« March 2005 | Main | May 2005 »

Friday, April 29, 2005

Judges 2: Attack of the Phantom Religious Menace

Bring It On is excited about the opportunity to bring new voices into the conversation. Our Guest Author this week is Matthew61. His work can be found here. His blog is, in his own words, "Thoughts from a Baptist minister in Virginia who is trying to raise an alternate voice to the Religious and Theocratic Right". We hope your find his writing as poignant as we do.

Judges 2: Attack of the Phantom Religious Menace
I am eagerly awaiting the next Star Wars movie, thus the title to this entry.

There is an attack on Christians in this country. At least that is what I am being told.


According to James Dobson, Al Molher, and Bill Frist good Christians are under attack. I am so glad they have my faith at interest, because if they didn't I would have absolutely no idea that my faith was under attack.

"FRC President Tony Perkins said Democrats were using filibusters to exclude religious believers from the bench. Holding up a Bible, he told the audience, "What we are saying tonight is that as American citizens, we should not have to choose between believing what is in this book and serving the public."

And Dobson, whose commentaries are carried on about 3,500 U.S. radio stations, called the filibusters "unconstitutional" and "inappropriate." He said Bush's re-election in November means he gets to pick who sits on the courts."

Tony Perkins has set up a false dichotomy here. In other words Democrats' choice is not about choosing the Bible or serving the public.

But what he has done is a nice cornerstone for a theocratic regime, because if the American electorate truly believes that our choices are between reading and following the Bible and civil government, then we are heading quicker down the road of a government lead by religious leaders, that lead our government as religious leaders.

And second, Dr. Dobson saying that because Bush won re-election means that he gets to pick who is on the court is yet another sign that our country is in severe need of a Social Studies lesson.

No Dr. Dobson, Mr. Bush does NOT get to pick who goes on the courts, this isn't a kickball game at recess, he gets to NOMINATE who goes on the court and then the Congress debates. That is how our forefathers set it up.

Third, from the amount of frustration it sounds like ALL of Bush's nominations have been shut down by the filibuster. If you read the accompanying CNN story that is not true.

Only 10, TEN! Out of 205 nominations have been blocked by a filibuster or the threat of one.

Let me say that again. TEN!

5% of Bush's nominations are blocked.

Or in other words 95% get a Senate vote in a Republican controlled Congress.

I don't know about you, but 5% does not sound like an attack to me.

Again it seems that for the Religious Right 95% compliance is not enough. Only 100% total assimilation is acceptable.

And for those that claim there is an attack on religious beliefs seem to be invoking the name of God. For me that is a clear infraction of the second commandment, you shall not take the Lord's name in vain.

Of course the second commandment is not just about "cussing" but about using God's name for purposes that are not God's or using it for self-serving reasons. Leaders of the Right may not being saying "God is against filibusters" but when it is said that filibusters are against God's people, then you are invoking God's presence and purpose, for your purpose.

God is not mocked.

The true danger here isn't just democracy, but theologically. We are being lied to when we are told our faith is under attack.

Living in the United States we have the freedom to say, write, and blog what ever we think and feel. And yes even in public schools, although you might not be able to hold a Bible study during regular instructional hours, you can have one after school on school property. A lot of FCA groups can attest to this.

And to say that our faith is under attack here in the US is truly disrespectful to our Christian brothers and sisters in China, Korea, and other places where being a professing Christian can get you killed. Being a professing Christian here in the US means someone may just not like you, but you won't be killed by the state for it.

The real tragedy here is that we are being lied to. A false war has been conjured up to knock down a fake enemy.

When the Religious Right wins this fake war we will be under the rule of a Religiously run government.

And that won't be as great as it sounds, because then they will decide if you are really religious and how you are lacking.

I know that sounds far fetched, but lets think about our current situation. Senator Frist has said that people of faith are under attack, of John Kerry's or Ted Kennedy's Catholic faith doesn't count. And don't even think about Bill Clinton's church going or Jimmy Carter's faith, or anybody else that doesn't vote Republican.

