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

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

On DADT: Obama isn't quite Dumbledore

I've heard this complain many times.

Why doesn't Obama just do what Truman Did - and sign an Executive Order banning DADT?

Simple Answer: Because he can't do that, and the reason why is named : Bob Dole.

Y'see, "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" isn't just a matter of policy or regulation - it's a matter of law which was passed by Congress and unfortunately for those who think Obama can waive his magical executive wand and ignore the law, he can't.


\First on the issue of an Executive Order, from the President himself.

Obama: Point Number two, the difference between my position and Harry Truman's is that Congress explicitly passed a law that took away the power of the Executive Branch to end this unilaterally. This is not a situation that with the stroke of a pen, I can end this policy.

In his book, My Life Bill Clinton describes how it was Bob Dole who pushed forward the DADT Law as a way to block Clinton's then stated goal of ending the Military's Gay Ban. The President may be "Commander in Chief" but it is Congress who makes the rules for the Military.

U.S. Constitution, Article 1, Section 8 - Powers of Congress

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

As a result of Bob Dole's move, DADT is listed within the U.S. Codes. - it's not simply a set of regulations, it is the law.

The point here is that when Congress passes a Law, the President can't just Ignore It and do what he wants to do anyway. He has to either change the law, which Obama has been working on doing with the defense authorization bill pending in the Senate, or the law would have to be struck down by the Supreme Court.

We've had another President who used to pretend that laws were optional. That President thought he had the power to ignore Geneva with the stroke of a pen, until the Supreme Court told him otherwise with Hamdan v Rumsfeld. We had a President who didn't think he had to follow the FISA law. Since then Congress has changed that law to give the President more wiggle room with the so-called "FISA Fix". Congress also passed the Detainee Treatment Act as well as the Military Commissions Act which erased Habaeus for foreign enemy combatants, until the SCOTUS restored it with Baumediene.

President Obama tried to close Gitmo with the stroke of a pen, but Congress hasn't funded it's replacement yet - so Gitmo remains open since we have no other place to put them currently.

I have also heard the argument that Obama could use "Stop Loss" to prevent the separation required by DADT? That is incorrect, because Stop Loss is not a Law, (Correction: No, Actually it is a Law that brought in during Vietnam, more on this here) it's a policy that was implemented by the Military and for which Congress was only briefed about. The only thing Congress has done with Stop Loss is to extend pay for it, but Congress didn't put it in place.

Lastly there is the argument that the Obama DOJ Shouldn't Appeal the DADT ruling - but that's not a very good idea.

Former Clinton Admin Solicitor General Walter Dellinger explains why.

I think the government really has not choice but to appeal the case, because we don't want a situation where a single federal judge can repeal and act of Congress. Imagine three years down the road if someone is challenging Health Care, over the individual mandate or minimum coverage requirements and we have a Republican President, and they find one Federal District Judge who finds that it's unconstitutional.

...

You wouldn't want a situation where the government would say "Well, we're just not going to appeal

So, even though the President wants to end the policy - the Justice Department should appeal because simply dropping the case because of the ruling of one judge is a horrible way to make policy. The Judge has issued a stay order, but the DOJ will appeal even if they have no real intention of winning the case are only doing so as a pro forma measure to push this issue ultimately to the Supreme Court. Once the SCOTUS rules - the law is changed.

Now the current defense authorization bill in front of the Senate also ends this policy - and there is only one bill - so either we repeal DADT and fund our military this year or we don't.

The policy is not over, not until either the Senate or the SCOTUS acts and right now the odds are good that both might in fact do so - but they haven't done it yet and other than cheerleading the Senate on the issue, Obama's hands are largely tied.

So stop beating him up over it, he's doing the right thing. It may not be
pretty right now, but we'll get to the goal we all want. Soon.

Vyan


Update: More on the Stop-Loss Argument. This Study http://www.palmcenter.org/press/dadt/releases/New+Study+Says+Obama+Can+Halt+Gay+Discharges+With+Executive+Order from last year states that the President has authority under 10 USC 12305 to suspend the law.

