Ho ho! They must go, and the rest look like Pinocchio!

The time has come for the big field of Republicans to go away, according to this recent info from the Huff Po:

A majority of likely Republican voters think that every candidate save Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas), businessman Donald Trump, Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) and retired neurosurgeon Ben Carson should drop out. (The survey was conducted in part before Paul and Santorum's announcements, but finds ample support for the idea of them ending their respective campaigns.)
The other GOP candidates whom voters say they wouldn't miss much include former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, former Hewlett-Packard CEO Carly Fiorina, Ohio Gov. John Kasich and former Virginia Gov. Jim Gilmore.
Even Carson is teetering on the bubble -- 43 percent say he should quit the race, compared to the 12 percent or fewer who say the same about Trump, Rubio or Cruz.

According to a poll by YouGov.com, this is what failure looks like:

But when asked who is most likely to win the primary overall, only 27% of Republicans cite Trump, down 30 points from a poll conducted just days before caucus night. 29% now expect Marco Rubio to be the nominee, following the Florida senator’s surprisingly strong finish in Iowa. Last week, only 9% thought Rubio was most likely to win. Expectations for Ted Cruz, at 24%, are slightly behind Cruz and Trump. No other candidate is higher than 2%.

I applaud Ben Carson for his polite skepticism regarding the apology from Ted Cruz, the one where he indicated he would wait to see what the actions of Cruz show about his sincerity.  The reality though is that Carson would likely come in third out of three among the candidates from Florida, Rubio, Bush and Carson.   It is not clear that any one of those three could win Florida in a national election, with Florida being an important swing state essential to achieving the presidency.  Carson is an idiot savant, brilliant in his profession, but clearly prone to weird and wandering statements that indicate he lacks the broad, well-rounded education and background necessary for the presidency.  He is unpopular outside of the other crazy evangelical extremists like himself, and losing ground fast.

Imho, the buck stops with Cruz for the actions of his campaign; his failure to fire anyone from his campaign, along with his defense of promoting a false narrative (Carson never indicated he would have a "big announcement" suggestive of quitting),  argues he had very little relative problem with the actions of his staff who represented him in Iowa.

At the same time we see the Trump classic conservative false claim of being victim, with the accompanying failure to own his part in his own loss in the state of Iowa.  Clearly his bad second place is more likely the result of his refusing to attend the candidates debate.  No individual responsibility there!  Indeed it appears that Trump might finally be offending the gullible with his bad loser antics.  Whining as he has been about losing, on top of his bitching about Megan Kelly, is showing him to be quite different than the tough guy image he was attempting to project.  Now he just looks like a loser with foolish excuses.

WHEN he fails to be the right wing nominee, it remains to be seen if Trump will pursue even greater hubris and folly by running as an independent, further fracturing the conservative vote, out of either spite or the mistaken notion that he could win.  Trump CANNOT win, except possibly in the alternate reality in his own egotistical mind.  Among other problems, no candidate for president has ever previously won after a single divorce, other than Reagan, never mind multiple divorces.  And there appears to be some inherent opposition to a foreigner in the White House as first lady, which would apply to Trump's latest wife, as well as to the wife of Jeb Bush, from Mexico.

A little history trivia, the only foreign born first lady was the wife of John Quincy Adams, Louisa Johnson, who was born in London, daughter of an Englishwoman and an American merchant (Joshua Johnson).  Her uncle Thomas Johnson later served as governor of Maryland and a Justice of the Supreme Court.  Some of the Johnson family had always remained in the colonial US, and were - unlike other potential first ladies who are immigrants or 1st generation Americans - always well accepted socially and politically.

We see Rand Paul, Rick Santorum and Mike Hucksterbee all dropping out of the race.

 It is unlikely Santorum could carry his home state of Pennsylvania if he were the candidate for the GOP; likewise it is unlikely Mike Huckabee could win his home state of Akransas. More aptly Huckster-bee, since he sold the remains of his tattered integrity pushing quack diabetes cures. The same could be said for remaining candidate Chris Christie, who is despised in his home state where he has been a very unsuccessful governor, and for the other departed governor candidates Jindal and Walker. This is similar to failed candidates in the prior election, like Tim Pawlenty and Michele Bachmann, who did not have the support in their home state of Minnesota for higher office, and for Paul Ryan who failed to carry his home state of Wisconsin in the 2012 election cycle, and did not even carry the vote in his own hometown of Jaynesville. Likewise, the other candidates who have left the race really never had a prayer of becoming the GOP candidate; rather, they either ran on delusionally inflated ego, or in the hopes of the exercise in futility having some other form of payout.  I would argue that most of the candidates from the right in the 2016 election cycle never seriously believed they were viable candidates.

Jebus must be angry with the evangelical right wingers...

What a shame that there is another round of bad weather that seems to be targeting certain sections of the Bible Belt as well as the early voters of Iowa. We have seen how evangelicals like to point to events like this as divine wrath. Following their magical thinking, then it would seem that Jesus is unhappy with Trump and all the rest on the right, and doesn't want the good religious bigots and fools on the right in Iowa to get out to vote. Otherwise HE wouldn't be making it so very difficult, right? Tsk tsk tsk. That the caucus voting got in at all before the bad weather hit must be the result of the good members of the Iowa Supreme Court who ensured that gay people could marry. No doubt that is why the storm held off as long as it did -- to let Bernie and Hillary tie, more or less, since both supported gay marriage and for all intents and purposes they both won. But that bad weather is still smighting those evil evangelicals.......following their own reasoning (or lack of it). Storms hit Tennessee and Kentucky as well, no doubt leaving a Jebus message for those evangelicals who support Kim Davis style sexual orientation bigotry, sending a message to his own, like Jesus likes to do.

Why does the US have a problem with insurrectionism?

This is something I have been pondering for a while since the US Constitution and its history make it clear that it does not condone rebellion.  Indeed the document is intended on establishing the rule of law, which runs contrary to the insurrectionist doctrine.

Recap: Shays' Rebellion was the event which led to the attempt to rework the Articles of Confederation.  Instead the Constitution came out of that movement with its specific intent of "insuring domestic tranquility".  The militia is supposed to "to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions":  Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance of the US Constitution.

The Constitution only mentions one crime: Treason. This is found in Article III, Section 3.

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.

Levying war is defined as:

The assembling of a body of men for the purpose of effecting by force a treasonable object; and all who perform any part however minute, or however remote from the scene of action, and who are leagued in the general conspiracy, are considered as engaged in levying war, within the meaning of the constitution. 4 Cranch R. 473-4; Const. art. 3, s. 3. Vide Treason; Fries' Trial; Pamphl. This is a technical term, borrowed from the English law, and its meaning is the same as it is when used in stat. 25 Ed. III.; 4 Cranch's R. 471; U. S. v. Fries, Pamphl. 167; Hall's Am. Law Jo. 351; Burr's Trial; 1 East, P. C. 62 to 77; Alis. Cr. Law of Scotl. 606; 9 C. & P. 129.

The Constitution does not itself create the offence; it only restricts the definition (the first paragraph), permits Congress to create the offence, and restricts any punishment for treason to only the convicted (the second paragraph). The crime is prohibited by legislation passed by Congress: 18 U.S. Code § 2381 - Treason. Congress has passed laws creating other related offences that punish conduct that undermines the government or the national security (See 18 U.S. Code Chapter 115).