Faith is being defined very narrowly and in doctrinal terms from the floor of the Senate.

We are in dangerous waters when a Senator is allowed to define who is the faithful and who is not.

Originally posted 4/25/05 at Thoughts of a Minister

Posted by Jet N. at 12:01 AM in Religion | Permalink | Comments (35) | TrackBack

Thursday, April 28, 2005

Nixon’s Secret Plan

Contributed by Dr. Forbush

In a discussion that is buried in the basement of the blogs I suggested that politicians lie to get elected. I used the example of Richard Nixon lying about his secret plan to end the Vietnam War. People throughout the US were sick and tired of this war and many of them thought that perhaps this “secret plan” would bring our solders home. As history tells us Richard Nixon won this election and the Vietnam War did not end until April 30, 1975 when the US pulled its troops out of Saigon. The nutty part of this is that one Right Wing supporter of Richard Nixon’s secret plan tells us that the plan worked, because Nixon was president at the end of the Vietnam War. But, history tells us that Nixon actually resigned August 28, 1974, before the end of the war. This means that Gerald Ford was actually president at the end of the war. Most people would think that the discussion would be over here, but some people just won’t give up. Somehow they must find a way to be right even when they are clearly wrong. So, the next nutty thing another guy did was to suggest that the war actually ended when the Paris Peace Accords were signed on January 23, 1973. If this is actually what this guys believes, then all of the solders that died after the Peace Accords were signed didn’t die in the Vietnam War. I don’t know what conflict they died in, but they should have their names removed from the Vietnam Memorial in Washington. I am fairly certain that veterans would not be happy with this idea. So, it comes down to admitting that you are wrong, or living up to the statement that you are making. To what ends are the

right wing nuts willing to go to to prove that they are right? Well, since its thirty years later and we have quite a bit of information that we didn’t have during the 1968 election we certainly know now what Nixon’s secret plan was. This was Nixon’s secret plan:

“Nixon's secret plan, it turned out, was borrowing from a strategic move from Lyndon Johnson's last year in office. The new president continued a process called "Vietnamization", an awful term that implied that Vietnamese were not fighting and dying in the jungles of Southeast Asia. This strategy brought American troops home while increasing the air war over the Democratic Republic of Vietnam (DRV or North Vietnam) and relying more on the Army of the Republic of Vietnam (ARVN) for ground attacks.”

So, Nixon’s secret plan was to continue using Lyndon Johnson’s strategy of increasing the air war over North Vietnam. I suppose that you should judge for yourself whether this was a lie or not. But, the way that Nixon presented this secret plan made voters think that there was something more than just continuation of the current policy in Vietnam. And, the secret plan did not work. The secret plan was not the Paris Peace accords, those were an after thought. Not only that, but Nixon even lied to Government of the Republic of Vietnam (GVN or South Vietnam) by telling them that they would not abandon them if they signed the Peace accord. This guy couldn’t stop himself from telling lies, but these lies are not the subject of this discussion.

Posted by The Bastard at 02:45 PM in Right Wing Nut | Permalink | Comments (11) | TrackBack

No Time to High-Five

It was with a warm heart this morning that I read the following line:

"You guys better get out of my way," he said. "Where's our security?"

That was "The Hammer" feeling a little testy after the House voted to overturn their gutting of the Ethics Committee rules. Not that the Republicans would admit that the rules were bad in the first place. That would be to much to ask. "We were absolutely right," said Rep. David Dreier, a California Republican.

I guess he must have meant his political stance when he said "right", and not changing the ethics rules to protect Tom Delay. He'd have a hard time finding any supporters there. Even staunch right wing pundits were starting to question the Solomon like wisdom of the the republicans there.  Have no fear, however the partisan bickering is still going full throttle. Somehow, us Democrats are to blame for not accepting the new rules.

