at-Largely

Paranoid journalism round-up - the Texas terror crash edition

As you know, Joseph Stack flew his plane into an IRS building in Austen:

"The man, identified by federal law enforcement officials as Joseph Stack, 53, was a software engineer who had a long-running grudge with the Internal Revenue Service."

Terrorism is usually an act of idealogical, religious, and/or political motivation. Stack left a suicide note that indicates his motive was political/idealogical, specifically targeting the federal tax system in general and the IRS in particular. The note is vehemently anti-government, specifically hostile to the IRS, and paranoid. But it does show a lucid mind and a violent act well thought out, making all of this that much more eerie:

"If you're reading this, you're no doubt asking yourself, "Why did this have to happen?"  The simple truth is that it is complicated and has been coming for a long time.  The writing process, started many months ago, was intended to be therapy in the face of the looming realization that there isn't enough therapy in the world that can fix what is really broken.  Needless to say, this rant could fill volumes with example after example if I would let it.

<snip>

I saw it written once that the definition of insanity is repeating the same process over and over and expecting the outcome to suddenly be different.  I am finally ready to stop this insanity. Well, Mr. Big Brother IRS man, let's try something different; take my pound of flesh and sleep well.

The communist creed: From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.

The capitalist creed: From each according to his gullibility, to each according to his greed."

Enter sort-of-journalism stage right, left, and way out there

Fox News does not seem to consider this attack an act of domestic terrorism. Presumably, this is because no Muslims were involved.

Then there is the new Republican Senator from Massachusetts, Scott Brown - also appearing on Fox News (surprise)- seems to sympathize with Stack:

"You don't know anything about the individual," Brown said. "He could have had other issues. Certainly, no one likes paying taxes obviously."

On the other side of the great divide, WaPo columnist Jonathan Capehart  decides that the suicide note sounds like Tea Party talking points:

"But after reading his 34-paragraph screed, I am struck by how his alienation is similar to that we're hearing from the extreme elements of the Tea Party movement."

Is this terrorism? Yes. Is there evidence that this a Tea Party nut? No. There are plenty of possible groups of thought Stack could have belonged to, including anarchists, Libertarians, and yes, Tea Party lunatics. But let's not jump the gun here.

Then there is the ever paranoid (The Commies are coming) NewsBusters - that spends its time hunting Commies in the media when not busy being paranoid about a Socialist media conspiracy:

A trend is beginning to develop in the media reports concerning Joe Stack, the man who allegedly smashed a plane into an IRS building in Austin, Texas: his disgust for capitalism and support of communism must be ignored at all cost.

As NewsBusters previously reported, both Time.com and a blog posting at the Washington Post have conveniently skipped two crucial sentences at the end of Stack's suicide note:

The communist creed: From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.

The capitalist creed: From each according to his gullibility, to each according to his greed.

Clearly, Stack was no friend of capitalism.

So, not being a friend of capitalism automatically makes one a Commie? Yes, Stack included one line about Communism in his note, but that is hardly evidence of his Commie connections, interests, and such. Just as there is no evidence tying Stack to the Tea Party movement, there is also no evidence tying Stack to some grand Commie conspiracy. But telling these people that is like explaining physics to a flea. I urge you to read the comments there as well to get a good understanding of just how deranged, paranoid, and confused these people are.

And finally, there is Glenn Beck, who actually thinks that the POTUS is close to allowing radicals like Stack into his inner circle:

"Later, Beck took to the chalkboard and came thisclose to suggesting that President Obama is very close to allowing radicals like Stack into his inner circle, though he did manage to note that Van Jones “hasn’t killed anybody.” He also emphatically suggested that the country needs to “get away from anybody who’s calling for a revolution…whether it’s a Tea Party revolution or a communist one.” No more Tea Parties for Beck? Not sure I buy that, unless Stack’s anti-government extreme put the scare in Beck (many would argue Beck has a ‘chalkboard manifesto’ of sorts…is he trying to distance himself?). It will be interesting to see how much of this “separation of radicals” is going to make it into his CPAC address this weekend."

Yes, Beck and his glue-sniffing are the stuff of legend. All in all, the term journalist or pundit does not seem to sufficiently depict the type of crazy we are seeing. We need a whole new other word that describes the reporting of news from within a paranoid bunker: parajournalism.

The "they were set-up" meme...

Despite the fact that four men hatched a plot (which they admitted to) to impersonate telephone repairmen, three of whom entered a federal building while one remained in a car nearby with a "listening device," and allegedly attempted to bug the office of a US Senator, some people on the right actually think that James O'Keefe and gang were somehow entrapped.

Let us first review the incident again before we jump in with the paranoid theories now running rampant:

"According to the FBI affidavit, Flanagan and Basel entered the federal building at 500 Poydras Street on Monday about 11 a.m., dressed as telephone company employees, wearing jeans, fluorescent green vests, tool belts and hard hats. When they arrived at Landrieu's 10th-floor office, O'Keefe was already in the office and had told a staffer he was waiting for someone to arrive.

When Flanagan and Basel entered the office, they told the staffer they were there to fix phone problems. At that time, the staffer, referred to only as Witness 1 in the affidavit, observed O'Keefe positioning his cell phone in his hand to videotape the operation. O'Keefe later admitted to agents that he recorded the event.

After being asked, the staffer gave Basel access to the main phone at the reception desk. The staffer told investigators that Basel manipulated the handset. He also tried to call the main office phone using his cell phone, and said the main line wasn't working. Flanagan did the same.

They then told the staffer they needed to perform repair work on the main phone system and asked where the telephone closet was located. The staffer showed the men to the main General Services Administration office on the 10th floor, and Flanagan and Basel went in. There, a GSA employee asked for the men's credentials. They said they left them in their vehicle.

The U.S. Marshal's Service apprehended all four men shortly thereafter.

<snip>

An official close to the investigation said one of the four was arrested with a listening device in a car blocks from the senator's offices. He spoke on condition of anonymity because that information was not included in official arresting documents."

In case your ability to process things is on the slower side, let me break it down:

1. Flanagan and Basel dressed themselves as telephone repairmen. No one entered their homes and dressed them. 

2. Flanagan and Basel entered a federal building impersonating telephone repairmen. They were not dragged kicking and screaming. They entered the building of their own volition.

3. O'Keefe also entered the building and misrepresented why he was there. Again, this young man entered the building of his own volition.

4. Dai apparently sat in the car with a listening device. Assuming no one had a gun to his head, he did so of his own volition.

5. Flanagan and Basel proceeded to attempt access to federal phone lines. They did so of their own volition.

6. O'Keefe recorded the whole operation with his cell phone. He did so using his own cell phone and of his own volition.

7. Most importantly, the men admitted to most of the charges when questioned by the FBI. They deny they were there to bug the office, but have admitted to everything else.

So on what planet and by what magical method were these men in any way entrapped?

Let's take a gander at some of these theories:

Free the Landieu Four:

"Olbermann, Madow, and the rest of the gang were yucking it up last night over the prospect of caging, for 20 years, James O’Keefe, the kid who exposed ACORN, and his three friends. They are accused of dressing up like telephone repairmen and visiting LA senator Mary Landrieu’s government office in hopes of embarrassing her. To the Gulag, go!

