Exhibit A In How Passion Can Cloud Logic

It is almost common knowledge that when tea partiers and the more nativist elements of the less intellectual talk radio world of conservatives talk about illegal immigration, it predominately refers to those migrating from Mexico.

But one prankster at a recent rally in Minnesota this weekend, actually tricked the tea partiers into railing against European immigration, for their ethnic cleansing, genocide, and economic injustices against Native Americans. All something they only belatedly realized.

A speaker at an anti-immigration rally in St. Paul, Minnesota, this past weekend got the crowd to support more than just the deportation of all illegal immigrants -- he got them cheering for the eviction of all European-descended immigrants to America who "stole this land through genocide and ethnic cleansing."

A crowd of some 40 people showed up to the steps of the Minnesota State Capitol on Saturday to protest proposed reform of US immigration law. Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano said Friday that the Obama administration was pushing for immigration reform that would create a pathway for the legalization of undocumented immigrants.

Napolitano said she would like to see a "tough, fair" plan that would allow illegal migrants to gain legal status if they pay a fine, pass a criminal background check, pay all back taxes and learn English.

That idea brought 40 anti-immigration protesters to Saturday's protest, as well as 30 pro-immigration reform counter-protesters, according to FightBackNews in Minneapolis.

One of those protesters, going by the alias "Robert Erickson," got a speaking spot at the rally and used it to argue for the eviction of all descendants of European immigrants -- in other words, that contingent of white Americans who these days see themselves as "real" Americans.

Bardwell, Defends His Refusal to Perform Marriage Ceremony for Interracial Couple

Watch CBS News Videos Online

Not been blogging much lately, as I have been sick with a mean sinus infection complicated by my asthma and a possible cold and as of this posting still am.

Anyway there have been more developments in the case of Keith Bardwell, the Justice of the Peace in Louisiana who refused to perform a marriage ceremony for a mixed race couple because he was convinced that it would be harmful for the children. That there parents' mixed racial and ethnic heritage would open them up to rejection (likely from people who would have you know prevented them from being born in wed lock if you get my drift).

Anyway, a credit to both Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-LA) and Gov. Bobby Jindal (R-LA) have both come out and called for Bardwell to resign his position over the radical notion that somehow the function of a public official invested with the power and responsibility is to enforce the law.

Bardwell, however insists he does not have the power to deny anyone a marriage license, just to perform the ceremony and that he told them where they could have such a ceremony performed.

He also insists in the interview on the CBS Early Show posted above, that everyone hates him now, and that he didn't mean to offend the couple, and he was just trying to do them and any children they may possibly have in the future a favor by refusing to perform such a ceremony. He also says that because he informed the couple of where they could get married, this whole issue should now go away.

Now if this sanctimonious, preachy bumpkin wants to hold that segregationist mindset that is primitive, disgusting, and evidence that some are now able to keep up with the changing standards of decency and tolerance in society that is fine. Deplorable and I would be both offended and humiliated to have him represent my parish at any level, but those are his personal "beliefs" and those can't and shouldn't be forcefully changed. Despite that, he can be demanded and should to enforce the law as required or resign. And if he doesn't do either, he should be forced from office.

When did that somehow become a radical notion?

Update: In other angry white man news, the anger and xenophobia of white bread conservatives like Pat Buchannan does not seem to be abating. In his latest screed the columnist, MSNBC analyst, and three time far right third party paleoconservative goes on to bemoan the demise of prayer in schools and rail against 1960s radicals who started riots, and struck on campus; (this from a guy who was part of the Nixon administration who sought to efface entire parts of the constitution, recklessly extended the Vietnam war into Cambodia and Laos, overthrew a democratically albeit socialist government in Chile to install one of the 20th century's most despotic mad men, and dragged the office of the president of the United States down to the level of a two bit burglar).

He also goes on with his rhetoric with a zeal that is more George Wallace then George Washington, fulminating that Americas racial, ethnic, religious, and cultural make-up are evolving with age. Pat as always keepin it classy. I would say that this sort of nonsense would be deposited with once his generation dies off to put it bluntly, but much of these racist mindsets were thought to have expired long ago. But Bardwell, Buchannan, and a collection of others who have recently surfaced show that the death of racism has been greatly exaggerated.

Taking Justice and Peace Out of 'Justice of the Peace'

If anyone began to somehow doubt that a reservoir of bigotry and stupidity still exists, Louisiana Justice of the Peace Keith Bardwell proves that it is alive and well.

The Justice of the Peace (who obviously hasn't received the 42 year old memo on the Supreme Court ruling of Loving Vs. the state of Virginia that ruled states must recognize interracial marriage) is refusing to give a marriage license to a black and white couple, saying he is concerned about any future children that the couple might have and their well being. Actually judging from Bardwell's belief, if he is a father I would be much more concerned about his children.

Bardwell, and here's a kicker emphatically states he is not racist, saying he issues licenses to black couples and white couples all the time, just thinks that interracial marriages just don't work out.

A Louisiana justice of the peace said he refused to issue a marriage license to an interracial couple out of concern for any children the couple might have. Keith Bardwell, justice of the peace in Tangipahoa Parish, says it is his experience that most interracial marriages do not last long.

