JABbering Stooge

Tuesday, November 29, 2005

In the crosshairs

It appears that my post about the American Legion making terrorist threats against anti-war protesters struck a nerve. A recent check of my Site Meter statistics reveals that someone in the Legion (of Doom to Libruls) came across my humble little corner of cyberspace while googling the string "poll american legion."

Whoever uses the computer(s) in the subnet registered for the Indianapolis, Indiana branch of the Legion must have a lot of time on their hands to check on un-American activities like dissent. Either that or they're planning some not so nice things involving the person of anyone who thinks that The Most Holy George W. Christ doesn't walk on water.

If I wind up sleeping with the fishes at some point in the near future, you'll know why. In the meantime, I intend to keep fighting the good fight, and not let the bastards get me down.

UPDATE: 11/30/05 9:23 PM
I decided to remove the partial IP address of the site because it opens the Legion up to some not-so-nice things from hackers. After having criticized a conservative for doing something similar, I felt it would not be appropriate for me to stoop to that level - not to mention hypocritical, even in an effort to deter any retaliatory action on the part of the American Legion. Because unlike the Bush administration, I believe that the ends don't always justify the means.

We've moved! Check out the new site here!

Another day, another editorial

I managed to get one more editorial published before the end of the semester. My last one should've been published, but the opinions editor for the paper I write for came up with this new rule that bloggers can't post anything they want submitted for publication to their blogs until after publication. Personally, I think it's a BS rule, but I don't make editorial decisions, and I have taken more than enough space even mentioning the subject. So without further ado, here is my editorial in its origninal glory (the hacked-to-pieces version is available here - entitled, appropriately enough, "'Tis the season to vilify"):

The War on Non-Christians heats up

At this supposedly festive time of year, there are some people for whom the holiday’s thematic message of “peace on Earth, goodwill towards men” falls on deaf ears. Motivated by a desire to turn the United States into the Christian version of Iran, these religious fascists would like nothing more than to replace the good message of the (highly commercialized) season with their own vitriolic message of “hate anyone who isn’t a conservative Christian.”

Last January, I predicted that with George W. Bush’s re-election as president, the atmosphere would get increasingly noxious for those who aren’t Mullah Jerry Falwell’s ardent followers. For my efforts, I received a bilious RNC talking points-laden hate mail in the following issue of the University Star. From there, the rhetoric ratcheted up over Terri Schiavo, with former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay issuing threats to the judges involved. At a gathering of conservative minds called “Remedies to Judicial Tyranny,” Edwin Vieira approvingly noted Stalin’s solution to problematic judges (“Death solves all problems: no man, no problem”) even as he railed against Justice Anthony M. Kennedy for “[upholding] Marxist, Leninist, satanic principles drawn from foreign law.” A liberal church in Pasadena, California has had its tax-exempt status threatened for a sermon criticizing the war in Iraq, even as conservative churches engaging in political advocacy from the pulpit skated by IRS scrutiny.

Which brings us to the coming Christmas season. The Alliance Defense Fund has mobilized its 800 plus lawyers in a bid to challenge the absence of nativity scenes from even one square inch of American soil. Fox “News” commentator John Gibson has devoted a whole book-length screed to the idea that somehow, Christmas is under siege by evil spawn-of-Satan liberals. Additionally, the Liberty Council, apparently at the behest of Jerry Falwell, has begun a “Friend or Foe Christmas Campaign,” complete with pulpit advocacy plans that I’m sure will once again evade IRS scrutiny, to be enhanced by the actions of the Christian Educators Association International’s 8,000 public school teachers.

I would like to take this opportunity to remind these modern Pharisees posing as Christians that “Christmas,” as it is practiced in the United States, has not been exclusively Christian for a very long time. Retail and department stores have taken advantage of the huge profit potential in all the jostling and shouting to buy presents for loved ones and using it to push crass consumerism on John Q. Public. Just look at how Christmas-themed ads have been starting earlier and earlier as the years go by – this year they seemed to start even before Halloween. This operation is so slick that they’ve even got buzzwords to denote the rush of brick-and-mortar shopping the day after Thanksgiving (“Black Friday”) and online shopping the following Monday (“Cyber Monday”). The concept has even been immortalized in a song by Australian artist Eric Bogle called “Santa Bloody Claus.”