"The Democrats remain absolutely unwilling to compromise," said Rep. Doc Hastings, a Republican of Washington and the committee chairman. "It is severely damaging to this institution for the other side of the aisle to keep the doors locked on the ethics committee."

Hmm was it as damaging as it was when you violated long standing practices in the House, and forced through the changes without the approval or consultation  of the minority?  I mean that would be pretty damaging.  Heck that might even make a mockery of the whole Ethics Committee.

Was it as damaging to the House as it was when Denny Hastert "appointed" you to head the committee in place of Joel Hefley,simply because he dared to admonish Tom Delay 3 times for ethical "lapses"?

Oh wait I forgot that had nothing to do with Tom Delay at all. Just listen to Tom, he had no role in it.

"This has been the speaker's project all along," he said.

Right Tom. Charlie McCarthy was less of a pupet than Dennis Hastert is. Your sincerity rings through loud and clear. You control the House with an iron fist, and few people in your party dare oppose you. That is how you earned your nickname isn't it?

And that's what worries me. The draconian way Tom Delay runs the House is why we shouldn't be cheering over this turn of events. In some ways, this is worse.


Because the part that wasn't repealed was the makeup of the committee. The republicans still have it stacked with peoples like Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX), who is closely linked to Tom DeLay and last year donated $10,000 to his legal defense fund.  And Smith isn't the only member of the ethics panel who opened his wallet for DeLay, yet will have to sit in judgement of him.  Rep. Tom Cole also donated $5,000 to help defray DeLay's mounting legal bill for his ethics problems.

What's more, four of the five Republicans on the ethics panel have received contributions from DeLay's federal action committee, Americans for a Republican Majority (ARMPAC).

Does that sound like a fair place to conduct an investigation? If this were a jury, someone would be guilty of tampering. What worries me, and should worry you, no matter what side of you take, is that a kangaroo court will somehow legitimize possibly unethical or illegal conduct. This matter deserves an independent council to investigate it. Hopefully someone a little less purient than Ken Starr, but someone just as dogged. If Mr. Delay has nothing to hide, he should relish the chance to clear his name once and for all.

Posted by Cranky Liberal at 02:39 PM in Politics | Permalink | Comments (6) | TrackBack

Wednesday, April 27, 2005

Progressive Politics

When people are introduced to politics they don’t usually get a couple of lectures on each type of politics and asked to decide which group they would like to throw their support behind. Many people never really hear both sides of the argument in a non-biased way. This is because politics is biased by nature. If someone is interested in politics enough to tell you about politics they will tell you their side of the story. This can be done in two different ways.

The first way is to tell you all the bad things about the other group. They can go on about this for hours, because it’s always easy to find bad things about people if you look hard enough. The second way is to tell someone all the good things about your group. This is an equally valid way to present your argument, but it takes more time and it is generally nuanced with details that most people don’t care about. It is quite easy to come up with denigrating slogans that make fun of the other side, but it is more difficult to condense your view of the future under the leadership of a political party into a few meaningful words.

So, it comes down to politics is like religion. Someone tells you about a political way of thinking, but they don’t tell you the rest of the story. It could be your parents or your peers. You could even read about politics in books or watch political commentary on your favorite news channel. But, no matter where you learn about politics it’s usually biased in some way. I am no different, so I thought that I’d describe some of the positive aspects of progressive politics.

Progressive has several definitions, but they are all generally referring to the same concept. The first three are here:

1. Moving forward; advancing.
2. Proceeding in steps; continuing steadily by increments: progressive change.
3. Promoting or favoring progress toward better conditions or new policies, ideas, or methods: a progressive politician; progressive business leadership.

So, the idea is to move forward and make things better. This means that in order to move forward and make things better we must make two assumptions. We need to assume that things are currently not as good as they could be, and we must assume that there is a way to make them better.

This is opposed to conservative ideology that assumes that things are very good now, unless of course there are things that have recently changed for the worse.

So, the progressive ideology must look for the things that need to be improved and decide which are the most important things that need to be changed and prioritize the importance of changing these things. Once the most important issues are identified a plan is needed to improve the problem.

