Union Thugs Spouting Violent Rhetoric

Oh my mistake. It's community organizers. Still, since all Muslims are terrorists, who can blame them for hating those women and children?

Wink, Wink

Environmental obstructionists found a federal judge in Missoula that was willing to ignore the scientific evidence as well as the expert opinions of on-the-ground wildlife managers here in Montana. And he ruled last August that the grey wolf had to remain on the Endangered Species List.

When I first heard his decision, like many of you I wanted to take action immediately. I asked: how can we put some of these judicial activists on the Endangered Species List? I am still working on that!

Montana's Congressman, Denny Rehberg, in his speech to a Joint Session of the 62nd Montana State Legislature. Italics mine.

You Can't Rely On Amateurs

Listen, you want a mosque blown up? Don't be passive/agressive and repeat a message like "boy, it sure would be good if that Mosque wasn't there in Dearborn. Yep, sure would be good." Because you're only going to attract talent like this.

A California man is in jail on a terrorism charge after he was arrested in Dearborn for allegedly trying to blow up the biggest mosque in metro Detroit, Dearborn officials said today.

The suspect was arrested in the parking lot of the Islamic Center of America in Dearborn on Monday, while hundreds were inside the mosque that sits along Ford Road, police said. He came to the city because of its large Arab-American and Muslim population, police said.

Roger Stockham, 63, was arraigned Wednesday on one count on a threat of terrorism or false report and one count of explosive-possession of bombs with unlawful intent for possession of Class C fireworks, Dearborn Police said.

...Dearborn Mayor Jack O'Reilly said the suspect "had a lot of high-end fireworks."

"It was the max you could buy legally."

They were not "conventional explosives," O'Reilly said. "But at that level, those things misused are terrific weapons."

No, they're TERRIBLE weapons. You can get much better for less money if you know what you're doing. But people who know what they're doing have tight schedules and can't just go out for a weekend on a lark to blow stuff up. They need a little cash up front.

Listen, don't be fooled by Al Queada. They get one thing right and everybody is terrified. But most of the time it's just a buncha idiots and they fail. Don't use that model, if you want to get anything done. Ailes needs to go with one of the classicists, like Hitler or at least Juan Peron. Half-measures don't accomplish nothin, Roger.

Beyond The Red Horizon

Predictably there has been a little soul-searching among Republican thinkers as the result of all the ground lost on Tuesday's election. Where did we go wrong, they cry! Some blame Sarah Palin; others think it was chiefly McCain. Nearly everyone blames Bush. If there's any concensus, it's that Republicans have to return to the Reganesque principals of small government and lower taxes. At the risk of sounding snarky, it's a hallmark of conservative thinking to look to the past for solutions. And often, it's valid. This time, I'd like to offer a view from outside the bubble.

You guys devote too much of your resources to hate and fear. If the Bush presidency will be defined by anything, I think it's going to be by the paranoid belief that the terrorists are EVERYWHERE, and we have to sacrifice everything to stop them. And if the race to the white house was about anything, it was fear of Obama vs. hope for Obama. And hope, in this case, wins.

The hate button (it's next to the fear button, and it might as well be it as well) is an easy one to press. There is a common behavioral experiment where you put an electrode into a rat's brain, then hook it up to a bar which sends a stimulus to the rat's pleasure center. As soon as the rat learns that pressing the bar causes pleasure, it never stops pressing it until it starves to death. The difference between the electorate and a rat is this: they recognize when pushing a button over and over again starts to become unhealthy. Also, the electorate won't gnaw through your wiring.

I've been watching the reds for a while now, and I've never seen them as wingnutty as the last week before the election. Obama supporters will riot in the streets, even if he wins! Obama will abandon support of Isreal! He's the illegitimate son of Malcolm X! Not a citizen! Tear up the constitution! Take our guns! Look you guys, I'm not going to tell you to stop thinking that way, because frankly I like the idea of a Democratic majority in all three houses. However, since I don't like a SUPERmajority, I'm counting on you to sober up, be realistic, and stop looking more extreme than Code Pink. Be fearful if you want, just try to LOOK calm in public.

Pro-Obama Racists

Is THIS change you can believe in?

In an informal Esquire survey, three out of four white supremacists prefer Obama, while McCain is the clear favorite among black nationalists. (Sure, our methodology suffered from an extraordinarily low sample size -- limited to four white supremacists and one black nationalist -- but just because it wouldn’t fly with Gallup doesn’t mean there ain't a kernel of truth in there.)