(a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, during any period members of a reserve component are serving on active duty pursuant to an order to active duty under authority of section 12301, 12302, or 12304 of this title, the President may suspend any provision of law relating to promotion, retirement, or separation applicable to any member of the armed forces who the President determines is essential to the national security of the United States.

The question I have with this is whether this would be only an individual case-by-case basis where the individual person being separated has to be shown to be essential or can it be more broad. The other problem with this is that it would only last for as long as that determination held, so another President - or SecDef acting in his stead - could reverse this rule just as easily.

One thing is certain, the President isn't aware of this study or opinion - which as I noted is a fairly new understanding - because his understanding seems to be exactly as mine was.

Glenn Beck "Blew His Mind", Then he Tried to Kill

Byron Williams is a Domestic Terrorist who wanted to kill members of the ACLU and the Tides Foundation, and he decided to do it - because Glenn Beck inspired him to do it.



Via TalkingPointsMemo.

In audio interviews obtained by MediaMatters, accused shooter Byron Williams says Fox News host Glenn Beck "blew my mind" with "the things he exposed."

Williams is charged with allegedly opening fire on police on Interstate 580 in Oakland, California, while on his way to "start a revolution" by attacking members of the ACLU and the Tides Foundation. As we've reported, the Tides Foundation is a favorite punching bag of Glenn Beck's, and he counts the group among his cabal of liberals aiming to bring socialism to America.

William's says that George Soros and Obama caused the BP Oil Spill by contacting with Halliburton to sabotage the well - I suppose to help propel their anti-Industry Global Warming takeover.

Williams: And it was the things that he did, it was the things he exposed that blew my mind. Beck would never say anything about a conspiracy, would never advocate violence, he'll never do anything like, of this nature, but he'll give you every ounce of evidence that you could possibly need.

George Soros is the big bag boogie man, pulling Obama's strings through the Center for American Progress and generally running the show.

Williams: Soros has got himself a little system where rich people can donate and remain anonymous

If Soros can donate anonymously, how come these people seem to know everything he's put his money into? And my doesn't that idea sound a lot like what the Koch Brothers, Americans For Prosperity and American Crossroads are actually doing with the Tea Party and unlimited contributions to Republican Candidates?

And here's were he unravels the onion.

Williams: Beck is going to deny everything about a violent approach. He's going to deny conspiracies, but he'll give you everything you need to believe them. He's protecting himself, and you can't blame him for that.

Oh, yes, actually I think I can.

Williams: They've got Beck pegged as this guy who insights violence, well what I say is ... the truth insights violence

No, it doesn't - it really really doesn't.

Beck: To the day I die, I'm going to be a progressive hunter. And drive a stake through the heart of the blood suckers.

Beck may not be shouting FIRE in a crowded theater, he may not be directly specifically pushing for violent action - but what William's reveals his that this is merely to keep himself just an inch away from the The Brandenburg Standard and out of civil or criminal liability for the violence that he has already inspired, not to mention what will happen in the future.

Vyan

Rachel Maddow v Art (Crazy Bag) Robinson: Cage Match

Sometimes the crazy comes in buckets.. thick heavy buckets. This is truly appalling, truly amazing, like watching a 20 Car pile-up in slow motion which turns into a giant explosive Blevy, and not being able to look away even as the skin begins the blister from the heat.



Wow... just WOW!

Before I break down this lunar loon, let me first cleanse your palatte with a previous piece that Maddow did with Congressman Pete Defazio, where the question of whose funding this guy was first openly asked.



Ok, back to crazytown.

Most of Rachel's interview with Robinson is obviously a complete cluster-frack, but in the midst of all this we do get one half-way cogent position, or comment from this nutbag.

The only thing he was willing to admit to is being a global warming denier. Check.