Most people usually find themselves on different sides of the fence on different issues. It would certainly be irrational to change everything because changing everything without a good plan would be irresponsible. It is equally irresponsible to refuse to change anything or change everything back to some known “good” time based on the idea that everything that the government is doing is working perfectly well or worked well at some previous time in history. In real everyday politics we know that there are only a few issues that are being debated and considered and they come down to the issues of how we should take care of the poor, working class, and the wealthy classes when it comes to economics.

When it comes to ethical laws should they be determined by religion as they were in the past, or should we create a new way of creating ethical laws based on what is best for a multicultural multi-religious society. Conservatives believe that religion has done a good job in the past and we should rely on tradition to dictate laws. Progressives believe that religious ethical ideas are arbitrary from religion to religion and a better law that encompasses many religious ideas would be better and each person is still free to observe there personal religious laws under these laws. Progressives ask the questions: “Why should one religion hold more influence than other religions in this multi-religious society. Likewise, why should one cultural perspective dictate one perspective to see the world?”
In addition to economics and ethics, the preservation of our environment has also been a crucial issue among progressives. Progressives believe that the current rates of consumption of natural resources can not be sustained. If we want to live in a clean future we need to consider how we are going to get to that future. Conservatives believe that they don’t see any problems with the current course and when they do they will be able to correct the course by economics. Progressives believe that change now is cheaper and easier than changes further down the road.

Almost any issue in today’s politics stems in some way from these three issues, the three E’s. Education, crime, drugs, guns, and war all come from these issues in one way or in more than one way. Education leads to opportunity and a way out of the economic despair that the poor regularly experience. How much money we should contribute to each of these issues falls out of the economics of the issues. The ethics of protecting our children from temptation and danger stem from the ethics issues. When we should fight wars with weapons or words also stems from the ethics of protecting our nation verses ethics or protecting the innocent citizens of other countries and the world. One could even argue that the protection of the environment and the economics of the classes are themselves actually descendent from the over arching ethics, and conservatives do argue this way. But I would say from a society point of view these issues rise to the same level ethics because society must have a “good” environment and a “good” economics in which to prosper just as we should have “good” ethics. I would also say that which industries get tax breaks are economic issues but not necessarily ethical issues.

Since, make progress on these issues is not guaranteed and quite often different ways of improving our life require experiment and trial and error progressives are sometimes painted as flip-floppers by the conservatives. This is because the effects of change are not always known with certainty. But, with progressives the vision is known even if the path is not known. With conservatives the path and vision have been lived before and to change it in hopes of improvement are too risky. Conservatives by definition avoid risk.

The above paragraph illustrates how progressive politics offers the traditional American vision of a great future based on taking risks. This is the spirit of the colonists and the pioneers. In my view it is quite sad that America has taken a step backward to take less risk out of the fear that risk may yield failure. In fact, many of the working class Americans that have been lured to follow the conservative ideology don’t actually realize what this means for their vision of the future. Conservatives would like to change the economy back to the times before regulations and unions. They are looking back to the 1890s or 1920s as the golden years. We should remember that these were the years where corporations exploited workers and unions rose up to fight this exploitation. The wealthy class lived in style with servants and didn’t associate with the lower classes. Prohibition was a law that effected the working class, but not the wealthy who had alcohol shipped in to private parties.

The point is that Progressive Politics offers a clear and bright future with calculated risk. Conservative politics offers more of the same, or actually turning the clock back to nostalgic times of the wealthy which offers less risk to the wealthy and ironically more risk to the working class and the poor.

Cross posted at Dr. Forbush Thinks

Posted by Dr. Forbush at 06:01 PM in Politics | Permalink | Comments (16) | TrackBack

Excuse Me? Care to Provide Proof?