Neither Bardwell nor the couple immediately returned phone calls from The Associated Press. But Bardwell told the Daily Star of Hammond that he was not a racist.

"I do ceremonies for black couples right here in my house," Bardwell said. "My main concern is for the children."

Bardwell said he has discussed the topic with blacks and whites, along with witnessing some interracial marriages. He came to the conclusion that most of black society does not readily accept offspring of such relationships, and neither does white society, he said.

"I don't do interracial marriages because I don't want to put children in a situation they didn't bring on themselves," Bardwell said. "In my heart, I feel the children will later suffer."

Someone needs to inform this racist boorish idiot that this is the 21st century and that Dixie died a long time ago. Then they need to fire him. Its amazing that people would admit to this outdated ideology that has no place in a modern civilized society, and given that he is no doubt breaking the law it is even more disgraceful that any state, county, parish, or community in America would have such a man as a public servant.

Meanwhile the couple in question is consulting with the U.S Justice Department Civil Rights division to see what they can do.

Illinois Teacher Uses term "Black Fags" says he didn't mean to offend anyone.

In other racist and homophobia related news,Illinois High School teacher Dave Burke was teaching a economics related class when according to one openly gay High School Senior in the class Burke posed a question to the class.

"How would you feel about your tax dollars going to pay some black fag in New York to take pictures of other black fags?"

As glaring in its homophobia and racism as this statement is, Burke's attorney wanted to make it clear, that if by some off chance anyone was offended that it was not his intention to offend anybody.

Hunter said during a lecture on tax dollars on Oct. 5, Geneva High consumer education teacher Dave Burk started talking about the National Endowment for the Arts, asking his students, "'How would you feel about your tax dollars going to pay some black fag in New York to take pictures of other black fags?'"

Burk's attorney, D.J. Tegeler, said Monday he was not personally aware of the terms Burk used to his classes, but that Burk apologizes for any offense.

"Mr. Burk is cooperating fully with both the principal, the dean of students and the School Board," Tegeler said. "Mr. Burk's biggest problem is he does not want to intentionally offend anybody and if he did, he apologizes."

No Mr Burk, the biggest problem is that you have a poorly developed mind and a pre-civil war mentality at least in your statements. Burke was later issued a warning by the school.That's accountability for you.

As one person later said, a bigger waste of the people's tax dollars then the National Endowment for the Arts is this guys salary.

What's the Matter with Texas?

"I Love my country always, my government when it deserves it, and the President occasionally" Mark Twain once said. A country and its people and the government of a given country are often not the same thing. One can agree that one can be critical of an administration or government well still being proud of one's country's, its features, and the ideals it espouses and the history it has lived and written.

Having said that secession is one measure that severs ones ties not only with their government but also their country. In Texas, Gov Rick Perry (R-TX) has used the term "states rights" as a rallying cry at conservative gatherings, seeking the mantle of the new Jefferson Davis with better hair.

Now some conservatives, including one right wing Christian activist who calls for the execution of gays (if only Iran was a Christian instead of an Islamic theocracy it sounds like this guy would feel right at home) call for secession from the United States and in some instances even say they "hate the United States".

For some folks in Texas, the prospect of a universal health care scheme isn't just cause for protest and debate -- it's reason enough to secede from the United States altogether.

Some 200 people rallied at the State Capitol in Austin on Saturday, a small but vocal crowd that set itself in opposition to pro-health care reform protesters.

Larry Kilgore, a Christian activist that the Texas Observer says has advocated execution for homosexuals, "drew some murmurs of disapproval" when he told the crowd: “I hate that flag up there. ... I hate the United States government. … They’re an evil, corrupt government. They need to go. Sovereignty is not good enough. Secession is what we need!”

“We hate the United States!” he declared later in his address.

What gets me is this is the region of the country, such as during the Civil rights movement, they are the first to label others as anti-American; when some of these characters are willing to abandon it.

Tom Ridge Says Bush May Have Raised Terror Alert out of Politics

All those who believed that the Bush/Cheney White House at least in the two or three years following the horrendous attacks and in the wake of the carnage of 9/11, used the newly established U.S Department of Homeland Security to exploit fear for political gain, tragically may have been all too correct. That is if the first Secretary of Homeland Security Tom Ridge, is to be believed in his forthcoming book.

The Huffington Post via U.S News and World Report says that in his upcoming book, Ridge will allege amongst other matters, that despite heading the Department formed to monitor and combat terrorist threats both on and in the United States of America, he was barred from attending National Security Council meetings, was kept out of the loop on FBI activities and findings, and just before the 2004 Presidential Elections the administration had exerted pressure on Ridge to up the threat level for reasons he now ascribes to politics rather then intelligence about any attacks.

According to the article Ridge was so incensed he thought it was worth resigning over and perhaps that is why he did not serve in a second Bush/Cheney administration. Despite this when questions were raised at the time, Ridge denied politics had anything to do with raising the threat level. It is great he is making those revelations now, but if an administration was so craven to use the instruments of National Security for political gain and this is in fact true, Ridge should have resigned right away and informed the public that the administration screamed terrorist attack not based on national security but political calculation. Personally, in those days I would have thought an allegation such as that was far fetched, but an official like Ridge coming out and exposing the truth (again if its true and not just an attempt to hock books), it would have given such claims at least some credence, and maybe saved some national dignity in the process.