Was this entrapment? The regime has wanted to destroy O’Keefe for showing up Obama’s favorite state-funded community group. In any event, these boys were imprudent at worst. Being Republican conservatives, they did not absorb the libertarian lesson that public property isn’t. Different rules apply to the state than hoi polloi. How dare they enter the holy sanctuary of Landrieu without due obeisance?And, preferably, a suitcase of cash.

My own view: since the feds can crowbar your money out of you, and use it to enter your house or office under false pretenses, to spy on you, listen to your phone calls, read your emails, go through your underwear drawer, etc. what’s sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. So I say, Free the Landrieu Four and all other political prisoners!"

Yes, and pink dream sirens walk among us. 

[More below the fold]

Dick Cheney needs a reminder - 9/11 on his watch - Updated

Updates Below

##

Dick Cheney is attacking the POTUS again, during a time of war no less:

"Former Vice President Dick Cheney accused President Barack Obama on Tuesday of “trying to pretend we are not at war” with terrorists, pointing to the White House response to the attempted sky bombing as reflecting a pattern that includes banishing the term “war on terror” and attempting to close the Guantanamo Bay detention center."

Yes, it is all Obama's fault for using different terminology and attempting to close a facility from which the Cheney administration released the alleged plotters of the failed Detroit plot. But more importantly, let us not forget that the biggest terrorist attack in US history happened on Dick Cheney's watch, despite countless warnings from at least 11 nations and our own CIA.

Moreover, Cheney's immediate response to the 9/11 attacks was to first have meetings on attacking Iraq. (see 9/11 dates in this timeline).

Let's cut to the chase. Dick Cheney is the pretender. He pretended to be Vice President when we know that he actually ran foreign policy out of his office. Dick Cheney pretended to tell the truth when he openly lied this nation into war with Iraq. Dick Cheney pretends to care about national security, all the while ensuring that Halliburton got highly lucrative no-bid contracts for faulty products and overpriced services - money that instead could have been used by our soldiers.

Dick Cheney had pretended to be a patriot for far too many years, but the naked truth of it is that the man is an opportunist, who has little regard for this nation or its people who has violated the basic principles of what this nation stands for over and over (a nation of laws is now a nation of men).

Let's not forget too that Dick Cheney is alleged to have helped cover up the selling of arms to Iran in order fund terrorism in Central America. This was called the Iran Contra scandal.  Years later, Cheney pretends that this history never happened and that Iran has always been an enemy, one we must attack. He conveniently ignores that he helped empower this so - called enemy.

The man is a monster without a conscience, without remorse, without any decency. I can list every single crime, source it here for all to see, but you know the facts. The question really is why Mike Allen continues to write Cheney's ugly rhetoric every chance he gets. Seriously, why?

UPDATE

Steve Benen writes an excellent criticism of Cheney, also pointing out the pesky facts:

Let's review a few pesky details. First, it was Cheney's administration that released some of the alleged terrorists who plotted the attack into an "art therapy rehabilitation program" in Saudi Arabia, only to see them become terrorist leaders in Yemen. It was also Cheney's administration that gave Abdulmutallab a visa to enter the United States in the first place.

Andrew Sullivan also wonders why Mike Allen is acting as stenographer for Cheney:

There he goes again, the mouthpiece for Rove and Cheney, believing his "access" as a stenographer makes him a journalist. It doesn't. It makes him a stenographer.

Allen gussies up his source's bile with a few fig leaf sentences and a gesture from a Democratic rebuttal. But he also offers the entire Cheney statement - a classic Dolchstoss attack on the president as a traitor - in full.

Alan Colmes stresses that Cheney has yet to condemn the attempted attack, the alleged terrorist, but manages to take a swipe at the POTUS:

As one Democrat aptly responded, Cheney didn’t condemn the bomber, didn’t condemn the act; he condemned the president.  And as Politico’s Mike Allen notes in the video below, criticisms of Obama that he waited three whole days to comment on the Christmas day incident come from those who gave Bush a pass when he waited six days to address the shoe bomber scare.  Cheney says Obama is ignoring that we’re at war with terrorists, in spite of Obama’s statements to the contrary.

Wishing death on political opponents...

This kind of ugly rhetoric is precisely why the far right-wing is destroying the entire GOP. The mainstream Republican party will not cut away this gangrene, so it is stuck with the ramifications of having in their party such violent positions so openly displayed. Just take a look:

'"Senator Robert Byrd (D-WV) has seen far better days, and is often little more than a warm body when he is helped into the Senate. Granted, lucidity and coherence is not a priority among Senate Democrats, but Byrd is an embarrassment even for a party that regular drafts the imaginary or dead to vote.

Robert Byrd has been around a very long time, and his many decades of service have made West Virginia a wonderful state in which to manufacture methamphetamine or frame the locals for murder. But it's time for Senator to do the right thing, and expire.

It isn't too much to ask for Byrd to step off for that great klavern in the sky before the Senate vote that may force this nation to accept government-rationed health care. Even a nice coma would do.

Without his frail, Gollum-like body being wheeled into the Senate's chambers to cast the deciding vote, the Senate cannot curse our children and grandchildren with crushing debt and rationed, substandard healthcare.

I suppose some will be shocked and appalled that I'd wish for the former kleagle to die on command. I'd remind them that the party wheeling in a near invalid to vote in favor of this unread monstrosity of a bill is the one that should feel shame."'

Yes, the "i hope you die" political talking point is offensive, but not shocking. Not from this bunch. Let me share with you a story of something that had happened to me recently. I twittered about it mildly - not in fully detail - but I was too angry to fully blog about it. Given this latest display of death -by -disagreement- syndrome, I feel I must share it.

(more after the fold)

Okay, who won the bet?

On December 2, I wrote the following regarding obsessed bigot Don Douglas:

"On a side note, Don Douglas continues his strange obsession with me, while inserting himself somehow into this story, and as always, gets thing very much wrong:

That said, as a follow up from this afternoon, I'm reiterating my call for Larisa Alexandrovna -- who has smeared me personally as racist -- to issue an apology and retraction for her Bill Sparkman race-baiting. Ms. Alexandrovna's racist allegations against conservatives seek to delegitimized partisanship and shut down debate -- these smears are all the leftists have left, so don't expect much from these people, so intent to gain political capital from the cult of victimology.

Wonderful job there Sherlock. Douglas seems to have noticed (because he visits my blog often) that I had not apologized for my Bachmann/Census/Sparkman discussions. He even reiterated his call that I do so and on the same day too (apparently visiting my blog more than once a day).

Yet he seems to either have entirely missed or purposefully omitted something rather obvious. I had not blogged anything for over a week about any topic at all. I was entirely MIA, to the point where people were emailing me and calling me to see if I was alright.

I suppose Douglas also did not notice that I had not been on Twitter (since he follows me) for about a week either.  So why make it seem as though I simply refused to apologize when the reality is that I was entirely MIA, in bed, and flaring badly?