Contributed by The Crank Liberal

Trolling though the Google News page today, I stumbled across the following tidbit over at American Daily:

Bill Clinton flooded the federal judiciary with liberal activist judges. If an attempt to legislate from the bench is made--it is a safe bet it came from a Clinton judge. The Clinton judges are made up largely of under-qualified, left wing activists. They are tearing this country apart at the seams. They frequently hand down decisions which present an assault upon the family and traditional values. They ignore the law in favor of leftist agendas.

Now that was a tidbit I didn't know. Did you realize that Bill flooded the judiciary with liberal activist judges? Well that's funny since so many (at least 60) of President Clinton's nominees were blocked by the Republican led Senate. That's why in March of 2000, there were 73 judicial vacancies (10% of the total) because Mr. Clinton stacked the courts with unqualified candidates. That's why the appellate court that ruled against Terry Schiavo and the Supreme Court that failed to hear her case - even though we know that in both cases we had a conservative majority. Yep, all President Clinton's fault.

I don't know what scares me more - someone believes such nonsense without doing some fact checking, OR that I found it on Google News. Blame Clinton for that, too.

Posted by The Bastard at 04:50 PM in Right Wing Nut | Permalink | Comments (6) | TrackBack


And Republicans insist they don't filibuster "much". The following diagram was put together by People for the American Way. Twenty-six of the filibusters prior to the Bush administration – more than three-quarters of the total – were initiated by Senate Republicans (click image to see larger chart).


Posted by The Bastard at 04:11 AM in Right Wing Nut | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBack

Tuesday, April 26, 2005

Activist Judges

Yesterday I swapped cars with my wife. Since the AM radio on my car no longer works I found that I could surf the AM dial for the 40-some minutes that it takes to get to work. I listened to Rush for a while, but his obtuse view of the world makes no sense, and it isn’t even worth arguing about any more. So, I flipped over to the local talk radio where the talk show host isn’t quite so radical. On the way home from work I also listened to the AM dial for the ride home.

I was inspired by one talk show host who pointed out that the radical right is being quite dishonest about its description of activist judges. This talk show host, a self proclaimed Libertarian, had no axe to grind with either side of the aisle. He pointed out that the radical right doesn’t really want to get rid of activist judges. The radical right actually wants to appoint activist judges that want to push the radical right’s agenda. This is normal for the party in power, but they are being dishonest about what they want and how they are doing it.

Take Bill Frist’s speech on Sunday. He is basically claiming that the Democrat’s objection to some judges is an attack on the Christian Faith. However, the ten judges that the Democrats oppose actually are activist judges. The ten judges as a group are being objected to because these judges have a history of interpreting the law to support the conservative agenda instead of following the law. This is exactly the point that the radical right makes against judges that imposed busing back in the 1960s and 1970s.

But, the case that the radical right used to crystallize support to “clean up” the judiciary was the Terri Shaivo case. There have been cries from the radical right saying that activist judges put Terri to death. Even in the one day of talk radio I listened to, I heard callers echoing the cry of Activist Judges putting Terri to death.

However, this is far from the truth. Most laws of the country and certainly the laws of Florida say that the husband actually is responsible for his wife. This means that the non-activist position on this issue is to support the husband. This is the law and to support the wife’s parents is certainly the activist position. If conservatives feel that there is a problem here, then there is a problem with the law and not with the judges. If conservatives think that the law should be changed, then they should change to law to what they think it should be. Perhaps they want parents to retain control over their children even after marriage.

I would suggest that this position is contrary to the Religious Conservative’s reading of the Bible. For example: Gen 2:24 “Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.” After the joining of these two people they become responsible for each other.

So, at every level of the court system the Shindlers asked for the judges to be activists. And, the radical right is using a case of consistent non-activism to claim that the courts are full of activist judges. To make matters worse they are trying to change the Senate debate rules in order to place radical activist judges on the bench. Then Tom DeLay has said that he will cut funding to the activist judges in Florida that allowed Michael Shaivo to let his wife die. And to top off the deceptive practices of the radical right they are publicizing this radical effort by calling it an effort to remove activist judges.

