that's foolhardy and dangerous.

This type of anti-thinking among the right is also why you find large numbers of Climate Change Deniers among GOP Gubernatorial Candidates.

An exclusive Wonk Room analysis finds that 22 of the 37 Republican candidates for governor this November are deniers of the scientific consensus on global warming pollution. These science deniers are part of an anti-reality wave of Tea Party candidates, who comprise the Republican slate for the U.S. House and Senate. “The GOP is stampeding toward an absolutist rejection of climate science that appears unmatched among major political parties around the globe, even conservative ones,” writes the National Journal’s Ron Brownstein.

Although 97 percent of climate scientists agree that climate change is manmade, only two Republican gubernatorial candidates in Democratic strongholds — Lt. Gov. Brian Dubie (R-VT) and Lt. Gov. Duke Aiona (R-HI) — want to address the threat. Two more candidates — Gov. Jan Brewer (R-AZ) and Meg Whitman (R-CA) — accept that global warming is a manmade problem, but oppose enacting policy to reduce fossil fuel pollution. The other eleven candidates have “artfully avoided” any discussion of the threat global warming poses to their states, from flood-ravaged Iowa and Tennessee to drought-parched Nevada.

It's not just Climate Science they deny, it's Science they deny. They are in denial of Fact. This is where we get the "Stimulus Failed" when it's clear that it saved us from going into a new Great Depression. This is where we get claims such as Obamacare leading to "Death Panels" which Rep Paul Broun just Resurrected by linking it to the Stimulus.



BROUN: We see so many unintended consequences, or intended consequences, that are gonna force people off medicare advantage. Obamacare if it stays in as the law of the land is going to hurt the elderly more than anyone else [...] In the stimulus bill Nancy Pelosi set up a panel or something called comparativeness effectiveness research, what they’re doing there with that is they’re not comparing effectiveness as well as I and all the physicians will do, they’re comparing effectiveness of spending a dollar on one person versus another, which means the elderly are gonna be denied the care to keep them living and keep their health in good shape so they can have a useful, fruitful productive life. So see marked rationing of care for the elderly and those who have disabilites and those who have illnesses that will be terminal over a fairly short period of time, that may be who knows, ten years, those people are gonna be denied coverage of care of their health problems under Obamacare. [...] It’s gonna kill people by denying care.

Just like their misinterpretation of the First Amendment, this view is completely upside down - the Comparative Effectiveness Research is intended to find more efficient and cost effective ways to expand coverage to more people, not deny it.

Under the legislation, researchers will receive $1.1 billion to compare drugs, medical devices, surgery and other ways of treating specific conditions. The bill creates a council of up to 15 federal employees to coordinate the research and to advise President Obama and Congress on how to spend the money.

The program responds to a growing concern that doctors have little or no solid evidence of the value of many treatments. Supporters of the research hope it will eventually save money by discouraging the use of costly, ineffective treatments.

Shouldn't we know what treatments work and which don't? Shouldn't we put a higher priority of effective treatments that don't break our bank?

The fact Broun is himself a Medical Doctor, makes this even more insidious. But that's what happens when someone has become infected by the Anti-Fact Virus of the Right. And sadly, whether they take back either chamber of congress - there is all likelyhood that this virus will only intensify after the election. It's not the separation of Church and State that these people should be worried about, it's their own separation of Fact and Thought.

Vyan

Tuesday, October 19

Aqua Buddha Victim says Conway ad "Over the Top", but Accurate

From Greg Sargent at the Plum Line.

Dem Jack Conway's new ad hammering Rand Paul over his college excesses is accurate on the facts, and it's legit to raise questions about his past views as a way of probing whether his current posture as a conservative Christian is genuine, the victim of Paul's Aqua Buddha prank just told me in an interview.

She confirmed the ad's accuracy, and wondered aloud why Paul doesn't just admit what occured and move on.

"Yes, he was in a secret society, yes, he mocked religion, yes, the whole Aqua Buddha thing happened," she said. "There was a different side to him at one time and he's pretending that it never existed. If he would just acknowledge it, it would all go away and it wouldn't matter anymore."

There'e nothing wrong with changing your mind, or your point of view - so why can't Paul just say that he's changed and put this to rest?



Of all the things that Rand Paul has said in recent months, from his questioning the legitimacy of the Public Accommodations Act, his opposition to the Americans with Disabilities Act, his weird support and defense for BP when they were responsible for the largest environmental disaster in U.S. History, and all the kooky things he's said it's weird to me that Jack Conway decided to plant his flag with the Aqua Buddha - but that's seems to be exactly what he's done, and it appears to be working.

