Gen. Jerry Boykin and Gen. Jack Ripper explain the nuances of Marxist infiltration and indoctrination

by Dave

You all remember Gen. William G. "Jerry" Boykin, dontcha? He's the guy who helped bring you Abu Ghraib and is even more famous for his his declarations during the Iraq War that the Christian God was more powerful than Islam's Allah.

Since his retirement, Boykin has been linking arms with a bunch of other theocrats, including Rick Scarborough and Janet Porter. Well, Kyle at RightWingWatch recently caught one of Boykin's recent videos, about the Marxist takeover of America under Obama:

I'm a Special Forces officer, I'm a Green Beret and I've studied Marxist insurgency, it was part of my training. And the things I know have been done in every Marxist insurgency are being done in America today.

Among the signs that we are now on the verge of a complete Marxist takeover?

-- The bailouts, which Boykin says "nationalized" large chunks of the economy.

-- Gun control, which Boykin claims that Obama is pursuing by agreeing to a United Nations small-arms treaty.

-- The hate crimes law, which Boykin claims is about being able to silence pastors and other critics.

And then, of course, the coup d'grace:

The final thing has been to establish a constabulary force, a force that can control the population. You say "well, we don't have that." Well, let me remind you that prior to the election, the President stood up and said that if elected he would have a nation civilian security force that would be as large as and as well-equipped as the United States military.

For what?

Remember Hitler had the Brownshirts and in the Night of the Long Knives, even Hitler got scared of the Brownshirts and killed thousands of them.

So you say "are there any signs that that's happened" and the truth is yes. If you read the health care legislation which, by the way nobody in Washington has read, but if you read the health care legislation it's actually in the health care legislation.

There are paragraphs in the health care legislation that talk about the commissioning of officers in time of a national crisis to work directly for the President. It's laying the groundwork for a constabulary force that will control the population in America.

Of course, one couldn't listen to this rant without being instantly reminded of General Jack D. Ripper. I obtained some documentary footage of Gen. Ripper and mashed it up with the Boykin video so you could do a comparison/contrast.

As Kyle notes:

Let me also just point out that Senate Republicans actually had Boykin on their witness list to testify against Elena Kagan at her confirmation hearing until they dropped him at the last moment.

Gee, I can't imagine why.

Let me also point out that Boykin is not only one of the brilliant geniuses behind Abu Ghraib, he also played a major role in the horrendous disaster at the Branch Davidian compound in Waco, Texas, in 1993.

What is not known about Waco is that the final assault plan was amended on the ground by the tactical field commanders on the very day of the assault. That alteration had been discussed and rejected by the FBI brass over several weeks. Nonetheless, the FBI HRT commander, Richard Rogers implemented the rejected plan via a loophole signed by Janet Reno the morning of the final assault on April 19. That alteration was identical to the gassing and demolition plan that two Delta Force advisors seconded to the Justice Dept. in a principals meeting of April 14. Those two advisors supported the rejected plan that was later implemented "hypothetically" in order to conform to the letter of Posse Comitatus law. I also have published a peer-reviewed article with this finding. It is based on government documents--all open source. The rejected plan supported by Jeff Jamar, Richard Rogers, and the two Delta Force officers resulted in a disaster that did not have to happen. It was an ill-advised tactical approach to a religious community that feared that Satan was attacking them.

Those two Delta Force officers were Peter J. Schoomaker and "Jerry" Boykin, now both top officials in the US Army in charge of military planning for the war on terrorism.

I suspect that if Sarah Palin ever wins the presidency, Boykin is going to be named her Secretary of Defense. Then the comparisons to General Ripper will become even more salient.

[Cross-posted at Crooks and Liars.]

Right-wing violence, threats are on the rise -- and getting a wink and a nudge

-- by Dave

This week's head-stomping of a liberal protester by a Rand Paul campaign official in Kentucky, as we noted at the time, really brought into sharp focus a gathering trend toward violence, threats and intimidation by right-wing activists toward their opponents that we've seen reach new depths these past few weeks:

-- Mentally unstable nutcases threatening liberal campaigners in Washington state, Illinois and Vermont.

-- A swastika-laden white-powder-terrorism attack on a Democratic congressman's offices.

-- Thugs hired by the Republican candidate in Alaska roughing up and handcuffing a reporter for asking questions at a public event.

-- Violent gunmen targeting liberal organizations after being inspired by right-wing talk-show hosts.

-- Republican congressional candidates who insist that a violent overthrow of the government is "on the table" if the 2010 Election fails to produce the desired right-wing takeover of Congress.

But of course, these are all "isolated incidents" that have nothing to do with each other, right?

Adam H. Shah at Media Matters compiled an even more exhaustive list from the past couple of years (though even it omits some incidents). Likewise, here's a helpful-if-not-100%-complete Google map of right-wing violent incidents of the past six months.

Amanda Terkel has noticed, too:

"It's been quite amazing over the last couple months, but really over the last two years," said Mark Potok of the Southern Poverty Law Center, which monitors hate groups and extremism. "I'd date this, in many ways, to the rise to power of Obama. Many people we saw coming with AR-15s to town halls and so on, and all of that. But I do think that it's gotten even hotter out there. I think the reaction to the stomping of that woman's head has been quite amazing. The idea that the guy could say that he needed an apology and that he's not being condemned by the political class from sea to shining sea is astounding."

While there has been an increased number of highly publicized incidents in recent weeks, there was also a spike in violence or threatened violence during the health care debate toward lawmakers who supported the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. People vandalized congressional offices and threatened to assassinate officials and their families. Rep. James Clyburn (D-S.C.) had a picture of a noose faxed to his office after he voted for health care reform. A former militia member named Mike Vanderboegh even proudly took credit for encouraging people around the country to break the windows of lawmakers' offices.

There has also been a significant amount of violence-tinged rhetoric coming from politicians. Nevada GOP Senate candidate Sharron Angle floated "Second Amendment remedies" as a "cure" for an out-of-control Congress. Last week, a Republican House candidate in Texas said a violent overthrow of the government is "on the table." Former Alaska governor Sarah Palin has taken some flack for using gun imagery after the passage of health care reform, telling her supporters to "reload."

What's particularly worrisome about this trend is the way mainstream politicos and media pundits -- all of the right-wing variety -- have simply shrugged, winked, and nudged at this behavior, as if it were to be expected. Rand Paul's lame response was only the tip of the iceberg -- or did anyone else notice that Fox scarcely even covered any of these events? Even more appalling is the way this kind of behavior is actually being encouraged by the violent and inflammatory rhetoric that has become part and parcel of American conservatism.

The embodiment of this, of course, is Byron Williams' Glenn-Beck-inspired planned armed assault on the Tides Foundation. As Williams put it:

"You know, I'll tell you," he says, "Beck is gonna deny everything about violent approach and deny everything about conspiracies, but he'll give you every reason to believe it. He's protecting himself, and you can't blame him for that. So, I understand what he's doing."

We had a similar Glenn Beck disciple problem here in Washington state:

According to publicly available documents filed in federal court, a cousin of Charles Wilson -- a Washington man sentenced to prison last week for repeatedly threatening to kill Sen. Patty Murray (D-WA) after she voted in favor of health care reform legislation -- said Wilson's "fears were grown and fostered by [Glenn] Beck's persuasive personality."

Wilson's cousin's comments were made in a letter -- one of 25 submitted by Wilson's public defender in which Wilson's friends and family attested to his character. In a sentencing memo, Wilson's attorney requested leniency, noting "[t]he period of time in which he committed the offense conduct is totally aberrant when one looks at how Mr. Wilson has lived the rest of his life."