Ron Edwards is clearly for McCain, and it's amazing that the journalist was able to get a quote by that time, because his head had probably exploded.

It's worthwhile reading, if you can stand to take a tour through the twisty tortured minds of proud racists. But it says a lot less about racism than it does about George Bush, and his historic quest to alienate every segment of the American spectrum. Man, McCain picked a bad, bad year to run as a Republican.

(h/t to Ben Smith at Politico)

Dammit, Now It's My Turn ***Updated***

West Hollywood Resident Refuses to Take Down Sarah Palin Effigy

The mannequin is dressed in brunet wig, glasses and a red business suit. Another mannequin dressed as John McCain emerges from a flaming chimney.

Chad Michael Morisette, who lives in the house, told CBS 2 News that drivers and bus passengers have been stopping to snap pictures of the macabre scene.

Morisette says the effigy would be out of bounds at any other time of year, but it's within the spirit of Halloween.

It's creepy rather than funny, it doesn't help, the dude should listen to the community and take the damn thing down, and fast. On the plus side, one of his neighbors has put up an effigy of HIM, which is a message I can support.

***Update*** Dude took Palin down, though he left McCain in the chimney. (Hat tip to WAMK. It's make nice with WAMK day here at KIRY)

Kudos to WAMK

For this, and most importantly for his brief and eloquent condemnation of it. Perhaps he's trying to out-moral me for my post earlier, but competition like that we could all use. And it's not like it's the first time either. (For the sake of clarification that last sentence is badly positioned; the context suggests that it means something other than I intended. Which is this: it's not the first time that WAMK has called out Republicans when the situation warrants it.)

Mark It With A "B" ***Updated***

The sensible thing to do would be to hold off until tomorrow on this story; then again, the sensible thing to do would be to find something more productive than blogging.

So a few hours ago this girl claims she was mugged at an ATM in Pittsburgh. The alleged assailant (a dark-skinned black man, 6 feet 4 inches tall, 200 pounds with a medium build) got $60.00 out of her, then noticed the McCain bumper sticker on her car, "became agitated" and attacked her and carved the B in her face.


One has to be delicate here because if this girl is the victim of a mugging then she's had a very traumatic experience. And it would be naive of me to claim that an Obama supporter isn't capable of this kind of violence, because it's a big country and the majority of it appears to support Obama. They're not all saints. Still, with all that, I don't think the mugger is the one who made a political statement here.


Before I go on, I want to point out that I'm not the only one who isn't buying it. Wonkette is rejecting it outright, and to her credit, so is Michelle Malkin. (H/T for the picture, Ms. M!) So here is our problem with the story.

1. The black eye isn't swollen. Normally so soon after blow, it would be. Miss Todd has refused medical attention, so we can't get more information about this.
2. The letter - why "B" and not "O"? Seems to me an O would be a lot quicker (thus avoiding the risk of capture) and more commonly associated with Obama.
3. Why such a light touch? Wouldn't someone perpetrating such a savage attack (remember, he was said to be agitated) draw a little blood?
4. And for god's sake, why is it backward?
   

On the other hand if you were a McCain volunteer, worried about the polls, you might consider faking an attack to stir up a little rage at Obama supporters, especially the dark-skinned black ones. The backward letter recalls a similar event that occurred in the eighties to Morton Downey Jr. His show was on the way out, and he claimed to have been attacked by neo-nazis who carved a swastika on his face; but it was backward. The subsequent investigation concluded that Downey had carved it himself while looking in a mirror.



I'll give Michelle Malkin the last word. God help me.


Hate crimes hoaxes — by anyone, of any political persuasion, and of any color — diminish us all.

***Update*** Just kidding, says Ashley Todd. "You're under arrest," reply Pittsburgh police. Time to put this one to bed.

Palin Supporters Will Kill Each Other Before They Get Around to Me

GRAND JUNCTION, Colorado — Heated words between drivers leaving Sarah Palin’s rally Monday allegedly escalated with one man brandishing a loaded handgun.Jack B. Cheskaty, 62, of Grand Junction, said he pulled a handgun because “he wanted to be ready for anything” in what started as a verbal spat between drivers in bumper-to-bumper traffic leaving Lincoln Park around 8 p.m. Monday, according to an arrest affidavit.

This kind of thing will never happen again once Obama takes away our guns! See, he's reaching across the aisle. From behind a riot shield, of course.

Michele Bachmann Is A Pussy ***Update***

Check out this transcript of Congressette Michelle Bachman on the Chris Matthews Show.