But what is painfully obvious now, the hype leading up to the Iraq War if not made so by the torture memos, excessive secrecy, domestic spying, or accusing political rivals of wanting to erode this nation's strength; is that the Bush/Cheney's would take anything whether it be profound,non-existent, even contrary to reason, against the interests of their own political party, the nation's welfare, prosperity, and even the lives of thousands of men and women to further their agenda and consolidate power. In the wake of all these other allegations of legally questionable, immoral, and even outright illegal conduct by the now previous administration this hardly seems like a surprise. But it is just further proof that for eight years that we had a government that cast aside an notion of accountability, proof, or the old notion that "Politics stops at the water's edge".

Still these statements if true, would show that even a national tragedy which left in its wake debris carnage, and thousands slaughtered; the Bush/Cheney administration perceived it as an issue just as ripe for political exploitation and demagoguery as tax cuts, spending, and abortion are in a typical election year. Where most Americans saw tragedy, bloodshed, peril, and the grief of losing someone under such violent circumstances; the Bush/ Cheney white house saw little more then a political issue to bludgeon opponents, dissent, and anyone who questioned their wisdom with, and as an opportunity to radically shift the apparatus and values of our government and country in a more authoritarian direction, while keeping those charged with our safety and from true danger uninformed and possibly the United States vulnerable to such an attack.

Now you can call that mindset many things; opportunistic, gloom and doom; but you can't call it the accountable, honest, prudent, dignified, or effective conduct of a government of liberty loving people. Too bad we didn't have all the people yelling about threats to our freedom regarding health care reform there when liberty was really under attack in an area where the government has great power and can do the most damage.

Is this Really Your Idea of civility, Sarah?

Ex- Alaska Governor and 2008 Vice Presidential candidate last week claimed that President Obama and proposed Democratic legislation to reform health care would include Nazi style "death panels" that could decide rather her parents or child with down syndrome lived or died.

It was the latest eruption of post-logical conservatism that has come to define the ex-Alaska Governor.

The provision of HR 2300 section 1233 that Palin referred to was for "End of Life Counseling" or a voluntary provision in Medicare that would allow those with perhaps a terminal illness, to pay doctors to go over with the family and the patient themselves a living will and other such measures the patient and or there family could take if they are in such a condition they can't say at the time what they would want. This would presumably prevent a fiasco such as the 2005 Terri Schivo incident from happening.

A patient doesn't have to take the advice nor are they required to have the counseling. The idea even half the 256 Democrats in the House of Representatives or those on the committees voting on the draft of any health care legislation would all vote to approve such a measure as presented by Palin is erroneous and idiotic. Not only would it be illegal and immoral it would also be politically unpopular and just plain stupid, because the people would no doubt rise up and almost unanimously come out against it. In reality these consultations already happen every day, particularly with doctors and their patients, all this legislation would do is cover them under medicare.

Having sensed how stupid this was and the flames of hatred she had flamed Sunday in a facebook posting, she made an entreaty for civility in the dialogue on health care, despite her earlier remarks which did anything accept promote civility, but instead sowed the seeds of prejudice and fear.

Now today, Palin is backing off her comments that back off of her earlier erroneous "death panel" charges and is once again railing against "death panels" that only exist in that acid trip that is the world of Sarah Palin.

“Yesterday President Obama responded to my statement that Democratic health care proposals would lead to rationed care; that the sick, the elderly and the disabled would suffer the most under such rationing; and that under such a system, these ‘unproductive’ members of society could face the prospect of government bureaucrats determining whether they deserve health care,” Palin wrote in a note on her Facebook page.

“The provision that President Obama refers to is Section 1233 of HR 3200, entitled ‘Advance Care Planning Consultation.’ With all due respect, it’s misleading for the president to describe this section as an entirely voluntary provision that simply increases the information offered to Medicare recipients,” she continued.

“Section 1233 authorizes advanced care planning consultations for senior citizens on Medicare every five years, and more often ‘if there is a significant change in the health condition of the individual ... or upon admission to a skilled nursing facility, a long-term care facility... or a hospice program.’"

Update (4:03PM/ET)- Provisions in health care reform, at least in the Senate Finance committee that is still struggling to come up with a bill that will please everyone, have dropped provisions that would have allowed medicare to cover end of life counciling. Its extremely disappointing. Not so much that this provision was removed, but that post logical voices that adhere solely to ideology rather then subscribe to the facts got this removed.

An absence of logic is the first sign of a society in intellectual decay. God help us.

Obama and Indefinite Detention

So much for change and the pre- Bush rule of law. A Defense Department attorney now states that even if detainees are found not guilty, they can still be imprisoned indefinably. So that is our new system, if your found guilty, you are to be kept in prison, but if you are found not guilty you are kept in prison. How can that possibly be troubling?

Defense Department General Counsel Jeh Johnson moved the Obama administration into new territory from a civil liberties perspective. Asked by Sen. Mel Martinez (R-Fla.) the politically difficult but entirely fair question about whether terrorism detainees acquitted in courts could be released in the United States, Johnson said that “as a matter of legal authority,” the administration’s powers to detain someone under the law of war don’t expire for a detainee after he’s acquitted in court. “If you have authority under the law of war to detain someone” under the Supreme Court’s Hamdi ruling, “that is true irrespective of what happens on the prosecution side.”