Wilson's cousin, who is related to him through marriage, wrote in a September 17 letter:

What happened later with Charlie is something I think I can understand. He became basically housebound due to illness and his small world became even smaller. His brother got him a computer and he was able to stay connected with family. And he watched television and found Glenn Beck... I found Glenn Beck about the same time Charlie did. I understand how his fears were grown and fostered by Mr. Beck's persuasive personality. The same thing happened to me but I went in a different direction with what I was seeing. Rather than blame politicians for the current issues, I simply got prepared for what Glenn said was coming. I slowly filled our pantry as Glenn fed fear into me. I did not miss watching his show and could not understand why the rest of the world didn't get it -- Glenn became a pariah to me. But I was finally able to step away and realize the error of my ways. The media lost its grip on me. But it still held very tightly to Charlie.

While his actions were undeniably wrong and his choices were terrible, in part they were the actions of others played out by a very gullible Charlie. He was under the spell that Glenn Beck cast, aided by the turbulent times in our economy. I don't believe that Charlie even had the ability to actually carry out his threats.

George Zornick at ThinkProgress has more on this case. (We wrote about it way back when.)

You do begin to wonder when our liberal (ahem!) mainstream media will actually bother to notice. Today, I see they're busy worrying about UPS packages. Tomorrow it will be another Muslim thing, no doubt. Meanwhile ...

[Cross-posted at Crooks and Liars.]

Sharron Angle calls out her conspiracist army to combat the coming wave of Latino voters

-- by Dave

Warning, voters! According to Sharron Angle, Harry Reid is plotting to steal the Nevada election!:

Harry Reid intends to steal this election if he can't win it outright. As a result, we need to deploy literally dozens of election law attorneys and poll watchers to combat these tactics at a cost of nearly $80,000. That's over and above our current budget. We need to raise $80,000 and we need to do it RIGHT NOW, because even as I am writing this, Harry Reid and his Machine are trying to steal this election. I'm sorry that we have to come to you yet again and ask for you to reach deep and contribute, but we must.

Understand, EVERYTHING we have worked for in the last year could be destroyed by dirty tricks and criminal acts in the next 8 days. As Sharron's first line of defense on these matters I am absolutely committed to making sure this won't happen.

Of course, the Secretary of State subsequently issued a statement noting that that the Angle campaign "fails to cite any evidence of 'vote buying' in the State of Nevada other than reports to their election hotline about representatives of unions." It added, somewhat pointedly:

The statutes involved in this matter carry criminal penalties, and complaints should contain specific information, not conjecture and rumor used in support of a plea for financial contributions, as the foundation of the violation.

In other words: These are serious allegations. If you're going to make them, you need to at least have a smidgen of evidence other than your paranoias.

And these folks -- boy, are they paranoid. Indeed, one would have to call them "conspiracist loons". Consider the organization that Angle is now using to spread the word for volunteers to take part in Nevada "poll-watching":

In 2008, Angle's We the People Nevada PAC contributed $92,000 to the Nevada Action Coalition. The Coalition emerged this month as a player in alleging ballot hijinks by Democrats.

Coalition members recently advertised a "voter fraud" meeting and accused Reid of wanting to rig the race.

"Want to make sure Harry and his buddies don't steal this election?" an Oct. 9 web post read. "Then come to the training next Tuesday. We need lots of watchers, cause you know the dark side has secret plans for this election."

"Want to make sure Harry and his buddies don't steal this election?" an Oct. 9 web post read. "Then come to the training next Tuesday. We need lots of watchers, cause you know the dark side has secret plans for this election."

Last week, the group posted a second warning to members:

"I recieved (sic) a call...about a 'funny' voter machine at Tropicana & Hualapi. Seems when she voted for a Republican candidate the machine 'helped' by changing her vote to a Democrat candidate.

Moral of this Story...Report ANY voter irregularity to the Poll Watcher Hot Line. We need to report all suspicious activity as you know Harry's men are out to steal this election."

Well, just who is the Nevada Action Coalition? Funny you should ask:

NAC bills itself as "a group of ordinary American citizens who work to expose and stop the corrupt political elites that are giving away or selling our sovereignty for their own gains." They endorsed Angle and Republicans down the ballot.

The Coalition claims that the government wants to merge the United States with "the corruption, socialism, poverty and population of Mexico and Canada" and designate a section of Kansas City as sovereign Mexican territory, according to its website. It also asserts that Muslim leaders designated a yellow badge for Jews to wear, which was later copied by Hitler in Nazi Germany.

Indeed, you can read the NAC's page devoted to the North American Union conspiracy theory here. The NAC also promotes the utterly specious (and fundamentally racist) "Aztlan invasion" conspiracy theory, as you can see here.

The Nevada race is taking on an especially ugly facet: Angle is clearly doubling down on her openly bigoted anti-Latino campaign appeal, as evidenced by her latest campaign ploy: a fake 'Monopoly' game that bashes Latinos.

She really is an extremist who is happy to empower her fellow extremists. Moreover, this is almost guaranteed to make the scene at Nevada polling stations on Tuesday extremely ugly. Hopefully, election officials -- and especially Latino voters and their Democratic defenders -- will be properly prepared to deal with the ugliness.

Part of Angle's paranoia and desperation, no doubt, is fueled by her certain knowledge that the openly bigoted nature of her Latino-bashing will wind up backfiring and doubly energizing the state's Latino voters -- who in 2008 constituted 12 percent of the state's voters. As Reuters noted awhile back, those Latino voters almost certainly hold the election's outcome in their hands.

Of course, they're not showing up in the Nevada polls much, because all of those polls are land-line phone polls -- a technique that notably reduces the participation of Latinos and other minorities, who increasingly rely solely on cell phones, and thus undercounts them. Indeed, it seems likely that Latinos and Asians are being seriously undercounted in this year's polls generally.

Polls may show Angle leading now, but they are seriously flawed polls that do not take into account a likely Latino wave of support for Harry Reid. Which means that on the morning after Election Day, Republicans and Sharron Angle may well be sitting there wondering what went wrong -- and looking for Democrats to blame.

That, of course, is what this current game is really all about: It's setting up the excuse -- and the scapegoat -- ahead of time. Watch for cries of "Fraud!" to abound on Fox News next Wednesday -- especially if their planned takeover falls short.

[Jon Ralston knocked the "fraud" story down this morning.]

[Cross-posted at Crooks and Liars.]

Maybe we should just call this 'The Fox Election'

-- by Dave

Everyone keeps saying the coming election is a referendum on President Obama. I beg to differ. I'm beginning to believe that it's actually a referendum on Fox News.

Because, well, let's be honest: The Republican Party would be dead in the water right now were it not for Fox and its ceaseless efforts -- primarily through lying and propagandizing 24/7/365 -- at reviving the conservative movement brand.

Voters aren't voting for Republicans or a GOP agenda. They're voting for the Fox agenda.

I was thinking about this while watching our fearless fearmonger in chief Glenn Beck waxing apocalyptic yesterday on his Fox show -- which, as Media Matters points out, Beck is using as his own Get Out The Vote operation. Beck's show was full of warnings about the dire threat posed to the Republic by progressives, and how this election will reverse that course and refudiate progressivism.

But the best part was the little promo that ran near the end of the show, with the following script:

Narrator: On November 2, 2010, you have a choice. You can stand up for freedom and liberty. Or sit back and let the American Dream become a nightmare.

It's way too late for politics. Instead, vote as if your way of life depends on it. Because it does.

Vote for government by the people, of the people, and for the people. Vote Democrat, Republican, or Independent. But whatever you do, vote for Honor. Restoration. The Constitution. Vote for America.