An interesting thing to note is that when governments grab for power they tend to go after the judicial branch. Of course this is because friendly judges will not prosecute crimes of the leaders who appointed them. If the radical right floods the courts with activist radical right judges, then the law will no longer apply to the leaders of the radical right. This issue is actually more important than most people realize, because it goes to the heart of our Democracy. People like Tom DeLay will be able to break the laws with no consequences, while people like Bill Clinton will face hypocritical abuse of power like impeachment for infidelity.

Cross posted at Dr. Forbush Thinks

Posted by Dr. Forbush at 08:29 PM in Politics | Permalink | Comments (10) | TrackBack

Radical Right Radically Misunderstands the Filibuster

From a Mark Levin fan site/blog. For those of you who do not know who Mark Levin is he is a conservative talk radio host on WABC in New York City.

Democrats spewing disinformation about Frist

The Internet is swarming with disinformation accusing Republican Senator Bill Frist of being hypocritical and dishonest for opposing the judicial filibuster, claiming he participated in the same type of filibuster of a Clinton nominee. The talking points say Frist filibustered Clinton nominee Judge Richard Paez in 1996. This NewsMax aticle, however, reveals the truth.

Democrats Perfect the Art of the Double Standard

Judge Paez was confirmed on an up-or-down vote. That is NOT a filibuster of a judge!

This lunacy got my attention when it showed up on my own

Where are the up-or-down votes for Bush's nominees? If we can't have an up-or-down vote because of the Democrat filibuster, then the filibuster rule for judicial nominees must go. It's as simple as that.

Ummm, I think you are a little confused about exactly what a filibuster is (color and emphasis on the line in the post added by me). You see a filibuster is the right of any Senator to take the floor and speak about whatever they want. Your buddy Strom Thurmond holds the record at 24 hours and 18 minutes and that was when he tried to block the civil rights act in 1957 (what a good Republican, I mean southern Democrat turned Republican).

To stop a filibuster you have to vote on whats called a Cloture Motion, this requires that three-fifths of the Senate (60 votes) must vote for the cloture. If this happens than the filibuster is stopped. If it does not get that support than the Senators can keep talking for as long as they want. When this happens the opposition concedes the effort or nomination is hopeless and withdraws the nomination.

The Cloture Motion is what everyone is really up in arms about not the filibuster itself, well in this case Frist wants to get rid of the whole process as it pertains to judiciary nominations. And guess what? Your buddy Frist on vote number 00037 in the year 2000 of the Lord our Christ voted against the Cloture Motion and for the continuation of the filibuster (he was one of 14 Senators to vote Nea). This put an end to the filibuster and brought the vote to floor for an up or down vote. And as we know Judge Richard A. Paez was confirmed 59-39 with 2 not voting and of course Senator Frist voted Nay to the confirmation.

You forgot one important word from the article you cited. You forgot "ultimately", "The fact is Judge Paez ultimately was confirmed on an up-or-down vote, though he had a majority of more than 50, but fewer than 60 votes." You see by forgetting that word your argument becomes a non-truth. There was in fact a filibuster, it happened just prior to the Cloture Motion that ended it and advanced the confirmation to an up or down vote.

To sum this all up, this move by Frist and the radical right is to not only silence the minority Democrats but also the moderate Conservatives. You see right now he would have to get 60 votes in favor of ending a filibuster before even going to an up and down vote. Frist knows he cannot trust some of the people in his party that don't share his radical thinking. But he can gaurantee 51 votes if the filibuster is gone and it goes directly to an up or down vote on the floor of the Senate. Hmmm, silencing the moderates of your own party, pretty sleezy if you ask me.

Posted by The Bastard at 05:42 AM in Right Wing Nut | Permalink | Comments (67) | TrackBack

Woman suffrage -- Because Men Wanted to Be Lazy

I have seen this type of post floating around on neo-con blogs for the last several days and it has to do with the following quote and how it is the outline for the grand plan of the Democratic Party.