Douglas owes me an apology for his false conclusions. I don't expect one or even need one. But if we are keeping score, then he up to bat in the apology sphere."

I concluded my entry with this:

"Shall we wager on how quickly Don will pen a shiny new blog entry entirely devoted to me? I give him 48 hours. Thoughts?"

I gave him 48 hours, so I lose the bet, because today (a week later) Don delivers his latest:

I attack Barack Obama all the time, but his race is never an issue for me. I deeply appreciate the historic signifcance of Obama's election. I don't like him because he's a radical socialist with a subterranean totalitarian agenda. But to blog that, to call out Obama for the ideological and moral disaster he is for this country gets me branded a racist. And again, that's because the nihilist crazies on the fever-swamp left have got nothing better to do that hang around all day waiting for an off-color political remark, and then, BAM, they've got their prey in the victimology crosshairs.

The link goes to my blog. Now, let's all recall that I have repeatedly suggested that you read Don's blog for yourselves and see what conclusions you draw. Don't take my word that he is a bigot. Read him in his own words. Astonishingly, Don is now playing the victim card (victimology? m'kay) by claiming he has been "branded" a racist. Yes, branded by me with my big ass branding iron.

The man, in response, "branded" me with his "terrorist" branding iron. 

(more after the fold)

The Joys of Reason - LGF vs. Glue-Sniffers

Charles Johnson has over the course of a year really earned my respect. His latest blog entry cements my view of him as a reasonable human being. Read this post entitled "Why I parted ways with right," which is a manifesto of sorts in condemnation of the lunacy and hate-agenda that we have all witnessed from the right-wing. My only criticism is that I think he should have used specific examples to illustrate his points rather than only naming individual hatriots.

For instance, he lists the following as one of the reasons he has broken with the right wing:

Support for bigotry, hatred, and white supremacism (see: Pat Buchanan, Ann Coulter, Robert Stacy McCain, Lew Rockwell, etc.)

This is an accurate statement, but without specific citations and links, comes off as simply finger-pointing.
Ann Coulter's comments alone could fill years worth of blog entries as an example of white supremacy, racism, and hatred.

Here is just one example of Ann Coulter's bigotry, in this case aimed at Jews:

COULTER: No, we think -- we just want Jews to be perfected, as they say.

DEUTSCH: Wow, you didn't really say that, did you?

See, this is far more damning than simply naming Ann Coulter and gives credence to his position, which I entirely agree with.

My suggestion is that Mr. Johnson edit his post, include links and specific citations. Those who will no doubt attack him for this (and have already begun) will find it more difficult to argue against what they themselves have said or written.

Guess what? I am an American hating terror-enabler!

It seems that by pointing out that the obvious issue with the Fort Hood shooting is NOT that the shooter was Muslim, but that he was first and foremost an American soldier frightened of being deployed to war makes me an "America-bashing terror enabler," according to professor of political science and professional fighter of 'teh Communistofascists' Don Douglas:

"And in response, Larisa Alexandrovna, who is one of the left's biggest race-baiting smear-merchants on the web - and now obviously an America-bashing terror-enabler - is excoriating those who are rightfully outraged at Obama's inappropriate nonchalance in a crisis deserving the deepest solemnity, "3, 2, 1... Attack Obama Over the Fort Hood Shooting":

Not that I am surprised one bit by the glue-sniffing attack on Obama in relation to the Fort Hood tragedy, but thought you might like a little tour of the lunacy, racism, hate, and stupidity that comprises that right-wing fringe of the Republican Party.

Yep, had to get the racist allegations in there. It's all about "race" and "hatred" with the Obama administration's apologists. Iran's going nuclear, unemployment's soaring past 10 percent, and this administration's own Department of Homeland Security -- as well as other federal officials and Army personnel -- knew of Nidal Malik Hasan's pyschological infirmities, and of his solidarity with Islamist suicide bombers. But for Larisa Alexandrovna, it's all about racist right-wing opportunism in attacking poor Obambi!"

Wow, sounds almost like I should be rounded up along with the other Communistofascists and sent to Gitmo straight away.

Let's look at what I did actually say about the shooting, which Douglas - per the usual - does not link to in order to better construct his various glue-sniffing fantasies (emphasis in the original):

I am not excusing what the shooter did by any measure. I am appalled and saddened for those killed and wounded. But we have to ask why this happened and as the answers come in, the horror of the reality is a tragedy for all involved. 

<snip>

In addition, it has emerged (by a media less interested in responsible coverage and more interested in sensationalism) that in the last six months, the suspect became extreme in his views. But remember, he has been in the military since before 9/11. So what made him suddenly so angry? Well, he did just find out he was going to be deployed, something his family has said was his "worst nightmare."  So this brings us once again back to the obvious issue, the stresses of war and its casualties, including those who were shot by a fellow soldier and the soldier who shot them. They are all casualties of war, not of Islamic Jihad as the glue-sniffers are eager to spin.

I have refrained from naming the suspect, because there is no doubt in my mind that the hatriots are likely planning their own retribution for what they see as an attack on America. His family should go into hiding for a while, given the hate and violence coming from their fellow Americans who, while not Muslim, are proud wearer of bed sheets.

Again, I want to be clear, I am not in any way defending the actions of this man. I am saddened for the fallen and their families and my prayers are for the wounded and their families. But we must ask why this happened and we must understand how to prevent this from happening again. Rushing to judgment and worse, branding all Muslims - including others serving this country and risking their lives - as terrorists is ugly and cruel. It is un-American to attack the very people on the front lines in a war in which they are serving on OUR SIDE because of their ethnicity or religious views. Simply put, an American soldier went insane and shot other soldiers. The rest is background, but NOT motive.

The reaction to condemn all Muslims for this shooting is a reaction based in bigotry, not fact. That is what I am calling racist, not people outraged over the shooting - which would include me. But Douglas does not end with simply misleading what I wrote - once again - and basically calling me a terrorist. He also seems happy to show off his homophobea in an attack on right-wing, NON-glue sniffer Charles Johnson:

"Airhead" Alexandrovna joins her gay-flame man-crush buddy Charles Johnson in the radical left's terror-enabling hall of shame. See, "Charles Johnson Silent on Jihadi Evidence in Fort Hood Murder Rampage."

Wow. Seriously, Douglas is a professor of something? I don't know if Johnson is gay or not as I don't even know Johnson. But if after I see a picture of him and assuming he is straight, I might consider a crush just to pass the time. No my dear Don Douglas, the hall of shame on all counts is and continues to be yours.

Zelaya, Glue-Sniffers, and rabid Obama-hatred...

The military coup that ousted Manuel Zelaya as the President of Honduras is still going strong, now scheduling show-elections for the leadership position. If you recall, I blogged about this several months ago as the entire world expressed outraged, including the United States. At the time, the glue-sniffer position was two-fold: first, they claimed that the coup was really not a coup, a sort of "impeachment" by military force; second, they claimed that Obama was supporting a dictatorship by expressing outrage (just as every other Western country had expressed outrage).

