From the ROTFLMFAO desk we have this story:
Kenya Throws Down On Tea Partiers: We Got Your 'Real Tea Party' Right Here!
As most people know, many people in the Cult think that President Obama wasn't born in this country and thus has no legal right to be president. Even though the state of Hawaii has confirmed the fact that he has been born here many times and one actually does not have to be born here to be a citizen, they still can't accept it. So, this would be why we see all the "Go back to Kenya" stuff coming from the Cult rallies.
What many people probably don't know (and in yet another hilarious bit of irony), Kenya is the world's #1 tea exporter. So, Kenyans have decided to hold their own Tea rally on Tuesday April 27th in Washington DC. I guess there will be a buffet, tea pairings, and some tea lea readings. The last one is sure to elicit cries of satanic worship from our very own (Christian) version of Al Qaeda. Everyone is welcome. Here's the invitation:) Bring the kids!
In a related story we have this (fake?) story from the Onion.
Like Hell I'm Going To Let Some Black President Help Me Pay For Dialysis
Just who does this Afro-American occupant of the highest office in the land think he is, anyway? Look, I've got nothing against black people, but some of them act like the whole world owes them something. For example, important government subsidies on my dialysis.
Obama needs to know that there's still one American willing to watch his body drown in its own deadly internal toxins rather than have long-overdue reform crammed down his throat.
Seriously, when Obama's done drumming up support for legislation that might allow me to see my daughter graduate from college and prevent me from dying before my 50th birthday, what's next on the agenda? Will he try to keep my life's savings from evaporating in a stock market that operates free of serious governmental oversight? Is there any aspect of capitalism run amok that this guy won't tamper with?
And now from the WTF desk...
Democrats Top G.O.P. in Fund-Raising for Midterms
According to party figures, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee raised nearly $10 million in March compared with $8 million for the National Republican Congressional Committee. House Democrats ended the first quarter with $26 million in the bank compared with $10 million for House Republicans.
In the Senate, the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee raised $6 million and had $17 million in the bank, while the National Republican Senatorial Committee took in $5.1 million and had $15 million available to spend.
I was under the impression that I was supposed to be "afraid" of the elections this fall and that the Cult was going to take back both houses of Congress. How can this be when the Democrats have beat them in fundraising? Boy, that sure does have to suck for a group of people that worships money the way they do. And that means that the Democratic base is energized.
What now, Cultists?
Oh, I know. Let's defend the financial institutions that nearly destroyed our country with hair brained schemes, say it was all the government's fault, and call President Obama a Marxist.
Thursday, April 22, 2010
Wednesday, April 21, 2010
Show Me Your Papers, Jew
I am beginning to regret being as nice as I was on Sunday in my column entitled "The Hitler Checklist." Honestly, I only went about 60 percent at the Cult for their obvious Nazi-like tactics. With the near certain passage of the new immigration bill in Arizona, I'm going to add in the extra 40 percent.
BLK wrote in comments in that post that the Cult has certain code words they use that are similar to the ones the Nazis used in the 1930s and 40s. Here was his comment.
Uses overt or covert racist messages and code words. For example,
Basically that means that the police can ask for the papers of any non white person in AZ and be within their full legal rights. Any Time. Any Place. Instead of "Show me your papers, Jew" it's "Show me your papers, wetback."
Of course, this doesn't seem to be a problem for the millions of Tea Partiers marching all over the country and protesting the "fascist" takeover of our government by the Marxist Barrack Obama. One would think that they would have a problem with what is clearly the SAME tactic used by the Nazis. But no...
Oh no.
Why?
Well, it's a bunch of fucking spics...that's why.
I hope Mexican Americans in Arizona turn out in droves on November 2nd and send John McCain, who is in full support of this bill, to the Shady Acres retirement home.
BLK wrote in comments in that post that the Cult has certain code words they use that are similar to the ones the Nazis used in the 1930s and 40s. Here was his comment.
Uses overt or covert racist messages and code words. For example,
- "Real Americans" = "conservative white Americans"
- "welfare queens" = "unwed black mothers"
- "illegal immigrant" = "any Mexican"
- "states rights"="we should be able to segregate blacks into inferior schools, discriminate against anyone we want and not pay federal taxes".
Basically that means that the police can ask for the papers of any non white person in AZ and be within their full legal rights. Any Time. Any Place. Instead of "Show me your papers, Jew" it's "Show me your papers, wetback."
Of course, this doesn't seem to be a problem for the millions of Tea Partiers marching all over the country and protesting the "fascist" takeover of our government by the Marxist Barrack Obama. One would think that they would have a problem with what is clearly the SAME tactic used by the Nazis. But no...
Oh no.
Why?
Well, it's a bunch of fucking spics...that's why.
I hope Mexican Americans in Arizona turn out in droves on November 2nd and send John McCain, who is in full support of this bill, to the Shady Acres retirement home.
Tuesday, April 20, 2010
They Came Armed (This Time)...Thanks to President Obama
To mark the anniversary of the Oklahoma City bombing and the final assault on Waco, gun rights activists staged a rally at Gravelly Point, a nation park in Virginia."Obama was mentored by Marxist. He is a Marxist and he is going to lead this country down the Marxist collapse agenda and roadmap of Europe," said 41-year-old Geoffrey Bean, who travelled from Sacramento, Calif., for the rally.
"Never in history have Marxists understood anything but the barrel of a gun. Ever. And so we brought the barrels of our guns to show them that they are not going to take away our constitutional rights without a fight."
In what has to be the most hilarious example of fucking irony that I have ever heard, these same protesters are now legally able to openly carry the firearms that they brandished at the rally because of the a bill that President Obama signed into law on May 22, 2009. An amendment to the Credit Card Act of 2009, this law makes it legal to openly carry firearms in National Parks and National Wildlife refuges. It also allows firearms to be carried in luggage on Amtrak trains.
But do the facts matter to the Cult?
"To tell you the honest truth, him signing a law saying that I can stand here (with a loaded gun) doesn't mean anything to me," said Daniel Howley, 53. "The constitution says I can stand here."
Not so much. Many of the protesters there still think that President Obama is going to curtail their gun rights even though all evidence points to the contrary. In fact, several have taken it a step further.
"The enemies to the constitution are not over in Iraq. The enemies to the constitution are not in Afghanistan. The enemies of the constitution are across this river," said Tom Fernandez, 32, founder of Alarm and Muster, a communications network established to reach people in case of constitutional emergencies.
"If you trample under your feet the freedoms of this country just as quick as you drink a glass of water, I am not your friend. I am not your friend."
Eric Stinnett, a 39-year-old engineer from Alabama, called the U.S. government an "unjust authority" and likened today's lawmakers in Washington to the Sept. 11 terrorists: "Does our government not act like suicidal hijackers?"