In many nations, it is also often considered treason to attempt or conspire to overthrow the government, even if no foreign country is aiding or involved by such an endeavour.
it should also be noted that the Declaration of Independence is a historic document with no legal authority under the US Constitution (Article VI).

Which take us back to the quote from Dennis v. United States, 341 U.S. 494 (1951):

“The obvious purpose of the statute is to protect existing Government, not from change by peaceable, lawful and constitutional means, but from change by violence, revolution and terrorism. That it is within the power of the Congress to protect the Government of the United States from armed rebellion is a proposition which requires little discussion. Whatever theoretical merit there may be to the argument that there is a “right” to rebellion against dictatorial governments is without force where the existing structure of the government provides for peaceful and orderly change.”

I would hold that the Bundy family and anyone else who would attempt to recruit for the purpose of starting a civil war has engaged in the act of Treason in accordance with this definition.  18 U.S. Code Chapter 115 - TREASON, SEDITION, AND SUBVERSIVE ACTS has  variety of options if you are not willing to call incitements to rebellion treason.

Additionally Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment states:

No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any state legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any state, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

Very few people are willing to do anything about the promotion of the belief that people are somehow being patriotic and somehow following the constitution when the insurrectionists act in their seditious manner to the point of actual rebellion. There have been fewer than 40 federal prosecutions for treason and even fewer convictions since the Constitution was ratified. Several men were convicted of treason in connection with the 1794 Whiskey Rebellion but were pardoned by President George Washington.

Which is where the US differs from other countries with a Common Law heritage.  Yes, there have been rebellions in England, Canada, and Australia, yet they do not have the belief that there is somehow a "right" to rebellion (as they do not have a concept of a "right to arms/guns").  Unlike the US, where the largest rebellion, the Civil War/War Between the States, went without too many of the instigators being hanged, rebellion has been punished severely in other nations with a British heritage.  Only recently has the death penalty been abolished for treason in most Common law countries.

What I find even more bizarre are the people who somehow claim to be "conservative" while spouting seditious nonsense. Especially since the term "conservative" is defined as:

a political and social philosophy promotes retaining traditional social institutions in the context of culture and civilization. Some conservatives seek to preserve things as they are, emphasizing stability and continuity.

By that definition, insurrectionism and supporting sedition are hardly conservative qualities, but this gets into the bizarre notion of what is "conservative" in the United States.  If anything, true conservatism believes in the rule of law: not the rule of the gun.

The problem is that like the Second Amendment revisionism, there has been a neglect of the concept of the rule of law in US society. The rule of law is that a nation is ruled by laws rather than the capricious whims of individuals.  It is part of the Constitutional Structure under Article VI.

The rule of law is expressed in these four principles:

1. The government and its officials and agents as well as individuals and private entities are accountable under the law.
2. The laws are clear, publicized, stable, and just; are applied evenly; and protect fundamental rights, including the security of persons and property.
3. The process by which the laws are enacted, administered, and enforced is accessible, fair, and efficient.
4. Justice is delivered timely by competent, ethical, and independent representatives and neutrals who are of sufficient number, have adequate resources, and reflect the makeup of the communities they serve.

This is also summed up in Article VI of The Declaration of the rights of Man and of the Citizen of 1789:

The law is the expression of the general will. All the citizens have the right of contributing personally or through their representatives to its formation. It must be the same for all, either that it protects, or that it punishes.

The bottom line is that the US has moved from the concept of the rule of law and somehow allowed the absurdity that individuals can decide which laws they can follow.  But the reality is as I pointed out in my post Sic semper proditores (Thus always to traitors):

 Just because you don’t like it doesn’t mean it is unconstitutional.

The Delusions of the MN GOP

gold-plated clown car

This morning I heard an interview on MPR with MN GOP chair Keith Downey waxing rhapsodic over the glorious candidates available to conservative voters, including Donald Trump.  Downey was enthused with the diverse attention that candidates like Trump have brought to the 2016 race, viewing it as favorable to his party.

I think Mr. Downey needs to have his head examined for his apparently deliberate confusing of the gawker attention given to train wrecks as distinct from genuine admiration and support.  While it is the lunatic fringe most frequently turning out for caucuses and primaries, it is NOT the lunatic fringe on the right who most often turns out for the general election - as demonstrated in this Pew analysis of the 2012 election voters.

This analysis is based on 1,575 Republican and Republican-leaning registered voters who are part of Pew Research Center’s nationally-representative American Trends Panel, and who could be matched to the national voter file. ¹
The GOP primary electorate represented a relatively small share of those who went on to vote in the general election. Of Republicans who were verified to have voted in the general election, only 25% are verified as having voted in Republican primaries or caucuses in 2012; while 75% do not have a record of having voted in the primaries or caucuses that year. ²

No one in their right mind would find anything wonderful in the 2016 cast of characters on the right, stuffed into what is now, at best, a gold-plated clown car (classy!)  I'm sure Mr. Downey is well aware, for example, of the recent Pew Poll from a week ago which examined how the candidates are regarded.

Hillary Clinton had the best result among those polled to be a great president, followed by Donald Trump; however Turmp far and away had the highest percentage of poll respondents who thought he would be a TERRIBLE president.

Fellow extremist Ted Cruz got far fewer views as a great president, but also fewer negatives, while Bernie Sanders came in ahead of Cruz (barely) as a great president.  Cruz, Sanders and Ben Carson all faced problems with respondents even knowing who they were, compared to either Trump or Clinton. 

Looking at the same time frame,  Pew Polling indicates Democrats hate Trump more than Republicans hate Clinton.

So while Clinton approval ratings may be declining, it is arguable that opposition to Trump is increasing far faster.  And even among Republicans, the opposition to the extremist crazies, like Trump, Cruz, and/or Carson is high.  Additionally, it's a pretty safe bet that Jeb hasn't a prayer of being the presidential candidate (now or ever, I would hazard).

From a Pew Poll the first week of January 2016:




While I expect Keith Downey to try to spin how crazy bad the candidates are on the right, the numbers are pretty clear.  Donald Trump is not electable, and I would argue neither is Ted Cruz, or Ben Carson who has largely disappeared from popular radar; while the enthusiasm is far lower for any of the other more sane establishment candidates, it is also less likely that any of them would bring out the voters either -- perhaps even less so than with the lack of enthusiasm for Mitt Romney last time around.

Perhaps it is unkind of me to be so skeptical of Downey and the conservative candidates - never more so than when the straw poll this time around will be for real.  Let me point out that the winner of the last presidential election straw poll was Santorum (who also won in the Iowa primary....eventually), while the convention winner for candidate later in the summer was Ron Paul.  Somehow all of that irrelevance escaped comment from Mr. Downey, at least in what I heard of his interview.

Given their past track record, I would NOT expect much of what passes for the MN GOP caucus to have any relationship to the actual election in November.

gold plated clown charm

Trump

Sic semper proditores (Thus always to traitors)

OK, all you supposed "Constitutionalists" out there:

1. The Constitution makes it clear that waging war on the US is treason (Article III, Section iii--it's the only crime mentioned in the Constitution!). 18 USC Chapter 115 tells you what laws you are violating and it was passed in accordance with US Constitution Article VI.
2. The Second Amendment does not explicitly repeal any of the main Constitutional provisions relating to treason and insurrection.
3. Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is unconstitutional.