Then came the typical coup follow-up in the form of a shut-down media, and riot police and military attacking protesters. The glue-sniffer reaction was to declare this a win for democracy and an open call for the same type of military coup against Obama here.

Now we learn that Zelaya has snuck back into Honduras (amid his own strange claims of torture and exotic radiation devices, and Israeli assassins hunting him down - yes, he has lost his mind). The United Nations has cut all technical aide to the country and declared that any elections held for a new President would not be "credible" given the military control of Honduras. Zelaya in the meantime is blaming Obama for not responding aggressively and implementing commercial sanctions:

"On Wednesday, the U.N. cut off all technical aid that would have supported and given credibility to that presidential race. Conditions do not exist for credible elections, U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said.

"I proposed dialogue, and they answered with bullets, bombs, a state of siege and by closing the airport,'' Zelaya said.

Zelaya told The Herald that Washington should be taking a stronger stance against the elite economic interests that "financed and benefited'' from the coup that ousted him three months ago.

If President Barack Obama hit Honduras with commercial sanctions or suspended free-trade agreements, the coup "would last just five minutes.''

That is the latest. Now, how are the glue-sniffers reacting to the news of the U.N. cutting off funding to Honduras and Zelaya's criticism of Obama? Well, apparently the only thing out of all of this news and fact that the right-wing could come up with is that somehow Obama is now responsible for Zelaya's anti-Semitism:

The man that Barack Obama insists the Hondurans should restore to power now claims that Israelis are torturing him with mind rays and toxic gases while holding out in the Brazilian embassy in Tegulcigalpa.  Manuel Zelaya, removed from office by order of the Honduran parliament and Supreme Court but still recognized as president by the Obama administration, says the current interim government has hired Israeli mercenaries, who beam radiation at his head from outside the embassy

Apparently ONLY Obama seems to deplore a military coup and apparently the United Nations is ONLY made up of Obama and his administration. No other countries are involved whatsoever in condemning the coup in Honduras. Moreover, because Obama is the only person on the planet not supporting a military dictatorship, he is entirely responsible for the insanity that Zelaya vomits up. How is that for logic? Idiots.

And if you read the comments to the above-linked glue-sniffer entry, the psychotics are at it again. They are once again openly hoping for a military coup in the US.

The right-wing rag, The Weekly Standard - which should be renamed to Slander - helps circulate these talking points:

"Obama's Man in Honduras Sees Jewish Conspiracy

Anyone who's been following this story should have noted by now the major difference between Manuel Zelaya, the ousted former president, and Roberto Micheletti, the current president. It isn't that Zelaya is a communist and Micheletti a liberal democrat (though that much seems clear). No, the real difference seems to be that Zelaya is a delusional megalomaniac -- with the full support of the Obama administration."

Again, no issue is taken with the military forcibly removing a sitting president and kidnapping him, then moving him out of the country. No, that is just democracy at work of course. Zelaya is a NOT hero by any means, but neither is the use of military force domestically against a sitting leader any form of democratic process that I am aware of either. And Micheletti is hardly a "liberal" anything, nor is Zelaya.  As I noted in June:

"Regardless of how corrupt Zelaya was or was perceived to be as the leader of Honduras, an arrest and trial would be the proper method for his removal. The public would see the crimes and hear the testimony and justice would be served. Dropping Zelaya off in Costa Rica and not hold him accountable is not justice for his alleged crimes."

But now claiming that Obama somehow supports anti-Semitism because the crazed Zelaya is claiming he is a target of an Israeli assassination plot is at best a cheap shot as part of what is obviously yet another attempt by the right to attack Obama as a "commie." It is cheap and it is ugly. It is also exploitation of what should be a serious issue: anti-Semitism. 

And Commentary Magazine, another right-wing rag, amazingly clings to the same idiocy:

"Manuel Zelaya, the expelled (and now returned) Honduran president—who Obama and Hillary Clinton insist must return to power—has proved, once again, just how bad the judgment of his American protectors is."

I wager Fox News will shortly join the propaganda choir as well. But what does that tell you? None of these people mention that the EACH AND EVERY DEMOCRACY in the world is outraged over the military coup. None of these people mention that the U.N. has formally condemned the coup and the treatment of Zelaya, cut of financing and is demanding that Zelaya be re-installed. No, none of this is mentioned. ONLY Obama saying what everyone else is saying somehow makes it into these right-wing rags.

Embracing racism, then pretending not to...

UPDATE AT BOTTOM

The problem with the glue-sniffers is that they don't have the courage of their convictions. Let us first consider the straw man below, from this blog:

"It’s pretty exhausting trying to keep track of what is legitimate criticism of President Obama and what is racial hatred. That’s why I developed this handy flow chart:"

The flow-chart is indeed adorable, but not remotely even accurate. It is entirely a straw-man. What could it be missing to make it more accurate?

Just scroll on down:

From Think Progress (9/12 DC)

From the Value Voters Summit I snuck into (left). From C&L (right)

These are just a few examples. There are countless others. Instead of distancing themselves from this absolute display of racism, the GOP proper and right-wing bloggers are either pretending that the Dems are playing the racial card or worse, making cute little diagrams to show that white, southern Republicans are simply being called racist for political reasons.

Either embrace your racism and stand by your delusional fear of a black man as POTUS or condemn the racism of those in your party. You cannot have it both ways and you cannot make it about the Dems either. This is not a race card tactic. This is racism, like it or not.

John over at Powerline says the following, having seen the chart:

"I could be wrong, but I suspect that this is the last time any partisan faction will be able to broadcast the charge of "racism" and have it taken even slightly seriously. The word "racism" used to have a meaning, but no one can remember what it was."

Nope, you are entirely wrong. Racism still has a meaning. Only racists would vomit up such nonsense. But enjoy your cute chart - and it is rather clever by the way. I can assure you that this will not be the last time you and your kind are called racists, not if you keep supporting the type of political talking points and images illustrated in the above photos.

UPDATE

Kevin Holsinger submitted his own chart in the comments:

Speaker Pelosi finally says what we all know: hate speech incites violence...

An emotional Speaker Pelosi expressed concern over the hate speech and calls to violence we have seen from the glue-sniffers in the past weeks:

"I have concerns about some of the language that is being used because I saw ... I saw this myself in the late '70s in San Francisco," Pelosi said, choking up and with tears forming in her eyes. "This kind of rhetoric is just, is really frightening and it created a climate in which we, violence took place and ... I wish that we would all, again, curb our enthusiasm in some of the statements that are made."

Rush Limbaugh - one of the most hate-spewing glue-sniffers to grace the air waves attacks Pelosi for her concerns:

"you know that's fake because you can't cry when you have botox all over your face, Nancy Pelosi, tears of a clown."

Of course yesterday, Rush called for segregation of school buses.

It is unfortunate that the GOP leaders have not yet made some form of a statement condemning the racism and hate speech we have seen in recent weeks. Perhaps they are concerned about losing the KKK vote?

In reaction to Pelosi's concerns, the glue-sniffers are throwing fits:

Don Surber responds by calling Pelosi's "side" "violent."