Eric, I am begging you...please speak more often and louder. The RINOS and non pure conservatives need to hear your voice! Keep yelling to the highest hills, my friend, from now until November 2nd!!Take a look at that sign above:
FEAR THEM IN YOUR GOVERNMENT THAT FEAR YOUR GUN.
TYRANNY ONLY COMES WHEN WEARING A FEDERAL BADGE.
Anyone want to give me shit now for the Cult?
For more photos from the various rallies, check out this 25 pic slide show. The Cult is looking good, my dear readers...pretty, pretty good:)
Monday, April 19, 2010
How We Win
Being a friend of the DoD on FaceBook certainly has its advantages. Take this photo, for example, which just popped up in my news feed. The caption along with it read:U.S. Army Captain Mark Moretti sits hand in hand with Shamshir Khan, one of the most senior Korengal Valley elders, on the Korengal Outpost in Kunar Province, Afghanistan. Captain Moretti, who has led soldiers on the outpost since 2009, welcomed Khan and other elders to offer an orientation of all the buildings and equipment that The US Army would be leaving behind for the people of the valley. (U.S. Army photo by Spc. David Jackson)
This photo serves as an example on several fronts. First, it shows us that the military shines in more ways than simply armaments. Specialists like Morettti are the unsung heroes of our effort in AfPak. Second, it shows a human face of the people caught up in the conflict. They aren't all psychotics bent on the destruction of the infidel even though my bias tells me they are just that. Third, it shows how generous our country is with goods, services, and infrastructure. This is exactly the kind of photo that needs to be on display with the Afghan people. As we leave the area, the Afghan people in the area are going to have new shelters in this sparse region.
And last, it shows the nationalistic chest thumpers of our own country that this the real way to win a war. The United States military is the greatest force of peace in the world when commanded by a civilian leadership that actually gives a shit about them. Much to the chagrin of Al Qaeda and our own version of it here (see: the Cult), our military can win battles through simple engagement and protection.
And that's just what people like Captain Moretti do every day.
Sunday, April 18, 2010
The Hitler Checklist
If someone doesn't like a politician these days, then they are Hitler. For most of Bush's time in office, he was known as Bushitler. Now, the Tea Party regularly has signs at their events that portray President Obama as Hitler, complete with tiny moustache. For the most part, they all have it wrong.
I think we can all agree that in order to be Hitler, one must first have all or most of the following traits.
I'm sure there are smaller traits but these are the main ones which are an easy and simple Hitler checklist. Let's run through them, one by one, and see if either Bush or Obama meet the criteria.
In watching W for eight years, it's quite obvious he was not intelligent enough to have a meglomanaical view of himself nor did he view himself as a savior. He did say that God told him to run for president but that's ceding authority to a higher power. In Hitler's mind, there was only one higher power: him. Contrary to the left's rants, George W. Bush is not a racist. The man had Mexican in-laws and was fluent in Spanish. He also had one of the most diverse cabinets in the history of our country so that knocks out number four and any talk of a Master race.
He did, however, stick his toe into the "control of our society" pond but only in the name of national security. (see:wire taps and throwing people in jail without charging them with anything). He jumped completely into the "control information" lake in the form of a propaganda ministry which was essentially run by Karl Rove and Dick Cheney. In fact, this is exactly where the similarity between the Cult and the Reich meet complete with a crowd that would make Leni Riefenstahl proud. Just like Hitler, their chief enemies are the media and educators. Not surprising, considering that these are the two main outlets of information for our country. And they succeeded in creating a very large segment of country's population who will not listen to either of these outlets and ONLY listen to their pre-approved information sources.
Those information sources, like President Bush, have a fervent sense of nationalism. Anyone who does not adhere to their exact definition of nationalism is a traitor. One need only look at what Beck, Limbaugh and Hannity say on a daily basis to see strong evidence for this fact. I can't turn on Fox News for more than 10 seconds without hearing that liberals are "America haters and weak."
But Bush was completely hands off-probably too much-when it came to the regulation of our private industry. Hitler never would've done that. In fact, President Bush was a big proponent, as most conservatives are, of states' rights. So, other than the national security and information, Bush was the exact opposite of Hitler when it came to control of the basic foundations of our society.
The left also gets it wrong when they say that Bush was emotionally unbalanced and/or funny in the head. The Cult certainly is both of these things but Bush never was at all. So, to say that Bush was Hitler is wrong. Certain aspects of his policies bore resemblance to those used by Hitler but such a general statement is simply wrong.
President Obama does not view himself as the savior to the world although some of his followers certainly do. If you actually listen to what he says, he views himself as a man capable of mistakes. He also encourages others to join in and help out. Hitler wanted people helping but more like cattle help farmers make money. In addition, I think it's quite obvious that President Obama does not want a Master race nor does he abhor "non pure" people and murder them. In fact, his critics are quick to point out that he is at fault for many of his views on equality in the sense that he is too sensitive to cultural diversity.
Last time I checked, President Obama has done nothing to stop the Cult from saying whatever they want. Federal troops have not stormed Fox News and Rush Limbaugh has more listeners than the nightly news. The Cult says the "MSM is liberal" yet I see plenty of conservative outlets everywhere and readily available...to take anyone's money. In fact, the left's outlets of information (MSNBC, Air America) don't really do all that well. So, there really is no left version of a propaganda ministry. Making matters worse, President Obama admits when he makes mistakes. Hitler NEVER would have done that.
President Obama's harshest critics say he cow tows too much to the rest of the world so there goes nationalist fervor out the window. They say he's not enough of a patriot so that is definitely not Hitler like...although that means his critics would share that trait with the Fuhrer:) And he's not emotionally unbalanced or paranoid. In fact, I think it would be fair to criticize him as being too sedate at times. So, all this really leaves is the question of state control which is the real reason why the Tea Partiers have painted a small moustache on the current Oval Office occupant.
Setting aside the hilarious comparison (note to Cult: Hitler did not like black people), I would be remiss in my duties if I did not point out that President Obama has, indeed, used his executive authority and bailed out private industry. The thing is, though, Congress voted on it to make it happen. Hitler was the one and only ultimate power. Obama had to go through Congress which is the representative of you and I. Private industry also asked for the money and, contrary to the ravings of Michael Savage, it was not forced upon them. The argument that President Obama is a fascist and like Hitler because "the state has taken over" is extremely paranoid and highly delusional. It simply isn't factual. Just because the federal government is actually regulating things now doesn't mean they are fascist.
The Tea Partiers could make an argument that FDR was similar to Hitler back in the 1930s when he took over much of our private industry and we essentially had a democratic-socialist system. But that was back in a time when the government was not viewed as a satanic entity whose central mission was to take away our guns, enslave us all, and send us to re-education camps. The result of the nationalizing of GM, for example, resulted in the defeat of Hitler himself and the greatest army the world had ever seen. No one complained and our country went on to enjoy the biggest boom in private industry in our history.