Corrupt the young, get them away from religion. Get them interested in sex. Make them superficial, destroy their ruggedness. Get control of all means of publicity and thereby: Get the peoples' mind off their government by focusing their attention on athletics, sexy books and plays, and other trivialities. Divide the people into hostile groups by constantly harping on controversial matters of no importance. Destroy the peoples faith in their natural leaders by holding up the latter to ridicule, contempt and obloquy. Always preach true democracy but seize power as fast and as ruthlessly as possible. Encourage government extravagance, destroy its credit, produce fear with rising prices, inflation and general discontent. Foment unnecessary strikes in vital industries, encourage civil disorders and foster a soft and lenient attitude on the part of government towards such disorders. By specious argument cause the breakdown of the old moral virtues: honesty, sobriety, continence, faith in the pledged word, ruggedness. Cause the registration of all firearms on some pretext, with the view of confiscating them and leaving the population defenseless. ...  Vladimir Ilich Lenin

And well it is truly amazing where the neo-cons seem to be taking this.......

This must be the "mission statement" for the Democratic Party and especially the power brokers of the far left.

Anyway this reich winger thinks that the movement for women's suffrage was born out of men wanting to be lazy or at the least we helped advance it because we wanted to be lazy........

I am particularly taken with the phrase "destroy their ruggedness," as this has been one of this woman's pet peeves almost from the beginnings of the women's movement in the early seventies. The schools, the media  and political correctness have combined in our culture to produce an entire generation of wimps and turning many of the earlier "baby boomer" generation into what is generously called today the "metro sexual." The woman's movement was the biggest boon to the lazy and irresponsible man ever to come down the pike. Suddenly men no longer had to worry about being the "main provider" for their family, suddenly the idea of being the "protector" took on a nasty connotation. Oh it started with the little things like some women taking offense at having a door opened for them or a chair pulled out ... innocuous it would seem, but men became confused and befuddled. Should they or shouldn't they? Eventually they took the easy way and didn't.

Boy, I'm glad Susan B. Anthony fought to allow this neo-con to have the right to vote. She goes on to state smacking your kids around should probably be a constitutional amendment.........

We call in cops to handcuff 5 year olds or to taser 7 year olds because good old-fashioned discipline is now considered abuse.

Aaaahhhh, the good ole' days of belting little Jimmy around the house for getting a C in history class. Geez where did all the good times go? And last but not least this Re-pubic-an thinks the media doesn't report enough on the ruff and tumble side of GWB.........

I can't even begin to estimate the number of times I've heard news media types complaining about having to hike the hills and deal with the President clearing brush and doing "manly" things on his ranch in Crawford, TX. Ruggedness is definitely not high on the media's list.

WOW, all of this from a quote by Lenin. I'll tell ya, if I ever find this Lenin guy I'm gonna shake his hand because he really brings out the best and brightest in these neo-con, reich wing fanatic groups!

P.S. Any of you neo-con men even start in on "see they pick on women" crap I must remind you that this neo-con girl thinks your lazy!!!

Now get back to work!!!

UPDATE: Thanks to a little research by the first commentor on this post we come to find out that this whole rant by this rightie is based on COMPLETELY FALSE information. Thanks manojar!

Fundamentally Right has it all wrong too! But wouldn't you know it Jay over at Stop the ACLU gave the post based on false information a glowing review (from the comments area of the post)!

Jay- I must say, now that I've read the entire article and followed the links...this was very well researched and very impressive! Awesome job! Very interesting what the link about Jesus and self defense had to say too.

WOW Jay, it was very well researched? Hey maybe you could get this guy to write on Stop the ACLU, he should fit right in! Or prying1 how about you? You seemed to like the post too! Can he write on your site?

prying1- Thanks for this piece of the truth. I'm going to blog on your blog and hopefully send people here for the full taxt of your message.

Good when they get done reading the propaganda on your site they can go to Fundamentally Rights site and read some more lies.