This racist over at Moonbattery - who is becoming a very visible example of what is wrong with the glue-sniffer movement (and whom I have cited now several times) says the following:

"Stop Yer Crying, Y'Stupid Old Bint

Speaker of the House Granny Rictus Botox Pelosi broke into tears (well, not actual tears since her ducts have been dead from Botox poisoning since 1996) because of her fears that anger toward the government for implementing a radical socialist agenda at odds with the values and beliefs of a majority of the population may lead to violence."

In other words, he is actually threatening violence. I am curious if this fool could possibly define what Socialism is. He uses that word a great deal, but with that tiny IQ, I have a feeling he is only repeating Rush Limbaugh's idiocy.

In any case, you can see what I mean by glue-sniffers. These are not Republicans by any definition. These extremists - who claim to be so concerned about  big government - stood silently while Bush/Cheney expanded government powers to near dictatorial levels because they were so frightened that Osama bin Laden might find them. The real anti-big government Libertarians I know have held the same opinion of Bush as they do of Obama, of Republicans as they do of Democrats, of Limbaugh and Malkin that I hold.

So despite my disagreements with my Libertarian friends, I can and do respect them for their principles. The glue-sniffers, however, are not anti-big government. Make no mistake. They are absolutely anti Obama. Just go read their opinions during the Bush years and you will see support for big government, massive spending, and even a total dismantling of the Bill of Rights. 

Just to give you four examples what Libertarians who are anti-big government stood against during the Bush years and why they have credibility with me now, during the Obama years:

• Against the war with Iraq
• Against illegal domestic surveillance
• Against Extraordinary Rendition
• Against torture

Now go read the archives of the right-wing blogs that claim to be Republican, such as Malkin. Go listen to the archives of Rush Limbaugh's shows (if you can stomach it) and see his position on each of these issues. You will notice an absolute support, rather than condemnation of these abuses. The evidence speaks for itself.

So when these right-wingers claim to be Republican or anti-big government, you can use their own words against them. Again, these people are racists, religious extremists, and not remotely interested in defending Constitutional freedoms or rights. If they were, they would have done so during the Bush years, which they did not because they were crying like little girls (not Speaker Pelosi) that Osama bin Laden would show up in Kentucky and kill  them where they sleep.

Racists are now "activists"...

Former POTUS Jimmy Carter points to the obvious connection of racism to the glue-sniffer movement . But the right-wing is offended because racism is now just simple good, old fashioned "activism."

"Second is Former President Jimmy Carter — yes, a former PRESIDENT — claiming that the reason Rep. Joe Wilson needed to be rebuked for his "You lie!" comment during Obama's speech was because his outburst had racist undertones.

I'd shake my head in bewilderment, except a number of other House Democrats agree with Carter! Led by Georgia Democrat Hank Johnson, they believe Wilson's outburst could actually lead to KKK activity."

Bewildered? Let me school you a bit then.  Rep Joe Wilson is a member of the Sons Of Confederate Veterans group, which according to Salon is "a source of increasingly virulent pro-Confederate, radical right propaganda." No racism here, not a shred really.

You may recall this racist fool from yesterday, when he helped spread the black-on-white school bus fight as a hate crime - even though it was not. Recall what this racist wrote yesterday:

"Kanye West's antics are just the tip of the iceberg."

Well today, racist fool is offended. Here is what he writes:

"Not content with being America's Worst President, Jimmy Carter has achieved a two-fer by becoming America's worst ex-president. Doing his best to poison American politics while drawing attention to himself, Carter bleats to NBC Obama-Fluffer Brian Williams that there is a "racist tone" in criticism of Dear Reader. He also accused Representative Joe Wilson of racism during an Atlanta townhall."

If the racist shoe fits, I suggest you have the guts to at least wear it. But my favorite of the day is this reaction:

Examining the video in the post immediately below, it seems evident that the Democrats had better think very, very carefully before they make the mistake of painting President Obama's political opponents with a "racist" brush, as even former President Jimmy Carter has now come perilously close to doing..

For one thing, if everyone's a racist, no one's a racist.  Slinging the epithet around promiscuously denudes it of power -- which, ultimately, might be one of the best things ever to happen to race relations -- but will also create a problem: How does one actually identify and call out the sorry, sick souls who actually do hate others for no reason other than the color of their skin?

How very arrogant to think that your worldview is THE worldview. Who is this everyone? As far as I know there is a very concentrated group of racists who oppose Obama and they are stoking the racial talking points. Or do you folks forget Sarah Palin claiming that Obama was a terrorist or the glue-sniffing wing of the Republican party suggesting that Obama is a secret Muslim?

There is a big difference between John McCain and Sarah Palin. The glue-sniffers march to the Palin tune. I don't like McCain's politics, but I would never call him a racist in his criticism of Obama. Nor would anyone else. So this "everyone" being "painted with the same brush" is yet another attempt to present racism as somehow acceptable as a form of activism.

If the GOP really wants to distance themselves from the fringe, then why don't they? So long as they remain silent, or actually join with the glue-sniffers, the way Demint did, the racist thing applies and should apply.

In the meantime, either accept the fact that you are a racist. If you are too ashamed to admit it, then ask yourself why that is. I am sure you will find an answer.

CIA IG Report on torture - a round-up: the docs, the news, the reactions of glue-sniffers...

I have been busy all day -and still am - reading these documents (below) today. Feel free to join me. Not that I would encourage anyone unless they felt compelled to really try and understand what happened. It is heavily redacted, but some is better than nothing I suppose. The below (h/t to Wash/Indie) is only a partial:

View documents

Eric Holder, our Attorney General, has apparently had his arm twisted because he is - gasp - appointing a special prosecutor to investigate CIA-linked torture (although apparently not DOD, not those who aided and abetted this, and so forth). I think it will still be up to the rest of the world to drag those entirely and fully responsible for all of these abuses and the policies which gave birth them to the gates of justice. The US of A has no justice left to be had it seems.

Additional reports and opinions on the torture documents can be found at these - among many - outlets and blogs:

Washington Independent:

The more I read the CIA inspector general report released today, the clearer it seems that any real investigation of CIA abuses will have to question the lawyers who approved the interrogation techniques. That’s because the guidelines governing the detention and interrogation of detainees appear to have all been approved by Justice Department lawyers (because the report is heavily redacted, some particulars of who approved what are unclear), yet the vagueness of those guidelines themselves may have encouraged CIA interrogators to violate them.

If that vagueness was intentional, might it also have been criminal?

I will wager yes on intentional, but will leave it up to legal experts to determine if it were criminal.

Stephen Webster of Raw Story found an interesting nugget:

"Page 77 of the report discusses “unauthorized or undocumented techniques” used by CIA agents but not approved by the Bush administration’s Department of Justice. One such “improvised action” was a pressure point tactic: the compression of a detainee’s carotid artery by an agent with both hands around the prisoner’s neck.

Prolonged compression of the carotid artery is lethal, as it cuts off blood flow to the brain."

I assume the reasoning for using this tactic is that once the detainee is dead or brain damaged, they will surely tell us everything they know.