And the argument that Obama is coming for our guns has really been shown to be insanely paranoid considering that he has done nothing on gun control. As I have shown previously, it has been the exact opposite. Even Kevin Baker has been happy, enjoying what will soon be conceal and carry without a permit in Arizona.
Despite all the anger and yelling President Obama is not like Hitler either. If one had to choose, I guess one could say that Bush is more like Hitler but that's like saying I'm more like Albert Pujols than my son because I can hit a fly ball to the outfield on a regular basis and my son can't.
Do you know what does remind me a lot of Hitler? Goodwin's Law.
Goodwin's Law states "As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1." This law is evoked constantly on blogs and discussion boards acting as a perfect deterrent even to ideas and action that are quite Hitler-like. Essentially, no one can mention Hitler anymore with Goodwin's Law being brought up. As soon as it is, regardless of the evidence, the person that brought up Hitler is vilified, disgraced, and dispatched with lighting like efficiency...all of which reminds me of....
Well....:)
I think we can all agree that in order to be Hitler, one must first have all or most of the following traits.
- Meglomaniacal view of oneself as savior to the world, leading a Master Race
- Demand central control over all aspects of a society
- Control the flow of information through a Propaganda Ministry
- Abhor all "non Pure" persons to the point of murdering them
- Fervent Nationalism
- Be Emotionally Unbalanced (aka Funny in the Head) given to fits of extreme paranoia
I'm sure there are smaller traits but these are the main ones which are an easy and simple Hitler checklist. Let's run through them, one by one, and see if either Bush or Obama meet the criteria.
In watching W for eight years, it's quite obvious he was not intelligent enough to have a meglomanaical view of himself nor did he view himself as a savior. He did say that God told him to run for president but that's ceding authority to a higher power. In Hitler's mind, there was only one higher power: him. Contrary to the left's rants, George W. Bush is not a racist. The man had Mexican in-laws and was fluent in Spanish. He also had one of the most diverse cabinets in the history of our country so that knocks out number four and any talk of a Master race.
He did, however, stick his toe into the "control of our society" pond but only in the name of national security. (see:wire taps and throwing people in jail without charging them with anything). He jumped completely into the "control information" lake in the form of a propaganda ministry which was essentially run by Karl Rove and Dick Cheney. In fact, this is exactly where the similarity between the Cult and the Reich meet complete with a crowd that would make Leni Riefenstahl proud. Just like Hitler, their chief enemies are the media and educators. Not surprising, considering that these are the two main outlets of information for our country. And they succeeded in creating a very large segment of country's population who will not listen to either of these outlets and ONLY listen to their pre-approved information sources.
Those information sources, like President Bush, have a fervent sense of nationalism. Anyone who does not adhere to their exact definition of nationalism is a traitor. One need only look at what Beck, Limbaugh and Hannity say on a daily basis to see strong evidence for this fact. I can't turn on Fox News for more than 10 seconds without hearing that liberals are "America haters and weak."
But Bush was completely hands off-probably too much-when it came to the regulation of our private industry. Hitler never would've done that. In fact, President Bush was a big proponent, as most conservatives are, of states' rights. So, other than the national security and information, Bush was the exact opposite of Hitler when it came to control of the basic foundations of our society.
The left also gets it wrong when they say that Bush was emotionally unbalanced and/or funny in the head. The Cult certainly is both of these things but Bush never was at all. So, to say that Bush was Hitler is wrong. Certain aspects of his policies bore resemblance to those used by Hitler but such a general statement is simply wrong.
President Obama does not view himself as the savior to the world although some of his followers certainly do. If you actually listen to what he says, he views himself as a man capable of mistakes. He also encourages others to join in and help out. Hitler wanted people helping but more like cattle help farmers make money. In addition, I think it's quite obvious that President Obama does not want a Master race nor does he abhor "non pure" people and murder them. In fact, his critics are quick to point out that he is at fault for many of his views on equality in the sense that he is too sensitive to cultural diversity.
Last time I checked, President Obama has done nothing to stop the Cult from saying whatever they want. Federal troops have not stormed Fox News and Rush Limbaugh has more listeners than the nightly news. The Cult says the "MSM is liberal" yet I see plenty of conservative outlets everywhere and readily available...to take anyone's money. In fact, the left's outlets of information (MSNBC, Air America) don't really do all that well. So, there really is no left version of a propaganda ministry. Making matters worse, President Obama admits when he makes mistakes. Hitler NEVER would have done that.
President Obama's harshest critics say he cow tows too much to the rest of the world so there goes nationalist fervor out the window. They say he's not enough of a patriot so that is definitely not Hitler like...although that means his critics would share that trait with the Fuhrer:) And he's not emotionally unbalanced or paranoid. In fact, I think it would be fair to criticize him as being too sedate at times. So, all this really leaves is the question of state control which is the real reason why the Tea Partiers have painted a small moustache on the current Oval Office occupant.
Setting aside the hilarious comparison (note to Cult: Hitler did not like black people), I would be remiss in my duties if I did not point out that President Obama has, indeed, used his executive authority and bailed out private industry. The thing is, though, Congress voted on it to make it happen. Hitler was the one and only ultimate power. Obama had to go through Congress which is the representative of you and I. Private industry also asked for the money and, contrary to the ravings of Michael Savage, it was not forced upon them. The argument that President Obama is a fascist and like Hitler because "the state has taken over" is extremely paranoid and highly delusional. It simply isn't factual. Just because the federal government is actually regulating things now doesn't mean they are fascist.
The Tea Partiers could make an argument that FDR was similar to Hitler back in the 1930s when he took over much of our private industry and we essentially had a democratic-socialist system. But that was back in a time when the government was not viewed as a satanic entity whose central mission was to take away our guns, enslave us all, and send us to re-education camps. The result of the nationalizing of GM, for example, resulted in the defeat of Hitler himself and the greatest army the world had ever seen. No one complained and our country went on to enjoy the biggest boom in private industry in our history.
And the argument that Obama is coming for our guns has really been shown to be insanely paranoid considering that he has done nothing on gun control. As I have shown previously, it has been the exact opposite. Even Kevin Baker has been happy, enjoying what will soon be conceal and carry without a permit in Arizona.
Despite all the anger and yelling President Obama is not like Hitler either. If one had to choose, I guess one could say that Bush is more like Hitler but that's like saying I'm more like Albert Pujols than my son because I can hit a fly ball to the outfield on a regular basis and my son can't.
Do you know what does remind me a lot of Hitler? Goodwin's Law.
Goodwin's Law states "As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1." This law is evoked constantly on blogs and discussion boards acting as a perfect deterrent even to ideas and action that are quite Hitler-like. Essentially, no one can mention Hitler anymore with Goodwin's Law being brought up. As soon as it is, regardless of the evidence, the person that brought up Hitler is vilified, disgraced, and dispatched with lighting like efficiency...all of which reminds me of....