Dennis v. United States, 341 U.S. 494 (1951) puts paid to the insurrectionist theory:

"The obvious purpose of the statute is to protect existing Government, not from change by peaceable, lawful and constitutional means, but from change by violence, revolution and terrorism. That it is within the power of the Congress to protect the Government of the United States from armed rebellion is a proposition which requires little discussion. Whatever theoretical merit there may be to the argument that there is a “right” to rebellion against dictatorial governments is without force where the existing structure of the government provides for peaceful and orderly change."

Verb sap.

Call it what you like: Right Wing Losing is still losing!

Kim Davis and the religious right wing nuts claim they have somehow 'won' in their fight to deny marriage civil rights to gay couples. Losing is a series of decisions that the bigot beliefs of the religious right don't entitle them to special privileges to hurt other people.

And the other big 'win' came nearly two weeks ago; Kentucky is going to have to pay, and pay big, for their bigotry under the false label of religious freedom to discriminate and hate.  From the AP and WCPO news, there is this little nugget underlining that loss for the right:

Kentucky to pay $1.1 million in same-sex marriage case
LOUISVILLE, Ky. -- A federal judge awarded a team of Kentucky attorneys more than $1 million for their role in the landmark United States Supreme Court case that struck down bans on same-sex marriage.
The state will have to pick up the $1.1 million tab.
In 2014, U.S. District Judge John Heyburn ruled the state's ban on same-sex marriage unconstitutional. Attorney General Jack Conway refused to appeal. But former Gov. Steve Beshear hired outside attorneys to continue defending the ban.
The case, and others like it, made its way to the U.S. Supreme Court, which effectively legalized same-sex marriage last summer.
Jessica Ditto, spokeswoman for Gov. Matt Bevin, a Republican who took office last month and opposes same-sex marriages, said in an email Wednesday evening that the governor's general counsel is reviewing the ruling.
"We are pleased that the court did not award any bonus attorney fees and eliminated certain fees and expenses that the court deemed unnecessary," Ditto said.
Federal law mandates that losing parties in civil rights cases pay the winning side's attorneys' fees and expenses.

Now the right likes to deny and lie when the facts are not on their side - as is the case here with who won and who lost.

If you follow the lame logic of the evangelical crazies, those like Michele Bachmann (who has been strangely silent for a while) or lunatic fringie Sarah Palin, then the recent east coast blizzard that shut down the coastal states with snow must mean God, aka Jebus, does not support those who are anti-abortion.

Readers here may remember the push-back in 2011 when Bachmann asserted, as an example of right wing 'magical thinking', a form of mental illness:

"I don't know how much God has to do to get the attention of the politicians. We've had an earthquake; we've had a hurricane. He said, 'Are you going to start listening to me here?'"

Hello anti-choicers? Apparently God just slapped you down with his fluffy white wrath in unmistakeable terms, clearly intending to block your efforts. Not a peep out of Bachmann or Palin on the topic. Shutting down early and being stranded on a turnpike is not 'winning', it is not an endorsement of your position from God.

Conservatives: Inaccuracy, Hypocrisy, Vulgarity and Lack of Accountability – part 2 / Palin

It appears that in the course of endorsing Donald “turnip-top” Trump, the tea party bimbo Sarah Palin has attempted to blame President Obama for her son’s PTSD, and his domestic violence charge.  Palin claims that Obama’s failure to respect the troops is responsible for her idjit son Track’s violence towards women and chronic abuse of alcohol.

Instead, Palin appears to either be hoping very much that this claim will slide by the crazy, ignorant base who doesn’t give a tinker’s damn if Trump (and his supporters) are factually accurate or even vaguely truthful.  If not, her endorsement might quickly prove to be more of a liability than a benefit to the eccentric right winger leader.  False claims about military service are one of the few things that might antagonize Trump’s ignorant followers.

Here are the apparent problems with Palin’s claim:

1. there appears to be no credible diagnosis of PTSD from a health professional re Track, and there is a huge questionmark over Track Palin having been in combat;

2. there is no credible evidence that how a president feels or doesn’t feel affects anyone having PTSD, re the subjective perception of respect for the military;

3. Track enlisted in 2007, served for a year in 2008, BEFORE Obama became president.  If anyone is responsible for problems resulting from Iraq, it would be Dubya, not Obama; and

4. the entire Palin clan is prone to drunken violence, without the rest having served anywhere in our armed forces.  It is a ‘Palin’ family thing, not a PTSD problem.  The family appears to be a bunch of armed alcohol abusing louts, such that a more plausible explanation for Track’s behavior is that he learned it at home.

From Politicalgates.blogspot.com we see that it appears that Track Palin served a little over a week of active service under the Obama administration’s first term of office; further that his prior year of active service does NOT appear to have been in combat, from the available description on his discharge papers.  There have been vets who have been in theaters of conflict in other countries WITHOUT having themselves been in combat.  I would further underline that nowhere (so far) have I found Track Palin himself making the claim he was a combat veteran, OR that he suffers from PTSD.

From Politicalgates.blogspot.com on how one checks combat service records, which indicates Track Palin is NOT a combat veteran, via the Veterans Disability blog:

That was the case today when speaking with a Veteran about combat. His question was: “What exactly makes anyone a combat Veteran?” Some may be quick to say that serving in combat makes you a combat Veteran, but there is more to it than that.
The VA lists several different ways in which a Veteran can prove he or she was in combat.
· If you received a combat service medal, then you are considered a combat Veteran
· If you received hostile fire pay, imminent danger pay or tax benefits
· If you received military service documentation that documents combat theater
So, does serving in a foreign country automatically qualify me as combat Veteran? Not necessarily. Even if you served in Iraq or Afghanistan during the past ten years, it does not guarantee that you are a combat Veteran.
How can you find out? Well, your DD-214 is a great place to start. Your Discharge won’t automatically say that you were a combat Veteran though…that would be too easy. Box 13 on more modern DD-214’s is where they list medals, awards and ribbons. The VA does recognize certain medals etc. as a qualifier for combat service. (That list will appear in an upcoming blog.)
Also listed on your DD-214 is the type of pay you received. Box 18 would be the place to find out if you received Hostile Fire Pay, or the Imminent Danger Pay. It is important to note that this can appear in box 13, though it is rare for it to appear there.

And a vet who has served in combat, and who has served with Track Palin, is quite adamant he is not a victim of PTSD, nor have I found anyone who served with him who substantiates that Track Palin was a combat veteran or was symptomatic for PTSD.



From Salon:

…if this wasn’t about a 26 year-old grown man currently charged with fourth-degree assault, fourth-degree misconduct involving a weapon and interfering with a report of domestic violence.
Earlier this week, Track, who divorced his first wife in 2012, was arrested over an incident at the Wasilla home he shares with his parents. Police noted his current girlfriend had “bruising and swelling around her left eye” and described Track as “uncooperative, belligerent, and evasive with my initial line of questions.” A breath sample registered his blood alcohol level at 0.189. In her conversation with the police, Track’s girlfriend claimed he had threatened to kill himself, and an unloaded AR-15 was found near the scene. Palin denied using a weapon but told police “that they were spread throughout both residences on the property.”
Track Palin was serving in Iraq as an air guard in the “Arctic Wolves,” the Army’s 1st Stryker Brigade Combat Team, during his mother’s 2008 bid for vice president. He is routinely described in the press as a combat veteran, though some within the veteran community, based on Palin’s discharge paperwork, dispute his actual combat duty.