This is just about the endpoint of the campaign that Fox has been waging for the past two years -- beginning the day after Barack Obama won the presidency in 2008. Think about it:

-- The engine of their comeback, the Tea Parties, is almost wholly a Fox concoction. Without Fox's endless promotions of the various Tea Party events -- and Tea Party figures, including its corporate overseers like Dick Armey -- the "movement" would have been nothing, a brief blip on the screen.

-- Congressional Republicans managed to maintain their discipline in uniformly voting "No" on every Obama proposal that came down the pike because Fox was there as a threat to anyone who strayed. And Fox's ceaseless propaganda against every Obama proposal certainly gave PR sustenance to anyone who stayed within the fold.

-- Every Republican candidate on the planet -- with the exception of the truly execrable Dan Maes in Colorado -- has gotten lots of free airtime on Fox to promote their campaign. Their opponents -- not at all. And what's been interesting is how these candidates have been able to use Fox to get airtime while refusing to speak to their local reporters at all.

-- The entire narrative of this coming election has been dictated by Fox. Is it any wonder that the conventional wisdom now perfectly reflects what Fox has been dictating?

Maybe it's just me, but I'm not quite there yet. I'm especially not ready to hand over governance of the country to a propaganda news network.

But it's obvious that we don't really have a Republican Party anymore. It's now a wholly owned subsidiary of Fox News. And that's who this election is really about.

[Cross-posted at Crooks and Liars.]

WTF? At Fox & Friends, Obama accused of 'injecting' race into debate with oft-told car story

-- by Dave

You have got to be kidding me:

Peter Johnson: You know, it's a peculiar and strange and haunting and really backward reference that we're seeing by the president. And what we're really seeing is a reference to the notion of being in the back of the bus. And that's a matter of sad American history, embarrassing American history. Rosa Parks in December 1955 changed the course of American history when she decided that she would not give up her seat for a white person. And ended the concept, across the country, of African Americans being in the back of the bus -- literally, metaphorically, in every way in terms of our society.

So now we have a president referring to this kind of malignant, charged era in American history, and saying, in a long narrative -- and it's incredible what he said -- that somehow the car's in the ditch, that the Republicans are --

Brian Kilmeade: He's told the story a million times.

Johnson: No, no, but it's incredible -- at the top of the ditch, slipping, ah, drinking slurpees, kicking dirt in the face of the president and others who are trying to get this car out of the ditch. And once the car's out of the ditch and the Republicans demand the keys -- 'You can't have the keys, but we'll let you sit in the back of the bus.'

Couple that too with the statement the president made on a Spanish radio show, where he talks about exhorting the Spanish-American community, the Latino community in this country to punish their enemies when they vote.

Kilmeade: And reward your friends.

Johnson: When we engage in this charged, strange, malignant kind of language, we are not moving forward. We are moving backwards, um, in this country. And it's a regrettable statement.

The American bus -- the American car is a bus and a car for all Americans, regardless of race, and regardless of party. And so we're allegedly in this post-partisan, post-racial era where we summon our better angels. To summon our worst demons and to go back 55 years and summon a horrible image of a courageous Rosa Parks fighting the evil of segregation -- to inject that again into our politics is a mistake. It's a surprising thing and I'm sure the president wouldn't do it again.

Soooooo. I guess RedStaters aren't the only wingnuts this desperate in their neverending search for proof, which they know fershure is out there, that President Obama and the liberals are the real racists in this mix.

Now Fox & Friends are in on the action. Can Glenn Beck be far behind?

But let's replay the tape, just so everyone can see what Obama actually says. The tellings vary slightly, of course, from venue to venue, but here's how he put it last week in Seattle:



Transcript:

Obama: Let me offer an analogy I've been using around the country. The Republicans took America's car and drove it into the ditch. And it was a really deep ditch. And it was really reckless driving. So afterwards we show up at the scene of the accident. The Republicans have climbed out of the car. Abandoned the accident. Patty and I, we're putting on our boots and we're going down and into the ditch. And it's muddy down there, and it's hot and it's dusty. But you know what, we know that we've got to get the car out, and so we just start pushing.

And Patty, even though she's small, she's tough, so she's -- [demonstrates pushing]. And even though I'm skinny, I'm pretty tough, so I'm pushing. And sometimes we slip a little bit. Sometimes it's not working -- but we're just staying on it, we're sweating it -- every once in awhile I look up, and the Republicans are up there on the road. They're just waving. And meanwhile they're going around whispering to everybody, 'They're not pushing hard enough.' 'They're not pushing the right way.' And we say to them, 'Well, why don't come down here and help push?' 'Naw, naw, naw.' 'Push harder, push harder.'

So we just get out and push. And finally -- finally! -- we get this car up on the road. The car is a little banged up. The car is a little banged up, it's gotta go to the body shop and get a tuneup -- but you know what? It's pointed in the right direction. It's starting to move.

And suddenly we get this tap on our shoulders. And we look -- who is it? It's the Republicans! And they're saying: 'Ah, we want the keys back.'

You can't have the keys back! You don't know how to drive!

The Republicans can come along with us, but they've got to get in the back seat -- where they can't do too much damage.

Have you ever noticed that when you want the car to go forward, you put it in 'D'. When you want it to go backward, you put it in 'R'.

OK, anyone there see a reference to "the back of the bus"? Or Rosa Parks? Or segregation?

Uh, no. Because it isn't there. Obama's metaphor doesn't even obliquely hint at these issues.

Indeed, you have to wonder if Johnson's hyper-sensitivity to any discussion of race has to do with the fact that it was Southern conservatives who wanted Rosa Parks to sit in the back of the bus.

Memo to Peter Johnson: A bus is not a car. Political affiliation is not race. The fact that you deliberately confuse the two -- using them, in fact, interchangeably -- tells us far more about you and Brian Kilmeade than it does anything about President Obama.

After all, the only way this little anecdote can even remotely be about race is if you equate the Republican Party with white people. And that, of course, is simply not true -- at least not according to Republicans. So who's being the racist here?

[Crossposted at Crooks and Liars.]

Rand Paul's lame response: Won't condemn or disavow assault by supporter, calls it 'unusual situation' UPDATED

-- by Dave

UPDATE II: The stomper has been identified as Rand Paul's Bourbon County coordinator, Tim Profitt. More details upcoming.

In the past, whenever violence has broken out at American political events, it has become standard practice for the politicians whose campaigns inspire the acts -- on both sides -- to disavow the people involved and swiftly condemn their actions, making clear that this kind of behavior is deeply antidemocratic and unAmerican.

So Rand Paul went on Fox News' America's Newsroom this morning with the opportunity to do just that in response to last night's horrifying assault on a MoveOn protester, and here's the best he could come up with:

Paul: Well, we want everybody to be civil. We want this issue -- the campaign to be about issues. I will tell you that when we arrived, there was enormous passion on both sides. It really was something where you walk into a daze of lights flashing, people yelling and screaming, bumping up. And there was a bit of a crowd control problem. And I -- I don't want anybody to be involved, though, in things that aren't civil. I think this should always be about the issues, and is an unusual situation to have so many people so passionate on both sides, jockeying back and forth.

And it wasn't something that I liked or anybody liked about that situation. So I hope in the future it's going to be better.

Hello? Notice anything missing there?

How about the words "condemn violence"? How about pointing out that this kind of behavior has no place in any campaign on either side? Maybe just a smidge of concern for the health and well-being of the victim of the violence?

Nope. Because, obviously, that didn't occur to Rand Paul. Evidently, the supporter's behavior wasn't condemnation-worthy.