The TPM Polltracker now has Conway within 5 points, up from an 11 point deficit that had been holding for weeks.

All of this isn't to say that Paul's accuser in this case is entirely happy with the Conway ad.

"The tone of voice sounds more ominous than it actually was," she said, referring to the ad's narrator. "The way the person is talking, it sounds like [Paul] is some kind of evil-worshipping person who's a little bit more threatening than perhaps he really is. The ad is over the top. I'm disappointed that someone is making this into a central issue."

It seems to me that this was really not much more than a silly college prank involving the swim team. This is Animal House, minus most of the funny - but not really anything more than that. It should only be a two minute discussion: Did this happen? Yes, but don't most of us do silly things when we're young, I'm an adult now and shouldn't we be discussing adult issues?

End of problem, right? But no, instead of responding reasonably to the issue - even if it has been blown out of proportion - Paul is now hurting himself by grossly overreacting to it as he did here.



However anyone feels about Conway bringing this up and hammering on it, the question now is why hasn't Paul responded?

Paul could have argued that the source is mistaken or untrustworthy, that this event never happened and therefore there is no answer to the question of "why mocked people of faith" because it didn't happen.

He didn't do that.

He could have argued that it were merely a joke, and not intended to be taken literally or seriously.

He didn't do that.

He could have argued it didn't happen this way, it happened that way!

He didn't do that.

He could have argued, as does the whistleblower, that his views from when he was a youth 30 years ago have greatly changed - that he's essentially not that person anymore.

He didn't do that.

Instead he attacked Conway for daring to ask the question "Have you no decency, Sir?" Rather than address the issue he basically jumped up and down and stamped his feet - practically saying "Stop Lying about my Record!"



Well, maybe Conway isn't perfectly "decent" - maybe he's willing to throw a haymaker in order to win - Lord knows Republicans do it all the time. From Saxby Chambliss who made a decorated War Veteran into an aider and abettor for al Qaeda, the Willie Horton ad, to David Vitter accusing Melancon of providing Welfare for Illegals, Sharron Angle accusing Harry Reid of providing Viagra to Sex Offenders, of Congressional Candidate Renee Elmers who attacked for Rep. Bob Etheridge for Not Speaking Out against the Ground Zero Victory Mosque, it's not like those guys are pulling their punches.

So why should Democrats play nice, exactly?

If Rand Paul can't stand up to Jack Conway, or for that matter Rachel Maddow or Chris Matthews, how's he going to stand up to al Qeada and the Taliban? (Not that I think Maddow/Conway/Matthews are equivalent to the Taliban - but didn't we repeatedly hear this very argument whenever someone couldn't stand up the "tough questioning" of Fox News?) I'm just saying this guy has repeatedly shown he can't take the heat once it's turned up to broil anymore than Tea Bagger Joe Miller can take a tough question without retaliating against journalists - who were just trying to interview another journalist that he'd had illegally handcuffed by Off duty U.S. Army personnel who were illegally moonlighting for a fly-by-night security firm and bait shop, or Christine O'Donnnell can show she's ever actually read the 1st Amendment, or Sharron Angle who can't tell a Latino from an Asian, or Carl Paladino who hasn't had a foot he couldn't insert all the way to his own back molar!)

These guys are absolutely not ready for prime time, and if it takes unflinching hard knocks to make the American people see it - so be it. Better Democrats leave everything on the field, than let these tea bagging wingnuts take over Congress and the country.

Vyan

Monday, October 18

Not All Muslims are Terrorists, but All Foxers are JackHoles!



Following Bill O'Reilly's appearance on the view where he said "Muslim's Killed Us on 9-11" while discussing Park 51 and sent both Whoopi Goldberg and Joy Behar storming from the stage in disgust that he would smear Every Muslim this way. Fools and Friends Brian Kilmeade doubled down on the JackHolery with....

Not all Muslim's are Terrorists, but all Terrorists are Muslims

Terrorism Defined.

Terrorism is the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion.[1] Common definitions of terrorism refer only to those violent acts which are intended to create fear (terror), are perpetrated for a religious, political or ideological goal, deliberately target or disregard the safety of non-combatants (civilians), and are committed by non-government agencies.

Thinkprogress rips this one apart, piece by piece.