Unless, perhaps, we want to redefine the acronym PTSD to mean (Sarah) Palin’s Totally Stupid Dypsomania (alcohol abuse)?

Here is a review of the charges against Track Palin.

This entire family of Alaskan hicks (the adults anyway) act more like trailer trash than pious folks demonstrating those wholesome family values they give such annoying lip service.  For example, we have anything-but-chaste Bristol Palin, who took a ton of $$$$ to espouse abstinence having yet another child out of wed lock, and brother Track, who is dad to a daughter born 3 months after his wedding, (a fitting repeat of his parents behavior – Track was also conceived before his own parents’ engagement and elopement) and we have this past example of Palin family drunken brawling from less than a year and a half ago.

These are NOT ‘law abiding people’, these are not ‘family values people’ who present a clear understanding or example of how people behave morally and ethically in a civil society.  These are over-privileged cretins with too little judgement and too much money, and a mind-boggling capacity for ignorance and bad behavior, and a grotesque degree of hypocrisy and a false sense of entitlement apparently.

What they are NOT is personally accountable — but apparently, on the right, that’s just a requirement for OTHER PEOPLE.  Another example of right wing do-as-I-say-not-as-I-do morality, the kind that holds other people to a higher standard than they hold themselves.  How apt that Palin endorses the oh-so-vulgar Trump; they are noisy, garish birds of a feather in a  gold paint gilded cage, hip deep in their own guano baggage, a ‘yoooge’ ‘classy’ gilded cage.

As noted by multiple other individuals who are far better entitled to address the topics of the US military and PTSD:

‘Palin is using PTSD as an excuse to shift blame away from her son’s domestic violence,’ Brandon Friedman, the former digital media director for the Department of Veterans Affairs, said in an interview with Huffington Post.

‘She never mentioned the actual victim. She portrayed her son as the victim, but never talked about his girlfriend, apparently crying and hiding under a bed because he beat her.’

Friedman also said; ‘The fact is, veterans who have PTSD are far, far more likely to harm themselves than they are to harm others.’

As for Palin’s comment about President Obama, Friedman said; ‘It’s ironic that people like Sarah Palin are in the party of “personal responsibility” but as soon as someone in her family is arrested for domestic violence, it’s Obama’s fault.’

Paul Rieckhoff, who heads Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America, seemed to reiterate this statement, telling NBC News; ‘It’s not President Obama’s fault that Sarah Palin’s son has PTSD.

‘PTSD is a very serious problem, a complicated mental health injury, and I would be extremely reluctant to blame any one person in particular.’

He also said that he hopes Palin does not turn this into ‘a political chew toy in a political campaign’.

Hooray for the 43rd anniversary of Roe v. Wade

We've stood up for the reproductive rights of women affirmed by the SCOTUS for over four decades, in spite of the attempts to subjugate women, control our bodies, and deprive us of our right to autonomy and choice.

The efforts from the right attacking both contraception and safe and legal abortion continue, largely fueled by factual inaccuracies, unfounded emotion, and straight up manipulative propaganda, with copious amounts of violence and intimidation employed when the propaganda lies fail.

It's time to push back against unreasonable and destructive anti-abortion efforts; they harm all of us, not only women.

Update on Conservative Lack of Accountability and Bigotry in the 2016 election cycle, and Nikki Haley

courtesy of Sikhchic.com

s the 2016 election cycle ramps up, we see more examples of the faulty morals and ethics of right wing propaganda, outright lies, and a whole lot of denial instead of accepting responsibility.  Let's review some of the recent examples, particularly those relating to racism and immigration issues.

We see it in S.C. Governor Nikki Haley's rebuttal to the state of the union address by President Obama earlier this month, which was really more of a rebuttal to Donald Trump, making false claims about bigotry in our country's laws regarding race and religion.  We do in fact as a nation, from our earliest days, have a pretty shameful history.  It is quintessentially conservatives, especially those of the tea party stripe, who promote revisionist history and other fact-averse curricula in our schools, attempting to throw out fact based education.  It is the antithesis of accountability and taking responsibility for past actions and for present proposed actions that are bigoted, intolerant, and exclusionary, both on the basis of race and ethnicity, and religion.

Not surprising that Governor Nimrata Haley, nee' Randhawa, doesn't use her actual name very often in her public life or political career, which would be too 'ethnic' for many right wing voters.  It is all too common for people from her own background of Sikkhism, (which ignorant bigot conservatives routinely confuse with Islam) to be referred to as 'rag heads' on conservative talk radio, for example.  These are the same conservatives who claim that Indian American beauty pageant contestants are not 'American' enough to wear a tiara and represent the USA. But there is just no excuse for Haley to deny (or to be unaware) of the laws in this country which banned people like her family from becoming citizens based on ethnicity.  Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal doesn't use his real name either, Piyuash, apparently for similar reasons of distancing himself from his race/ethnicity.

Conservatives are swarming to support bigot peddling more than ever this election cycle, and always have.  The Salt Lake Tribune hit the nail on the head:

Pitts: Nikki Haley living in Fantasyland

Nikki Haley's 44th birthday is this week. You would think her a little old for fairytales.

But a bizarre, little-reported remark the South Carolina governor made last week suggests that, age notwithstanding, Haley lives in Fantasyland, at least insofar as American history is concerned. The comment in question came the day after her Tuesday night speech in response to President Obama's State of the Union address, in which she cuffed Donald Trump for his strident anti-Muslim, anti-immigrant bigotry.

Haley told reporters, "When you've got immigrants who are coming here legally, we've never in the history of this country passed any laws or done anything based on race or religion."

Or the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882, whose title and intent are self-explanatory?

Or the Immigration Act of 1917, which banned immigrants from East Asia and the Pacific?

Or Ozawa v. U.S., the 1922 Supreme Court decision which declared that Japanese immigrants could not be naturalized?

Or U.S. v. Bhagat Singh Thind, the 1923 high court ruling which said people from India — like Haley's parents — could not become naturalized citizens?

So yes, however you slice it, Haley is wrong and Haley is ignorant. But one wonders if Haley is to blame.

Americans, the historian Ray Arsenault once said, live by "mythic conceptions of what they think happened" in the past. And as school systems, under pressure from conservative school boards, retreat from teaching that which embarrasses the nation's self-image, as ethnic studies classes are outlawed, as textbooks are scrubbed of painfully inconvenient truths, as standards requiring the teaching of only "positive aspects" of American history are imposed, we find those mythic conceptions encroaching reality to a troubling degree.

 Some observers found that an astonishing thing for her to say as chief executive of the first state to secede from the Union in defense of slavery, a state that embraced segregation until forced to change by the federal government. Others observed that any fair reading of Haley's quote makes it pretty clear she was speaking only in the context of legal immigration.