As Steve Benen observes:

Here's a hypothetical: if large, male union members had grabbed a young woman who worked with Tea Partiers, dragged her to the ground, and literally stepped on her head, would Rand Paul be on Fox News saying "it wasn't something that I liked," or might his response be a little stronger?

Indeed, at certain quadrants of the wingnutosphere, they're busy defending, even celebrating the violence.

Contrary to initial reports that Lauren Valle, the woman being assaulted, sustained no injuries, our sources at MoveOn tell us that Valle indeed was diagnosed with a concussion and is being hospitalized for treatment.

One of the two men involved in the assault has been identified as an open-carry advocate named Mike Pezzano:



Police are now seeking Pezzano and his cohort.

So I wonder when our liberal media are going to notice that we have a trend going here, eh?

-- Mentally unstable nutcases threatening liberal campaigners in Washington state, Illinois and Vermont.

-- A swastika-laden white-powder-terrorism attack on a Democratic congressman's offices.

-- Thugs hired by the Republican candidate in Alaska roughing up and handcuffing a reporter for asking questions at a public event.

-- Violent gunmen targeting liberal organizations after being inspired by right-wing talk-show hosts.

-- Republican congressional candidates who insist that a violent overthrow of the government is "on the table" if the 2010 Election fails to produce the desired right-wing takeover of Congress.

But of course, these are all "isolated incidents" that have nothing to do with each other, right?

Alex Seitz-Wald at ThinkProgress has more.

UPDATE: MoveOn's Justin Ruben has issued a statement:

We're appalled at the violent incident that occurred at the Kentucky Senate debate last night. Numerous news reports clearly show that the young woman--a MoveOn supporter--was assaulted and pushed to the ground by Rand Paul supporters, where one man held her down while another stomped on her head. This kind of violence has no place in American society, much less at a peaceful political rally.


Our first concern is obviously Lauren's health and well being. She is recovering, and we will release more details as we have them. We are concerned that no arrests have yet been made, and we hope those responsible will be brought to justice quickly, and that Rand Paul will join us in condemning this horrible act.

You see, it's really quite simple. When you have a bone of decency in your body.

UPDATE III: The Paul campaign issued this statement:

We understand that there was an altercation outside of the debate between supporters of both sides and that is incredibly unfortunate. Violence of any kind has no place in our civil discourse and we urge supporters on all sides to be civil to one another as tensions rise heading toward this very important election.

Funny that Rand himself couldn't say these words, isn't it?

And we'll see if they back up the words with action -- such as firing the campaign official who stomped on the woman's head.

[Cross-posted at Crooks and Liars.]

RedStaters seem to be looking for ANY excuse to use racial slurs

-- by Dave

[media id="18567" embed="true" image="true" download="true"]

We all know that the wingnutosphere, particularly Andrew Breitbart, has been searching for evidence of liberal racism and anti-white bigotry on the part of President Obama and various liberal organizations for some time now. So far, the best they've come up with is Shirley Sherrod.

So here's how desperate they've become:

And Even STILL I Am Not Allowed To Make A Racial Slur About Our President? After THIS? AYFKM!?!?!?

I almost don’t have words…almost:

He said Republicans had driven the economy into a ditch and then stood by and criticized while Democrats pulled it out. Now that progress has been made, he said, “we can’t have special interests sitting shotgun. We gotta have middle class families up in front. We don’t mind the Republicans joining us. They can come for the ride, but they gotta sit in back.”

In the new post-racial America, brought to us by Barack “don’t call me black or white, just call me American” Obama, we have been told our differences are behind us now…just because he exists and… just because he is black. Yet, day by day and speech by speech, this President has done more damage to race relations than any combination of Presidents since Lyndon Johnson…and he, at least, tried to make things better with a sincere heart.

Were anyone else to have been caught on tape making these sorts of remarks, they’d have already been fired and given a 2 million dollar job contract with the competition. Oh wait.

The lack of outrage should surprise no one here. We were told to vote for him… not because he was black but… because he brought with him hope and change and the promise of a color blind society. He has delivered on none of these, instead making race relations worse today than they were before he was elected.

Excuse me, but ... WTF? Is this the first time this clown has heard Obama telling this story? Hell, he said nearly the exact same thing last week in Seattle, which is where we got the above video. And as we pointed out then, Obama has been telling this routine since at least May 14.

Suddenly now he has his noise out of joint? And over ... what, exactly? Somehow, the innate racism of Obama's remark eludes me. Is there some deeper racial connotation to sitting in the back seat we don't know about?

Besides, it's pretty clear that he's saying that Republicans have to sit in the back seat, isn't it? Or is Poff implying that the Republican Party equals white people? So just exactly who's being racist here?

BTW, I especially like Obama's closing bit here:

Obama: Have you ever noticed that when you want the car to go forward, you put it in 'D'. When you want it to go backward, you put it in 'R'.

Maybe that's racist too. We're sure Poff can explain to us how that is -- and how it now gives him permission to use racial slurs.

Indeed, given his headline, he sure seems as though he's just been bursting with withheld racial slurs against Obama. Dude, by all means, let it out. Better we know what you really think.

Though most of us can pretty much figure that out anyway.

[Cross-posted at Crooks and Liars.]

Now that she's not before a Latino audience, Angle unleashes another bigoted ad riddled with racial stereotypes

-- by Dave

I dunno, what do you think? Think these guys might be Asian?

Well, anyway, now that Sharron Angle isn't having to make nice before a group of Latino students, she's back to her old Latino-bashing race-baiting ways, as TPM reports:

"Waves of illegal aliens streaming across our border, joining violent gangs, forcing families to live in fear," the announcer says. "And what's Harry Reid doing about it? Voting to give illegal aliens Social Security benefits, tax breaks, and college tuition. Voting against declaring English our national language -- twice. And even sided with Obama and the President of Mexico to block Arizona's tough new immigration law. Harry Reid, it's clear whose side he's on -- and it's not yours."

As with a previous ad, the victims of illegal immigration -- in this case the families living in fear, and kindergarteners who won't grow up in an America where English is the only official language -- all appear to be white, and stand in stark contrast to the dark-skinned criminals illegally coming from the Mexican border.

Greg Sargent astutely observes:

Here's why this is important. As you may recall, when Angle recently came under fire for another immigration ad that pictured swarthy young men sneaking around, she distanced herself from it by claiming that the men in her spot weren't necessarily Latinos.

Angle even suggested her earlier ad was a reference to border security in general, claiming: "Our northern border is where the terrorists came through."

Now that her new ad explicitly shows the Texas-Mexico border, can we assume that her earlier explanation is no longer operative?

I think we can also assume her doubtfulness that the men in her ads are Latino can be declared similarly inoperative.

You know, one can only hope that this kind of ugliness works as well for Angle as that right-wing Latino-voter-suppression effort.


[Cross-posted at Crooks and Liars.]

Glenn Beck lies about authors of NAACP report on Tea Party racism, and refutes not a single fact

-- by Dave

It's been pretty interesting, waiting for the Right to respond to the NAACP's meticulously detailed report on the Tea Party movement and the way it has energized serious extremists, including many white supremacists, by helping them network and spread their propaganda and beliefs.

As we predicted, it's largely been a lot of whining and carping. So far, I haven't seen anyone seriously attempt to tackle the data and the facts gathered therein (though there have been some fairly predictable half-assed attempts by white nationalists). Instead, what we've gotten from the Fox crowd -- as we can see with Glenn Beck's stab at it on Thursday -- is that, instead of actually trying to deal with the facts, they're merely content to smear the authors of the report.