Well....:)
Saturday, April 17, 2010
Brilliant
| The Daily Show With Jon Stewart | Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c | |||
| Tea America | ||||
| ||||
Not only does Stewart rip the MSM for its baiting of Tea Party members but he absolutely hammers Fox News in the montage at the end regarding their generalizations of liberals.
Well played sir.
Friday, April 16, 2010
Friday Funnies
Meanwhile, tax protesters (52 percent of which think their taxes are fair) descended on Washington DC yesterday to yell and be angry about their taxes....which are at the lowest they have been in years.
Ah, the Cult...
Thursday, April 15, 2010
Fair Taxes
The New York Times has recently released a poll of Tea Party supporters. Many of the answers were as expected but this one jumped out at me.
Do you regard the income tax that you paid this year as fair, or not.
52 percent said fair
42 percent said not fair
5 percent don't know
So, the movement that is rallying against taxes thinks that their taxes are fair?
This one also has me scratching my head.
Overall, do you think Social Security and Medicare are worth the cost to taxpayers?
62 percent said worth it
33 percent said not worth it
6 percent said don't know
Okay...um....WHAT???! These answers make no sense to me and so I ask my dear readers to enlighten me.
Do you regard the income tax that you paid this year as fair, or not.
52 percent said fair
42 percent said not fair
5 percent don't know
So, the movement that is rallying against taxes thinks that their taxes are fair?
This one also has me scratching my head.
Overall, do you think Social Security and Medicare are worth the cost to taxpayers?
62 percent said worth it
33 percent said not worth it
6 percent said don't know
Okay...um....WHAT???! These answers make no sense to me and so I ask my dear readers to enlighten me.
Wednesday, April 14, 2010
Mark Agrees With Minnesota Tea Party Head
Yes, folks, it's true.
Deanna Boss, co-founder of the Twin Cities Tea Party, was quite frustrated to find out that Michelle Bachmann (R-MN-06) used nearly $14,000 dollars of taxpayer money to finance her "House Call on Washington" rally last November. Apparently the money was used for the stage and sound system for the anti health care bill event.
Boss said she would have preferred that private donors had financed the event, given her and other activists' criticism of excessive government spending. "I mean, we're broke," she said, referring to the national debt. "Every penny counts here."
I agree. It's one thing if the Democrats do it. I mean, everyone expects them to spend money. But having a rally whose central theme is vilifying excessive government spending and paying for it with....excessive government spending strikes me as total bullshit.
It's sort of like a movement of people being anti-tax and knowing nothing about taxes:)
Deanna Boss, co-founder of the Twin Cities Tea Party, was quite frustrated to find out that Michelle Bachmann (R-MN-06) used nearly $14,000 dollars of taxpayer money to finance her "House Call on Washington" rally last November. Apparently the money was used for the stage and sound system for the anti health care bill event.
Boss said she would have preferred that private donors had financed the event, given her and other activists' criticism of excessive government spending. "I mean, we're broke," she said, referring to the national debt. "Every penny counts here."
I agree. It's one thing if the Democrats do it. I mean, everyone expects them to spend money. But having a rally whose central theme is vilifying excessive government spending and paying for it with....excessive government spending strikes me as total bullshit.
It's sort of like a movement of people being anti-tax and knowing nothing about taxes:)
Tuesday, April 13, 2010
Whither the GOP
I'm wondering how many seats the GOP is going to win this fall. Seriously.
If you would've asked me two months ago, I probably would've said quite a few with the distinct possibility of taking over either the House or Senate. But now, not so much. GOP leaders see very clearly that the Tea Party movement is splintering their party. And this would be why they are moving further to the right on most issues. They are trying desperately to maintain cohesion.
Extremes don't win elections. Getting the vote in the middle does. So, how does the GOP expect to win back a substantial number of seats if substantial numbers are moving further to the right? As I have said many times, the word "compromise" isn't in their vocabulary. More importantly, if they only win back a few or none, this will be the third election in a row in which they have not done well. Honestly, anything less than 5 seats in the Senate and 20 in the House will be considered failure.
Combine this possible failure with the total losses of 2006 and 2008 and one has to seriously wonder if the GOP might need to admit, for the sake of its survival, that, while we live in a center right country, we don't live in the far right utopia in which there is only one way of living...THEIR WAY.
Over the next few months, it's going to be interesting to watch the GOP struggle with itself. Do they want to win which would entail compromise? Or will they stick to their rigidity and lose an excellent chance of taking back more seats in Congress?
If you would've asked me two months ago, I probably would've said quite a few with the distinct possibility of taking over either the House or Senate. But now, not so much. GOP leaders see very clearly that the Tea Party movement is splintering their party. And this would be why they are moving further to the right on most issues. They are trying desperately to maintain cohesion.
Extremes don't win elections. Getting the vote in the middle does. So, how does the GOP expect to win back a substantial number of seats if substantial numbers are moving further to the right? As I have said many times, the word "compromise" isn't in their vocabulary. More importantly, if they only win back a few or none, this will be the third election in a row in which they have not done well. Honestly, anything less than 5 seats in the Senate and 20 in the House will be considered failure.
Combine this possible failure with the total losses of 2006 and 2008 and one has to seriously wonder if the GOP might need to admit, for the sake of its survival, that, while we live in a center right country, we don't live in the far right utopia in which there is only one way of living...THEIR WAY.
Over the next few months, it's going to be interesting to watch the GOP struggle with itself. Do they want to win which would entail compromise? Or will they stick to their rigidity and lose an excellent chance of taking back more seats in Congress?
Friday, April 09, 2010
Stewart Owns The Cult
| The Daily Show With Jon Stewart | Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c | |||
| The Big Bang Treaty | ||||
| ||||
"We are at the point now where the by far #1 ranked news network in this country no longer feels the need to report what a policy document says in black and white."
No shit.
Fan Fucking Tastic
Sean Hannity, in his interview with Sarah Palin and Michelle Bachmann, wondered if there would be a Palin-Bachmann ticket in 2012. Of course, many expressed horror at this idea but I think it's great. I think the GOP should move as far to the right as they possibly can. Having the two of them on the campaign trail saying one maniacal thing after another is exactly what the Democrats need to assure a second term for President Obama. Anyone with any political savvy knows that it's the middle (see: Reagan Democrats) that win elections.
In all honesty, I'm beginning to wonder what sort of gains, if any, the GOP are going to get this fall. No doubt, presidents have historically lost in the mid terms but can conservatives of this country expect to win back a substantial amount of seats with the Cult running the show?
It's going to be a fun summer and fall:)
In all honesty, I'm beginning to wonder what sort of gains, if any, the GOP are going to get this fall. No doubt, presidents have historically lost in the mid terms but can conservatives of this country expect to win back a substantial amount of seats with the Cult running the show?
It's going to be a fun summer and fall:)
Thursday, April 08, 2010
Liberal Media Watch
Remember back in the 2008 campaign when Chris Matthews said that he "felt a tingle up his leg" every time Barack Obama spoke? Howls of derision and liberal media bias Hershey squirted out of the mouths of the Cult.