Martinez looked surprised. “So the prosecution is moot?” he asked.

“No, no, not in my judgment,” Johnson said. But the scenario he outlined strongly suggested it is. If an administration review panel “determines this person is a security threat” and “for some reason is not convicted of a lengthy prison sentence, I think we have the authority to continue to detain someone” under “law of war authority” as granted by the September 2001 Authorization to Use Military Force, Johnson said. And beyond that source of authority “we have the authority in the first place.”

And people wonder why Obama's approval ratings are going down (but still remain at a relatively robust 56%). The American people cast a ballot in November for change, but not change in this direction in terms of the government and not the courts or judiciary being the arbiters of who is guilty and who is not in the form of sole judge, jury, and detainer.

The Most disgusting Thing to come out of the Post Rationalist Neocon right- Please Osama Attack Us Again

Saw this disgusting dispatch around the blogosphere from the Dick Cheney Neoconservative post rationalist world today. The message of ex-Intelligence officer turned author , turned right wing lunatic Michael Scheurer, because we haven't gotten attacked the only way we can prevent getting attacked eight years after being attacked is to be victim to a bigger attack, namely a nuclear attack by Osama Bin Ladden. Bin ladden is our only hope is what they are saying.

Its sad. Most people who lived through September 11, 2001 saw tragedy and carnage visited upon us, a nightmare. But some narrow element, especially the neoconservatives; it seems look back at that and see not tragedy, and don't react with sorrow but respond by seeing it as a political opportunity or campaign issue. They are truly depraved to say the least.

Fitting these statements were made on the Fox News show of right wing zealot Glenn Beck, who it saddens me is actually viewed as a voice of truth by some who are close to me.


H/T: Crooks and Liars

The Constitution Came BEFORE Communism

Everybody's favorite fictional and daft instrument of conservative populist platitudes Sam Wurzelbacher ( the so-called 'Joe the Plumber') has resurfaced again, according to Wonkette.

At a conference where Obama was once again compared to Stalin (how cliche), and "Joe"called for Senator Chris Dodd (D-CT)to be "Strung up" He also said the following:

Wurzelbacher has a reputation for being a blunt, politically incorrect speaker. Referring to Sen. Chris Dodd, D-Conn., more than once, Wurzelbacher asked, "Why hasn't he been strung up?"

And he glosses over facts. Referring to the Constitution as "almost like the Bible," Wurzelbacher said of the Founding Fathers: "They knew socialism doesn't work.

Yeah Sam, inspirational point except that Marxism/ Communism was born in the 1840s. The Communist Manifesto in fact wasn't published until 1848; far after the crusade of our founding father's as laid out in the American Revolution, the Declaration of Independence in 1776, and the foundation of our principles were laid when they were enshrined in the Constitution in 1787.

Jesus, Teen Idols, and Your Record Player

Some guy makes the case for the Devil being in Rock music, in teen idols, and why Jesus is the true lord and savior. Not quite sure if this guy is an 80s style televangelists or just a bad comedian. You decide.


H/T: Everything is Terrible

Sheer Stupidity

Yesterday James Von Braun, a white Anglo-Saxon presumably Christian elderly man espousing far right Neo-Nazi views shot and killed a guard at the Holocaust Museum in Washington D.C. So according to Wall Street Journal columnist and conservative blogger Debbie Schlussel, this tragedy is the fault of....... Muslims? She argues that somehow before 9/11 nobody would have commited such an act against Jews? Hadn't she ever heard of the American Nazi Party or the KKK? (H/T: Andrew Sullivan).

Much is being made by Muslims and their many defenders on the left--and the ignoramus "conservatives" at Hot Air (who lecture us that hate has no ideological bounds, which I already learned not from those clueless ones, but from Sarah Palin e-mails wishing me cancer)--that the shooter of several people (one now dead) at the U.S. Holocaust Museum is not a Muslim but a White guy, James W. Von Brunn, who is a neo-Nazi.

But that is a distinction without a difference. In fact, it is because of Muslims--who are the biggest contributor to the worldwide rise in anti-Semitism to Holocaust-eve levels--that neo-Nazis feel comfortable--far more comfortable!--manifesting their views about Jews. Until 9/11 and our resulting new tolerance for Islam, the neo-Nazi types were marginalized and howling at the wind. We know who has been targeting Jewish museums and centers affiliated with Jews in recent years. And it hasn't been, in general, 89-year-old White guys.

Mr. Von Brunn has been on this planet for 89 years, and he didn't feel comfortable shooting up a Holocaust museum until now--this new era of "tolerance," in which we must tolerate the most extremist Muslim behaviors and sentiments. It's, in general, not 89-year-old White guys telling people at churches worldwide and in religious schools that the Jews are the devil incarnate, a filthy tribe, the sons of pigs and monkeys, subhuman, etc.

No, it's guys with names like Mohammed and Ahmed on our own American streets who make Mr. Von Brunn far more at ease in 2009 than he was even in 1999 to attack places associated with the Jews. They created the comfort zone for James W. Brunn to engage in today's shooting.