Of course, along the way, he lies -- baldfacedly, unashamedly, concocts "facts" out of pure thin air.

First -- largely reading directly from a piece at his website The Blaze by Meredith Jessup -- he attacks Leonard Zeskind, who runs the Institute for Research and Education on Human Rights, as a supposed "Communist" for his onetime association (in the 1970s) with the neomarxist Sojourner Truth organization. Then he slams Devin Burghart, reading this:

While working for the Center for New Community, Burghart participated in programs of the Center for Democratic Values, the think-tank arm of the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA).

Then adding himself:

Isn't it amazing that the NAACP would have the gall to cast aspersions on the people the Tea Party associate with when then they themselves are associating with Communists?

Well, full disclosure: Devin Burghart is an old friend of mine. Back in the 1990s, when he worked for the Portland-based Coalition for Human Dignity and I was writing freelance articles about the militia movement, we often traveled together to out-of-town meetings in places like Gig Harbor and Mount Vernon (Glenn's old hometown, as it happens). We have remained in touch over the years.

So I called him up and asked him about this. "It's completely false, completely fabricated," Burghart told me. "I have no idea where they came up with that." Burghart said he's never heard of the "Center for Democratic Values," and he's never had anything to do with DSA whatsoever.

Is this really the best they can do? If so, then why haven't the rest of the media paid this report any more attention than they have? Because it's becoming increasingly clear the NAACP report has the goods.

That's they're having to resort to personal smears. Otherwise they'd be trying to address the report itself and the facts contained therein.

As we noted last week:

If the Tea Party leaders were sincere and honest about wanting to get rid of any racists who might be attaching themselves to their movement, they would take this report seriously and respond to it forthrightly.

But they aren't. So they won't.

[Cross-posted at Crooks and Liars.]

There's no question there's a Bill O'Reilly problem in the world

-- by Dave

Ever since he made an ugly scene on The View with his smear that "Muslims killed us on 9/11", Bill O'Reilly has been obsessing on the subject, insisting that no, really, there really is "a Muslim problem in the world."

First he tried comparing it to World War II: "Do we say we were attacked by Japanese extremists? No." Um. Bill. We were attacked by a nation's army. That's why we said we were attacked by Japan. No such nation attacked us on 9/11. FAIL. Even Karl Rove thought so.

Undeterred, O'Reilly keyed off a week's worth of obsessing about the issue with his opening Talking Points Memo segment on Monday, which was unusually long:

Of course, what I said is absolutely true, but is insensitive to some. In a perfect world you always say Muslim terrorists killed us, but at this point I thought that was common knowledge. I guess I was wrong.

Anyway, the heated controversy continues and goes far beyond me and "The View" ladies. It has entered the fabric of America.

Barbara Walters said something interesting on Monday. She said that the nation is very angry, therefore commentators must watch the rhetoric.

OK, but my question to Ms. Walters is: Why is America angry?

There are a number of answers. One of them is that folks are fed up with politically correct nonsense. There is no question that there is a Muslim problem in the world, and if "The View" ladies will not acknowledge that, that's their problem because most Americans well understand the danger in the Muslim world.

...

The Muslim threat to the world is not isolated. It is huge. It involves nations and millions of people. Yet, the left in America will not face that fact.

...

No sane individual thinks Muhammad Ali or Kareem Abdul-Jabbar is responsible for 9/11. But the reality is that most Americans are uneasy with the Muslim world in general because moderate Muslims have not stepped up in a visible way to help combat the jihadists.

...

The cold truth is that in the world today, jihad, aided and abetted by some Muslim nations, is the biggest threat on the planet. If Iran gets a nuclear weapon, Israel and other countries are in grave danger.

Finally, wherever I went this weekend, people were high-fiving me. It was amazing. People were yelling out windows, "O'Reilly, keep going," that kind of stuff. Are all these people bigots? Do they all hate Kareem Abdul-Jabbar? That's nuts. This has nothing to do with theology and everything to do with politics.

Americans are simply fed up with politicians and media people denying the obvious. There is a dangerous problem in the Muslim world, and once again I call for all peace-loving Muslims to join the United States and other conscientious nations to fight the jihadists, to defeat radical Islam.

That was just the beginning. All week, O'Reilly has been going on and on and on about it.

Just remember: Every time a Fox pundit says bigoted crap like this, Osama bin Laden -- who envisioned 9/11 as a way to create a war between Islam and the West -- pops a champagne cork.

It also does seem a bit strange that O'Reilly is wholly willing -- indeed, eager -- to smear an entire religion with the actions of a tiny fringe, yet he and his Fox cohorts are outraged, outraged we tell you that the "librul media" are "smearing" their beloved "ordinary Americans" of the Tea Party persuasion by the actions of "a few" sign carriers (who unfortunately showed up in large numbers the first year and more) (and let's not bring up the nutcase extremists who've been speakers at Tea Party events too).

But logic and consistency and basic decency have nothing to do with this: It's all about justifying anti-Muslim bigotry, giving it the cloak of "common sense."

Because, if O'Reilly and his Fox pals -- who have all been vigorously nodding their heads in defense of O'Reilly all week, which in fact led to Juan Williams' firing -- were genuinely interested in dealing honestly with the world's problems, they'd begin by recognizing that many moderate Muslims, in fact, have been vocal and active in opposing radical Islam -- and that the problem isn't just a Muslim problem.

Indeed, while radical Muslims' violent acts are a major problem, there are also many other violent factions at work in the world who have nothing to do with Islam -- but who are just as surely fomenting social upheaval and violence on a scale comparable to that of radical Muslims.

After all, it wasn't Muslims who:

Violently attacked a gay-rights parade in Serbia. Those were radical Christian fundamentalists.

-- Proposed death-penalty legislation for gays in Uganda. Those were radical Christian fundamentalists.

-- Are proposing to install a theocratic monarchy in Nepal. Those are radical Hindu fundamentalists.

-- Have massacred dozens of innocent Kenyans under the pretext of hunting witches. Those are radical Christian fundamentalists.

[Oh, that's right. There's a reason no one at Fox ever comments on that story.]

-- Have conducted, as we recently had to remind another of O'Reilly's on-air defenders, a long list of domestic-terrorist attacks against abortion clinics, abortion providers, gay bars, and various "liberal" and government targets over the past two decades. No, those were largely radical Christian fundamentalists.

The thing that connects all of this turmoil and violence isn't Islam -- it's radical fundamentalism. And that enemy takes many guises, including many non-brown people.

We don't a have a "Muslim problem," we have a "radical fundamentalist problem." However, we also have a media -- embodied most particularly by Bill O'Reilly and Fox News, but hardly they alone -- who are willing to go the lazy, knee-jerk xenophobic route by assuring their audiences that "the Enemy" they face is a readily identifiable brown person in a turban -- not someone who looks, talks and thinks like your average Fox News viewer.

The much more difficult truth, moreover, is that the very real enemy in confronting terrorism is sometimes an all-too-familiar one. That terrorism is ultimately engendered by people who modernity has left behind and abandoned and isolated, and simply killing them all is not a solution but a guarantee of making the problem worse.

When you have a media that won't tell the public those hard and complex truths, well, that's a real problem.

[Cross-posted at Crooks and Liars.]

Ooops! That Republican 'stop the vote' effort for Latinos in Nevada is backfiring badly

-- by Dave

Those ads by a right-wing front group called "Latinos for Reform" -- urging Latinos no to vote for Democrats in the coming election because they haven't delivered on comprehensive immigration reform -- may not be turning out to be such a hot idea:

But the fever-pitch backlash to this advertisement suggests the message could bring about just the opposite effect, by energizing a Hispanic voting bloc that may have been lethargic with a new and compelling reason to get out and vote — by and large, for Democrats.