Well, now we have this:
MSNBC talk show host Chris Matthews proclaimed himself "dazzled" by Bachmann's and Palin's speeches Wednesday, suggesting they may be "the new star power of the right."
Hmmm...could it be that the media is simply fascinated with bright shiny objects? And that they are really only interested in ratings and money?
Nah, can't be...
Well, now we have this:
MSNBC talk show host Chris Matthews proclaimed himself "dazzled" by Bachmann's and Palin's speeches Wednesday, suggesting they may be "the new star power of the right."
Hmmm...could it be that the media is simply fascinated with bright shiny objects? And that they are really only interested in ratings and money?
Nah, can't be...
Wednesday, April 07, 2010
Good Grief
Really?
Meanwhile, for the first time in the history of our country, the "weak" Barack Obama has authorized a targeted killing of an American citizen.
Tuesday, April 06, 2010
A New Profile in Courage
Just when I thought all hope was lost in our current political climate, Senator Tom Coburn proves me completely wrong.
At a recent town hall meeting, a woman stood up and asked Senator Coburn if she was going to jail if she didn't have health care. He responded to her by saying that was not true and people shouldn't believe everything the myths they hear on Fox News. Later in the meeting, Nancy Pelosi's name came up and there was a chorus of boos, to which Senator Coburn replied
"Come on now... how many of you all have met her? She's a nice person. Just because somebody disagrees with you, doesn't mean they're not a good person. Don't catch yourself being biased by Fox News that somebody's no good."
Well said, sir!
He then went on to urge his audience to widen their points of view by reading (!) and watching a variety of media outlets...not simply the ones with which they agree.
Mr. Coburn, I have disagreed with you on many things but from this day forward you are a friend to Notes From The Front and if anyone, on either side, disparages you personally, they are going to get a 400 pound verbal weight dropped on the arse.
Let's see if we can start getting everyone to think and act in this manner...including me:)
At a recent town hall meeting, a woman stood up and asked Senator Coburn if she was going to jail if she didn't have health care. He responded to her by saying that was not true and people shouldn't believe everything the myths they hear on Fox News. Later in the meeting, Nancy Pelosi's name came up and there was a chorus of boos, to which Senator Coburn replied
"Come on now... how many of you all have met her? She's a nice person. Just because somebody disagrees with you, doesn't mean they're not a good person. Don't catch yourself being biased by Fox News that somebody's no good."
Well said, sir!
He then went on to urge his audience to widen their points of view by reading (!) and watching a variety of media outlets...not simply the ones with which they agree.
Mr. Coburn, I have disagreed with you on many things but from this day forward you are a friend to Notes From The Front and if anyone, on either side, disparages you personally, they are going to get a 400 pound verbal weight dropped on the arse.
Let's see if we can start getting everyone to think and act in this manner...including me:)
Monday, April 05, 2010
Reflecting the Grays
A few weeks ago, juris imprudent, a regular commenter here at Notes From The Front, posted a comment about a trip he took to Manzanar, one of ten sites used during World War II to house Japanese Americans. Visiting the site made him think of one of our nation's greatest presidents.
It took several decades for our country to come around but we finally apologized to those Americans of Japanese descent for seizing their land and putting them in internment camps. I'm sure many of you would argue that it was war time, after all, and there wasn't really any choice. Who could know what spies lurked amongst these "yellow devils?" In all honesty, I would have probably been one of those people supporting FDR's decision to make all of these people instant prisoners of war.
One would think, however, that at the conclusion of the war, Truman might have apologized but he didn't. Nor did Eisenhower nor my favorite president, Jack Kennedy. In fact, it took four more presidents before we finally elected a man who had the balls to admit that we were wrong. That man was Ronald Reagan and, on August 10, 1988, he signed a bill that gave reparations to those Japanese Americans. Here is a photo of him signing the bill into law.
In reflecting upon this image, I have to admit that the last vestiges any thoughts I had that defined Reagan as a "bad" president have effectively been vanquished. Ideologically, there are many of his views and actions with which I will always disagree. And he's still not in my Top Five.
But you can't argue with someone who mans up and says that our country fucked up. Ironic, that Reagan is the hero to a party which is completely incapable of that now and heaps vitriol upon President Obama for doing just that.
I suppose it's not surprising that the same group of people that twist the message of Jesus Christ to suit their needs would create a "Fictional Ronnie" that they can worship with candles and ignorance. What would they say about President Reagan talking (gasp!) to our mortal enemies, the Soviets, and actually engaging in diplomacy? What would they say about a man who ran record deficits and debt to GDP spending? What would they say about a man who admitted that arms for hostages were traded and that is was HIS responsibility alone?
Well, they'd probably call him a Nazi. Or a Communist.
I'm man enough to admit that history has shown me that Reagan was a much better president than he is given credit. Why? Results. Ronald Reagan defeated the Soviet Union. It's just that simple. We hear the Cult these days obsess about Obama's teleprompter and how speeches don't solve anything. Yet it was President Reagan's speech, in which he said, "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall" that has since been shown by author Romesh Ratnesar in his book Tear Down this Wall to be a major turning point in the end of the Soviet Union. This is a fantastic book, btw, which I highly recommend.
And it was Reagan, as Manzi pointed out in his tour de force, that brought the US back to the forefront of the world economy.
Ronald Reagan's solution to the '70s crisis proceeded from two diagnoses. The first was that macroeconomic pump-priming was merely creating inflation, not growth. The second was that America's economy had large untapped potential for growth, but that this potential went unrealized because of the restrictions on markets intended to promote social harmony as part of the post-war economic consensus. These included everything from price controls to government encouragement of private-sector unionization to zealous anti-trust enforcement. Reagan's strategy, therefore, was to promote sound money plus deregulation. He succeeded, and America re-emerged as the acknowledged global economic leader. Economic output per person is now 20 to 25% higher in the U.S. than in Japan and the major European economies, and America's economy dominates the world in size and prestige.
Again, it comes down to the results. Of course, these results did not come without hardship and that is where the left comes in with their complaints about Reagan which I'm certain I will hear in comments. Manzi explains.
The percentage of the U.S. population born abroad — which had reached its historical minimum in 1970 — began to rise rapidly as mass immigration resumed after a multi-decade hiatus. This development increased inequality further by introducing a large low-income group to the population, and by intensifying wage competition among lower-skill workers.
The Reagan economic revolution exacerbated the problem. Its success resulted, in part, from forcing extremely painful restructuring on industry after industry. One critical consequence of this restructuring was a new compensation paradigm — one that relies on markets rather than on corporate diktats, regulation, or historical norms to set pay. This new regime also accepts a much higher degree of income disparity based on market-denominated performance, and it expects that most people will exploit the resulting demand for talent by moving from company to company many times during a career. Growing inequality was a price we paid for the economic growth needed to recover from the '70s slump and to retain our global position.