But even if there weren’t that aspect to it, there are bigger Constitutional issues at work here. The First Amendment protects against the establishment of a state-sanctioned religion that all must submit to – if pagans or Muslims somehow managed to pass a constitutional amendment making their religion the official state religion, you could imagine the howls of protests from the religious right, yet somehow when it’s the conservative interpretation of Christianity being proposed as the state religion they are strangely silent. It also protects freedom of practice of one’s religion – which is why churches can get away with hiring practices that would be unacceptable if used by private enterprise.

And speaking of pagans and Muslims, when we as Americans began accepting immigrants from non-Christian parts of the world, the First Amendment’s protections became even more important. For as James Madison put it, “The purpose of separation of church and state is to keep forever from these shores the ceaseless strife that has soaked the soil of Europe in blood for centuries.” The Founding Fathers even recognized the value of a diversity of religion. Thomas Jefferson noted that “If we did a good act merely from the love of God and a belief that it is pleasing to Him, whence arises the morality of the Atheist? It is idle to say, as some do, that no such being exists...Their virtue, then, must have had some other foundation than the love of God.”

Jefferson also took pains to point out that “The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.” In other words, it does me no harm merely for someone else to be a Buddhist, Muslim, Jew, Hindu or Atheist. But to the religious right, merely the idea that there are other religions is offensive, and must be snuffed out by judicial or legislative fiat. And that, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, is the most injurious notion of all.

We've moved! Check out the new site here!

Wednesday, November 23, 2005

We're on vacation, rest and relaxation!

I am leaving in a few minutes to go visit family in San Angelo for Thanksgiving. I'll be back on Saturday. Until then, Happy Turkey Day, everyone!

We've moved! Check out the new site here!

Tuesday, November 22, 2005

Religious McCarthyism Update

We have a couple of things to update you on in the right wing's jihad against all things non-Christian tonight, so let's get started.

NMSU handicaps itself to placate Jihad Squad

From The Progressive Magazine's McCarthyism Watch: Muslim-American Running Back off the Team at New Mexico State

That's right - kicked off the team for belonging to the wrong religion!

Let's take a deeper look at this miscarriage of justice, shall we?

Muammar Ali, NMSU'S BEST RUNNING BACK WITH 561 YARDS RUSHING has his career ruthlessly cut short by NMSU Head Coach Hal Mumme. Granted, NMSU is the laughing stock of the country when it comes to football, but you'd expect Mumme to be smarter than to put his team at a disadvantage for petty political/religious reasons, right? First, Ali is relegated to fifth string and disallowed from travelling with the team (after only one game) under suspicious circumstances. Finally, on October 9, he "received a message on his phone answering machine at his home that his jersey was being pulled and that he was released," according to a letter from his attorney. At the same time, two other Muslim athletes were kicked off the football team, presumably for the same reason that Ali was booted.

So what were those suspicious circumstances that led to this travesty? Well, apparently, Coach Mumme requires a recitaiton of the Lord's Prayer after each practice and before each game. However, Ali and his fellow Muslims prayed according ot their own faith after one summer practice, so the coach calls Ali into his office and "[questions him] repeatedly about Islam and specifically, its ties to Al-Qaeda."

Great, just great. Each and every last Muslim is a potential terrorist in the eyes of Coach Mumme. The only thing missing is Coach Mumme encouraging his Christian athletes to splatter pig's blood all over the lockers of Ali and their other Muslim teammates. Tell me again how the GWOT/GSAVE/G-WHATEVER isn't a crusade against Islam?

Frankly, I'm surprised that Charles Johnson and his Brownshirt circle-jerk crew over at Late German Fascists Little Green Footballs hasn't caught on to this story yet. I'm sure they could wax orgasmic over treating Muslims like pond scum.

Fortunately, we have an antidote for this poison.

Reform Judaism Leader Calls Religious Right on the Carpet

Rabbi Eric Yoffie just did a very brave thing in today's political environment - he spoke truth to power about the rabid rightists on the Jihad Squad (see here, here and here for excerpts).

Some of my favorite points from the speech:

  • The Jihad Squad believes that "unless you attend my church, accept my God and study my sacred text, you cannot be a moral person."

  • "We are appalled when 'people of faith' is used in such a way that it excludes us, as well as most Jews, Catholics, and Muslims. What could be more bigoted than to claim that you have a monopoly on God and that anyone who disagrees with you is not a person of faith?"