If Kilmeade took off his news “training wheels,” he’d know that some of the most notorious terrorists like the Tamil Tigers, who “invented” suicide bombing, the Irish Republican Army, and the Lord’s Resistance Army are not Muslim. In fact, the U.S’s recent domestic terrorists like the Unabomber, Timothy McVeigh, the Hutaree militia, John Patrick Bedell, Joe Stack, Jerry Kane Jr., and white supremacist James von Brunn were also not Muslim. California gunman Byron Williams, who tried to “start a revolution” in July, was actually inspired by Fox News pundit Glenn Beck, not Islam. Overall, according to the National Counterterrorism Center, non-Muslims account for 16,868 recorded incidents of terrorism, 967 less than Islamic extremists.

So yet again, a Foxer has his facts wrong. Yes, al Qaeda attacked us on 9-11, but London has faced thousands of attacks by the IRA - None of whom were MUSLIM, and American Radical Christians have bullied, attacked, firebombed and shot other Americans for years for religious reasons. Are they terrorists? You betcha.

But not being satisfied in being wrong, Kilmeade had to double down later in the day on the radio.



Kilmeade: Bill said how distressed and downtrodden his is that Liberals don't get it still. Muslim Extremist, al Qaeda blew up those towers, blew up the Kohl, blew up the Embassies, tried to blow up Times Square, the Shoe-bomber, they are all extremists and they are all Muslim. Not every Muslim is a terrorist, but every terrorist is a Muslim. You can't avoid that fact. It's ridiculous that we have got to keep defining this. And people would equate Timothy McVeigh with the al Qaeda terrorist organization, which has grown and is a threat that exists

Besides the fact that what Whoopie was screaming as she left the stage was "Extremists Did It", I think Brian really inserted foot-in-mouth the mid-knee here.

Timothy McVeigh was absolutely trying to start a movement and that movement is indeed growing. First off, he didn't act alone - he had multiple accomplices (Michael Fortier & Terry Nichols) who had the same radical anti-ethnic, anti-government, hyper-Christian point of view that he did - as outlined and guided by the infamous Turner Diaries. He used to sell copies of that book in order to "Spread it's message". He wanted to start a War within the U.S. between White Christians on one side with Non-Whites/Non-Christians and the U.S. Government on the other side.



That movement is growing as we've seen by attempt by the Michigan Hutaree Militia to start a New U.S. Civil War, Just like McVeigh Tried to Do!



These guys wore a patch on their shoulder which stated "C.C.R." for "Colonial Christian Republic". Muslim? I think not.

More on these nutballs from Eugene Robinson.

According to the indictment, the group had been plotting for two years to assassinate federal, state or local police officers. "Possible such acts which were discussed," the indictment says, "included killing a member of law enforcement after a traffic stop, killing a member of law enforcement and his or her family at home, ambushing a member of law enforcement in rural communities, luring a member of law enforcement with a false 911 emergency call and then killing him or her, and killing a member of law enforcement and then attacking the funeral procession motorcade" with homemade bombs.

...

But for the most part, far-left violence in this country has gone the way of the leisure suit and the AMC Gremlin. An anti-globalization movement, including a few window-smashing anarchists, was gaining traction at one point, but it quickly diminished after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. An environmental group and an animal-rights group have been linked with incidents of arson. Beyond those particulars, it is hard to identify any kind of leftist threat.

By contrast, there has been explosive growth among far-right, militia-type groups that identify themselves as white supremacists, "constitutionalists," tax protesters and religious soldiers determined to kill people to uphold "Christian" values. Most of the groups that posed a real danger, as the Hutaree allegedly did, have been infiltrated and dismantled by authorities before they could do any damage. But we should never forget that the worst act of domestic terrorism ever committed in this country was authored by a member of the government-hating right wing: Timothy McVeigh's bombing of the federal building in Oklahoma City.

It is dishonest for right-wing commentators to insist on an equivalence that does not exist. The danger of political violence in this country comes overwhelmingly from one direction -- the right, not the left. The vitriolic, anti-government hate speech that is spewed on talk radio every day -- and, quite regularly, at Tea Party rallies -- is calibrated not to inform but to incite.

According to Kilmeade these guys are all "Muslims"? Really?

How about this dude, Joe Stack, who pulled an al Qeada by flying his plane into the IRS buliding in Austin Texas, you might argue he was crazy and suicidal, but you couldn't argue that he was a Muslim!