Maddow: You're well known for your belief that Global Warming is made up. That that is not true, that's sort of a source of your national reputation, to the extent that you have one. You're opponent Mr. Defazio...

Robinson: That's not a belief, that's a conclusion I reached as a Physical Scientist. I have a degree from CalTech. Many others who have degrees from CalTech have agreed with me on this. Thousands of Physical Scientist in this country who on the basis of scientific evidence alone reject the cause of global warming. I'll tell you madam, there are thousands and thousands of them - far more than there are at the UN pushing this bogus claim about global warming.

Did anyone mention to this officious Caltech blowhard that Rachel Maddow has a Bachelors degree from Stanford and is a Rhodes Scholar with a PHd in Philosophy from Oxford University based on a thesis titled HIV/AIDS and Health Care Reform in British and American Prisons?

Everything, EVERYTHING, after this was dodge, deflect, and blame or accuse Peter Defazio of something or the other, and Rachel Maddow of being up to some nefarious evil Liberal Plot to defame and smear Mr. Robinson.

I'm not going to get into his own quotes which paint him as a denier of HIV's link to AIDs and his argument that the entire thing was a government political plot. He rejected that anyway. All he wanted to say was...

Robinson: Pete Defazio voted for higher taxes. Pete Defazio voted for more government regulation. Pete Defazio has cut off Oregonians from access to use their forests and their fisheries. Pete Defazio voted for the Medical Care after he promised that he wouldn't

Pete Defazio's Voting Record is Here via Project Vote Smart.

He voted for the Stimulus which included Tax Cuts for 95% of Americans. He Voted for Energy Efficiency Loans, he voted against Cap and Trade, he voted for Vouchers for Fuel Efficient Cars, He voted to add the Taunton River to part of the National Wild and Scenic Rivers Program, he voted in favor of Tax Credits for Offshore Drilling and in favor of Oil Production Leases, he voted against forcibly removing our forces from Afghanistan, he voted in favor of the New GI Bill, he voted to improve House Ethics and he voted for the final Health Care Act, even though it didn't have a Public Option.

Generally speaking Defazio is your average middle-of-road Democrat. Not a fire-breathing Liberal, but not a Conserva-Crat either. Here he is with Rachel again explaining way back in the day how Obama's Stimulus was too weak on infrastructure. Oh, for the days when Obama used to tell the Repubs - "I Won"!



Here's a tip Art, when you're being interviewed - the interview is about YOU and what you believe - not all the problems with your opponent.

But Robinson, in this interview refused to explain his support for the concept of hor-mesis, which is the idea that exposure to low-level radiation could actually be beneficial for humans, and hence we should simply dilute the waste of Nuclear Powerplants with sea water and allow it to spread through the population.

This is something I actually bothered to look up. Dodgy though it can be Wikipedia has something on the subject of Hormesis.

Hormesis (from Greek hórmēsis "rapid motion, eagerness," from ancient Greek hormáein "to set in motion, impel, urge on") is the term for generally-favorable biological responses to low exposures to toxins and other stressors. A pollutant or toxin showing hormesis thus has the opposite effect in small doses as in large doses. A related concept is Mithridatism, which refers to the willful exposure to toxins in an attempt to develop immunity against them.

In toxicology, hormesis is a dose response phenomenon characterized by a low dose stimulation, high dose inhibition, resulting in either a J-shaped or an inverted U-shaped dose response. Such environmental factors that would seem to produce positive responses have also been termed “eustress”.

As a layman, I find that pretty clear. It's sounds like the same principle behind vaccinations and immunity. A small or low level dose or exposition to a potential toxin, virus or poison can lead to the development of resistance and which can render something immune to the effects of this toxin. If we're talking about Small Pox, or some other virus this seems to have been clearly borne out in science. However, when you're talking about radiation it's an entirely different story. Viruses interact with our bodies in a specific way that can allow us to develop anti-bodies which can specifically target and eradicate that virus from out systems. Radiation isn't a virus, it's a form of energy entering our bodies and destroying cells as it's passes through. It's like arguing you could became immune to a Light if you just had enough anti-bodies for it, or that you could develop a resistance to a knife blade entering your sternum.