  • "We cannot forget that when Hitler came to power in 1933, one of the first things that he did was ban gay organizations. Yes, we can disagree about gay marriage. But there is no excuse for hateful rhetoric that fuels the hellfires of anti-gay bigotry."

  • "When they cloak themselves in religion and forget mercy, it strikes us as blasphemy. We need beware the zealots who want to make their religion the religion of everyone else."

  • But most importantly, "our liberalism flows directly from our religious commitments."

Of course, this all makes way too much sense for the Jihad Squad. I'll bet you dollars to doughnuts that if the Late German Fascists ever find out about this, they'll call Rabbi Yoffie something akin to "a terrorist-loving, America-hating, [insert anti-Arab/Muslim slur here]-fellating [insert anti-Semitic slur here] who needs to go over to Iraq so he can play drop-the-soap with his butt-bumping buddy Osama."

We've moved! Check out the new site here!

Monday, November 14, 2005

Testing 1..2..3..

Ordinarily, I don't make posts like this when I update my blog template, such as to add links, or when I upgraded(?) my comments to HaloScan. But I wanted to test a change to the stylesheet portion of the template. Used to be, when I wanted to make a particular stylistic change, such as the Sidebar feature, mark through some text to make it look ridiculous suggest improvements, or to perform the textual equivalent of shouting at the top of my lungs, I'd have to go back to a prior post that had one of those features and copy/paste the style information into the new post. By adding to the stylesheet the definitions of the styles for these features, I hope to eliminate that necessity, making my work that much easier.

We've moved! Check out the new site here!

Friday, November 11, 2005

Cretinism vs. Evilution

Here's a couple of gems for you on the evolution/creationism debate:

Pat Robertson: Open mouth, insert foot

Pat Robertson must really like the taste of his own foot. It's the only possible reason I can imagine why he keeps putting it in his mouth.

First, he "totally concurs" with Jerry Falwell's blaming Americans first for 9/11.

Then he calls for the nuking of the State Department building in Foggy Bottom.

And as if calling for the immolation of the nation's top diplomats on an atomic pyre wasn't enough, Robertson then demanded that Bushie bring him the head of Hugo Chavez.

But all of that pales in comparison with his comments for the voters in Dover, PA who decided that science was more important than succumbing to theocracy and voted out all of the bums who supported "Intelligent Design" on the local school board.

Sidebar: Now that the voters have spoken, what happens to the lawsuit?

Funnily enough, Robertson's threats sound vaguely familiar. All that was missing was the inclusion of a possible meteor strike.

Benedict Arnold I meddles in U.S. political affairs again

Not content just to meddle in U.S. electoral politics as he did in 2004, Pope Benedict Arnold I reversed the direction of the Catholic Church under John Paul II's leadership in regard to the evolution/creationism debate.

Where Karol Wojtyla was content to incorporate the Theory of Evoution into the Catholic faith to some degree, Ratzinger, in his "infinite wisdom," declared the idea to be complete balderdash, saying "These people, ‘fooled by atheism,’ believe and try to demonstrate that it’s scientific to think that everything is free of direction and order."

I'm really starting to get tired of this Nazi masquerading as a religious figure.

We've moved! Check out the new site here!

Wednesday, November 09, 2005

Payback's a five-letter word

Freedom for Me, but not for Thee

I must say that I am in shocked awe at the destructive capabilities of the thugs who have hijacked the Republican Party. It has taken them a mere pair of decades to do what no external military force could in all of America’s 229-year history – they have reduced our once firm democratic institutions to rubble and made a mockery of the American ideals of freedom and tolerance for differing opinions. I shall present a small sample of the continuing litany of crimes against democracy being perpetrated in your name below.

First of all, there is the case of All Saints Episcopal Church in Pasadena, California. The church, one of the most liberal in that part of the state, has been threatened by the IRS with the loss of its tax exempt status because the former pastor, Rev. George F. Regas, gave a sermon critical of Operation Iraqi Liberation. While the church has cooperated with the investigation, the IRS seems interested in little more than making an example of All Saints Episcopal, flatly rejecting the church’s protestations of innocence and promising retribution unless the church admitted to "intervening in an election."