Schussel isn't the only one trying to ridiculously exploit this atrocity to try and demonize the left. Fellow postrationalist Glenn Beck has also tried to twist this incident into some kind of indictment of the left and example of the right being persecuted. To be fair there are no doubt likely those on the left who are equally shameless in exploiting this incident to make this an indictment of all of those on the right. Do we really have to live in a society where everything is utilized as a political opportunity to further ones ideological agenda? Two words to all those who do just that: lay off!

Enhanced Interogation Tequniques Used on those Accused of Marajuana Possesion?

For all of those who don't think the torture (or "enhanced interrogation techniques" if you have a proclivity for euphemisms) don't have a slippery slope effect here at home, one should look no further then Enfield in North London where a corrupt police force is alleged to have water boarded suspects accused not of terrorism, but of something far worse --- marijuana possession.

Now this heinous techniques rich history includes but is not limited to the Spanish inquisition, atrocities exercised by police on African -Americans in the 1850s, the Imperial Japanese, the French occupation of Algeria, the Khmer Rogue in Cambodia, tyrannical governments in Latin America, the CIA in America on detainees, and now those who posses marijuana in North London. So much for waterboarding being used only on "high level terrorists". Looks like waterboarding could be coming to a small town police station near you.

UPDATE (3:23PM/ET)- In other non-torture marijuana related news, the state Senate has now approved by a near unanimous vote, legislation that would allow for the sale of medical marijuana at some non-profit shops known as "compassion centers" for those who can legally use the drug for certain medical aliments. The Governor has in the past vetoed similar legislation. No word yet on what course of action he will take next.

Frank Gaffney: Obama is a Muslim, while maybe not a Muslim But a Kind of Make Pretend Muslim who is a Secret Make Believe Muslim or something"

Former Acting Assistant Secretary of Defense and noted neo-conservative Frank Gaffney proves once again in the pages of the Washington Times why he is such a tool.

Gaffney is one of the incompetent fools, who may have a load of academic credentials, but poor organizational skills and impractical ideas, as well as an obsession with neoconservative colonialism that would make Rudyard Kipling roll his eyes. Amongst other things Gaffney has been against the abolition of nuclear weapons, been one of the principle disheveled "intellectual" forces behind and defenders of the disastrous and wasteful invasion and occupation or Iraq, and has asserted that Saddam Hussein had ties to not only Al-Queda but Okalahoma City bomber Timothy McVeigh, despite the fact that McVeigh was a Veteran of the First Gulf War in which he fought against Saddam Hussein. His credo seems to be "give war and fantasy a chance".

In his latest screed, Gaffney goes ballistic over Obama's Cairo speech, anything even resembling taking the position of an honest stately arbiter in the Israeli- Palestinian conflict, and just expresses his hate of Islam in general. Oh and let us not forget it wouldn't be an effective neoconservative diatribe without comparing Obama to Hitler.

This is not to say, necessarily, that Mr. Obama actually is a Muslim any more than Mr. Clinton actually is black. After his five months in office, and most especially after his just-concluded visit to Saudi Arabia and Egypt, however, a stunning conclusion seems increasingly plausible: The man now happy to have his Islamic-rooted middle name featured prominently has engaged in the most consequential bait-and-switch since Adolf Hitler duped Neville Chamberlain over Czechoslovakia at Munich.

What little we know about Mr. Obama's youth certainly suggests that he not only had a Kenyan father who was Muslim, but spent his early, formative years as one in Indonesia. As the president likes to say, "much has been made" -- in this case by him and his campaign handlers -- of the fact that he became a Christian as an adult in Chicago, under the now-notorious Pastor Jeremiah A. Wright.

With Mr. Obama's unbelievably ballyhooed address in Cairo Thursday to what he calls "the Muslim world" (hereafter known as "the Speech"), there is mounting evidence that the president not only identifies with Muslims, but actually may still be one himself. Consider the following indicators:

Yeah because doing nothing accept bombing the hell out of the Arab world has worked so well. Here is Gaffney's looking glass view:

• Mr. Obama referred four times in his speech to "the Holy Koran." Non-Muslims -- even pandering ones -- generally don't use that Islamic formulation.

I suppose going before an audience of young Muslims and trying to convert them to the ways of white western style Christianity would have been a much better tact. Unsucessful, illogical, and stupid; but hey remember this is Frank Gaffney were talking about here, the guy who sees the Iraq War as a great victory in American Foreign policy and is a self- described member of "the Dick Cheney Fan Club".

• Mr. Obama established his firsthand knowledge of Islam (albeit without mentioning his reported upbringing in the faith) with the statement, "I have known Islam on three continents before coming to the region where it was first revealed." Again, "revealed" is a depiction Muslims use to reflect their conviction that the Koran is the word of God, as dictated to Muhammad.

God forbid (no pun intended) if we have a president who has an articulate understanding of Islam, rather then a black and white comic book view of it. Gees Frank, your an academic with a "think tank", nuance should be your area of expertise, but I repeat this is Frank Gaffney were talking about here. He makes Curtis Lemay look like Mohandis Gandhi. Then there is this harsh indictment that proves absolutely that Obama is an evil Muslim Arab socialist communist celebrity who hates America; he actually looks forward to a day when there is a two state solution and that the violence to end. An end to violence between Muslims and Jews, sounds like Hitler to Me!