Still apparently the idea has not gone unaddressed in Scientific Circles.

One percent (195 out of 20,285) of the published articles contained 668 dose-response relationships that met the entry criteria.[1]

Indeed, the idea that low dose effects may be (sometimes strikingly) different is accepted, but that the low dose effect is positive is questionable. In one of the better studied areas of hormesis, radiation hormesis the United States National Research Council (part of the National Academy of Sciences),[2] the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (a body commissioned by the United States Congress)[3] and the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Ionizing Radiation (UNSCEAR) all agree that radiation hormesis is not clearly shown, nor clearly the rule for radiation doses.

So it seems that Mr. Robinson is not entirely a fool, still he seems to be a half a bag short of a nut. Just remember that Ted Kasczinky, aka the Unibomber, also had a prestigious degree from Harvard, a Phd in Mathematics from the University of Michigan and was an instructer at UC Berkeley by the time he was just 25. Since then things have gone less well for Ted, and after multiple bombings and murders, his address is now the Colorado Supermax Detention Facility.

Smart is apparently no antidote for crazy.

Pete Defazio is currently running 2 points ahead of this guy -- why don't we SEND HIM SOME MONEY via Act Blue? (Update: Nate Silver has this race as a 100% chance for Defazio's reelection, holding a 27 point lead - which is a massive relief, Robinson did receive $178,000 independently, but Defazio currently has over $600,000 more than Robinson in reserve)

Vyan

Federal Judge Finds Health Care Law - Constitutional

From TalkingPointsMemo.

In Detroit today, U.S. District Court Judge George Steeh refused to issue a preliminary injunction to delay implementing the law in the state. He also dismissed the key contention of the bill's conservative opponents: that a mandate requiring individuals to buy health insurance is unconstitutional.

Ruh Roh! All those Wingnut Attorney General's and Governors who've been jumping up and down screaming about how unfair and unconstitutional the PPACA is, just got O'Keefe Slapped.

Continued.

"This ruling marks the first time a court has considered the merits of any challenge to this law and we welcome the court's decision upholding the health care reform statute as constitutional," says DOJ spokeswoman Tracy Schmaler. "The court found that the minimum coverage provision of the statute was a reasonable means for Congress to take in reforming our health care system. The department will continue to vigorously defend this law in ongoing litigation."

In denying this element of the lawsuit the judge said that the requirement was intended to help lower the overall cost of health care, and was clearly within the powers of congress.

This decisions doesn't directly affect the cases from 20 various states - including the one by Arizona Governor Jan Brewer's general counsel bypassing her own State AG when he refused to be involved - who have all filed suit against implementation of this law arguing that the Interstate Commerce Clause does not allow the Congress to create a law impacting consumers of a resource that is clearly provided across multiple states.

Congress has done similar measures in the past, because essentially the "fine" is really a "tax" which is handled and assessed by the IRS. If you buy health insurance, you are exempt from this tax in the same way that first time home buyers are afforded a tax credit, which lowers the amount they send to the IRS. This personal responsibility mandate really isn't any different from that, and even if one of these suites does manage to reach a sympathetic judge it wouldn't cancel the implementation of the Health Care Law, what it might do is for the first time allow a Federal Court to Repeal a Federal Tax which was duly passed by Congress and signed into law by the President.

Would you then see a stampede of other States rushing to block and repeal the end of the Bush Tax Breaks for Millionaires and Billionaires arguing that returning to the rates from the 1990's is "Unconstitutional"? That may seem farfetced but many of them are currently arguing that the Minimum Wage is Unconstitutional even though it easily survived challenge before the Supreme Court almost 60 years ago, but then they do keep saying the want to take the "County Back". Apparently back to the 19th Century and Charles Dickens.

As Senate Candidate and Former Federal Magistrate Joe Miller Said.