While some might argue that this is the liberals’ comeuppance for "trying to get God out of the public square," that would only be the case if the IRS had been consistent in its bullying of churches that get involved in politics. Ask yourself why the IRS isn’t threatening the Catholic Church’s tax exempt status given Pope Benedict Arnold I’s blatant interference in the 2004 election. Ask yourself why the churches in California that supported Proposition 73, which requires parental notification for minors to get an abortion, or the churches here in Texas that supported Proposition 2 aren’t undergoing similar scrutiny.

The reaction of religious conservatives has been equally farcical. Where was the sanctimonious whining of Mullah Jerry Falwell and Ayatollah Pat Robertson about "poor persecuted Christians?" Is the American Center for Law and Justice or the Thomas Moore Law Center preparing a lawsuit against the "godless" IRS, or are they, by their silence, admitting that this is a partisan political ploy designed to stifle dissent from the pulpit?

Then there’s the problem of the American Legion making terroristic threats against anti-war protesters. At its annual convention in Hawaii, coming as it did at the height of Cindy Sheehan’s Crawford protest, the Legion unanimously approved a resolution calling for the end of all anti-war protests by "any means necessary." As anyone even partially educated in English and logic knows, that doesn’t necessarily rule out the use of force.

The problem the American Legion faces, however, is that their actions violate Section 802 of the PATRIOT Act, which expands the definition of domestic terrorism to include activities that "involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State" and "appear to be intended to intimidate or coerce a civilian population." Oh, wait. I forgot that the PATRIOT Act only applies to liberals and "swarthy males," as Ann Coulter put it. My bad.

Finally, there is the issue of political balance on the Armed Forces Radio network. Progressive talk radio host Ed Schultz had worked out a deal with the Defense Department to broadcast part of his show, just as it does with Rush Limbaugh’s radio program. However, after Schultz criticized the Defense Department, and in particular, Assistant Secretary of Defense Alison Barber over President Bush’s blatantly scripted photo op with American troops stationed in Iraq, Barber herself told Schultz that the deal was off.

It took an intense grassroots effort coupled with the spoken and written indignation of Democratic senators fresh from a new spine injection to convince the Defense Department that that was a "bad idea." Unfortunately, that concession may only be paper-thin, as a letter to Senator Carl Levin states that "local programmers decide which programs are actually broadcast." In other words, while it may be official policy to ensure a diversity of opinion on the radio our soldiers listen to, I wouldn’t hold my breath that there will be anything other than the Fox News version of "fair and balanced" on the Armed Forces Radio and Television Service.

In the Spring 2003 edition of Free Inquiry magazine, Lawrence Britt described fourteen characteristics common to historical and hypothetical fascist regimes. In light of the above, and many more instances like it, we’re already at least halfway there.

We've moved! Check out the new site here!

Tuesday, November 08, 2005

Your vote is your voice (if Diebold allows it)

Today's the big day. I want to encourage all readers to get out and vote. I encourage all to vote his/her conscience, but if you want my advice, here is how I would vote:

  • California: Vote AGAINST any proposition supported by Gov. Schwarzenegger.

  • Texas: Vote AGAINST Proposition 2.

  • Maine: Vote AGAINST the referendum to repeal the state's anti-discrimination legislation.

  • New Jersey: Send Jon Corzine to the governor's mansion.

  • Virginia: Ditto for Tim Kaine.

  • Ohio: Vote FOR the amendment to create a bipartisan commision to draw congressional districts and to oversee elections.

If all these things come to pass, we have a decent shot at taking back this country from the thugs who have hijacked it.

We've moved! Check out the new site here!

Sunday, November 06, 2005

My prediction for the fight: pain

Last week, the student newspaper at Texas State included in its Wednesday issue an election guide discussing the statewide ballot initiatives and local elections that Texans will be voting on this Tuesday. The feature peace was a point-counterpoint on Proposition 2, complete with boxing-themed graphics. Though the newspaper's website declined to post the debate, I have it archived in my personal web space (anti-Proposition 2, pro-Proposition 2). I would like to take this opportunity to rip the pro-Proposition 2 piece to shreds.

Texans have the opportunity to vote on amendments to add to the Texas Constitution this week and then on Nov. 8. The one being discussed around the dinner table is Proposition 2, an amendment that will define marriage as being between one man and one woman. Some people can discuss this issue around the table, while others end up in a food fight.

Is Bousman suggesting that only liberals would end up in a food fight, and that conservatives would be ultra-polite?