They're right. The problem is, even if you concede that point, Haley is still grotesquely wrong. She thinks no immigration laws have been passed "based on race or religion"? What about:

The Naturalization Act of 1790, which extended citizenship to "any alien, being a free white person."?

Or the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882, whose title and intent are self-explanatory?

Or the Immigration Act of 1917, which banned immigrants from East Asia and the Pacific?

Or Ozawa v. U.S., the 1922 Supreme Court decision which declared that Japanese immigrants could not be naturalized?

Or U.S. v. Bhagat Singh Thind, the 1923 high court ruling which said people from India — like Haley's parents — could not become naturalized citizens?

So yes, however you slice it, Haley is wrong and Haley is ignorant. But one wonders if Haley is to blame.

Americans, the historian Ray Arsenault once said, live by "mythic conceptions of what they think happened" in the past. And as school systems, under pressure from conservative school boards, retreat from teaching that which embarrasses the nation's self-image, as ethnic studies classes are outlawed, as textbooks are scrubbed of painfully inconvenient truths, as standards requiring the teaching of only "positive aspects" of American history are imposed, we find those mythic conceptions encroaching reality to a troubling degree.

Haley was born in 1972; US v Bhagat Sing Thind took place in 1923 affirming people from India could not become citizens - just slightly less than 50 years earlier.  We're not talking ancient history here, by a long shot.  Read more about this case here  but here is an excerpt to highlight the gist of the case and what resulted, courtesy of wikipedia:

Not only were new applicants from India denied the privilege of naturalization, but the new racial classification suggested that the retroactive revocation of naturalization certificates granted to Asian Indians, of which there were many, might be supported by the Court's decision, a point that some courts upheld when United States attorneys petitioned to cancel the naturalization certificates previously granted to many Asian Indians. Some of the consequences of revoked naturalized status are illustrated by the example of some Asian Indian land owners living in California who found themselves under the jurisdiction of the California Alien Land Law of 1913. Specifically, Attorney General Ulysses S. Webb was very active in revoking Indian land purchases; in a bid to strengthen the Asiatic Exclusion League, he promised to prevent Indians from buying or leasing land. Under intense pressure, and with Immigration Act of 1917 preventing fresh immigration to strengthen the fledgling Indian-American community, many Indians left the United States, leaving only half their original American population, 2,405, by 1940.
...the Asian Indian community finally succeeded in gaining support among several prominent congressmen, as well as President Franklin D. Roosevelt. The support culminated in the signing into law by President Truman on July 2, 1946, of the Luce-Celler Act. This Act reversed the Thind decision by explicitly extending racial eligibility for naturalization to natives of India, and set a token quota for their immigration at 100 per year.
In 1965, President Lyndon Johnson signed the Hart-Celler Immigration Act, which phased out the national origins quota system first instituted in 1921. In 1965–1970, 27,859 Indian immigrants entered the United States. Immigration from India in 1965–1993 was 558,980

Neither Governor, Haley or Jindal, are likely to be unaware of bigotry in law or common practice, current or historical. So that makes it an intentional convenient political lie in an attempt to minimize ADMITTING that this appeal to bigotry is part and parcel of our conservative politics in the United States. Jindal and now Haley are nothing but political tokens for the right, selling out their origins in exchange for individual acceptance. That makes them far worse than simple liars, and it gives the greater lie to responsibility on the right for the reality of their bigotry. To lie like this means they KNOW the problem exists, and they choose to deny it rather than own it. Haley and Jindal, Trump and Palin, and those who support them, tend to be racist bigots and also religious bigots.  Own it.  Take responsibility for it.  It is quintessentially conservative.  Expect to see it reflected in the 2016 right wing primary election results.

Meanwhile, right wing media whore Ann Coulter tweeted that Trump should deport Nikki Haley..... asuch intolerance for those who are not white and of European descent among conservatives.  Apparently among some far right conservatives at least, Nikki Haley is not "American" enough to be a citizen residing in this country?

Nikki Haley lied in her state of the union rebuttal

In the effort to squash turnip-top Trump rather than respond to Obama's speech following the state of the union address last week, Nikki Haley lied.

Apart from the fact that she appears to have done nothing to slow the Trump momentum among the stupid party voters, it is revisionist history to assert that the United States has not passed laws against anyone on the basis of race or religion.

Hello - anyone remember Jim Crow, so serious a blot on the history of Haley's own state of South Carolina?

Anyone remember the laws passed in support of segregation, including those which discriminated against Jews? We've had them.

In addition we have had laws in this country which precluded Latinos and Hispanics and people of Asian descent, notably Chinese, from owning property or holding office.

The notion that we should do something similar against Muslims has a long and ugly history in this country, one that is closely linked to conservatives historically and to conservatives in our modern era.

When faced with inconvenient or embarrassing facts, conservatives lie.  They rewrite history, they deny, they pretend, to make themselves feel better, and then they try to justify it in the name of  so-called patriotism.

Trump is appealing to the bigots on the right; own them, they are yours, they are you.

Trump picks a dangerous tactic in attacking Bill Clinton

Bill Clinton is an extremely popular former president, more popular than any recent past president and more popular than the current sitting president, Obama, and much more popular than any recent Republican president (either Bush), per insidegov.com.  President Bubba is generally regarded as the most popular president of the past 25 years.

THAT makes Bill Clinton a major threat to the potential success of Donald Trump, as a major asset to Hillary Clinton.  Since Bill cannot be elected to a third (or fourth) term as president, it is arguably the next best thing to elect him first spouse, putting him back in the White House in what would presumably be at the very least an advisory capacity. 

As a substantive thinker and accomplished speaker, aka the Explainer in Chief, Bill by simply existing, by doing 'that thing he does', underlines the failings and shortfalls of Trump in every important category, including appearing presidential, without ever acknowledging Trump by name.

It is a weakness on the part of the thrice-married Trump to go after either of the Clintons for any issue relating to marital infidelity, given his own egregiously bad track record in that regard.  While Trump's excuses for his infidelity has been that he was too busy with his work to be a good husband, it is a hard sell that he was busier, or had more obligations and responsibilities than the leader of the free world.  And Bill Clinton has survived his public womanizing scandals just fine -- and those scandals have NEVER translated into his being unsympathetic to the advancement of gender equality.

UNLIKE Donald Trump, Bill Clinton has never been accused of domestic violence towards his wife or any other woman.  And contrary to claims by Trump, Bill Clinton never 'lost' or was denied a license to practice law either.  But Trump and his conservative supporters don't value facts in the slightest.  They thrive on attitude over substance.

There is every possibility that attacking Bill Clinton to get to Hillary Clinton will backfire on 'the Donald', who is more of a cartoon character than a serious candidate.

The Chicago Tribune noted just today, in covering Bill Clinton:

The former president is the most resilient politician of this, and probably any, era. He seemed doomed when the sex scandal involving a White House intern erupted during his presidency. Republicans then foolishly tried to remove him from office for lying about sex. That backfired: Bill Clinton led his party to unusual gains in the 1998 midterm elections and left office in 2001 with a 66 percent approval rating.

Even right wing nut not-news, Newsmax, home of crackpot conspiracy theories and fact-free rubbish, noted that failing right wing extremist candidate and former Arkansas governor and purveyor of quack diabetes cure,  Mike Huckster-be, admits that Bill Clinton is extremely popular --- even among Republicans, a huge concession from the far right.