• Then the president made a statement no believing Christian -- certainly not one versed, as he professes to be, in the ways of Islam -- would ever make. In the context of what he euphemistically called the "situation between Israelis, Palestinians and Arabs," Mr. Obama said he looked forward to the day ". . . when Jerusalem is a secure and lasting home for Jews and Christians and Muslims, and a place for all of the children of Abraham to mingle peacefully together as in the story of Isra, when Moses, Jesus and Muhammad (peace be upon them) joined in prayer."

UPDATE: (5:51PM/ET)- As usual as time goes by the more ridiculous the reasoning becomes behind the thought process and reason of Frank Gaffney. Accusing President Obama of being a "secret Muslim" for referring to the Koran as "the Holy Koran" it turns out Obama may not be in the words of Gaffney "The First Muslim President". It turns out George W Bush may very well have been just masquerading as a Christian and himself was really a covert Muslim lurking in the background, as he also referred to the Koran as "the Holy Koran". Gaffney was a staunch supporter of the Bush/Cheney administration and since now according to Gaffney logic since Bush is a secret Muslim that means Gaffney was supporting a secret Muslim, which by extension of Gaffney logic where Muslim=terrorism, that Gaffney was supporting terrorism. One now has to ask why Gaffney would support "secret Muslims"?

Old Man Inhofe (R-OK) Channels his Inner Joseph McCarthy

The Congressional delegation of the state of Oklahoma is to no one's surprise not a bastion of ardent support for the Presidency and policies espoused by President Obama.

Following the Cairo speech by Obama yesterday, there were strong reactions from members of the delegation. But as often is the case Senator James Inhofe (R-OK) topped them all, even impugning the patriotism of the President and questioning out loud rather the Presidents allegiances are with America or with those who wish to destroy America.

Here is Inhofe's words printed in the Oklahomian (H/T: TPM):

WASHINGTON -- Sen. Jim Inhofe said today that President Barack Obama's speech in Cairo was "un-American" because he referred to the war in Iraq as "a war of choice" and didn't criticize Iran for developing a nuclear program

Inhofe, R-Tulsa, also criticized the president for suggesting that torture was conducted at the military prison in Guantanamo, saying, "There has never been a documented case of torture at Guantanamo."

"I just don't know whose side he's on,'' Inhofe said of the president.

Back around the time of the lead up to the Iraq War, country music stars the Dixie Chicks said on foreign soil that they were ashamed that President Bush was from thier native Texas. A firestorm of conservative and Republican criticism and boycotts followed. Also throughout the Bush/Cheney years there was criticism of those Democratic lawmakers who criticized then current U.S policy overseas or criticized the President while they were overseas. They lamented that American politicans no longer allowed politics to "stop at the waters edge".

However that was the Bush/Cheney neoconservative standard. In the mind of conservatives there now appears to be a different standard. Its fine to criticize the Presidents policy decisions, but personally even when Bush/Cheney were at their worst, I never would have suggested that they were somehow in cahoots with Al-Queda.

The only way the tide of extremism and violence by those in the Middle East and around the world will be stemmed, is to reach out to those moderate elements, especially the young, who have not yet been radicalized. For example two-thirds of Iranian citizens are under the age of 30. But logic it seems has been something that Inhofe is not well acquainted with.

A Guide to Torture Supporters

(H/T: Andrew Sullivan) Click on the Pic to read.

Neoconservative Columnist Calls on Millitary Attacks Against Members of the Media

Neoconservative writers and academics often seem to be those all too willing to send other people's children to war, but when they were called to serve their country they shrinked and did everything they could to avoid stepping up to fight (yeah I am talking to you Dick Cheney and Bill Kristol).

Retired Army officer LT Col. Ralph Peters who is a columnist for the New York Post is an exception to that rule, and one has to commend him for at least going to war instead of just rooting for war. Nonetheless his zeal for the neoconservative cause, jingoism, and the idea that America basically needs to commit national suicide to prevent becoming the victim of murder remain as intact as many of those neocons who have never even been in a bar fight.

In a lengthy essay in the international affairs publication called the Journal of International Security Affairs, Peters rails against radical Islamic terrorism and what he sees as an erosion of fighting capabilities on the part of the United States in terms of military and civilian. Fair points. He bemoans what he sees as a loss of familiarity and education in the field of history that causes many to have little if no frame of reference for the Majesty of our country. Fair point. And here as he lists some of those shortcomings of our nation in fighting war, he brings up this point that seems pretty spot on.

Fourth, an unholy alliance between the defense industry and academic theorists seduced decisionmakers with a false-messiah catechism of bloodless war. In pursuit of billions in profits, defense contractors made promises impossible to fulfill, while think tank scholars sought acclaim by designing warfare models that excited political leaders anxious to get off cheaply, but which left out factors such as the enemy, human psychology, and 5,000 years of precedents.

But what little sense Peters may have made is eclipsed by his anger and disdain, if not violent rage towards the media and an ends justify the means mentality. In his diatribe Peters engages in such cartoonish hyperbole in referring to the media as "neo-pagans" and "lackeys at the terrorists bloody alter". And we're supposed to take this guy seriously? Later he even goes on to speak of the possibility of "military attacks on the partisan media". Now whether he means that the military should begin systematically executing journalists like they have in totalitarian nations or engaging in a war of words with the media is debatable. However in light of his recent column that suggests that we merely execute the detainees at Guantanamo Bay, it may not be too much of a leap to say he means the former rather then the latter.