I think that Manzi explains this quite well. Growing inequality was the price we had to pay or it would have been worse. Reagan knew this, of course, and did what he to do.
That's not to say that all of his ideas would work in today's economy. I don't think many of them would. I'll be talking over the next few weeks about what Bruce Bartlett's take on the difference between the Reagan economy (in which he was a principle architect) and the Obama economy. In fact, as I have reflecting quite a bit on President Reagan since juris put up that comment, I see more and more similarities between him and our current president than I ever though possible. More, I'm certain, that the Cult would not like to admit.
So, isn't it interesting, as juris posed in the same comment regarding his trip to Manzanar, that Reagan was the one to apologize and FDR, the extremely left leaning statesman, got it all wrong in putting American citizens in camps simply because of their ethnicity? And doing this while fighting a war against an enemy that believed in a "Master Race?"
It is, indeed, very interesting and this would be just the kind of reflection upon the gray that all of us should be doing in our current age of hyper vitriolic "Us VS. Them." As one can plainly see, I have no problem doing this. Those who have created a fictional effigy of Ronald Reagan, at least at this point in time, do not have the word "reflection" in their vocabulary.
Until they do, we aren't going to get anywhere.
It took several decades for our country to come around but we finally apologized to those Americans of Japanese descent for seizing their land and putting them in internment camps. I'm sure many of you would argue that it was war time, after all, and there wasn't really any choice. Who could know what spies lurked amongst these "yellow devils?" In all honesty, I would have probably been one of those people supporting FDR's decision to make all of these people instant prisoners of war.
One would think, however, that at the conclusion of the war, Truman might have apologized but he didn't. Nor did Eisenhower nor my favorite president, Jack Kennedy. In fact, it took four more presidents before we finally elected a man who had the balls to admit that we were wrong. That man was Ronald Reagan and, on August 10, 1988, he signed a bill that gave reparations to those Japanese Americans. Here is a photo of him signing the bill into law.
In reflecting upon this image, I have to admit that the last vestiges any thoughts I had that defined Reagan as a "bad" president have effectively been vanquished. Ideologically, there are many of his views and actions with which I will always disagree. And he's still not in my Top Five.
But you can't argue with someone who mans up and says that our country fucked up. Ironic, that Reagan is the hero to a party which is completely incapable of that now and heaps vitriol upon President Obama for doing just that.
I suppose it's not surprising that the same group of people that twist the message of Jesus Christ to suit their needs would create a "Fictional Ronnie" that they can worship with candles and ignorance. What would they say about President Reagan talking (gasp!) to our mortal enemies, the Soviets, and actually engaging in diplomacy? What would they say about a man who ran record deficits and debt to GDP spending? What would they say about a man who admitted that arms for hostages were traded and that is was HIS responsibility alone?
Well, they'd probably call him a Nazi. Or a Communist.
I'm man enough to admit that history has shown me that Reagan was a much better president than he is given credit. Why? Results. Ronald Reagan defeated the Soviet Union. It's just that simple. We hear the Cult these days obsess about Obama's teleprompter and how speeches don't solve anything. Yet it was President Reagan's speech, in which he said, "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall" that has since been shown by author Romesh Ratnesar in his book Tear Down this Wall to be a major turning point in the end of the Soviet Union. This is a fantastic book, btw, which I highly recommend.
And it was Reagan, as Manzi pointed out in his tour de force, that brought the US back to the forefront of the world economy.
Ronald Reagan's solution to the '70s crisis proceeded from two diagnoses. The first was that macroeconomic pump-priming was merely creating inflation, not growth. The second was that America's economy had large untapped potential for growth, but that this potential went unrealized because of the restrictions on markets intended to promote social harmony as part of the post-war economic consensus. These included everything from price controls to government encouragement of private-sector unionization to zealous anti-trust enforcement. Reagan's strategy, therefore, was to promote sound money plus deregulation. He succeeded, and America re-emerged as the acknowledged global economic leader. Economic output per person is now 20 to 25% higher in the U.S. than in Japan and the major European economies, and America's economy dominates the world in size and prestige.
Again, it comes down to the results. Of course, these results did not come without hardship and that is where the left comes in with their complaints about Reagan which I'm certain I will hear in comments. Manzi explains.
The percentage of the U.S. population born abroad — which had reached its historical minimum in 1970 — began to rise rapidly as mass immigration resumed after a multi-decade hiatus. This development increased inequality further by introducing a large low-income group to the population, and by intensifying wage competition among lower-skill workers.
The Reagan economic revolution exacerbated the problem. Its success resulted, in part, from forcing extremely painful restructuring on industry after industry. One critical consequence of this restructuring was a new compensation paradigm — one that relies on markets rather than on corporate diktats, regulation, or historical norms to set pay. This new regime also accepts a much higher degree of income disparity based on market-denominated performance, and it expects that most people will exploit the resulting demand for talent by moving from company to company many times during a career. Growing inequality was a price we paid for the economic growth needed to recover from the '70s slump and to retain our global position.
I think that Manzi explains this quite well. Growing inequality was the price we had to pay or it would have been worse. Reagan knew this, of course, and did what he to do.
That's not to say that all of his ideas would work in today's economy. I don't think many of them would. I'll be talking over the next few weeks about what Bruce Bartlett's take on the difference between the Reagan economy (in which he was a principle architect) and the Obama economy. In fact, as I have reflecting quite a bit on President Reagan since juris put up that comment, I see more and more similarities between him and our current president than I ever though possible. More, I'm certain, that the Cult would not like to admit.
So, isn't it interesting, as juris posed in the same comment regarding his trip to Manzanar, that Reagan was the one to apologize and FDR, the extremely left leaning statesman, got it all wrong in putting American citizens in camps simply because of their ethnicity? And doing this while fighting a war against an enemy that believed in a "Master Race?"
It is, indeed, very interesting and this would be just the kind of reflection upon the gray that all of us should be doing in our current age of hyper vitriolic "Us VS. Them." As one can plainly see, I have no problem doing this. Those who have created a fictional effigy of Ronald Reagan, at least at this point in time, do not have the word "reflection" in their vocabulary.
Until they do, we aren't going to get anywhere.
Friday, April 02, 2010
First, Do No...wait, you support health care reform? FUCK YOU!
Click on the image for the full story.Awesome!
Thursday, April 01, 2010
Yea! (Clap! Clap!)
I'm so happy I found Bruce Bartlett again. His recent column, Ignorance Is Bliss for the Tea Party Crowd, contains many wonderful gems.
One of the reasons I became a conservative way back when is because conservatives lived in a world where one’s actions are defined by their consequences, not one’s motives. Conservatives also prided themselves on being reality-based and fact-based in their analyses, while liberals often seemed to live in a dream world disconnected from history, institutions and ideology, among other things.
I agree completely. I miss that brand of conservatism. What happened to it?