GOP candidate Mike Huckabee said Monday that he does not agree with critics who say Bill Clinton will be a liability for Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign, saying that even Republicans would pick the former president after seven years of President Barack Obama.
..."He's still popular with a lot of Americans. Frankly, after seven years of Obama, a lot of Republicans would take Bill Clinton back, warts and all, just because at least he understood how to govern. He was not the kind of person who utterly demonized the other side legislatively."

Meanwhile, Turnip-top Trump is broadly viewed as a huge - or 'YUGE' embarrassment, and never more so than while our closest ally, the UK, is debating banning Trump from visiting the country. The king of rubbish plans for border walls is being kept out - such poetic justice, such pure and unadulterated Karma. In spite of his inexplicable emotional rather than substantive appeal to Republicans, (because there IS NOTHING substantive about Trump) it is unlikely that he will succeed in attacks against either Hillary or Bill Clinton using this lame and extraordinarily hypocritical appeal.  I would expect that we will be seeing proxies for Clinton underlining this moral failing on the part of Turnip-top.

REAL "Independents" - hungry 'paragons of bootstrappy manhood'

So, it seems that the Brits have turned their brutally sharp wit on the idjits in Oregon.

Yup, the rest of the world (or ROW, as Eddie Izzard called it) is laughing at them as well, for their hypocrisy and ineptitude.  Consider the fools thoroughly skewered, like a kebab, roasted on the grill to a crispy turn.

AT them, not with them; it is important to make that point very clearly and sharply.

I give you an excellent piece from the esteemed Independent, of the UK.

Do, by all means, check out the entirety, but here are a few of my favorite excerpts by the Independent, mostly from the Twittersphere, under the headline, "Oregon 'terrorists' don't plan siege very well, put out desperate plea for snacks and supplies":

"Take your guns and hunt for your own damn snacks you paragons of boot-strappy manhood."

Every successful revolution starts with takeover of closed visitor center with gift shop. #OregonUnderAttack #YallQaeda

 Wait... They're anti-government yet they want to use the USPS? This calls for a *facepalm*

 my mom cooked hella pallau and chalau last night. Think they'd be ok w/ afghan food?

I know it is early yet, but 'paragons of boot-strappy manhood' is going to be my favorite phrase for 2016.  It doesn't get better than that.

As for more domestic scorn of the dullards, on this side of the pond, from Raw Story:

‘Y’all Qaeda’: Twitter users mock Oregon right-wing militia action — and it’s awesome

#YallQaeda follows a strict interpretation of Shania law.

Roundup: #YallQueda #YeeHawd #VanillaISIS #YokelHaram #CowTippingTerrorists #FailQueda #Infantada #WhiteSIS #SaturdayNightTreason

and from elsewhere on social media, a more poignant bit of insight:


And a brilliant example of what is wrong with the right, again from FB, this time from FreeDumb Nation:

That awkward moment you rely on the federal government for money to go and participate in overthrowing the federal government.

Starting the New Year off with a whimper on the right, Oregon goes round the bend

So, we have the crazy Bundy bunch (nothing like the wholesome Brady bunch) out in Oregon, making asses of themselves to start out the new year. Think Progress has the best review of the details, here.  It is NOTHING like what the right would have you believe.  Here is the essential element omitted in most of the recent media coverage:

The Hammonds set a fire in 2001 that ultimately burned 139 acres of BLM land. The ranchers say they began it on their own land with agency approval, but prosecutors say they were in fact seeking to cover up illegal deer hunting on the BLM acreage near their property. A second, much smaller fire in 2006 burned another acre of BLM land during a “burn ban” imposed to allow agency firefighters to combat a blaze caused by lightning.

What a bunch of maroons, who apparently are more likely to be turning blue with cold than any shade of red soon.

I liked the way the STrib described these losers in the location they chose to occupy.

"...the refuge area, which is remote even by rural Oregon standards."

So far, it doesn't seem as if anyone cares, at least not in a positive way. As noted on FB by comedian Andy Borowitz, who has equally sharp wits and tongue:

OK, by now I've heard a lot of great names for the Oregon gang: "y'all-qaeda," "yee-hawdists," "yokel haram." But I think my favorite is "fucking idiots." http://bit.ly/1ODXgOG

And all hope of practical support seems to have failed from the right wing nut job militia sector; for example the Oathkeepers, who ran away scared from daddy Cliven Bundy, are actively discouraging their members and others from supporting Bundy Jr. aka Bundy light(in the sense department) by calling this latest farce the opposite of the Bundy Ranch, per the ever-vigilant (as distinct from vigilante right wing nuts), Right Wing Watch noted:

Oath Keepers Urge Members To Back Off Oregon Standoff: 'This Is The Opposite Of The Bundy Ranch'

After sons of rancher Cliven Bundy led armed militia members in occupying a federal building in Oregon in protest of a federal court ruling regarding two ranchers who were sentenced to jail time for arson on federal lands, at least one “Patriot” group is urging its members to “stay out of” the situation: The Oath Keepers.
The leader of the extremist Oath Keepers, one of the biggest players in the standoff at the Bundy ranch in Nevada, thinks that the Bundy brothers have gone too far. In a statement issued on New Year’s Day, Oath Keepers leader Stewart Rhodes said that although he’s sympathetic to Dwight and Steven Hammond, the ranchers convicted of arson, he wants no part in the Bundy sons’ takeover of a federal wildlife refuge because the Hammonds had not asked for help.
In a video statement, Rhodes said that the Oregon situation is “exactly the opposite of the Bundy ranch,” claiming that while militia groups “went to Bundy ranch to prevent that family from being Waco’d,” the current standoff is being “manufactured by potheads who want a fight” and is no longer a “peaceful protest.” He added that the Hammonds “were found guilty by a jury of their peers.”

It is a distinction without meaning or merit; the Bundy's have been properly found guilty plenty of times and are equally deserving of being behind bars for their lawlessness and looting of federal land too, which takes away valued resources out of ALL our pockets. A jury of peers is just as legitimate, neither more nor less, than any other court in the country. The notion put forward by the Bundy's and the rest of the unraveling lunatic fringe is that they are entitled to something that does not belong to them, but rather belongs to US to YOU AND ME, as citizens and residents of these United States. The government is all of us; the people they are attempting to screw over are the rest of us, who are not holed up as trespassers and vandals indulging delusions of relevance.

Time for a good yawn, and for these morons to get a good kick in the seat of their pants, which appears to be the part of their anatomy they use to attempt thought, (a failed aspiration).

The more things change, the more they stay the same

According to Snopes, Trump never said this. It's still true, but ol' Turnip Top never had the integrity to say it out loud.

But it is worth noting here, as a false left wing quote appearing on FB.  We lose substance and credibility when we do not make the effort to be factual and substantive.

It is, for example, worth noting that per Mediate, Trump has racked up more time appearing on Fox News than the other leading right wingnut candidates combined. 

So much for 'fair and balanced'.  As to the stupid voters, well, that's been pretty well documented as a majority of supporters of Trump reading and thinking at a low level -- around 3rd grade level of maturity and competence.