From the 2004 to 2008 elections, Hispanics grew in force from 8 percent of the electorate to 12 to 15 percent, depending on the exit poll — roughly equal to President Barack Obama’s margin of victory. Obama carried 76 percent of the Nevada Hispanic vote in 2008.

Electorate growth rates among Hispanics have slowed since. But what hasn’t is their overwhelming enthusiasm for Democrats.

“Hispanics are much more likely to view congressional Democrats favorably than other groups,” said John Tuman, chairman of UNLV’s political science department who also teaches in the Latin American studies department. According to a recent study by UNLV and the Brookings Mountain West think tank, “it’s only among Hispanics in any Mountain West state that you see Democrats having an overall net favorability ranking,” Tuman said.

Yeah, campaigns that smack of overt minority voter-suppression efforts -- particularly since the self-serving hypocrisy of these ads ("Punish Democrats because they haven't been effective in overcoming our longstanding efforts to kill immigration reform") is so transparent -- tend not to go over so well with minority voters.

Even the local Republican paper in Vegas declared the ads "repulsive".

And the sheer phoniness of a guy like Robert de Posada pretending that he favors immigration reform when in fact he's fought it tooth and nail is especially noteworthy. Political Correction:

Disturbingly, de Posada has frequently used race as a wedge issue and driven the narrative that Democrats favor other minority groups over Latinos. For instance, during the contentious confirmation process of Miguel Estrada, which Democrats filibustered because he was seen as "far beyond the mainstream," de Posada was quoted as asking, "Is the message here that the Democratic Party is sending that they have a favorite minority group?" The Associated Press reported that de Posada was frustrated that Estrada's nomination was being held up but "that two black judges have been confirmed to the U.S. Appeals Court." "Any opposition to [Estrada]" de Posada said, was "going to be taking it personally."

Gotta agree with the New York Times:

Latinos for Reform is not a grass-roots Latino immigration-reform group. It is the operation of a conservative Republican, Robert DePosada, a former director of Hispanic affairs for the Republican National Committee. While many Latinos are bitterly and rightly disappointed in President Obama’s failure to win immigration reform, the ad’s prescription — “Democratic leaders must pay for their broken promises and betrayals” — has it upside-down and backward.

Every time Congress has come close to passing bipartisan immigration reform, lock-step Republicans have destroyed any hope of passage. Democratic cowardice and ineptitude haven’t helped, but when a bill has come close to a vote, Republican-led filibusters killed it.

The Republicans’ contempt for Hispanic voters, of which this voter suppression is Exhibit A, is mirrored in the way their party exploits immigration rather than fixes it. Many immigrants and citizens yearn for reform. But if most of the Republicans running this fall have their way, we’ll never get it. Good reason to get out and vote.

Grace Cunningham and Jackie Mahendra at America's Voice have more.

[Cross-posted at Crooks and Liars.]

Sean Hannity's eliminationist humor: 'If we get rid of liberals, we solve our problems'

-- by Dave

Oh, that Sean Hannity is just sooooo funny. Last night on his Fox New show, he had the following "humorous" exchange with fake Democratic pollster Doug Schoen:

Hannity: My mind needs to be free so I can think about attacking liberals.

Schoen: You know what, we need to stop attacking and just try to come together.

Hannity: No, I want to attack liberals.

Schoen: Well, I want to solve problems.

Hannity: Well, by defeating liberalism we solve our problems, Doug.

Schoen: If we all work together, we solve our problems.

Hannity: If we get rid of liberals, we solve our problems.

Schoen: Well, most of them are going to lose this time anyway.

OK, we get it. Hannity's being funny. Because, you know, it would be funny to get rid of all the liberals.

Recall what I wrote in the Introduction to The Eliminationists: How Hate Talk Radicalized the American Right:

Eliminationism is often voiced as crude "jokes," a sense of humor inevitably predicated on venomous hatred. And such rhetoric—we know as surely as we know that night follows day—eventually begets action, with inevitably tragic results.

...

The problem with eliminationism isn’t that it is simply unpleasant or ugly or even uncomfortable discourse, which is what can often be said of the Left’s frequently charged rhetoric. The problem, as we already noted, is that it implies the death of discourse, as well as its dissolution into violence and the use of force.

And what the eliminationists call jokes aren’t. The humor in their statements—whatever might be funny about them—is entirely contingent on their listeners’ underlying attitude about their fellow Americans, an attitude that not only demonizes them but also reduces them to subhuman level, prime targets for violent elimination. Jokes shouldn’t have a concrete real-world effect and these do: at some point members of their audience (particularly the more hate-filled and mentally unstable types) will act on them.

...

The eliminationist project is in many ways the signature of fascism, partly because it proceeds naturally from fascism's embrace of what Oxford Brookes scholar Roger Griffin calls palingenesis, or a Phoenix-like national rebirth, as its core myth. The Nazi example clearly demonstrates how eliminationist rhetoric has consistently preceded, and heralded, the eventual assumption of the eliminationist project; indeed, such rhetoric has played a critical role in giving permission for it to proceed, by creating the cultural and psychological conditions that enable the subsequent violence.

Of course, Hannity can't be held responsible if some nut decides that it's not just a joke and that it would be a good idea to get rid of all the liberals, and acts accordingly. Because, you know, that's just a nut. Who doesn't know how to take a joke.

[Cross-posted at Crooks and Liars.]

Klan lynching Halloween display is Missouri man's show of 'white pride'

-- by Dave

One of white racists' favorite lines -- especially when they whine about the supposed racism of ethnic groups like the NAACP or La Raza -- is that they're really only about the same thing: pride in their racial heritage.

Which, of course, they primarily display by demonizing, dehumanizing, terrorizing, belittling and degrading people of other races.

Like this white-heritage proponent down in Missouri:

At the request of sheriff Rick Walter, Scott County homeowner Rick Hoskins removed a Halloween display in front of his home Wednesday that's the subject of much controversy in the Sikeston area.

The display, which featured a Ku Klux Klan figure alongside an effigy of a black man hanging from a noose, could be seen by drivers on Interstate 55.

Walter said his office had received several complaints about the display, so he contacted the office of prosecuting attorney Paul Boyd to see if it was within the sheriff's department's rights to remove it due to the problems it could cause.

Boyd encouraged Walter to discuss the matter with Hoskins and to ask Hoskins to take it down. Hoskins complied, but indicated he would contact his attorney with the intent of putting the decorations back up.

"There's been a bunch of people that's stopped by since I put them up," said Hoskins. "Said they want to shake my hand. They said they're glad to see a little white pride is still left in this country."

Hoskins also flies a Confederate flag in his front yard, and says he has for years.

"They're my Halloween decorations," Hoskins said. "I think they speak for themselves."

The most striking aspect of this is just how bold these people are becoming. It used to be they hid their Klan robes in the closet. Now they're coming out. Gee, wonder how that could be happening.

[Cross-posted at Crooks and Liars.]

Swastikas and toxic white powder: The attack on Grijalva's Tucson office

-- by Dave

Following up on yesterday's shutdown of Rep. Raul Grijalva's office after a letter containing a toxic substance was mailed to them, we called up Adam Saravana, Grijalva's communications director, and got the inside story.

Here's what Adam told us:

At about 12:30, as they do every day, the staff checked the mail for the congressional district office. Among the letters was this envelope with -- it just had a mailing label, with a name and address on it, and I can't confirm if it's real or not. Inside the envelope, there were two pieces of paper with swastikas drawn on them.