Man, Eddie make sure the lies get spread far and wide! We need more people like you spreading the word.

Eddie- That was an excellent post, very well thought out and researched (as prior praise has already made clear). If we can spread this message to more and more Americans, we can start repairing the damage the ACLU and its allies have inflicted upon our nation and its very foundations. Please keep blogging!

But what about the damage your inflicting by the lies that you spread Eddie? Do those trump the supposed lies of the ACLU?

Posted by The Bastard at 03:33 AM in Right Wing Nut | Permalink | Comments (12) | TrackBack

Republican Party: Stabbing Rightward

How far to the Right has the Republican Party moved?  President George Bush Sr. used to refer to the Neocons as  "the crazies in the basement."     Fifteen years later George Jr. is not only in bed with the Neocons, they’re doing kinky perverted things with him that Hustler Magazine couldn’t even imagine.

Tom DeLay and some of his fellow reactionaries are threatening to impeach Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy.  Who appointed Kennedy to the Supreme Court?  Ronald Reagan.

A lot of  environmental and civil rights legislation  was passed during Richard Nixon’s presidency.  How’s that for contrast?  Nixon signed the law creating the Environmental Protection Agency, and Tom DeLay has repeatedly compared the EPA to the Gestapo.

Now check this out:

“Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and not clothed. The world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children....This is not a way of life at all, in any true sense. Under the cloud of threatening war, it is humanity hanging from an iron cross.”

Wondering which tree hugging socialist said that?  Would you believe — World War II general and 2-term Republican President Dwight D. Eisenhower.

Eisenhower also said:    

“In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex.   The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.”  Again, Eisenhower was a Republican.

When the CIA was first created — at the end of World War II — Republicans were the biggest opponents of the idea.  They were leery of having a government agency with so much power and secrecy.  Talk about a Big 180.  Sixty years later the Republicans are trying to expand the Patriot Act, and anyone who disagrees with them is a wuss and a traitor.

President Theodore Roosevelt  was an environmentalist (even though that term didn’t exist then).  During his presidency he established five national parks, 18 national monuments, 51 wildlife refuges and 150 national forests.

Roosevelt   also stood up to Big Business.      He said:  “We Republicans [must] hold the just balance and set ourselves as resolutely against improper corporate influence on the one hand as against demagogy and mob rule on the other.”  What, no genuflecting and groveling every time a corporate lobbyist comes a-bribin’?

He tried to balance things out between organized labor and the robber barons:  “My appeal for organized labor is two-fold; to the outsider and the capitalist I make my appeal to treat the laborer fairly . . . That is one-half appeal that I make. Now, the other half is to the labor man himself. My appeal to him is to remember that as he wants justice, so he must do justice.”  Again — as hard to believe as this may be — this was a Republican president.

Just try to imagine a Republican today — surrounded by Tom DeLay, Rick Santorum and that ilk — expressing concern about the military industrial complex, the environment or world hunger.  The shock!  The fury!  It would be like a tie-died peace demonstrator walking into a boardroom meeting at Halliburton.

If you’re young, or haven’t followed politics very long, you probably think the Republican party has always been this nutzo band of Taliban wannabes.  What — previous Republican presidents cared about the environment?  They cared about people and not just multinational corporations?  They weren’t trying to smother the judiciary and establish a Christian theocracy?  Who knew?

Something has happened to the party of Theodore Roosevelt, Eisenhower, Nixon, Reagan and George H.W. Bush.  Sometime after the 2000 election, the Far Right  fringe oozed its way into the Republican party, and took control.  And every time there’s any discussion of the party platform, the people in charge call out “Yo!  A little more to the right!”

How much further to the right will our government go?  This is almost too scary to contemplate, but:  in  twenty years, will we be looking back with nostalgia at the moderate, benevolent polices of George W. Bush and Dick Cheney? 

cross-posted at  Who Hijacked Our Country

Posted by Tom Harper at 03:19 AM in Politics | Permalink | Comments (27) | TrackBack