How about this guy - Scott Roeder - who methodically stalked and killed Dr. George Tiller and is now being investigated as being part of a multi-state conspiracy to murder, intimidate and firebomb doctors, by radical, extremist anti-abortion activist/terrorists including a shadowy group that calls themselves the "Army of God".

Is this guy a Muslim?



That group continues to openly support the actions of this guy - Eric Rudolph - who bombed the 1996 Atlanta Olympics, several women's health clinics and a gay nightclub.



Another Army of God Member - Shelley Shannon - whom Roeder visited before shooting Tiller because she'd shot him BEFORE has posted on the Army of God Website instructions on How To Firebomb a Clinic!

How to Destroy a Killing Center if You're Just an Old Grandma
Who Can't Even Get the Fire Started in Her Fireplace

by Shelley Shannon

*Please re-type or photocopy this and burn the copy you were given, with the fingerprints thereof. Thanks.

...

The biggest hurdle was being willing to even consider that God could indeed require this work of anyone. Christians don't do that kind of thing, do they? But prayer and God cleared that up. Then I realized that I needed to stop the killing too. I prayed, "God, if you really want me to do this, you're gonna have to show me how, because I can't even get the fire started in my fireplace." The ideas kept coming, including thoughts from people who had accomplished Big Rescue. My plan was to fill five plastic milk cartons (the kind with the pop off tops) with gasoline, throw them through the window, throw in a lit torch (a stick with oil-soaked rags tied on the end), and scram. I had to know for sure I had God's how, when and where before I would act. If I was going to spend what's left of my life in prison or die in an explosion, I was at least going to do so in the will of God!

Army of God's titular leader, "Rev" Donald Spitz, has put together Tribute Videos to Killers like Paul Hill who shot a doctor and his bodyguard in Florida with a Shotgun, and was later visited in jail by -- Shelley Shannon. AOG has even published their own "How to be a Terrorist" Manual.



I'm not thinking this guy is a "Muslim", but he is a Terrorist and he is part of a growing movement.

One that includes this guy, James Adkisson, who walked into a Unitarian Church in Knoxville Tennesse and shot 5 people - killing 2 of them - because they were, in his opinion, too "Liberal"? Political Terrorism? You bet.



From Adkisson's "Note":
"Know this if nothing else: This was a hate crime. I hate the damn left-wing liberals. There is a vast left-wing conspiracy in this country & these liberals are working together to attack every decent & honorable institution in the nation, trying to turn this country into a communist state. Shame on them....

Or this guy who killed three Pittsburgh Police Officers either because he was frustrated with his girlfriend or "Obama Wants to Take Away My Guns" - or both.



Or this guy, James Von Brunn, a Neo-Nazi who shot up the Holocaust Museum in Washington killing a security guard who was opening the door for him, before other guards could take him down. All of which was a fortunate thing for his next target, David Axelrod.



Or James Cummings, another Neo-Nazy/Supremacist who tried to build a Radiological Dirty Bomb in Maine to attack the Presidency of Barack Obama.

Amber (Cummings) indicated James was very upset with Barack Obama being elected President," reported the Washington Regional Threat and Analysis Center (PDF link). "She indicated James had been in contact with ‘white supremacist group(s).’ Amber also indicated James mixed chemicals in the kitchen sink at their residence and had mentioned ‘dirty bombs.’"

"Also found was literature on how to build ‘dirty bombs’ and information about cesium-137, strontium-90 and cobalt-60, radioactive materials," said the Bangor Daily. "The FBI report also stated there was evidence linking James Cummings to white supremacist groups. This would seem to confirm observations by local tradesmen who worked at the Cummings home that he was an ardent admirer of Adolf Hitler and had a collection of Nazi memorabilia around the house, including a prominently displayed flag with swastika. Cummings claimed to have pieces of Hitler’s personal silverware and place settings, painter Mike Robbins said a few days after the shooting."

Perhaps the fact that most of these Terrorists are coming from The Right is why people like Kilmeade attempt to completely discard them from reality. Maybe it's because more than a few of them have been directly inspired by Fox News!

People like Gregory Guisti who threated to Kill Nancy Pelosi.



Washington, DC - Today, after the mother of Gregory Giusti -- the man arrested for allegedly threatening Speaker Nancy Pelosi's life over health care reform -- stated that Fox News was a factor in her son's alleged actions, Media Matters for America released the following statement:
"The violent language and scare tactics we see on Fox News every day have real consequences," said Eric Burns, President of Media Matters. "This is a network that ran a 14-month campaign against health care reform, which left their viewers confused and angry. The question is, now that one of those viewers has allegedly threatened Speaker Pelosi's life over health care reform, is Fox News going to do anything about it?"