TPM discusses how an integrator revved a drill near a hooded detainees head:

"CIA interrogators racked an unloaded handgun close to the head of a high-value detainee, and revved a power drill while the detainee stood naked and hooded, according to the just-released CIA IG report. They also threatened to bring in the mother and family of the detainee, al Nashiri, as well as using a stiff brush to induce pain, and standing on Nashiri's shackles, causing cuts and bruises."

The glue-sniffers are ready, however, with Christian compassion (of the Satanic kind I am thinking) and American ideals (only if we were re-named Italy, Spain, or Germany during the reign of Il Duce, Franco, and Hitler), to defend the torture documented in the report. 

First up is Senator Joe Lieberman, who demands that no investigation of the CIA (read Bush/Cheney circle of friends network) be conducted because it will have a "chilling effect" (read indictment effect) on CIA officers (to be turned by prosecutors against said Bush/Cheney circle of friends in exchange for immunity). Here is what the man I am now ashamed to say I voted for had to say:

“I respectfully regret this decision by Attorney General Holder and fear our country will come to regret it too because an open ended criminal investigation of past CIA activity, which has already been condemned and prohibited, will have a chilling effect on the men and women agents of our intelligence community whose uninhibited bravery and skill we depend on every day to protect our homeland from the next terrorist attack. Career prosecutors in the Department of Justice have previously reviewed allegations of abuse and concluded that prosecution was not warranted, with the exception of one CIA contractor who has already been convicted. President Obama has established clear guidelines to ensure that past abuses are not repeated and has stated his desire to look forward rather than backward."

Strangely, in all of my conversations with agency officers, managers, retired and still serving alike, none of them supported these techniques. As an example, see my interview with agency icon Milton Bearden.

Moreover, it was these types of good Americans who were the leakers of the allegations and such in the first place. They thought that the torture would make recruiting agents difficult. They also all agreed that the torture conducted was likely done so not by the brave men and women serving as officers of the CIA, but of the Cheney-hidden psychos to whom these things were outsourced - and these things were outsourced for just that reason, control. So unless Joey wants to spit up some names, I am going to have to respectfully call him nothing short of a liar.

Then there is is this glue-sniffer's reaction to AG Holder opening up an investigation into CIA torture practices:

"Make no mistake that Barack Obama is behind this, and do not let the language “limited” fool you. This of course after this week’s “leak” of a report that states that CIA ops went over the line in questioning high level detainees.

The average American could care less if the mastermind of the bombing of the USS Cole and 9/11 were waterboarded, had their kids - who are most likely terrorists too- threatened.

But more important it’s apparent that the pre-9/11 mentality is back in force, with the White House having it’s own “Beer Summits” with terrorist suspects to get them to talk. Additionally ABC News is reporting that Leon Pannetta is just about out of the job as Chief of the agency. For all we know there will be yet another Czar created from one of Obama’s former militant friends."

So to translate from glue-sniffer speak to sane-speak.

The above rant basically says that our terrorist loving leader - President Obama (not really the POTUS by the way, wink wink) wants an investigation just so he can appoint one of his terrorist friends to be head of it. This really upsets the glue-sniffer, because the average American "could care less if the mastermind of the bombing of the USS Cole and 9/11 were waterboarded, had their kids - had their kids - who are most likely terrorists [like our President] threatened."

Really? I assume that if we asked the average American glue-sniffer, they may agree with such an idiotic, barbaric, anti-Christian, anti-American statement. Luckily, I don't think we need to, since the ravings of religious terrorists (like OBL and his Christian counter-parts) or rabbid birther/haters/racists are not part of our system of laws (only referenced under freedom of speech protections, not under suggested reading for reasonable people).

This is the best and most sane - if you can imagine - example I could find from a glue-sniffer. The rest are so incoherent and angry, that it would be like citing the thinking of a chair for the reading pleasure of a human. So I end my own round-up here. I do urge you to please go explore on your own. There are many glue-sniffer funnies to be had.

Feel free to post your own glue-sniffer funnies in the comments.

Right-Wing Extremism: hoping our military overthrows Obama...

I was going to add this as an update to my earlier post, but thought it deserved its own post. Apparently, some glue-sniffing types are hoping that our own military will be inspired by the Honduras coup to overthrow our own president in order to save democracy. I kid you not. I have been reading the comments at several blogs and they are mind-blowing.

For one example of  how the patriotic and in-love with democracy the average glue-sniffer is, you can go here and read the comments. But below is just a taste, in a few snips:

"Our democracy was the first that fell under Obama, as exemplified by the shenanigans on Porkulus and other economy-destroying, utopia-fantasizing legislation, which would have made the Politburo blush. Or to quote Dear Leader, democracy is no longer necessary because "he won."

"Of course Obumma is "deeply concerned." He doesn't want our own armed forces to get the notion that they too may need to defend the constitutional order from the depredations of a lawless "president."'

"WE ARE NEXT. 3rd world countries get it. Why don't WE!!!! WAKE the F#ck up people"

"sic semper tyrannis. Obama, Pelosi, Reid, Frank, Kennedy, and the rest out there destroying America . . . it could happen here (please God)"

This should scare everyone who values democracy, especially given the recent number of violent crimes committed by extremists of this nature.

Sanfordgate 101...

Following up on my earlier post about the strange disappearance of South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford, more breaking news this evening of where he was and what he did. Think of this as Sanfordgate 101.

First, let's recap the story:

1. Sanford tells his staff he is going hiking on the Appalachian Trail last Thursday.
2. He goes MIA for nearly a week, to the point where authorities began to search for him
3. His staff continues to claim he is somewhere on the Appalachian Trail and unable to be reached
4. He returns today from Argentina and claims he went driving around the coast of Buenos Aires (which has no coastline)
5. I conclude that he is having an affair and/or went to rehab
6. Several hours later Sanford holds a news conference and confirms my suspicions about an affair.

Now for the latest (and even bizarre):

TPM has uncovered a strange Christian cult-like group connecting the Sanford affair to the Ensign affair. You can read more about The Family here. This of course has me thinking that since this group, The Family, is counseling all of these cheating politicians, imagine the power they have should they ever want to blackmail anyone. Kind of like Scientology and their auditing method, during which high profile members reveal their inner most secrets.

The State, a South Carolina publication obtained emails between Sanford and his mistress, Maria. The emails are typical love letters, including references to sexual encounters and declarations of undying love. This does not interest me much. In fact, it is embarrassing to read really because I feel like I am intruding into someone's most private thoughts - and I am. We all are. The scandal in this part of the Sanford affair, for me anyway, is the fact that The State had the emails since December of 08. Why did they sit on this story?

(more after the flip)

Iran, a summary of today from around the blogs

No one has done a better job staying on top of the latest breaking news out of Iran than Andrew Sullivan. I think this post is frankly the best, as it represents a reader's views:

"A reader writes:

So here's what we have:They're afraid of murdering too many protesters all at once.  Eventually the protesters will come to understand how to work around this.