While this brief essay cannot undertake to analyze the psychological dysfunctions that lead many among the most privileged Westerners to attack their own civilization and those who defend it, we can acknowledge the overwhelming evidence that, to most media practitioners, our troops are always guilty (even if proven innocent), while our barbaric enemies are innocent (even if proven guilty). The phenomenon of Western and world journalists championing the “rights” and causes of blood-drenched butchers who, given the opportunity, would torture and slaughter them, disproves the notion—were any additional proof required—that human beings are rational creatures. Indeed, the passionate belief of so much of the intelligentsia that our civilization is evil and only the savage is noble looks rather like an anemic version of the self-delusions of the terrorists themselves. And, of course, there is a penalty for the intellectual’s dismissal of religion: humans need to believe in something greater than themselves, even if they have a degree from Harvard. Rejecting the god of their fathers, the neo-pagans who dominate the media serve as lackeys at the terrorists’ bloody altar.

Of course, the media have shaped the outcome of conflicts for centuries, from the European wars of religion through Vietnam. More recently, though, the media have determined the outcomes of conflicts. While journalists and editors ultimately failed to defeat the U.S. government in Iraq, video cameras and biased reporting guaranteed that Hezbollah would survive the 2006 war with Israel and, as of this writing, they appear to have saved Hamas from destruction in Gaza.

Pretending to be impartial, the self-segregating personalities drawn to media careers overwhelmingly take a side, and that side is rarely ours. Although it seems unthinkable now, future wars may require censorship, news blackouts and, ultimately, military attacks on the partisan media. Perceiving themselves as superior beings, journalists have positioned themselves as protected-species combatants. But freedom of the press stops when its abuse kills our soldiers and strengthens our enemies. Such a view arouses disdain today, but a media establishment that has forgotten any sense of sober patriotism may find that it has become tomorrow’s conventional wisdom.

Peters appears to take the view that somehow our ideals and the institution of a media free from the restraints of government or military control, which is absolutely crucial to a functioning vibrant democracy has like many argue a number of other rights that make the U.S great are somehow have become too cumbersome or as Senator Lindsay Graham (R-SC) said of the Bush/Cheney officials who advocated for "enhanced interrogation" " a legal nicety that we could not afford". They are wrong. A Free press, the rule of law, and other such human rights and freedoms have been fought for a forged in the blood, time, and toil of too many men for too long and have faced far greater threats to just be dispensed with or scoffed at.

Is the media imperfect and sometimes frustrating? yes. But to equate all with the enemies of our nation is not only profoundly stupid, but outrageous. According to Reporters without Borders, as many as 225 Journalists have been killed in Iraq, since the invasion and occupation began in March 2003. They two, while maybe not being as valiant as our military have certainly made sacrifice and have in some instances paid with their lives to inform the American people. And simply because your views, or your rigid ideology isn't reinforced by the reporting does not diminish their work or sacrifice in the eyes of their families or colleagues.

But Peters elaborates on this become the enemy to kill the enemy, win at any price, if you criticize the mission or aspects of it you are a terrorist puppet, by basically saying the ends of victory justify any and all means and later scoffs at the idea that if we sacrifice our ideals that we will be sacrificing what makes our existence worth continuing.

The point of all this is simple: Win. In warfare, nothing else matters. If you cannot win clean, win dirty. But win. Our victories are ultimately in humanity’s interests, while our failures nourish monsters.

Isn't that the kind of irrational violent sentiment that we are trying to combat Colonel? Can't one as Albert Camus once wrote "love my country and still love justice"?

Coleman Doesn't Know He Has Lost

Its been nearly seven months since the 2008 elections and while most races are over the Minnesota race between then incumbent Senator Norm Coleman (R-MN) and Comedian and presumed winner (but yet to be seated) Senator Al Franken (D-MN)has still not ended. The two remain locked in a contentious legal battle, though a few hundred votes and a number of rulings and legal opinions favor Franken.

Nevertheless today Coleman released this statement regarding President Obama's selection of Appeals Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor to fill the vacancy on the U.S Supreme Court left by the retirement of Justice David Souter.

ST. PAUL – Senator Norm Coleman today released the following statement in response to President Obama’s nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor to the United States Supreme Court.

"When debating judges, I was firm that I would use the same standard to evaluate judges under a Democrat President as I would a Republican President. Are they intellectually competent, do they have a record of integrity, and most importantly, are they committed to following the Constitution rather than creating new law and policy. When I am re-elected, I intend to review Judge Sotomayor's record using this process. Certainly, the nomination of a Hispanic woman to the nation's highest court is something all Americans should applaud."

Someone needs to tell this guy he stands no chance of prevailing in his quest to retain his senate seat. These past months Coleman has been engaged in what is merely a holding action to thwart a 60 seat majority by the Democrats and delay the inevitable. The only thing that has transpired to alter the situation of Coleman is more rulings against his claims that he won the election, the rage of the citizens of Minnesota, and the destruction of a once promising political career that given his intransigence is now likely beyond repair.