Threatening a politician, is violence for political reasons - otherwise known as Terrorism.

And what about this guy - Byron Williams - who was on his way to kill members of the ACLU and Tides Foundation because Glenn Beck Told Him they were DANGEROUS until he was stopped during a gunfight with Oakland Police.



And Kilmeade thinks all the "Terrorist Are Muslim" - yeah, except for the ones Fox News Supports! It's so interesting that Muslims, like those involved in Park 51, who had nothing to do with 9-11 are legitimate targets for retaliation and humiliation, but anyone on the Right-Wing who openly revolts against our own Government are somehow "Victims", if they happen to be contrasted and compared with any of the above.

Double Standard Much?

Yes, the al Qaeda terrorist network is dangerous - but so are all these guys and their network tacit as well as active supporters.

And don't look now, but I think that "movement" is growing.

Vyan

Update: Kilmeade says he's sorry - kinda.



KILMEADE: On the show on Friday, I was talking about Bill O’Reilly appearance on the View and I said this: “Not all Muslims are terrorists but all terrorists are Muslims.” Well, I misspoke. I don’t believe all terrorists are Muslims. I’m sorry about that if I offended or hurt anybody’s feelings. But that’s it.

You don't "believe all terrorists are Muslims" - when you said it not once, but Twice last week? Particularly when that same day he asked Geraldo if American's "have a right to look at moderate Muslims and say, 'show me you're not one of them'"



I would say that the 4th, 5th and 6th Amendments, which are supposed to guarantee the presumption of innocence and require the proof of guilt and due process before a court of law and jury would pre-empt that question. No, you don't have the right to make someone prove their not you're enemy or a criminal.

Which Kilmeade are we supposed to believe, the one who was strident and adamant on Friday or this weak-ass half-hearted shifty Kilmeade today? Is it possible that somebody, oh maybe someone like a major Fox Shareholder such as Saudi Prince Al-Waleed demanded an apology? I don't know - I'm just thinking and wondering... I mean, it's not like this guy could have possibly had a crisis of conscience, nobody on FOX has a conscience or else they couldn't cash their paychecks.

Vyan

Sunday, October 17

Standing Up for Good, Effective Government

It takes a while to get to it in this extended discussion with Republican Eric Cantor, but gradually Jon Stewart breaks down all the GOP Rhetoric about Big Government Takeovers and Tyranny, "Defending Freedom ™" and truly gets to the heart of the issue - which is the that Good Government Matters.



All the screaming, all the shouting, all the BS we constantly see coming through our TV's doesn't really address the problems that we face day in and day out.

But not this time.

Stewart: It's seem like there's big talk on the right, about how this country is turning to the left, it's socials, we're moving towards Europe, but have we? The way I see it's Nixon couldn't be Republican anymore, Nixon would be considered a Liberal in this day and age.

...

Cantor: When you listen to the rhetoric, it's "Run Away Wall Street", it's run away with people who've been successful.

Stewart: Would you disagree that Wall Street has been a bit excessive?

Cantor: No, I would not.

Stewart: So you would suggest that they are also "Run Away"?

Cantor: I would not malign success.

Stewart: Are they maligning success or are the maligning rapaciousness? Like the Robber Barons, they were considered "successful", but rapacious

Yet again the truth is that Republicans have become the defenders of Corporate Freedom, but not personal and individual freedom. Democrats have attempted to reign in corporate malfeasance in order to protect the freedom of consumers and workers.

Stewart: Any income tax is redistributive. We've had that for 90 years, 100 years? So any of those policies, any thing that you implement - do we really have a "Free Market" Economy, because if you really do that the jobs will disappear to India and China faster than you can say "Where are the Jobs?

And yet we see candidate after candidate on the right arguing simultaneously that the Obama policies haven't brought enough jobs - while Republicans block the bill to revoke tax loopholes for companies that ship our jobs overseas. And still they claim to stand on "Principle".

Cantor: We talk about the fact that we believe in principles, and when you ridicule freedom....

Stewart: I don't ridicule Freedom, I ridicule the idea that it's a slogan and platitude and not a reality. That government is the only impingement on Freedom. Corpoorations can impinge freedom. One of the greatest expansion of freedom in this country are roads.

...