"What I'd recommend that you do is go to the Constitution and look at the enumerated powers because what we have is something that we call the 10th amendment that says, look if it's not there if it's not enumerated, then it's delegated to the states," Miller said. "Everything that's not there is reserved to the states and the people."

Interesting that Joe Miller's read the 10th Amendment, but he hasn't read the 9th Amendment because it makes the opposite argument on the limits of "enumeration".

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

So even though a specific right isn't enumerated, it doesn't mean that it doesn't exist and isn't retained by people. That would include clearly implied rights such as the right to privacy which is only generally prescribed by the 4th and 5th Amendments, and the rights to Life, which requires the ability to Live via access to Health Care which is clearly one of the "Blessings of Liberty" outlined in the preamble, the protection of both is indeed part of the Congressional Powers as it is charged with "providing for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States" under Article 1, Section 8.

Not that this ever seems to deter most of these so-called uber-Constitutionists who constantly argue that there is an absolute right to life (which isn't specifically enumerated in Constitution, it's only mentioned in the "Declaration of Independence"), but no right to privacy (which is *almost* enumerated) from either sides of their mouths.

Considering all the unrestrained nutball crazy we've seen coming from the Right-Wing over the past two years, I wouldn't put anything past them or beneath them.

Vyan

Moral Bankruptcy & a la Carte Compasion

It's amazing to me the depth of cruelty and total lack of caring, but here we can see it in full display. Despite the fact the Gene Cranick - and his neighbor - both offered to pay on the spot to save his house, all his possessions, his families three dogs and their cat were all lost while the Fire(non)fighters stood by and watched! The reaction on the right now just how much these people really don't care about the American people and just how much they hate Americans, particularly the poor ones.

As Keith describes in his piece we've now had a couple days to hear what the wingnuts have to say about this, and none of it is good.

GRAY: (mocking Cranick’s accent) Even tho’ I hadn’t paid mah seventy five dollahs I thought dey’d put it out. [...] I wanted ‘em to put it out, but dey didn’t put it out.

BECK: Here’s the thing. Those that are just on raw feeling are not going to understand. [...]

GRAY: But I thought they was gonna put the fire out anyway, but it burned down. Dat ain’t right! [...] What’s the Fire Department for if you don’t put out the fire?! [...] I thought they’d put out mah fire even if I didn’t pay seventy five dollars.

BECK: This is the sort of argument that Americans are going to have.

GRAY: It is.

BECK: And it goes nowhere if you go onto “compassion, compassion, compassion, compassion” or well, “they should’ve put it out, what is the fire department for?” [...] If you don’t pay the 75 dollars then that hurts the fire department. They can’t use those resources, and you’d be spongeing off your neighbor’s resources. [...] It’s important for America to have this debate. This is the kind of stuff that’s going to have to happen, we are going to have to have these kinds of things.

Chris Hayes to his credit brings up exactly what I was thinking about this issue.

Chris Hayes: What we have now is Single Payer Fire Fighting. We all pay in and we all universally get this service.

More from Keith.



Fire protection should not be an on demand option, like HBO or NBA Channel, it's needs to be a basic service available without discrimination to only because of the impact it has disproportionally on the poor - but the risk that it puts the rest of society, our homes and families in, when you you live next door to someone who hasn't paid their fee. In this case, because the homes were far enough apart to prevent embers from drifting directly from house to house it was fairly easy to protect his neighber. But let's also remember, this fire didn't even begin on Mr. Cranick's property, it's started in a nearby FARM.

Here's what the NRO guys have been saying - as reported by Thinkprogress.

First Dan Foster, who had no problem with it - in theory.

I have no problem with this kind of opt-in government in principle — especially in rural areas where individual need for government services and available infrastructure vary so widely. But forget the politics: what moral theory allows these firefighters (admittedly acting under orders) to watch this house burn to the ground when 1) they have already responded to the scene; 2) they have the means to stop it ready at hand; 3) they have a reasonable expectation to be compensated for their trouble?