Today, however, conservatives have largely adopted the liberal operating assumption and now also define themselves by the righteousness of their motives. This fact became very obvious to me this week when I examined the knowledge that tea party demonstrators on Capitol Hill had on the subject of taxation.
Granted, Bartlett's polling isn't a very large sample but the results are interesting nonetheless.
Federal taxes are very considerably lower by every measure since Obama became president. And given the economic circumstances, it's hard to imagine that a tax increase would have been enacted last year. In fact, 40% of Obama's stimulus package involved tax cuts. These include the Making Work Pay Credit, which reduces federal taxes for all taxpayers with incomes below $75,000 by between $400 and $800.
And yet they won't accept these facts. Why? Because they "live in a dream world, disconnected from history, institutions, ideology among other things."
It's hard to explain this divergence between perception and reality.
Actually, it's quite easy, Mr. Bartlett. They are in a fucking Cult. But, please, continue to be polite.
Tea parties just represent unfocused anger at current economic conditions...In this sense, the tea parties are simply the latest manifestation of populism, which has arisen periodically throughout American history...Unfortunately for the tea party populists, there is no evidence in American history that populism has ever had a meaningful effect on policy.
Well, that's a relief that someone thinks so. I'm not so sure, though, with all the new media. I think they are going to be around for awhile.
Whatever the future of the tea party movement in American politics, it's a bad idea for so many participants to operate on the basis of false notions about the burden of federal taxation. It only takes a little bit of time to look at one's tax return to see what one is actually paying the Treasury, calculate the percentage of one's income that goes to taxes, and compare it to what was paid last year and the year before. People may then discover that their anger is misplaced and channel it into areas where it is more likely to bring about positive change.
That's just it. They don't want to take the time. They believe what they believe and they certainly aren't going to let facts about taxes get in the way. In fact, the Tea Partiers that I have talked to seemed more concerned about what other people pay in taxes (howls of unfairness) than what they themselves pay.
I wonder why that is...
One of the reasons I became a conservative way back when is because conservatives lived in a world where one’s actions are defined by their consequences, not one’s motives. Conservatives also prided themselves on being reality-based and fact-based in their analyses, while liberals often seemed to live in a dream world disconnected from history, institutions and ideology, among other things.
I agree completely. I miss that brand of conservatism. What happened to it?
Today, however, conservatives have largely adopted the liberal operating assumption and now also define themselves by the righteousness of their motives. This fact became very obvious to me this week when I examined the knowledge that tea party demonstrators on Capitol Hill had on the subject of taxation.
Granted, Bartlett's polling isn't a very large sample but the results are interesting nonetheless.
Tea party goers also seem to have a very distorted view of the direction of federal taxes. They were asked whether they are higher, lower or the same as when Barack Obama was inaugurated last year. More than two-thirds thought that taxes are higher today and only 4% thought they were lower; the rest said they are the same.
Federal taxes are very considerably lower by every measure since Obama became president. And given the economic circumstances, it's hard to imagine that a tax increase would have been enacted last year. In fact, 40% of Obama's stimulus package involved tax cuts. These include the Making Work Pay Credit, which reduces federal taxes for all taxpayers with incomes below $75,000 by between $400 and $800.
And yet they won't accept these facts. Why? Because they "live in a dream world, disconnected from history, institutions, ideology among other things."
According to the JCT, last year's $787 billion stimulus bill, enacted with no Republican support, reduced federal taxes by almost $100 billion in 2009 and another $222 billion this year. The Tax Policy Center, a private research group, estimates that close to 90% of all taxpayers got a tax cut last year and almost 100% of those in the $50,000 income range. For those making between $40,000 and $50,000, the average tax cut was $472; for those making between $50,000 and $75,000, the tax cut averaged $522. No taxpayer anywhere in the country had his or her taxes increased as a consequence of Obama's policies.
It's hard to explain this divergence between perception and reality.
Actually, it's quite easy, Mr. Bartlett. They are in a fucking Cult. But, please, continue to be polite.
Tea parties just represent unfocused anger at current economic conditions...In this sense, the tea parties are simply the latest manifestation of populism, which has arisen periodically throughout American history...Unfortunately for the tea party populists, there is no evidence in American history that populism has ever had a meaningful effect on policy.
Well, that's a relief that someone thinks so. I'm not so sure, though, with all the new media. I think they are going to be around for awhile.
Whatever the future of the tea party movement in American politics, it's a bad idea for so many participants to operate on the basis of false notions about the burden of federal taxation. It only takes a little bit of time to look at one's tax return to see what one is actually paying the Treasury, calculate the percentage of one's income that goes to taxes, and compare it to what was paid last year and the year before. People may then discover that their anger is misplaced and channel it into areas where it is more likely to bring about positive change.
That's just it. They don't want to take the time. They believe what they believe and they certainly aren't going to let facts about taxes get in the way. In fact, the Tea Partiers that I have talked to seemed more concerned about what other people pay in taxes (howls of unfairness) than what they themselves pay.
I wonder why that is...
Wednesday, March 31, 2010
Drill, Barry, Drill?
First of all, some of you have asked if I am going to comment on the Hutaree cult and their recent arrests. To be quite honest, I don't really feel like it. For the time being, I have said all I need to say about the rise of right wing nut bags.
Instead, I thought I would examine the stunning announcement today by President Obama that offshore oil drilling in areas of the Atlantic Ocean, Alaska's North Slope, and the Gulf of Mexico. Combine this with his recent dedication to pursue nuclear energy solutions and, my oh my, do we have a whole shit load of pissed off tree huggers.
The plan authorizes the Interior Department to conduct seismic surveys off the south- and mid-Atlantic coasts to "determine the quantity and location of potential oil and gas resources to support energy planning," according to a statement from a White House official. It would include lifting a 20 year ban on drilling along the Virginia coastline but keep the ban on drilling around Bristol Bay in Alaska.
"This is not a decision that I've made lightly," Obama told an audience at Maryland's Joint Base Andrews Naval Air Facility. "But the bottom line is this: Given our energy needs, in order to sustain economic growth and produce jobs and keep our businesses competitive, we're going to need to harness traditional sources of fuel even as we ramp up production of new sources of renewable, homegrown energy."
I've heard this same suggestion from several of my conservative friends and wonder if they will now give him credit for doing this. In fact, I'm really curious as to how they are going to spin this one. Drill Baby Drill has been their cry for awhile and now that he is actually doing it, how can they complain? I'm certain they will find a way.
While I wholeheartedly support all in roads to nuclear energy (in fact, I think efforts should be greater), I'm not sure I can get on board with him on this one. I'm sure he sees things that I don't (obviously) but Drill Baby Drill has always seemed to me, as Thomas Friedman said, like someone in the year 1994 screaming about the effectiveness of a typewriter. To me, drilling for oil around our coasts is a waste of time, money, and energy that could be put to use somewhere else.