And those roads were built by Government. Government workers. I am not ridiculing Freedom, I am ridiculing the idea of Freedom as a slogan. A slogan to be used as a cudgel against anybody would disagree with a economic policy that they think is allowing too much corporate rapaciousness, not redistributing wealth for the sake of castigating those who are success - but not allowing those who can fix the system. Capitalism, you can not deny has a certain amount of collateral damage.

Somebody has to stand up for the working people. The corporations aren't going to do it, the government has a role in doing that, and that's what I'm saying.

Right there, Stewart gets to the heart of the government bashing that is driving this election cycle. SOMEBODY HAS TO DO. Somebody has to stand up for the people, or else they'll be crushed under the corporate heel.

Contrast Stewart's rational and reasonable questioning of Cantor with the usual Talking Point Crapfest we got from the likes of Face the Nation just this morning.



Everything Liz Cheney says is a lie, but a very well crafted lie.

The proof that the U.S. Chamber is taking Foreign Money and putting it into election campaigns is the fact that where they claim the money has come from, such as their AMCham's, isn't anywhere near the amount they've spent or plan to send. The numbers simply don't add up. Their planning to spend about $75 Million for ads, and they claim these are being paid for via AmCham's which have only raised about $100,000, meanwhile Thinkprogress found 85 Foreign Companies that have given at least $885,000 to the chamber, and that's only a small portion of various foreign companies that have contributed. The question is how much of that money is paying for these ads - which is certainly a fair question to ask since Rupert Murdock, an Australian, has had News Corp - whose 3rd Largest Stockholder is a Saudi Prince, give over $2.25 Million to Republicans this cycle.

Even Liz Cheney claims to want "Disclosure", but ignores the fact that Republicans blocked the Disclose Act which would have shed much needed light on this problem.

Here's another example from Tea Party Prince Rand Paul who argues that Democrats are wrong-headed to criticize the Chamber.



Paul: I see the Chamber as a group that fosters economic development in every community. ... In fact, we would encourage you to keep attacking the Chamber because the Chamber is probably more popular than any politician running for office. So please, your side, if you like this — keep on attacking the Chamber. It makes no sense whatsoever. And I think it’s a really, really poor political tactic and untrue.

This is where the Libertarian Free Market theory hits the FAIL of reality. People like Paul argue that corporations should be free to do what they want, even when it comes to practicing discrimination against their customers and employees, but that people should be able to Vote with their Dollars, but when it comes to asking corporations to Admit What their Doing they balk and begin to argue that this would put a "restraint on Free Speech".

Just like Cheney attacked Howard Dean for being supported by George Soros and Moveon.org (which he denies) - Paul attacks Conway for this Moveon Ad - while ignoring the key difference. We know whose funding the MoveOn ad - because they Disclose. Both Cheney and Paul can make those arguments because we know where the money's coming from with MoveOn, but we Don't Know with the Chamber.

How can people "Vote with their Dollars" within the Free Market, if the Market only operates in darkness? How can consumers make a choice about supporting Fox News and their advertisers if they didn't know they've given $2.25 Million to the Republican Governors Association and the Chamber?

How can people take a stand against bigotry and racism when the individuals and organizations who continue to implement it to this very day depend on Secrecy to get away with it? And then when their caught, LIE ABOUT IT, try to excuse and deflect it the way the leaders of the Tea Party has done?

Eventually it all breaks down into finger-pointing over and over again. Accusation, Denial, Counter-Accusation, but not truth, not facts.

Bickering and fact-spinning is what we've become accustomed to, but it's not the way it has to be as shown in Part 2 of the Cantor Interview: Do you really think Democrats want to Subvert the Country?



Here Cantor also argues for Disclosure as well, but not for what would really solve the problem - which is to take funding our elections completely out of the hands of corporations.

Stewart: The Government is not always a impingement on freedom. Sometimes it's the only thing standing between....

Cantor: Absolutely. I don't disagree with you...

Stewart: I know, you just disagree on where's it pressure should be applied (for Publicly Funded Wars, but not Publicly Funded Elections) and that's my whole point with the fallacy that limited Government is a principled stand of Conservatives, It's only Limited to the SHIT they Want to Do!

As Stewart points out the Integrity of our Electoral Process is at the core of our Democracy and it's a core National Security Issue particularly when were looking at the ability of Foreign Nationals, Foreign Companies and Foreign Governments to Capture Our Democracy for the purposes of steal our jobs and national resources for their own benefit.

Wouldn't it be better if we could discuss it the way Cantor and Stewart did, rather than the way Cheney and Dean do?

Vyan