MR. MATTHEWS: How many Congress people, members of Congress, do you think are in that anti-American crowd you described? How many Congress people do you serve with? I mean, it's 435 members of Congress.

REP. BACHMANN: Right now --

MR. MATTHEWS: How many are anti-American in the Congress right now that you serve with?

REP. BACHMANN: You'd have to ask them, Chris. I'm focusing on Barack Obama and the people that he's been associating with. And I'm very worried about --

MR. MATTHEWS: But do you suspect that a lot of people you serve with --

REP. BACHMANN: -- their anti-American nature.

MR. MATTHEWS: Well, he's a United States senator from Illinois. He's one of the people you suspect as being anti-American. How many people in the Congress of the United States do you think are anti- American? You've already suspected Barack Obama. Is he alone, or are there others? How many do you suspect of your colleagues as being anti-American?

REP. BACHMANN: What I would say -- what I would say is that the news media should do a penetrating expose and take a look. I wish they would. I wish the American media would take a great look at the views of the people in Congress and find out, are they pro-America or anti-America? I think people would love to see an expose like that.

Way to leave us hangin', Michelle!

Though she's too chicken to come out and say it, I'm guessing from the rest of the conversation that the anti-American ones are the Democrats. Who comprise over half of Congress nowadays. And just like there are pro-American parts of the country and anti-American ones (the pro-American ones are where Sarah Palin can draw a decent-sized crowd for a rally after security has teased out the reporters and people with controversial t-shirts) there is a sizable portion of this country which, in her view, supports terrorism against this country. In fact, it's a slight majority if you read the polls.

From my perspective, I happen to know this isn't true. We're not against America. We're anti-Michelle Bachman.

And it's pretty obvious to me that the rest of the Republicans think like her (look at the campaign ads!) I'm also opposed to the rest of those guys.

And you might say that espousing views like she (they) is espousing is dangerous, that it could lead to hate speech and violence, and unrest.

Republicans want to destroy America.

***Update*** The polls are out - Bichelle McPrawn was doing pretty well last week, but now she's down 3 points against a german elf; all because Chris Matthews tricked her into saying something nationally that she's only been saying to the base. Well, she hasn't lost yet. 

One thing's for sure - if you run a right-leaning interview show you're going to be booked solid for the next two weeks, because these guys can't talk to the normals.

At Last, The Tone Softens

See this, from outside the Obama speech in Ohio? A week ago, before John McCain started calming the rhetoric, the sign would have read:

OHIO CHRISTIANS !AGAINST! BABY-MURDERING MUSLIM TERRORISTS FOR PRESIDENT.

Admittedly the decision may have been made because they can no longer afford signs that big.

-h/t FiveThirtyEight

Republican Anger: A Helpful Guide

Text below, if you're un-post-literate.

Recent news coverage, especially of certain political rallies, has left the impression that Republicans are a bellicose, furiously bloodthirsty bunch of people. This is absolutely not true; besides, they can't help it. They're outraged! 

Still, how can you tell when they're a little outraged, versus when they're going ballistic? It's simple if you have the right tools! I give you the Republican outrage meter!

The outrage meter has four settings. Three of them apply to Democrats. The first setting: pegged.

This is the lowest setting.

Coincidentally, the second setting looks the same, but it's higher. It's "Pegged, but we're furious that we can't rip off the cover and pull the peg out with our teeth so the needle could go even farther."

The third setting looks like the first two: "The meter itself, by not allowing us to go higher than pegged, betrays its liberal bias."

The fourth setting only applies to Republicans. It's at zero or almost zero, or what they call "hey, what the hell, let's call it zero"; and it signifies that whatever the guy has done, lighten up, he/she's a Republican.

You may point out that there was a recent flurry of hate mail sent to certain right-wing pundits who suggested that Sarah Palin wasn't ready to be Vice President. This suggests that the meter doesn't work. The meter, in fact, works fine. Those pundits are now considered Democrats.

Some Of My Best Friends Are Racists

The Obama-demonization strategy is pretty firmly ensconced now, and has probably gotten all the traction it's going to. We knew the RNC was going to Demonize Obama, because that's how they deal with threats - they demonize 'em. Have you ever noticed that all the people to speak out against the president are fame-whores, have uncontrollable anger issues, are criminals, or just plain insane? Gosh, there has to be something WRONG with you if you disagree with us!

To summarize, Barack Obama must not be president because people he has associated with are filled with hate toward white people. Therefore he himself must hate white people too.