On opening day of early voting, the area surrounding The Stallions was full of people against Prop. 2. They had a pledge drive for people to vote against the measure. Even Associated Student Government, which is supposed to represent all of Texas State and not just the left side of the university, has passed a resolution to state that the university opposes Prop. 2.

Ummm...last time I checked, The Stallions was a First Amendment Zone where anyone who wanted to could speak his/her mind without fear of retaliation. That said, the Associated Student Government does indeed represent all students (not just the right side of the university).

People were comparing the so-called struggle for same-sex marriage to the civil rights movement, seeing how fast they could make Martin Luther King Jr. spin in his grave. This all begs the question: Will the supporters of Prop. 2 demonstrate in support of it, or will we hide as usual?

It amuses me that someone would think they can read into the mind of Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and tell me with a straight face that he wanted to treat homosexuals like second-class citizens, especially with the FBI investigating him for being too liberal.

Yes, I am for Prop. 2. But why would I be for a measure that would not supposedly intrude on my personal beliefs? Same-sex couples just want to be married, right? Let’s take a stroll down History Lane to answer the questions asked by many.

The first three reasons why many, including myself, support Prop. 2 will be left short to focus on my fourth reason.

Oh this should be interesting.

The first reason is because marriage has been defined as being between a man and a woman for years on end.

LOGICAL FALLACY: Appeal to Tradition.

The second reason is that polygamists have already begun to demand their rights to marry. What’s next?

LOGICAL FALLACY: Slippery Slope. Besides, there are perfectly good reasons for not allowing polygamy that don't apply to homosexuality.

The third reason why is because the nation was founded upon Christian principles; therefore the founders would vote an emphatic “YES” for Proposition 2. The framers of the Constitution believed that laws should be centered on the precepts of the Bible.

This is patently false. If it were true, why would founders such as Thomas Jefferson and James Madison say the things that they did? Why did Congress meet on Christmas Day in 1789? For that matter, why was Christmas not declared a federal holiday until June 26, 1870 (five years after the Civil War)?

And according to Genesis 18-19; Romans 1:18-32, and I Corinthians 6:9, homosexuality is a sin, not something one is born with.

Every time someone brings up Bible quotes "condemning" homosexuality, I am tempted to break out my copy of the "Letter to Dr. Laura."

Incidentally, Bousman might want to get his nose out of his (heavily redacted) Bible for more than 0.00000000000000001 seconds and mosey on over to this article which suggests that, scientifically speaking, homosexuality may not be a choice after all.

What our country needs now more than ever is to return to the principles it was founded upon. Same-sex marriage would do just the opposite.

Considering that the country was founded upon religious freedom (because, you see, the colonists were more often than not fleeing religious persecution, and wanted to make sure that it didn't happen to them in their new refuge), Bousman's position, and the amendment itself, are inherently contradictory of that principle.

The main reason why I am for Prop. 2 is because I don’t want the government and the homosexual lobby forcing same-sex marriage upon the church.

So, let’s get this straight (no pun intended). Because you don’t want to be forced into something you don’t believe in, you want the government to force others to believe something they may not necessarily believe in (i.e., that merely being homosexual is a stoning offense)? Can you possibly get more hypocritical than that?!

You don’t believe that can happen? You don’t believe the gay lobby is after that? Think again. All we have to do is look at the news that the mainstream media refuses to report to know this. Starting in Switzerland, a pastor was arrested for referring to scripture and stating from his pulpit that homosexuality is a sin. His crime? Hate speech. Canadian pastors have been fined a large amount for doing what this pastor did.

Here we go again with the persecution complex. I had a hard time finding evidence of this one, trying several different search strings in Google. It didn’t help that the pastor in question was Swedish, not Swiss, as Bousman indicated (the link I found is here; alternate sourcing here).

Now, to the United States. It wasn’t long ago that gay activists tried to get the non-legislative branch of government – the Supreme Court – to pass a law prohibiting the Boy Scouts from considering sexual orientation when hiring scout leaders.

Ahh, yes. If you can’t beat ‘em with logic, resort to bashing the courts. Did Tom DeLay teach you that one?

The gay lobby did not respect the fact that the Boy Scouts are religious and opposed the lifestyle. Luckily, the high court did something right for a day to vote in favor of the Boy Scouts.