From May 1 to December 15, leading Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump lapped the rest of the field in interview airtime on Fox News. Trump's 22 hours and 46 minutes of airtime was more than twice as much as any other candidate during the period studied. Trump racked up more airtime on the network than Sen. Ted Cruz, former Gov. Jeb Bush, and Sen. Marco Rubio combined.
Interviews with the Republican field have been a near-constant fixture of Fox News' programming during the second half of 2015, and The Fox Primary is showing no signs of slowing down as we approach 2016 and the first primaries.
So far this cycle, the network has already surpassed coverage of the 2012 campaign season: During the period studied, Fox News aired more than 117 hours worth of interviews with Republican candidates. Over a similar time frame (June 1 to January 22, 2012), Fox devoted 77 hours and 24 minutes to interviews of the then-candidates. (The disparity is even more striking considering the 2012 report included appearances on Fox News' sister network, Fox Business.)
Lagging well behind Trump were New Jersey Governor Chris Christie, former Arkansas Governor and former Fox News host Mike Huckabee, Florida Senator Marco Rubio, and former Hewlett-Packard CEO Carly Fiorina, who round out the top five. Each spent less than 10 hours on Fox over the same time period

T'is the Season to Abandon Reason - The Conservative Christmas War on Freedom and the Constitution

For those of you who missed me, I'm back after an approximately two months hiatus.

This will serve as my holidays post - covering Christmas and the Solstice.

I am heartily sick this December of two thing - the excessive Star Wars hype, and the false claims about a war on Christmas (or Christians). There is nothing I can do about either, other than vent my vexation here. Star Wars hype will eventually subside in satiation; the effort to continue the manipulation of conservatives and the false and faulty screeches of fake victims will continue. But for the interim, it very much feels as if Star Wars has substantially hijacked the holidays.

There is no war on Christmas or Christians in the United States, and precious little effective war on Christians anywhere else.

There IS, however, something I can do about the Conservative War on Freedom  and their attacks on intelligent, informed thinking. It seems particularly apt as my first returning topic, given a brief browse of faulty claims and sloppy propaganda made by local conservative bloggers as I sit down to my computer to write.

Specifically, I am joining here in the protest against -- where else? -- Texas conservatives and their hatred of our constitution, in spite of all the lip service they give that document. Part of my objection is a continuing pet peeve when it comes to fake sources and especially inaccurate attribution of quotes in support of propaganda.

When I saw the image below, the one that bigot governor Abbott saw fit to remove as offensive, what I was reminded of was the opening line to the Gettysburg address:

FOUR SCORE AND SEVEN YEARS AGO OUR FATHERS BROUGHT FORTH ON THIS CONTINENT A NEW NATION CONCEIVED IN LIBERTY AND DEDICATED TO THE PROPOSITION THAT ALL MEN ARE CREATED EQUAL

Apparently those who are elected by ignorant conservatives are not equally well educated in American history -- especially historically accurate quotations.

Hat tip to the Free Thinker for this one, and the Dallas Morning News:

Nativity display created by the
Freedom from Religion Foundation,
which Gov. Greg Abbott demanded
be removed from the Capitol grounds.

Staff at the Texas Capitol on Tuesday removed an exhibit that Gov. Greg Abbott said mocked religion without contacting the organization that sponsored the faux nativity display that replaced baby Jesus with a representation of the Bill of Rights.

The Freedom From Religion Foundation, an organization that promotes the separation of church and state, said it is reviewing its options to take further action against the state for the move.

“This sort of censorship is inappropriate and illegal,” said Sam Grover, the foundation’s staff attorney. Removal of the exhibit came after Abbott sent the State Preservation Board a letter saying that the display mocked religion and calling for its immediate elimination from the capitol grounds. 

The exhibit, called the “Bill of Rights Nativity and Winter Solstice Display,” was on the ground floor of the capitol building. In it, the bill of rights sat in the manger in place of baby Jesus, and it was surrounded by three founding fathers and the Statue of Liberty, which appeared to be worshiping the document.

...Abbott, in his letter, said the exhibit did not meet the requirements for display at the Capitol because it didn’t promote a “public purpose.”

And as observed by Patheos and subsequently the Freethinker, but sadly neglected by the Dallas Morning News, Texas Gov. Abbot did not merely remove a legitimate display supporting the separation of church and state -- which GENUINELY was a desideratum held by our founding fathers.  He went on to attempt to support his illegal act against freedom with a false attribution to George Washington.  I despise false attributions, particularly when a source is so well known to be false, and when it is so easily verified if they are correct.  When done by a governor, it is clear that the governor is either willfully too ignorant to fulfill the duties of his office, or he is a propagandizing dictator. 

It is entirely possible Abbot is both.

From the Freethinker:

Andrew L  Seidel, Staff Attorney for the FFRF, Freedom From Religion Foundation, said here that Abbott:
Quoted, at length, erroneous history to support his position. The quote comes from a fabricated prayer journal, misattributed to Washington.

In a letter explaining his decision to have the display removed, Abbott called the FFRF’s  Bill of Rights display “tasteless,” a “spiteful message … intentionally designed to belittle and offend” and charged that it is:

Far from promoting morals and the general welfare.

He even likened the Bill of Rights display to:

A photograph of a crucifix immersed in a jar of urine.

Frank Grizzard, an editor of the George Washington Papers at the University of Virginia, wrote of the book from which Abbott pulled the quote:

Tens of thousands of genuine Washington manuscripts have survived to the present, including many from the youthful Washington, and even a cursory comparison of the prayer book with a genuine Washington manuscript reveals that they are not the same handwriting.

Not only are the prayers not in Washington’s handwriting, they were not composed by Washington himself as Abbott claims.
To borrow from Gizzard, “Both claims are patently false”. That prayer book had been “rejected by the Smithsonian Institute as having no value” and even at the time it first surfaced, “others continued to challenge its authenticity.”
Other historians, such as John Fea, chair of the History Department at Messiah College and author of Was American Founded as a Christian Nation: A Historical Introduction, agree that this prayer book is not Washington’s:

It is also far too pious for Washington. In fact … George Washington only referenced Jesus Christ twice in all his extant writings and neither of them were in a prayer …

Seidel said:

All that vitriol, from looking at three founding fathers, the Statue of Liberty, and the Bill of Rights. One wonders how such disrespect for the Bill of Rights comports with Abbott’s oaths of office to uphold that sacred document.

We are a secular nation, and we should be a thoughtful nation which embraces freedom of speech, freedom of and from religion, and most of all we should, in order to remain free, push back at any attempts like this one of Texas governor Abbot to make encroachments that effectively create a state sponsored, endorsed and/or promoted religion.  Because when THAT happens, we ALL are less free than our founding fathers intended.

Oppose the tyranny, and the erosion of constitutionally guaranteed freedom promoted by the worst of conservative evangelicals attempting to impose a state sponsored religion.  Oppose ignorance peddled by conservatives in positions of power; the truth, and facts, are not on their side.

Terrorism, nothing else. When it's a duck, admit it's a duck

Over the weekend I saw a brief "interview" of a Democratic and Republican pundit on CNN.  They were talking about the shooting at Planned Parenthood.  The Democrat made his points and generally kept his voice at a normal level, the Republican, as I see so often, continually interrupted the Democrat and the "journalist", continually raised his voice and was quite frankly very successful at shouting down any objection from either the person from CNN or the Democrat.  His point was that the "Black Lives Matter" movement was just as much a terroristic threat as was/is any right-wing group.