And there was a little plastic baggie with this powder in there. And so they called the police. The police showed up, and then the fire department arrived. And the fire department did a test, and said, 'OK, this is actually toxic. This is for real.'

So the congressional office was on lockdown for more than an hour. They first had a police cordon around the building, they wouldn't let the staff leave -- the staff were all there while they were all tested for their vital signs and everything. And finally the fire department got its results back and they said, 'This stuff is dangerous, we need to get you out of here.' So they kept the cordon up but they evacuated the building.

Our congressional staff all went home. The congressman and I were out, and so they wouldn't let us in the building.

The substance, he told me, was identified as hydroxyacetenalide:

Symptoms of overexposure to this compound include nausea, vomiting, cyanosis from methemoglobinemia, injury to the liver, kidneys, central nervous system and heart, circulatory collapse, drowsiness, confusion, liver tenderness, low blood pressure, cardiac arrhythmias, jaundice, acute renal failure, death due to liver necrosis, metabolic acidosis, hepatic damage and cirrhosis. Other symptoms include changes in exocrine pancreas, diarrhea, irritability, somnolence, general anesthesia, fever and hepatitis. Diaphoresis and general malaise may occur. Exposure may lead to hematological reactions and, occasionally, skin rashes and other allergic reactions.

It's available generically as Tylenol, but not in mass quantities as a powder (though it certainly is conceivable that the senders simply ground up a large amount of Tylenol to create this). In powder form it can be very dangerous indeed. Not only will breathing it potentially induce these symptoms, but it also happens to be highly combustible.

As KOLD-TV News 13 reported:

This is not the first time the office has been the target of intimidation. In April, the Congressman closed down the Tucson office after receiving personal threats against his life. In July, someone fired gunshots through the front of his Yuma office. Rep. Grijalva calls it an indication of how emotionally charged this political year has been, in light of his stance on Arizona's illegal immigration law.

"This is not the way we have a civil debate," said Rep. Grijalva. "This is not the way we make decisions in this country. I think the tone has been ugly."

Grijalva's Republican opponent in the race for Arizona's Congressional District 7 seat issued a written statement late Thursday evening. Ruth McClung wrote: "There is no room for hatred or terror in this race. Mr. Grijalva and I have different opinions on a wide range of issues. However, our differences on policy and governance are legitimate and reasonable, and should be allowed to play out within the established boundaries of political discourse."

This is clearly an act of domestic terrorism, and it's astonishing to me that my fellow journalists don't seem to recognize it as a significant escalation of the threats towards Democrats we've seen in recent weeks.

As I noted yesterday:

Let's be real clear: It's already considered an act of terrorism to send someone a letter with powder in it, as many right-wing fanatics have done in the past decade and more -- specifically, it's a kind of piggybacking, as in the case of that deranged Malkin/Ingraham/Coulter fan, Chad Castagana:

What Castagana's case demonstrates, clearly, is the way terrorism functions. Initial attacks always inspire subsequent rounds of echo attacks that intentionally feed off the terror created by the earlier rounds. It's called "piggybacking," and it has been an explicit strategy of the extremist right for two decades and longer.

The shape of Castagana's threats -- sending white powder in an envelope and including threats suggesting the powder is anthrax -- has been around for awhile. He almost certainly got the idea from its earlier perpetrators, most notably Clayton Waagner, who terrorized hundreds of abortion clinics with similar hoaxes.

Waagner's threats, in turn, piggybacked off the very real anthrax terrorist who killed five people, sickened dozens more, and scared the bejeesus out of the media for a couple of weeks, until they figured out that it most likely was a domestic terror attack.

And the anthrax terrorist, likewise, clearly piggybacked off of 9/11: the attacks occurred two weeks later, and the rampant speculation in the media for quite awhile was that this was another Al Qaeda attack, or perhaps one from Iraq.

Terrorists of all stripes -- foreign and domestic, Islamist and white nationalist, competent and incompetent -- have a symbiotic relationship with each other: one attack creates an "echo" that often has its own idiosyncratic purpose, but simultaneously enhances the intent of the original terrorist attack. The one thing all terrorists have in common, after all, is a general intent: to destabilize public confidence in the government and thus topple it. In the case of far-right domestic terrorists, they hope to present themselves as an authoritarian alternative to a system unable to keep its citizens secure.

What distinguishes those cases from this is that the powder they sent was benign, and the actual threat thus considerably diminished.

Now someone has sent genuine hazardous material that could have sickened Grijalva's staff.

Rep. Grijalva has already been the subject of death threats. Now it has escalated well beyond that.

This is some serious terrorism. It needs to be treated that way. Let's not let the media sweep this one under the carpet.

Rep. Grijalva is a friend of ours from many visits. Be sure and show him some support if you can.

[Cross-posted at Crooks and Liars.]

Joe Miller gets a Hannity Job, tries to explain why reporter was cuffed with bogus 'men's room' lie

-- by Dave

[media id="18517" embed="true" image="true" download="true"]

Joe Miller may not be answering questions about anything to any reporters in Alaska, but he's more than happy to go on Fox News and get a Hannity Job -- you know, one of those appearances where Sean strokes you, tosses you a bunch of softballs, and lets you promote your campaign and issue non-answers whenever you like.

Sure, Joe's fellow Alaska Republicans may think it's a bad idea for Miller to avoid answering appropriate questions about his past:

No electable candidate can seriously pursue public office without implicitly saying to voters, "I promise to be ethical, honest and accountable and to make my candidacy as open and transparent as possible." It is unacceptable -- and certainly not a winning strategy -- to explicitly refuse to answer reasonable questions about oneself, and to disrespect the Alaska public and the press' right to do so before the questions have even been asked.

So what does Miller do? He goes on Fox with Hannity, who asks him about the letter -- and Miller, rather than answer, simply deflects the question, saying it's just another feeble attempt by his opponents to try to keep Alaskans from thinking about his bright and shiny future Alaska free, free at last! from federal influence.

In fact, that's Miller's answer to all of Hannity's soft questions, including those about how his militia/security goons roughed up and handcuffed a reporter at one of his events. And you'll note that Hannity doesn't even bring up the matter of the goons' hard-core militia background.

And perhaps sensing that this wasn't enough, he also trotted out the weird claim that Hopfinger followed him into the men's room at the event.

This is, of course, not just a bogus smoke screen but a lie. Hopfinger was tackled by thugs when Hopfinger tried to ask him questions immediately after Miller had given a speech -- there was no men's room involved in the "arrest" incident.

There was, however, a brief meeting between the two in the men's room before Miller spoke -- but only because Hopfinger happened to be using the men's room at the same time, not because he had followed Miller in there.

The incident was described in one of the Dispatch's early reports on the whole affair:

Hopfinger seemed still baffled by the events Sunday night. "This is a public school," he said. "This is a public event," adding that Miller clearly knew whom he was talking to because the men had earlier exchanged pleasantries in the men's restroom.

Hopfinger said he didn't think that was the time or place to ask Miller difficult questions about what happened in Fairbanks. He figured, he said, it would be better to wait until after Miller was done with his town hall meeting and ask the questions then.

Full disclosure: I took note of this aspect of the story because I thought it was funny -- especially having been in the same situation: Reporter runs into the men's room before an event and winds up in urinal next to the person you're there to cover -- and for whom you have some tough questions that he has been evading. It may flash briefly in your mind to ask them there and then -- but for most working journalists, common sense and decency restrains them.