And the Boy Scouts don’t like anyone who isn’t a straight conservative Christian. As far as I’m concerned, that makes it even. But we’re talking about larger principles here. Religious the Boy Scouts may be, they present themselves to the public as a non-sectarian group open to all boys who wish to participate. If they point to some minority group and say “everyone but you,” they are falsely presenting themselves. Would you be so defensive of the Scouts if they were hiding behind their religious beliefs to exclude, say, blacks or Asians? We regulate private enterprise to make sure they aren’t discriminating against minorities in hiring because it’s the right thing to do. Why should the Scouts be any different?

This past January, the governor of Illinois signed a bill into law making it illegal for church officials to discriminate against employees based on their sexual orientation. United States Rep. Edolphus Towns, D-New York, has introduced a bill in Congress to make it a federal law.

We give churches in this country lots of advantages that even other non-profits don’t get simply for the sake of religious freedom (it’s very expensive for any organization that runs off the generous donations of its membership to do much charity work – just ask any church administrator) – yet this is somehow not enough for religious conservatives. I sometimes wonder if they would be satisfied with anything less than turning this country into the Christian equivalent of Iran.

The church would have to rip out certain parts of their Bibles to comply with such a law. You don’t hear the Americans United for the Separation of Church and State going up in arms about this. I wonder why.

I don't think "the church," as Bousman puts it, has any leg to stand on, seeing as they've already effectively ripped out certain passages from their Bibles in accordance with their unholy alliance with the Republican party and the conservative movement. Particularly conspicuous by absence from conservative Bibles are Micah 6:8, Matthew 25:34-46, Matthew 6:5-6 and the Beatitudes, among others I could name.

Last week, in San Antonio, Pastor Narciso Mendoza demanded to know where the city council stood on Proposition 2. They refused to answer, and Pastor Mendoza refused to leave, demanding the city government do their job and represent the people instead of themselves, by answering the question. Mayor Phil Hardberger had the police arrest him on $900 bail. Where is the "First Amendment loving" American Civil Liberties Union when you need them?

Sorry to burst your “poor, persecuted Christian” bubble, there Brett, but Pastor Mendoza engaged in civil disobedience which, while a valid form of protest (cf., Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.), is bound to get you arrested. Just ask Cindy Sheehan. Is Bousman going to demand restitution for Sheehan’s arrest, or is he merely projecting onto the ACLU the same callous contempt he may be harboring for any liberal arrested for civil disobedience?

The ASG says they represent the students at Texas State by declaring opposition to Proposition 2. The only deal is that some Texas State students support it. If you support it, here are some ways you can let the ASG know you support the measure.

Send an e-mail to ASG President Jordan Anderson at [REDACTED] or flood them with phone calls at [REDACTED], and let them know your tuition is paid here as well.

Oh yeah, that's just great. Encourage the thugs on campus to flood the ASG with hate mail and death threats. I believe that sort of thing has been tried before.

Another way is you can demonstrate in favor of the proposition. Make some signs and go out there anytime this week as early voting is taking place. Especially go out there on Nov. 8, the last voting day, and show your support. Be diplomatic, but firm. Be bold, but not cocky. Be willing to have a conversation with anyone who supports, opposes or is undecided about the proposition. Ignore those who want to scream in your face. Don’t believe those who say the wording is too confusing. Read the complete language of the amendment in this election guide. Most importantly, know why you support Proposition 2.

Brett Bousman is a history and mass communication senior.

Those are some good suggestions for those who wish to support Proposition 2. It would be nice if they were actually followed. (I'm not holding my breath.)

We've moved! Check out the new site here!

Wednesday, November 02, 2005

Racists, religious nuts unite to bash gays

In any sane universe, a KKK endorsement would doom any political cause. But in the Bizarro World that is Texas, it can only help to bring out the GOP's theofascist base in droves to vote for it - dollars to doughnuts they think the Klan's endorsement of Proposition 2 is some nefarious "librul plot to allow the queers to recruit our kids into a Satanic lifestyle."

Fortunately, humor columnist John Kelso has just the antidote - reenact that scene from Braveheart where the Scots moon the English.

Incidentally, the web site that Kelso points readers to is here.

UPDATE (11/6/05): It seems that I was a bit prescient in my prediction that Prop. 2 supporters would see KKK support as a "librul plot." My brother, who hates all things liberal, said as much after watching last night's news report on the KKK rally.