Oh, where do I begin?

Okay, the Wright stuff. Whatever Wright has said, no matter what you think, it doesn't follow that Obama buys it too. In fact, he's publicly repudiated it. Yet he attended the Church for so long - how could he NOT buy it? Well, there are Catholics who eat meat on Friday and practice birth control. There are Jews who drive around on Saturday not wearing those funny hats. In fact, there are lots of them. You go to Church to connect with God - sometimes you're gonna disagree with the guy giving the sermons while you're there. Does that mean you keep shopping around until you find a Pastor you agree with 100%? You tell me. I'm an Atheist.

Next this: Obama scandalously appears on the same magazine cover as Louis Farrakhan, Elijah Muhammed, Johnnie Cochrane, Luthor Vandross et all. Obviously Obama must be just like these people (Luther Vandross?) because his supporters think he is. This is a little crazy on the face of it, but let's throw a hypothetical out here, h/t to Ed Shultz. The KKK is likely to endorse John McCain and/or Hillary Clinton over Obama. So don't you want to vote for the candidate who isn't with the KKK? I mean, duh. In fact, we'll have to eventually replace ALL the white candidates now.

Still, the crazy guilt-by-association garbage is working with some people, and it's important to figure out why. There's nothing wrong with a candidate hating a group of people, as long as they're the right people. Obama says he hates nobody, but let's ignore that for now. If he hated Muslims, he'd be doing okes with us because they're our enemies after all. (All of them? Let's ignore that for now too.) If he hated homosexuals he'd still probably be just fine with the majority of Americans, who are either hetero or self-loathing closeted homos. But he's accused of hating white folks. Which I guess would include his own white half. So why is that bad?

Because it makes him uppity.

Look, I call 'em as I see 'em. This talking point at its base is a warning to black people to keep quiet or we'll make them sit at the back of the bus again, just before we throw them under it. How dare they think there is still Racism in this country? If we elect Obama, they'll never stay in their place.

Right wing readers, please please please convince me I'm wrong. I don't want to be right about this one.

The Use Of Torture

Tell them what you're going to say: The only legitimate use of torture is to supress freedom.

Say it: I've been kicking around Townhall.com again, looking for people to argue with. And James Biga, of Biga's Rants, has supplied me with with an epiphany. Today he put up a post entitled "Is The Use Of Torture Legitimate?" To his credit, he shows some ambivalence on the subject and indeed, decides that he wishes torture wasn't necessary. This is refreshing because he is so strongly anti-Muslim.

The main thrust of his argument is that sometimes torture is the only way to get information, and even if only 20% of the information you get from torture is accurate or useful, it's still wrong to not torture if it can save human lives. Call it the Bauer Doctrine, if you will. It's on this point that he and I differ. And good liberal that I am, I'm going to take the devil's advocate side and demonstrate the good use of torture.

Let's dispense with this information argument first. Pure nonsense. People will say anything to stop the pain. Sometime it's a betrayal of secrets, but surely in the vast majority of cases it's whatever the torturer wants to hear. Otherwise, why stop? So you're as likely to get dangerously wrong information ("the, uh, the bomb is.... under the bridge! Send all your men there before 4:00!") as useful.

I'm going to assume good motives on the part of the administration. Only super villains run for office to destroy the world. Bush and Cheney and Company are in politics to make a positive difference. I can't see putting yourself through the hell of politics just to secure an oil investment. So, assuming they're good at heart, and not stupid (also probably true), why throw away all that political capital and international good will by publically supporting torture?

Because torture, while being a lousy information extraction mechanism, is quite useful as a threat.

Sensible people, seeing dissidents kidnapped and then returned with burn marks and rope scars, will seriously weigh the options of speaking out. How important is it to say their leaders are wrong, really? Dying for an ideal is one thing, but enduring extended pain for it quite another.

I think that the neo-con agenda is aimed at calming the world, at creating peace through the United States' unprecedented firepower. For obvious reasons, this idea doesn't sell well on its face because it sounds so much like, you know, fascism. So instead, we are doing all this to "protect ourselves" from "terrorists", such as "the democrats". Ha ha, just kidding Ann C. And George B. And Karl R and Tom DeL. Guess I'll throw in Michelle M. while I'm at it, and RedState.com. I hope they keep that graphic up!

Since the idea of jettisoning liberty and privacy is distasteful to Americans, I can only assume the PNAC looked at the horizon and saw Islamofascism rising, and decided that their only good option was an American version. Am I right? I don't know, but this narrative sure makes more sense than the one they're putting out.