They can't open their telecomm pipes, because the minute they do 3 million people will know how and where to gather, and the world will get to see thousands of videos showing horrific instances of state violence against its subjects.They have to open their telecomm pipes, because their economy cannot function without telecomm.They can't repress too much, because the cleric support base will tip against them.

Rafsanjani is waiting to find out who'll keep his financial empire running.  He's going to come to conclude the current leadership's promises cannot be trusted; the country is now being run by a Fascist Islamic Mafia."

Of course the glue-sniffers are trying to figure out the best way to tie the violence in Iran to President Obama taking his children out for ice cream. I bet they will really nail him when he goes to fundraisers, stays on vacation, and gets presents like a guitar while an entire US city drowns or terrorism warnings are coming in. You betcha! 

Foreign policy expert Steve Clemons writes an interesting piece examaning President Obama's and Vice President Biden's views on Iran.

The typical neo-con propaganda for bomb, bomb, Iran is showcased over at the Weekly Standard. You see, because despite how we might all feel for the Iranian people stuck in this horror, we should get involved in yet another war, without any money and with a seriously strained military. Moreover, we should do it for crimes we refuse to see in ourselves. Considering their track record, is it not about time that the neo-cons exited stage left?

Wonkette does a typically satirical piece (which is why we love them) inserting Rep. Peter Hoekstra into the mix. Perhaps when Hoekstra next meets with an Iranian arms dealer, he might ask about additional security detail? Just asking.

And this concludes my attempt at a blog round-up:)

Been on the road, but here are some updates that should be of interest to you...

Hey kids, I have been flying (by the seat of my pants) and pulling luggage (schlepping)  from here and there. I am now safely and happily back in my nest. Catching up on some news - and there has been a good deal of it - I thought I would do a round-up for you:

1. The Women's Media Center honors CNN's Candy Crowley. I was actually up for a different award from the WMC a few years back when I wrote about Valerie Plame's outing. I got sick about 48 hours before and could not attend. Crowley is not my first choice, but WMC is an outstanding organization. So congrats to Crowley.

2. While traveling, I did manage to pen this. Clearly the political operatives are very much still working on getting Palin into the 2012 contest. By the way, a clever blogger spotted some of the funnies as this bunch did their best attempt at a protest to get David Letterman fired. My favorite crazy? The woman who says "do you know what schmuck means in Jewish?" Apparently Jewish is a language this mental-all star has grasped. Idiot.

3. Robert Kagan continues to lobby for an Iran war. Perhaps the neo-cons chipped in and bought Iran a few Diebold machines (snark alert). It is not like a coup would be unheard of. But blaming the turmoil on President Obama or demanding that the President take sides in such a complex situation is as scripted as it has ever been. Obviously what the US needs is yet another war in a region already made unstable by the previous administration, with money borrowed from Communist China. Yes, great idea.  Ah the neo-cons helped bring and end to Communism, right? Which is why Russia and China are joining forces to dump the dollar and move toward an international currency that benefits them. Again I have to say what is becoming rather obvious: we lost the Cold War. Sure, we won the battles that led to the fall of the Soviets, but with the help of Capitalism, we managed to undo those wins in a few short years.

4. Republican members of Congress introduce a bill to benefit the health insurance industry. Once again, corporate and state interests merge. You do know there is a name for this, right?

5. Bush administration protection program. Does Dick Cheney have a compromising photo of AG Holder with a goat or something? Is this the same man that so passionately denounced the Bush-Cheney torture and spying programs? Apparently not.

For now, this should keep you well occupied. Comment at will, I am going to bed.

Racists flip out over something Obama DID NOT say...

Is it simply that racists don't have the ability to read properly or is it that they refuse to read properly when something can be exploited to further their world-view?  Or is it simply that sometimes reporters get things so badly out of context that they provide the racists with a piece of red meat either intentionally or through negligence. I will let you decide.

Greg Sargent tells us what Obama actually said:

Now, the flip side is I think that the United States and the West generally, we have to educate ourselves more effectively on Islam. And one of the points I want to make is, is that if you actually took the number of Muslims Americans, we’d be one of the largest Muslim countries in the world. And so there’s got to be a better dialogue and a better understanding between the two peoples.

Now, how do the racists read this? Well naturally, racists will claim that Obama called the US a Muslim nation instead of the rather obvious reference to the Muslim population in the US.  Let's take a tour through the hate-o-sphere:

The Astute Bloggers have this idiocy to impart:

"he's tired of being President already . . . now he wants to be "Caliph."'

Interesting. So next time someone opines on the number of Christians in the US, will it be okay to claim they want to be Pope?

Then this racist with a keyboard has something to say:

"Now I suppose if the GOP uses Hussein's words against him it will be what, hate speech? Anti-Muslim bigotry? Let me also see if I get this straight. Although we're an 85% Christian nation, if someone has the temerity to call this a Christian nation they're roundly condemned and excoriated by the secular left. Hussein calls this a Muslim country and trust me, you won't hear a peep from the left. They'll just ridicule us for being paranoid."

Yes to Jammie Wearing Fool (appropriate name me thinks) you are a racist. Deal with it. Obama did not call the US a Muslim nation.

Then there is Mac's Mind - a usual racist outlet I cite sometimes:

"Unbelievable. Isn’t it amazing that in one day Barack Hussein Obama has finally revealed his true “roots”. Seems we were right all along."

Yep, you nailed him you hero you. You have it all figured out. Soon we will all be praying to Allah. Folks, this is the mainstream Conservative movement by the way. So does it surprise anyone when one of these extremists kills someone?

Just one more example, this one from an official Malkinite:

"I guess this means the “Hussein” comment that O’Reilly smeared us with last week wasn’t so offensive after all. Ah well. Enjoy talking about it now because, come 2012, it’ll be safely verboten once again."

Nope, still offensive and still the typical racist knee-jerk reaction to nuance, not to mention the absence of  fact-checking what was actually said.

But I am waiting to see which one of these racist fools actually does the math and realizes that the US falls exactly where Obama says, especially in the west. Remember, Islam is a religion, so whites, Latinos, African Americans, and so forth can also be Muslims. Newsweek puts the number somewhere between 7-8 million people. That is in fact a large number of people. More importantly, Obama is trying to undo the damage done by the previous administration through their policies of hate, torture, and illegal war. What Obama is saying is that we have more in common than we have dividing us. He is right of course. Since millions of Americans practice Islam.

Who wants a good laugh?

Apparently some very clever, glue-sniffing sort has uncovered "hate speech" in the NYT. After I finished reading this, I was laughing so hard, tears were running down my face. How does blogger Sister Toldjah  define hate-speech? Why don't we read some of this together, with me chiming in of course - because I just can't help myself:

"There's been a lot of talk lately, mainly amongst left wing hypocrites and Beltway conservative uptight types about how the right has supposedly engaged in "rampant, uncontrolled hate speech" since Barack Obama has been elected."

No, of course not. You heart Obama. We know that. All that overt racism, jingoism, and your all-out hopes for an all-white-power, Christian, war against the Islamofascist "Barry" is really just your way of expressing warm affection.