Praise the Lord and Pass the Ammunition

The more one reads about former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfield the more one is astounded by how anyone that shallow,opportunistic, selfish, self-serving, and just plain stupid could come to head the U.S Pentagon.

Aside from his one time protege Dick Cheney nobody could every really mistake the former smart-ass congressman, turned Nixon disciple, turned Gerald Ford Chief of staff and Defense Secretary, turned Saddam hand shaker, turned cantankerous and sardonic Defense Secretary under the Bush/Cheney administration of being likable or pleasant to work with.

First, there came the revelation that neocons in the lower levels of the civilian leadership Defense Department killed overtures made by Sunni insurgent leaders in 2004 Iraq prior to the 2007 "the Sunni awakening", for reasons of their own Department and ideology that clashed with reality.

Now we learn that Rumsfield, who nobody would really mistake for a strongly religious man, used militaristic old testament language of the Bible on the covers of Intelligence Reports, presumably to influence the thinking of the deeply religious Bush.

WASHINGTON (AFP) — Former defense secretary Donald Rumsfeld routinely used militaristic passages from the Bible on the cover pages of White House intelligence documents, according to startling new revelations by GQ.

The magazine said he displayed the passages over photographs of US forces in Iraq to curry favor with then president George W. Bush, despite concerns about the incendiary impact on Islamic opinion if they were ever made public.

One of the images was from March 31, 2003, showing a US tank roaring through the desert about 10 days after the United States invaded Iraq to topple the regime of Saddam Hussein.

Over the image was printed a verse from Ephesians: "Therefore put on the full armor of God, so that when the day of evil comes, you may be able to stand your ground, and after you have done everything, to stand."

Luckily the current Pentagon and current administration have ceased the practice.

Regardless, Rumsfield was dressing these reports and dressing Millitary intelligence and objectives in the language of religion, while Al-Queda and militants the U.S is fighting were dressing their military intelligence and objectives in the language of religion. The leaders and proponents of violence against the U.S, continuously stoke fears of the people of the Middle East that the U.S hates Islam and look at Muslims as inferior. Employing this rhetoric and tying it to the overall U.S war efforts no doubt allows the militants to tell those moderates that are weary of but not yet violently hostile of the U.S and her allies, that the things the militants claim may have some credence to them. Thus making the U.S Battle for hearts and minds more arduous and the possibility that many moderate elements will veer towards Al-Queda and a more inflammatory view of America a more likely possibility.

The conflict we are locked in with groups of Al-Queda, has one side justifying their use of violence and build thier movement by distorting the faith of Islam constantly invoking the language of the crusades and the valor of conquest. The last thing we should do is cede the ground of reason and ourselves become enveloped in a haze of religious dogma to justify our military objectives. If we continue to do that, aren't we just devolving into a state where we are as misguided and illogical as those who subscribe to the rhetoric and violence of Al-Queda?

Also on another note, Rumsfield was willing to use the religion which has guided so many to a better life and enriched so many souls, for something as crass as selling his own political views. Using religion to advertise it, like commercials use sexy women, fast cars, and succulent hamburgers to reach consumers. He used religion to sell war. His actions suggest that he views Christianity as little more then an advertising tool. That is degrading to religion no matter how one feels about a given policy. If I was a devout Christian I would be infuriated by a move that treated my religion with such disdain.

Crack Pot Theory of the day

Over at Red state.com Erick Erickson has calculated exactly why Obama released the Bush/Cheney legal memos that encouraged torture. No, not to restore the image of the United states both at home or abroad, nor to end a political culture in the last administration that promoted secrecy and tolerated scandal and sheer incompetence. No, Obama released the memos so that terrorists could attack the continental United States.

So if the working theory is that we’re going to get hit again, what is the best response? After all, the public does credit George Bush with keeping us safe at 9/11.

The best strategy would look something like taking a band-aid off quickly. Get the pain over fast. And if an attack happens quickly enough into the new administration, they can blame Bush.

So the Obama administration is working hard to release all the memos on interrogations, change all the policies Bush implemented, and clear out the old as fast as possible. Never mind that if it were done slowly over time, our terrorist enemies might not be so incited to attack.

If your working premise is that they are going to attack anyway, get them incited quickly, get it over with, and blame Bush.

There is no other justification for so quickly making us less safe.

Well this shouldn't come as a surprise. After all these are the same people that actually think the Iraq War was the work of a collection of adroit civilian minds in our government. Keep making those tin foil hats, boys.

The Spirit of Joseph McCarthy, Still Crazy After all These Years

First the ghost of the late red baiting exhibitionist himself Sen. Joseph McCarthy (R-Wisconsin) inhabits the body of a psychologically disturbed Fox News host. Now apparently he has found his way back into our nation's capitol in the form of Rep. Spencer Bachus (R-AL), while dinning with some local government officials in his district.

"Some of the men and women I work with in Congress are socialists."

Asked to clarify his comments after the breakfast speech at the Trussville Civic Center, Bachus said 17 members of the U.S. House are socialists.

(H/T: Politico)

McCarthy alleged the same about the State Department in the 1950s (although his numbers often fluctuated). Other then that its the same old McCarthy tactic as largely anachronistic as it might be. Wonder when someone is going to tell him the Cold War is over.