Then came Kevin Williamson.

Dan, you are 100 percent wrong. [...] And, for their trouble, the South Fulton fire department is being treated as though it has done something wrong, rather than having gone out of its way to make services available to people who did not have them before. The world is full of jerks, freeloaders, and ingrates — and the problems they create for themselves are their own. These free-riders have no more right to South Fulton’s firefighting services than people in Muleshoe, Texas, have to those of NYPD detectives.

Thank you Mr.-I-Got-Mine-So-Everyone-Else-Can-Frack-Off!

Jonah Goldberg.

Here’s the more important part of the story, letting the house burn — while, I admit sad — will probably save more houses over the long haul. I know that if I opted out of the program before, I would be more likely to opt-in now. No solace to the homeowner, but an important lesson for compassionate conservatives like our own Dan Foster (Zing!). As Edmund Burke said, example is the school of mankind and he will learn from no other.

Fuck You Dorothy and you're little Dog Toto too, next you'll pay the Emerald City Entrance Fee up front - now won'tcha - Won'tcha!!

And then you had John Derbyshire who likes to have things more "Crunchy".

Dan, Kevin: I am entirely with the South Fulton fire department here. In the terms of Nico Colchester’s great 1996 essay, they are being crunchy rather than soggy:

Crunchy systems are those in which small changes have big effects leaving those affected by them in no doubt whether they are up or down, rich or broke, winning or losing, dead or alive. ... Sogginess is comfortable uncertainty. ... The richer a society becomes, the soggier its systems get. Light-switches no longer turn on or off: they dim.

One of the duties of conservatives in this soggy fallen world is to stand up for crunchiness. For the fire department to have extinguished the Cranicks’ fire would have been soggy, even aside from the considerable degree of sogginess it would have left on the property.

Yeah, I think that House than landed on your Witchy-Poo sister was pretty Crunchy too there. There's no doubt, she's dead John.

Imagine if we were talking about A la Carte Police? Wouldn't that be considered a Protection Racket by most courts? Speaking of which, what if we have A la Cart Judges, where the favorable decision goes to the highest payer? (Some would argue that that's already true, when it comes to legal representation, and we call all see how well that's worked out...)

And another thought occurs to me, what exactly do any of these guys think of the Individual Mandate? Y'know, since we can't have Freeloaders and Deadbeats who cause everyone else to pay for them in this Country. The fact that about 50,000 American's a Year are dying because they don't have access to affordable health care and all. And this isn't just about those people, just like a fire a contagious infection can spread if it's not treated - and that risk is increased to the general public when people have no regular doctor, and haven't kept up on critical flu vaccinations.

What does the NRO really think of this? Well they put up this video from Republican Congressman Jim Jordan.

Jordan: For the first time in history we have the Federal Government saying you have to purchase a product or else you'll be fined. This is a matter of freedom

No, it's really not about "Freedom". For years the Federal Government has raised taxes on people who didn't buy a specific product. People who buy their first Homes get a Tax Credit for it, that people who don't purchase a home don't receive. You don't have to buy one, but if you don't - you pay a greater tax. The individual mandate really isn't any different from that.

But to Conservatives, Libertarians and Tea Baggers it seems when it comes to requiring everyone to pay a subscription fee in order to have access to Fire Protection, Republicans are All For It because it teaches all those Dead-Beats A Lesson, but when it comes to requiring everyone pay for Health Insurance that can help keep them Alive, and protect the rest of us of having to pay for them when inevitiably they actually do become sick - and everyone will at some point or another... no matter what the Interstate Commerce Clause says, they scream Blood Unconstitutional Murder!

Heartless, Mean-spirited Hypocrits Much?