I can't help but think that this new drilling will stymie our effort to keep ahead of China in the green energy race. I get the fact that we need to reduce our dependence on foreign oil but shouldn't that mean that our efforts should be doubled in wind, solar, and nuclear energy?
Instead, I thought I would examine the stunning announcement today by President Obama that offshore oil drilling in areas of the Atlantic Ocean, Alaska's North Slope, and the Gulf of Mexico. Combine this with his recent dedication to pursue nuclear energy solutions and, my oh my, do we have a whole shit load of pissed off tree huggers.
The plan authorizes the Interior Department to conduct seismic surveys off the south- and mid-Atlantic coasts to "determine the quantity and location of potential oil and gas resources to support energy planning," according to a statement from a White House official. It would include lifting a 20 year ban on drilling along the Virginia coastline but keep the ban on drilling around Bristol Bay in Alaska.
"This is not a decision that I've made lightly," Obama told an audience at Maryland's Joint Base Andrews Naval Air Facility. "But the bottom line is this: Given our energy needs, in order to sustain economic growth and produce jobs and keep our businesses competitive, we're going to need to harness traditional sources of fuel even as we ramp up production of new sources of renewable, homegrown energy."
I've heard this same suggestion from several of my conservative friends and wonder if they will now give him credit for doing this. In fact, I'm really curious as to how they are going to spin this one. Drill Baby Drill has been their cry for awhile and now that he is actually doing it, how can they complain? I'm certain they will find a way.
While I wholeheartedly support all in roads to nuclear energy (in fact, I think efforts should be greater), I'm not sure I can get on board with him on this one. I'm sure he sees things that I don't (obviously) but Drill Baby Drill has always seemed to me, as Thomas Friedman said, like someone in the year 1994 screaming about the effectiveness of a typewriter. To me, drilling for oil around our coasts is a waste of time, money, and energy that could be put to use somewhere else.
I can't help but think that this new drilling will stymie our effort to keep ahead of China in the green energy race. I get the fact that we need to reduce our dependence on foreign oil but shouldn't that mean that our efforts should be doubled in wind, solar, and nuclear energy?
Monday, March 29, 2010
They Never Do
It is truly amazing to behold, in this day and age, that when people make racist remarks that we still have a nation in denial. In fact, not only is it verboten to say the word "nigger"...it is also unheard of to accuse a member of the Cult as being racist.
I've talked about this before and, as expected, it's been met with derisive snorts and even outright denials. Take the recent chants of "Kill the Bill, nigger" that were heard as Reps John Lewis, Jim Clyburn, and Emanuel Cleaver headed into the Capitol last week to vote on the health care bill. I am told now that Lewis, Clyburn and Cleaver are all liars and it didn't actually happen. Never mind the scores of reports from witnesses in the crowd as well the confirmation from Capital Police. The Tea Party activists are not racist. To say otherwise...well...I think you can guess how the Cult views this transgression.
Leonard Pitts Jr., writing for McClatchy News Services, sums it up best.
So it turns out that, contrary to what I argued in this space a few weeks back, racism is not "a major component" of the so-called tea party movement. I am informed of this by dozens of tea party activists indignant and insulted that I would even suggest such a thing.
I've talked about this before and, as expected, it's been met with derisive snorts and even outright denials. Take the recent chants of "Kill the Bill, nigger" that were heard as Reps John Lewis, Jim Clyburn, and Emanuel Cleaver headed into the Capitol last week to vote on the health care bill. I am told now that Lewis, Clyburn and Cleaver are all liars and it didn't actually happen. Never mind the scores of reports from witnesses in the crowd as well the confirmation from Capital Police. The Tea Party activists are not racist. To say otherwise...well...I think you can guess how the Cult views this transgression.
Leonard Pitts Jr., writing for McClatchy News Services, sums it up best.
So it turns out that, contrary to what I argued in this space a few weeks back, racism is not "a major component" of the so-called tea party movement. I am informed of this by dozens of tea party activists indignant and insulted that I would even suggest such a thing.
In other news tea party protesters called John Lewis a "nigger" the other day in the shadow of the U.S. Capitol.
So, don't believe your lyin' eyes/ears. This jibes with the rest of their bullshit. Of course, Lewis has faced this sort of denial before in his life as Pitts notes.
He faced it in Nashville in 1960 when he was locked inside a whites-only fast-food restaurant and gassed by a fumigation machine for ordering a hamburger.
He faced it in Birmingham in 1961 when a group of Freedom Riders was attacked and he was knocked unconscious for riding a Greyhound bus.
Most famously, he faced it on the Edmund Pettus Bridge in Selma 45 years ago this month when his skull was fractured by Alabama state troopers who charged a group of demonstrators seeking their right to vote.
Bring this up to a member of the Cult and be prepared to be met with an onslaught of anger and hate combined with a whiny-squeal-like-a-pig tone in their voices. To discuss historical facts of this nature are anathema to them...especially if there are any racial overtones. Why? Well, that's simple.
There is no racism in our country. And if you teach it in school then you are race monger, leftist who is encouraging social justice which are code words for communism and fascism.
Tea party leaders have spent much of the last few days spinning the incident, deflecting renewed suggestions that their stated fears — socialism, communism, liberalism — are just proxies for the one fear most of them no longer dare speak. Some even faxed the McClatchy news bureau in Washington to suggest, without offering a shred of evidence, that the episode was sparked by Democratic plants within the crowd.
Really? Wow...
Amy Kremer, coordinator of the Tea Party Express, went on Fox News to dismiss what she called an "isolated" incident. Your first instinct may be to cede the benefit of the doubt on that one. It seems unfair to tar nine reasonable people with the hateful behavior of one lunatic.
So, Kremer admits it DID happen. Hmm...
Given how often tea party leaders have been forced to disavow hateful signs and slogans and even the presence of organized white supremacist groups in their midst, is it really fair to use the word "isolated"?
Is there not a rottenness here? And is not the unwillingness to call that rottenness by name part and parcel of the reason it endures?
Yes, Leonard, there is a rottenness and that's why it does endure. It endures for the same reason why it endured so many years after the Civil War...because people aren't owning their responsibility for it. I have no problem admitting that I am horribly biased against Muslim men. It is a form of bigotry that I will probably struggle with my entire life. I may be a flawed person in many ways but at least I have the sack to admit that I do, indeed, have a problem. The Cult, of course, will never admit their obvious bias. Admitting Fault=End of all that is Holy.
I'll let Pitts close this one out.
Often we tell ourselves lies to spare ourselves truths. Had you asked them, the people who locked John Lewis inside that restaurant, the ones who mauled him at that bus station and smashed him down on that bridge, would not have said they acted from a rottenness within.
No, like the ones who called him "nigger" half a century later, they would have told you they were good people fighting for principle, trying to save this country from the liberals, the socialists and the communists.
They would not have said they were racists. Racists never do.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)