I called the Dispatch to confirm that Hopfinger had in fact not followed Miller into the men's room. Hopfinger was unavailable, but one of his reporters confirmed this was the case, saying he had never met Miller before and just happened to wander into the men's restroom at the same time.

I think it says everything about Joe Miller's paranoid state of mind that he assumed that Hopfinger followed him in.

[Cross-posted at Crooks and Liars.]

Isn't that sedition? GOP congressional candidate (and Glenn Beck pal) Broden: Violent overthrow 'on the table' if GOP fails

-- by Dave

You know, I've been warning that there may be some serious unpleasantness ahead if the Tea Partiers find their planned takeover of the government falls short come the day after Election Day.

It seems a Republican congressional candidate and Tea Partier (and frequent Glenn Beck guest) agrees with me:

GOP congressional candidate Stephen Broden says violent overthrow of government is 'on the table'

WASHINGTON – Republican congressional candidate Stephen Broden stunned his party Thursday, saying he would not rule out violent overthrow of the government if elections did not produce a change in leadership.

In a rambling exchange during a TV interview, Broden, a South Dallas pastor, said a violent uprising "is not the first option," but it is "on the table." That drew a quick denunciation from the head of the Dallas County GOP, who called the remarks "inappropriate."

Broden, a first-time candidate, is challenging veteran incumbent Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson in Dallas' heavily Democratic 30th Congressional District. Johnson's campaign declined to comment on Broden.

In the interview, Brad Watson, political reporter for WFAA-TV (Channel 8), asked Broden about a tea party event last year in Fort Worth in which he described the nation's government as tyrannical.

"We have a constitutional remedy," Broden said then. "And the Framers say if that don't work, revolution."

Watson asked if his definition of revolution included violent overthrow of the government. In a prolonged back-and-forth, Broden at first declined to explicitly address insurrection, saying the first way to deal with a repressive government is to "alter it or abolish it."

"If the government is not producing the results or has become destructive to the ends of our liberties, we have a right to get rid of that government and to get rid of it by any means necessary," Broden said, adding the nation was founded on a violent revolt against Britain's King George III.

Watson asked if violence would be an option in 2010, under the current government.

"The option is on the table. I don't think that we should remove anything from the table as it relates to our liberties and our freedoms," Broden said, without elaborating. "However, it is not the first option."

Here's the original WFAA piece.

Let's not forget, of course, that Broden is a pal of Glenn Beck's and frequent guest on his show. Here he is in an earlier Beck appearance:



But gee, isn't it mean of people like the NAACP to point out that the Tea Party movement is riddled throughout with violent radicals? Why, who would think that? And why would they think it?

[Cross-posted at Crooks and Liars.]

President Obama rips Republicans on campaign trail in Seattle: 'You can't drive!'

-- by Dave

Well, I'm sure Sean Hannity will be as quick as ever to pooh-pooh the prospects that President Obama is capable of igniting his supporters this year on the campaign trail -- it's been a running theme at Fox, you know, that there's a big "enthusiasm gap" and that candidates are actually running away from having Obama campaign for them.

Whatever. Today I went to Obama's campaign appearance for our friend Sen. Patty Murray in Seattle at the UW campus. As Murray put it: "I've got to tell you, for all those TV pundits and skeptics who say there's an enthusiasm gap -- I've got four words for them: Come to Washington state!"

Indeed, I'd wager that the majority of the 10,000 or so who packed HecEd Pavilion walked out energized and eager to go help drum up votes for Democrats over the next couple of weeks. Because Obama was at his best.

Perhaps the best indicator of a skilled rhetorician is one who can tell the same speech/story over and over again and yet find ways to make it fresh each telling. And Obama did that -- he's been telling this story about how Republicans drove the national car into a ditch for a long time, and he's been using the punch line: -- "You can't drive!" -- since at least May 14.

But he told it again, and you know what? It still worked.

Even a non-Obamabot like myself has to come away impressed with his sincerity and drive. And since I happen to share Obama's pragmatism, I'm more than happy to do my part to likewise urge people to get out and vote. Too much is at stake. It's too important that we spend the next two years playing offense. Sitting on our hands is going to mean we'll be playing a whole lotta defense.

Andrew Villeneuve at NPI has picture and some thoughts. Also, here's Philip Rucker's report for the WaPo.

[Cross-posted at Crooks and Liars.]

Call a Waaahmbulance: NAACP exhaustively details how the Tea Party's connections empower racism

-- by Dave

Cue the right-wing wailing and gnashing of teeth: The NAACP has now fully backed up its accusations of racism within the Tea Party movement with a meticulously documented report on the Tea parties' multifarious connections to racists and various far-right extremists.

The report, "Tea Party Nationalism," looks at the relationships and differences between the six major Tea Party organizations -- FreedomWorks Tea Party, 1776 Tea Party, Tea Party Nation, Tea Party Patriots, ResistNet, and Tea Party Express -- and the various ways that each group has established connections with, and empowers, outright racists and white supremacists, as well we far-right "Patriot" extremists of various stripes.

"In these ranks, an abiding obsession with Barack Obama's birth certificate is often a stand-in for the belief that the first black president of the United States is not a 'real American.' Rather than strict adherence to the Constitution, many Tea Partiers are challenging the provision for birthright citizenship found in the Fourteenth Amendment," write authors Devin Burghart and Leonard Zeskind of the Institute for Research & Education on Human Rights, which produced the report for the NAACP.

The heart of the report is the section titled "Racism, Anti-Semitism and the Militia Impulse, which includes some previously overlooked facets of the movement and revealing details:

-- James von Brunn, the white supremacist who killed a Holocaust Museum guard last year, posted on Tea Partner Express partner websites.

-- Mark Williams, former chairman of the Tea Party Express, not only wrote racist screeds, he made death threats against President Obama,

-- Billy Joe Roper, a member of the ResistNet Tea Party who also happens to be the founder of the overtly racist White Revolution organization, indulging in "Nazi glamorization" with his eulogy for William Pierce, author of The Turner Diaries, the notorious race-war blueprint.

We also get "profiles of troubling Tea Partiers," including Roan Garcia-Quintana, a South Carolina Tea Party member who the report says belongs to the largest white nationalist group in the country; Karen Pack, another Tea Party member the report says is linked to the Ku Klux Klan; and Clay Douglas, a Tea Party member from Arizona the report says has pushed "militia-style 'New World Order' conspiracies" and "hard core anti-Semitism."

As Benjamin Jealous remarks in the Foreword to the report:

I hope the leadership and members of the Tea Party movement will read this report and take additional steps to distance themselves from those Tea Party leaders who espouse racist ideas, advocate violence, or are formally affiliated with white supremacist organizations. In our effort to strengthen our democracy and ensure rights for all, it is important that we have a reasoned political debate without the use of epithets, the threat of violence, or the resurrection of long discredited racial hierarchies.

Naaaah, no such luck:

“Here we go again,” said Judson Phillips, founder of Tea Party Nation. “This is typical of this liberal group’s smear tactics.”

And elsewhere:

And the Tea Party Express' Sal Russo said that "[t]o attack a grassroots movement of this magnitude with sundry isolated incidents only goes to show the NAACP has abandoned the cause of civil rights for the advancement of liberal Democrat politics."

Of course, because the data in this report is there for everyone to see, it's pretty hard for them to claim that this is merely anecdotal evidence: Rather, we're talking about a problem that is very much systemic in nature.

If the Tea Party leaders were sincere and honest about wanting to get rid of any racists who might be attaching themselves to their movement, they would take this report seriously and respond to it forthrightly.

But they aren't. So they won't.

And the reality of racism within the ranks of the Tea Party will only deepen.



[Cross-posted at Crooks and Liars.]