Vyan

Remember Why We Fight

This past Saturday the NAACP and unions such as the AFC/CIO had a rally that put the best Glenn Beck and Fox Disinformation Channel could muster to shame, but of course it was far too much for Fux News and former Senator and Dead Baby Fetishist Rick Santorum to honestly recognize that Progressives had matched and exceeded their best, instead they had to rely on their tried and true bestest counter tactic.... Slander and Bullshit.



I don't think I have to say much here, because I think their own naked demented bullcrap speaks volumes.

But let's not editorialize, let's let them speak for themselves.

Rick Santorum: You're going to see out there on the mall a bunch of people spewing Anti-American rhetoric. If you look at Glenn Beck's Rally, these are people who love America, love what it stands for, celebrate America, celebrate our past, and you're going to see a litany of grievances about how bad America is, these people only like America for what they want to change it to be, but they don't love America for what it is, and that is not going to go over well with the American public.

Yeah, right. sure.

The people at the Glenn Beck rally had no grievances with "how bad America is"? Oh really? Why don't we let them tell us about that.



Here's an amazing report on the "One Nation" Rally, which is a direct contrast to everything claimed by the Rick Sanitorium and the Tea Partiers, yet ironicallly, broadcast by the Fox News Channel. Yikes!



Wouldn't it be something if these people watched their own damn station?

Far too much to ask I know, but richly ironic.

The current numbers are that the Glenn Beck "Restoring Our Honor" rally brought 87,000 people to the mall - despite Beck's claims that it was a 500,000. Wouldn't it be cool if Progressives could bring that many people out?

Yeah, I know, far too much to expect I know. Except...

Oh wait, apparently they did bring over 125,000 people, according to Crooks and Liars. Geepers!



Ruh Roh!

What's a desperate angry paranoid hate-filled bigoted Tea Bagger to do now?

I really didn't see anyone in this video who harbors "Anti-American" feelings - although I suspect more than a few might harbor Anti-Santorum Feelings, rather I think I saw a bunch of people who believed in E Pluribus Enum, from many into one, that that diversity is not our weakness - but out strength, that we are a group of people who are willing to fight for this country, to sacrifice for this country, but not just for the benefit of those who are already rich and prosperous due to wondrous opportunity that America has afforded them already, but for those who are in desperate need, for those who are in pain, for those who are barely surviving - we are people who are willing to fight to give those who need it most a better access to opportunity, better access to success, and better access to Liberty.

And Justice... For All not just for Dick Armey, the Koch Brothers, Halliburton, Wackenhut, Wellpoint, Cigna, Anthem/Blue Cross, Massey Mining, Blackwater/Xe and BP.

Fox Propaganda Station and Rick Sanitorium are not neutral arbiters of fact. They Lie, and Lie Loudly to the benefit of the biggest Corporate Contributors to NewsCorp &trace, even the Saudi Prince who happens to be financing the "Victory Mosque at Ground Zero". Opps, did I burst someone's bubble with that one? Tough.

America is a indeed Secular Country, rather than a Theocratic Caliphate - so far - yet still it should be noted that Jesus of Nazareth said: Blessed Are the Meek, for they shall inherent the Earth.

Jesus who some call the Messiah said: It would be more difficult for the Rich to enter the Kingdom of Heaven, than for a Camel to slip through the Eye of Needle.

Jesus the Prophet said: That which you do to the least of your brethren, you do to me, and to God.

Jesus the Son of Man said: Let those among you who are without sin, cast the first stone.

Jesus tossed out the money changers, who had upset the will of God.

Jesus forgave the criminal, the adulterer, the murderer and the thief, for only through the eye of forgiveness can the divine light of redemption and rebirth burn.

The fact is that Jesus was a Pacifist and a Liberal - something Rick Santorum the self-proclaimed "Jesus Freak" should know well, but of course doesn't - and let God and all Tea Baggers tremble with that thought.

I may be premature and getting all HOPE and CHANGEY up in here, but It looks to me like we have a lack that of a so-called of Enthusiasm gap on our hands.

Oh! Heaven forfend!!

Shake Santorum Shake! You're latest reconning looms.

Vyan