We've moved! Check out the new site here!

Tuesday, November 01, 2005

Overthrowing the rotten-apple cart

Someone must've finally gotten around to giving the co-dependent Democrats their long-needed spine injection. Invoking an arcane Senate rule, Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) forced the Senate into closed session to discuss the long-DeLayed Phase 2 report on Plamegate.

The upshot is that this throws Bush's nomination of Scalito completely off the news cycle - sort of a procedural "f--- you" to Bush for his return to a complete disregard for advise and consent in the wake of conservatives scuttling the Harriet Miers nomination (she wasn't Nazi enough for them).

Needless to say, the Republicans were not happy that the Democrats dared to do something other than shut up and meekly take their daily @$$-reaming. Senate Intelligence Committee chairman Pat Roberts (R-KS) spent his face time lying about the progress (or lack thereof) of the report.

But Bill Frist (R-Insider Trading) takes the cake with his comments:
Since I’ve been majority leader, I have to say, not with the previous Democratic leader or the current Democratic leader, have I ever been slapped in the face with such an affront to the leadership of this grand institution.

Yeah, how dare those evil, terrorist, spawn-of-Satan Democrats actually stand up for a change? How dare they place national security above petty partisan politics?

For the next year and a half I can’t trust Sen. Reid.

Guess what, Cat Killer - none of the grassroots level Dems EVER trusted you from the get-go.

The United States Senate has been hijacked by the Democratic leadership.

Oh, quit whining. I assmue you know how to abuse the Senate rules better than Sen. Reid allegedly does. You could've easily spiked the closed session by illegally declaring any and all statements that do not verbally fellate Commander Codpiece irrelevant and abruptly resume normal Senate operations. I mean, it's not like the Republicans have abused power in that fashion before, right?

They have no convictions, they have no principles, they have no ideas.

Yeah, and they're a bunch of poopy-heads, too! >_<x

We've moved! Check out the new site here!

Speaking of local fascism...

Bill O'Reilly's really been on a Gestapo kick of late:

From the October 28 broadcast of Westwood One's The Radio Factor with Bill O'Reilly:

CALLER: Bill, this is the time of war. She [Plame] was a WMD analyst. She wasn't monitoring troop movements in India or something like that. She was working on this country's most pressing concern. This is an important issue, and I got one point about the media. If you want true, no-spin facts about this case, you can't do better than mediamatters.com.

O'REILLY: Ah! All right. Anyway, we get another nut on the air. That's the worst part of doing this. Ninety percent of the callers are good, and then you get nuts. Now, we should go to their house. We should all go because I can get their addresses when they call in. We can trace them back, and we should all go over and surprise them.

From the June 20 broadcast of Westwood One's The Radio Factor with Bill O'Reilly:

O'REILLY: And when he [Durbin] went out there, his intent was to whip up the American public against the Bush detainee policy. That's what his intent was. His intent wasn't to undermine the war effort, because he never even thought about it. He never even thought about it. But by not thinking about it, he made an egregious mistake because you must know the difference between dissent from the Iraq war and the war on terror and undermining it. And any American that undermines that war, with our soldiers in the field, or undermines the war on terror, with 3,000 dead on 9-11, is a traitor.

Everybody got it? Dissent, fine; undermining, you're a traitor. Got it? So, all those clowns over at the liberal radio network, we could incarcerate them immediately. Will you have that done, please? Send over the FBI and just put them in chains, because they, you know, they're undermining everything and they don't care, couldn't care less.

And then there's O'Reilly's penchant for cutting off, shouting down, belittling and bullying any guest who so much as gives voice to any opinion he doesn't like (which is basically anyone who disagrees with him in the slightest).

We've moved! Check out the new site here!

But Ann, I thought you liked fascism!

Noted plagiarist Ann Coulter is at it again. Appearing on the October 27 edition of The Big Story with John Gibson, Coulter dropped this nugget of wisdom:

COULTER: I think that is not going to inure to the Democrats' benefit, to be having this obviously political prosecution of a political enemy. No, that just shows them to be the fascists that they are.

Compare and contrast with this little-known Coulterism:

"My libertarian friends are probably getting a little upset now but I think that's because they never appreciate the benefits of local fascism." - MSNBC February 8, 1997

Hypocrisy, thy name is Ann Coulter!

We've moved! Check out the new site here!