The assertion, beyond absurd on it's face about the "Black Lives Matter" movement, is also absurd in that it sought to deflect any serious discussion about the growing trend of radical, violent action by right wingers to get their way through intimidation and violence.  That violence is committed against civilians with the goal to both cause fear and to shape political policy.  There is no better definition of terrorism than that.  Robert Lewis Dear shot up the place, killed two civilians and a police officer to "no more baby parts" (sold) by Planned Parenthood.  That Mr. Dear is following a widely debunked meme' of the far right makes no dent on him, nor on the far right.  His ideology is that of the far right as evidenced by his acquaintances and his commentary.  It is so obviously so that Ted Cruz sought to perpetrate the big lie by calling him a "transgendered leftist."  Now, of course Mr. Cruz needed to somehow wrap in some attack on the idea of sexual identity, as if it had anything at all to do with this attack, but there is no evidence whatsoever that this guy was gender-neutral, seeking a gender change, was a transvestite or in any other way was transgender.

Per the NY Times (via ThinkProgress.org)       

       

Republican presidential candidate Ted Cruz is the latest presidential candidate trying to downplay the role anti-abortion rhetoric may have played in motivating the Planned Parenthood shooting in Colorado Springs Friday afternoon. When a reporter asked him at an Iowa campaign stop Sunday evening about suspect Robert Lewis Dear saying he was motivated by “no more baby parts,” Cruz countered that he’s also been reported to be a “transgendered [sic] leftist activist.”

Cruz explained, “We know that he was a man registered to vote as a woman.” This discrepancy on Dear’s voter registration was first reported by The Gateway Pundit, a self-described “right-of-center news website,” under the claim that he “identifies as [a] woman.” Conservatives have since run with the claim that Dear is transgender.

There is actually no evidence to suggest that he is transgender, nor a “leftist,” nor any kind of activist. In fact, all of the available information suggests he was none of those things.

As the New York Times explained, Dear was very much a recluse, the type “that preferred to be left alone,” living in various single-wide trailers and cabins since his divorce in 2000. Neighbors did not know him well, and if they did, it’s because he would lash out at them when they tried to interfere with his business, like reporting him for mistreating his dogs.

The Times’ profile also identifies him as “generally conservative,” having been raised as a Baptist, but as someone who did not discuss politics much. According to his ex-wife, “he believed wholeheartedly in the Bible” and believed that abortion was wrong. He also distributed pamphlets criticizing President Obama to his neighbors in Colorado. On the voter registration form with the gender discrepancy, his party is listed as “UAF,” meaning unaffliated.

None of the people interviewed about Dear had anything to say about his gender identity. Nothing about his appearance nor any past reports of his identity suggests that he identifies as a woman. The voter registration form identifying him as female is the only discrepancy, making it most likely a typo and nothing more."

So, based on a typographical error on his voting record, despite the fact that he was married, despite the fact that there was no other evidence and despite the fact that on a couple of key issues AND the fact that the man distributed anti-Obama pamphlets, somehow Cruz can try to say with a straight face that Dear was "trangered" and a "Leftist Activist."  It's appalling conduct by Cruz.  It points to a man willing to say ANYTHING, repeat ANY lie, show that he has precisely zero morality when it comes to getting his way, and in that, he is the perfect example of how far off the rails the far right in this country has gone.

Cruz is playing to a base that laps up this kind of fomented rhetoric.  The kind that believes BS videos clipped together over years of interviews, like the O'Keefe videos, paid for by unidentified and quite likely wealthy backers, intentionally edited to mislead.  They hear the evidence about these falsehoods, but they just don't care.  They BELIEVE them to be true.  Like Mr. Dear does. 

Yesterday a FOUR men in Minneapolis were charged with various crimes related to their alleged shooting and shooting at several people at a Black Lives Matter demonstration.  It wasn't the demonstrators who were violent (though a few have been elsewhere), it was angry white guys with guns (and apparently for at least one, a license to carry).  The contention of the Republican pundit on CNN was that the movement itself was terroristic, yet his justification was made based on the actions of a couple of people who were angry demonstrators who lashed out in apparently unplanned acts, lashing out against harsh police responses.  Hardly similar to planning and then shooting up a clinic, or blowing it up, or assassinating a doctor, all done to make the people who perform legal medical procedures afraid to do so OR showing up at a political rally and shooting at people to "show them who is boss" or otherwise intimidate.  By contrast, the justification others have used to claim the BLM movement is terroristic is a video of some members of the movement shouting "Pigs in a blanket, fry em' like bacon." Of course, they DIDN'T bother to report about that video that it was done in jest in a conversation with a police officer.  They didn't also bother to report that no one actually DID fry any police officers.  While there is a growing sense of frustration with the enormous inequality in treatment of blacks by our justice system, the rhetoric and actions of people in the BLM movement has been widely AGAINST violent response and as far as I can find, no one, not one person directly affiliated with the BLM movement has been charged with a terrorist act.  A handful have been charged with clashing with police, but that's hardly the same as killing people to intimidate.  Unless we are going to start claiming that protest is terrorism, the BLM movement is about as close to terrorism as is the NRA, or the Tea Party, or the Open-Carry movements.  There are members who've done bad things, but the movements don't own those acts.  And, at least in the case of the BLM movement, they denounce the actions of the far right.

Yet, there are people in the far right who are not only willing to engage in deceptive rhetoric, they saying "something must be done", and through that rhetoric, they provide motivation/justification to the 1% of that fringe that are willing to engage in violence.  Furthermore, by attempting to shift the debate to supposed bad acts by the likes of the BLM movement, they certainly appear to be saying, "well, YOU'RE doing it, so why it is bad if other do so as well?"  Or at least saying, the left is doing it, which gives justification to violence by the right (albeit false justification), to retaliate, after all, they can claim, "We didn't start it."  Yet, the similarities aren't there, and even if they were, violent reprisal is STILL terrorism. 

Regardless of the rhetoric, it is time for the right wing (meaning the Republicans who are now so far to the right that they are virtually all the far right), it is time for the Republican party to admit that the far right has a terrorism problem.  It is true that it is a tiny, tiny fraction, but it is also true that it is THAT fraction, just like the tiny fraction of Muslims in Europe, which is engaging in violence for the purpose of political intimidation and change.  It is further time for them to stop trying to label EVERYONE else as a terrorist, it is time for them to stop using terrorism as their boogey-man, especially when they have a problem with their own base.  They have a log in their eye but complain about splinters.

The right wing has a terrorism problem.  It has fueled action by nut-jobs, and it is time that movement start being truthful about the fact that the REST of the country are good people (by and large), that blacks are almost universally law abiding, that whites kill whites far more often than do blacks, just like blacks kill blacks, and that it REPUDIATE the terrorist actions of it's nut-job fringe.  Failing to do so is nothing less than abiding terrorism.  And let's be clear, that IS what these attacks are.  They are violence and threats of violence "2nd Amendment remedies" to change the political landscape.  When a white guy confronts blacks protesting on the street, argues with them, and then gets out a gun to shut them up and shut down their protest, it's terrorism.  It's not just walking like a duck, it's not just talking like a duck, it's a duck.