And now for the hate speech part:

"Will they start examining their own backyard now that one of their most prominent spokespeople, Frank Rich, has taken the 'torture' memos and used them as a springboard to compare Bush/Cheney to ... Columbine killers Dylan Klebold and Eric Harris?"

That is the hate speech. Right there, in the last line,  in case you missed it. Wow. How very unique a definition, no?

The totally hallucinated claim of hate speech aside, the person did not read or did not comprehend what Rich wrote, which of course makes sense if you have the reading comprehension of a six year old. Let's look at what Rich wrote, shall we?

"WE don't like our evil to be banal. Ten years after Columbine, it only now may be sinking in that the psychopathic killers were not jock-hating dorks from a "Trench Coat Mafia," or, as ABC News maintained at the time, "part of a dark, underground national phenomenon known as the Gothic movement." In the new best seller "Columbine," the journalist Dave Cullen reaffirms that Dylan Klebold and Eric Harris were instead ordinary American teenagers who worked at the local pizza joint, loved their parents and were popular among their classmates.

On Tuesday, it will be five years since Americans first confronted the photographs from Abu Ghraib on "60 Minutes II." Here, too, we want to cling to myths that quarantine the evil. If our country committed torture, surely it did so to prevent Armageddon, in a patriotic ticking-time-bomb scenario out of "24." If anyone deserves blame, it was only those identified by President Bush as "a few American troops who dishonored our country and disregarded our values": promiscuous, sinister-looking lowlifes like Lynddie England, Charles Graner and the other grunts who were held accountable while the top command got a pass."

What is Rich actually comparing? Is Rich comparing the Columbine shooters to Dick and George? Or he is comparing the myth-building that takes place to explain something horrible, something as unfathomable as evil and the acceptance of that myth until it becomes commonplace?

Bingo, myth-building wins by a landslide. So even if the definition of hate-speech was slightly within the ballpark of accuracy, the fact that there is no "there" there is absolutely hysterical. Just to underscore the point, here is what this blogger suggests:

Write the NYT and let them know what you think of Rich comparing Bush and Cheney to thug killers like Klebold and Harris. Whatever people think of Bush and Cheney, to view them as deliberate and calculating murderers on the same level as Klebold and Harris is both despicable and contemptible, and shows a complete lack of common sense, perspective, and decency. Not only that, but the omission of several key facts counter to his "argument" suggests Rich deliberately lied to advance an agenda.

Can you imagine the faces in the editorial room when they start reading angry emails about hate speech in Rich's piece?  I think we should encourage this letter writing and also, encourage the Times to publish these letters. We don't want to horde this much fun to ourselves, do we?

Oh and my favorite part is this: "several key facts counter his "argument" suggests Rich deliberately advance an agenda." And what are these key facts and how do they counter Rich's argument? Apparently only this woman knows and she is not telling, no way. You go girl!

For bonus laughs, read the comments. I think for his next piece, Rich should write the "Banality of Stupidity" and dedicate it to this bunch.

Right-wing crazies claim that Obama's reponse to swine flu worse than Bush's to NOLA...

I kid you not, read this and tell me if this person (not sure which of the two founding lunatics penned this) appears to be heavily medicated (and for a good reason):

"If You Were Outraged By The Government’s Response To Katrina… then your outrage, if genuine, should be approaching a steady simmer on the way to a full boil for the government’s slow response to the Swine Flu.

“U.S. public health officials did not know about a growing outbreak of swine flu in Mexico until nearly a week after that country started invoking protective measures… It gets worse than that.

Read the rest of the quote here. If a bunch of Americans die because of a slow response by the Obama administration, will the sponsors of the Bush Legacy Bus start their engines on the Obama Legacy Bus? Those sponsors of course being Americans United For Change, SEIU, AFSCME, Move On, and others. You know, the people who elected our current President."

How deranged do you have to be to write that idiocy? Can anyone really compare Bush going on vacation after a direct briefing that the levees would not hold and that NOLA would be underwater and his staying on vacation despite the rising death toll, with the swift response (to 20 cases and NO fatalities) of Obama to the current  situation?

Even after dead floating bodies were shown all over the TV, for days after -and as the death toll grew- Bush remained on vacation, but did manage to squeeze-in time for fundraisers.

The US has yet to have a single fatality from the swine flu and given that ONLY 20 cases have been confirmed, the current president has already gotten into protective measure mode. Bush on the other hand, ignored the deaths of thousands while he ate cake with John McCain for a fundraiser.

How can anyone in their right mind compare these two scenarios unless they are pointing to the quick response by Obama to 20 cases of swine flu in contrast to the lack of response by Bush to a full-bloodbath?

How much do you folks want to bet that as soon as the news broke that there was a nano-second delay in response by Obama's administration to the swine flu situation, a political hack was already sending out memos  filled with nifty little talking points on how to best spin this as an Obama failure?

In fact, I would not be surprised if the entire right-wing prayer machine is right-now on hands and knees hoping for a massive death toll they can use to tie around Obama's neck. Don't forget, these are the same people who prayed for another 9/11 attack to help them win elections (a comment made over several elections cycles by different people). Yes, patriotism at its finest. Really though, should they not be busy holding tea parties during which they chant that Obama is Hitler and also planning their secession from the Union? So much to do, so few brain cells to do it with.

Oh how very interesting...

Pamela Geller, otherwise known as Atlas Shrugs - Rand would be shocked that such an extremist twit hijacked her book title for rants in support of McCarthyism, torture, and other such staples of the Conservative movement - has finally come out of the fascist closet.

Apparently, Geller enjoys some notoriety among the fascist and neo-Nazi sympathizers in Europe. Here is info on Geller's latest exploit from non-other than a fellow Conservative who thinks that this woman is even a bit too far to the right for him:

Pamela Geller of “Atlas Shrugs” and Paul Belien of “Brussels Journal” have been announced as speakers at a German far right event organized by a group called “Pro Köln” — a successor to the notorious fascist group “Deutsche Liga für Volk und Heimat” (the “German League for People and Homeland”).

<snip>

The “Pro Köln” group is under observation by the German inland secret service.

According to the website pi-news.net, Robert Spencer has also been invited: Translated version of “Israel Friends in the anti-Islamisierungskongress”.

One of the main organizers of “Pro Köln” is Manfred Rouhs. Here are two photos of Rous with hardcore neo-Nazi activist Axel Reitz, who the local media call “the Hitler of Cologne.”

Yes, because supporting Israel now for the extreme right wing has little to do with Jews and more to do with masking a bigotry under the guise of protecting the Jewish homeland from "other" undesirables.  Clever is it not?

Hitler infiltrates the socialists of Germany and hijacks that movement to mask his authoritarian, uber-nationalistic, fascist agenda. And now the very people who have helped put Israel in danger over the last twenty years are masking their own agenda under the mask of support for Israel.

Geller is the perfect example of a pin-up for such a movement. She is not terribly bright, not terribly educated (Bush went to Yale, that does not make him educated - one has to actually absorb the education), not terribly original, but very attractive. In other words, she is stupid enough to manipulate and has great packaging through which to catapult the propaganda.  And she is Ann "White Power" Coulter's biggest fan too. What a girl!