And no, I don't think it's a good strategy. Based on my myriad of assumptions here, this is a bold and unbelievably stupid strategy. I think the best way to keep islamofascism down (if there would ever be such a thing) would be to stop buying their oil, because their tourism and agricultural resources are somewhat more limited. But hey, what do I know? I'm on my way to an Atheist Camp any day now. I look forward to showing off my scars.

Tell them what you said: The administration is lying to us about why they want to use torture. They think they have a noble reason to do so. They are wrong.

Bias at CNN!

Proof that CNN has a liberal bias!

Proof that CNN has a conservative bias

So look, can we all admit that CNN has no bias, only a very bad graphics department?

Heritage Foundation Endorses Taliban!

The Heritage Foundation has published a study called "A Portrait of Family and Religion in America: Key Outcomes for the Common Good." Worth checking out. To summarize:

The study compares a number of social outcomes among four groups of teenagers: (1) those from intact families with frequent religious attendance, (2) those from intact families with low or no religious attendance, (3) those from non-intact families with frequent religious attendance, and (4) those from non-intact families with low or no religious attendance.

As you may imagine, the Foundation believes that teens in "intact families with frequent religious attendance" are less likely to do hard drugs, have premarital sex, and drop out of school.

"Intact families" are defined as families with two biological parents who are married or cohabiting; "non-intact families" are defined as families without two biological parents. For religious participation, "frequent attendance" indicates at least monthly attendance at religious services; "low attendance" indicates less than monthly religious attendance.

In the interests of science, the Foundation skips the most important detail, I think: the money shot. It fails to specify a religion. So presumably, the foundation is more in favor of a nuclear family of Muslim extremists than a single Christian mom, or a mom with a husband overseas fighting Muslim extremists.

Also a household run by lesbian ethics professors is probably not as good a conventional nuclear family, even if it is of church-going alcoholic snake handlers. And if you are married to an abusive sociopath, don't divorce him and marry a nice guy - he's not the biological parent, and it would bad for the kids.

Now a word about MY methodology - I am assuming that, like any study designed to culminate in a press release, the terms of this one were rigged to obtain the results that they wanted. If I am wrong, then I am quibbling with hard scientific fact. I don't know enough about science to judge the helpful pdf they link to so I'm going apply observation of previously observed similar phenomena to this situation to form a hypothesis:

The Heritage Foundation is feeding you a load of crap.

The Golden Age Of Racism

The other right-wing blog I frequent, NO LEFT TURNS, is having a lively discussion on the subject of Nativism. What is Nativism? Perhaps this comment will illustrate.

An America full of 100,000,000 new immigrants will cease to be America. Are you OK setting back and watching that happen?

This whole thread has surprised me because the site is erudite and intelligent, and usually well-reasoned. Then again, I have to admit that most racism surprises me; especially my own when it rears its occasional head. But this past year, racism is out in the open, flying its freak flag and proudly proclaiming itself to the world. Remember John Gibson on Fox News saying we have to breed, because otherwise the majority of Americans will be Hispanic by 2050? Remember anything Rush Limbaugh has said ever?

By the way, maybe the guy is right. The country has never recovered since the Irish and Jews moved in. Those bastards, with their corned beef hash and their matzoh!

The main issue is the ethno-cultural dissolution of our Country. In that respect, it actually matters little whether they are legal or illegal. We need to send back all the illegals that we can, build a fence, and place a moratorium or seriously limit LEGAL immigration. And the native population needs to have more babies.

This comment, by a guy who calls himself Red, is clearly the cry for help of a guy who believes that the world is white folks versus everyone else. Christopher agrees.

The "war on terror" will not be lost on the battlefield, it will be lost when Muslim immigration rises to the point of dissolving our culture (which is already under serious stress from the ’cultural war’). Progressives/liberals live in a ideal world created in their own minds when it comes to anthropology (’what is man?’) and the ideas of human relations. ...I believe immigration, particularly of a robust belief system like mohammad’s, will test us like never before...

I'm flabbergasted. How do you argue with people like this? As the Muslims thought, the war on terror is against their very religion!

I'm thinking that this is going to be a very unpleasant Century, and it's going to take a lot of reverse momentum to prevent a war-torn dark age. In fact, I'm only partially kidding when I suggest that maybe you should plan to segregate your family, with a couple of shotguns and a barrel of rice and a lot of water, just in case. Or move to another country - just not one that we don't like.