Conservatidiots of the Day: Extremist sympathizers

Last month, Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano became an object of conservative ire after a report surfaced which listed right-wing extremist groups as a threat to national security. The report, which stated that such groups promote hate and violence in their ranks and therefore threaten the security of many Americans, was blasted by conservatives as being nothing more than a liberal attack on conservative and Republican principles. Never mind, of course, that the study which served as the basis of this report 1) was completed by the FBI under the leadership of the Bush administration before it was reported by Obama's Department of Homeland Security (DHS) officials, and 2) never once mentioned the words "conservative" or "Republican" in the text.

Nonetheless, conservatives were adamant to defend the extremists who were the subject of increased scrutiny by DHS. They claimed that the report unjustly attacked veterans, since the report stated that returning veterans from Iraq, who were experiencing signs of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, were flocking to these groups in increasing numbers. Rather than actually look at the facts, the conservatives claimed that the Obama administration was attacking the servicemen of the military, and trying to label conservative principles as a resounding threat to our own liberty and security. Central to their argument, as is always the case, is that people have a right to free speech and expression, and should be able to join extremist fringe associations such as, oh, the Ku Klux Klan and not have to worry about being monitored by the government or deemed a threat to the general public's well-being, even though many of these groups have a long, sordid history of violence which is well-documented in horrific detail in numerous books, periodicals, photographs, and first-hand encounters with these organizations.

The conservatives who slammed this report also conveniently forget that much of the terrorism experienced in this country prior to 9/11 was committed at the hands of right-wing nutjobs. Christian conservatives bombed abortion clinics throughout the 1980s, other conservatives murdered doctors who performed abortion procedures, and a man named Timothy McVeigh, who was a former veteran who believed the Clinton administration was going to outlaw guns and freedom, murdered 168 people after he blew up the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City in 1995. Much of these events were inspired by the perpetuation of vicious hate speech which spewed out of the mouths of conservative commentators, whether they were religious leaders who damned abortion, radio talk show hosts like Rush Limbaugh who blamed liberals for all the evil in the world, or racist anti-semites like Arthur MacDonald who called for a violent revolution in the United States to overthrow liberal thought.

Today, right-wing extremists have new reasons to mobilize at an alarming rate. A pro-choice liberal Democrat is now the first African-American President of the United States, and the Democrats control both the House and the Senate by overwhelming margins. Worse yet, though, conservative commentators are fanning the flames of hatred as never seen before. Glenn Beck has claimed that Obama plans to send Americans into a Stalinist state complete with liberal re-education camps, and has also stated that Obama plans to steal everyone's guns and ammo. Rush Limbaugh has called Obama the "greatest living reverse racist in the United States," insinuating that Obama's policies and political nominees have been carefully crafted to discriminate against white people. And conservative demagogue Sarah Palin could not say whether or not bombing an abortion clinic should be considered terrorism during the 2008 campaign.

On April 15, we saw the looming threat of right-wing radicalism at its finest. Tea Parties, which were protests against taxes promoted by the anti-tax, anti-government Neil Boortz/ Glenn Beck followers, were held all around the country, and the men and women who participated in these events were of a disturbing variety. They proudly waved signs in the air which merged Obama's face with that of Adolph Hitler's. Many other signs featured racial epithets or depicted Obama as a Muslim terrorist. The rhetoric continued long after the tea parties were over, as conservatives called Obama a "fascist" and a "communist," and religious conservatives referred to him as a murderer during protests outside of his Notre Dame commencement address because of his pro-choice views on abortion.

Meanwhile, murders have been happening all across the country, real murders which involve Census-designated people, spurred by conservative hate speech. In Pittsburgh, two police officers were brutally murdered by a man who irrationally feared where Obama's presidency would take us. A man murdered his family in Maryland, before he killed himself, because he was terrified of American socialism. And today, abortion doctor George Tiller was shot to death as he entered his church in Witchita, Kansas, in what appears to be a bias-motivated crime.

So for all the conservatives out there who claim that the DHS report which listed right-wing extremism as a threat is "bullshit" or "liberal propoganda," maybe you should study the facts. Maybe you should take a long hard look at our nation's history, and the murders and terrorism which have occurred as the result of right-wing hate speech. If you really don't think right-wing extremists should be listed as a threat, then you must also believe that Al Qaeda should not be listed as a threat, either. After all, radical Islam is just a way of life for many people, and they should have a right to express themselves any way they want. What better way to show dissent than by plotting a revolution against the United States government, murdering people in the name of a religious cause, or bombing landmarks in an effort to dismantle American pride? The only thing is, that last sentence not only applies to Al Qaeda, but it also applies to the right-wing extremist groups in the United States which have long gone unnoticed by politicians and the media.

Conservatidiot of the Day: Tom Tancredo

Former Congressman Tom Tancredo, who earlier this week compared La Raza to the KKK, has stated that he does not know if the Obama administration hates white people. The following was exchanged between Colorado's favorite bigot and MSNBC pundit David Shuster:

SHUSTER: Mr. Tancredo, do you agree that the Obama administration hates white people?

TANCREDO: Oh [sighs], I don’t know. But I’ll tell you this –

SHUSTER: You don’t know? In other words, they might?

TANCREDO: What do I — I have no idea whether they hate white people or not!

Wonderful. If we have a black president, why, we just can't tell whether or not they hate white people, even though there's no evidence to the contrary. I guess it's safe to say, then, that George W. Bush hated black people, considering how piss-poor the federal relief efforts in the majority-black New Orleans were. And, if John McCain became president, he would hate Asians, considering he used to rant about those evil "gooks" back in the day. Funny how it goes.

By the way, what do I-- I have no idea whether Tom Tancredo likes to molest children. I have no idea whether he likes to masturbate with soggy ground-up lamb, which he may ejaculate into and eat later on. I have no idea whether Tom Tancredo likes to hang immigrants in the fields of Colorado. I just don't know. But I do know that he's a fucking moron.

Conservatidiot of the Day: G. Gordon Liddy

Today's conservatidiot is a GOP criminal icon who feels the need to attack Judge Sotomayor for being a woman. Yes, G. Gordon Liddy-- that lovable crook who helped orchestrate the 1972 break in at Watergate-- is warning the world of what would happen should Sotomayor have to preside over the court during her menstrual cycle: "Let's hope that the key conferences aren't when she's menstruating or something, or just before she's going to menstruate. That would really be bad. Lord knows what we would get then."

So the attacks on Sotomayor go from the ridiculously absurd-- She's apparently a racist for being proud of her heritage-- to the absurdly ridiculous-- if she menstruates, the court is doomed, DOOMED I tell ya!

Sigh... just because Sotomayor is a woman doesn't mean she'll become an irrational, angry, bitter bitch during her menstrual cycle (which, considering she's a fifty-four year old woman, has most likely ended by now). Scalia and Thomas have been irrational, angry, bitter bitches ever since they were confirmed, and neither of them have hoo-haws. They do, however, have crumpled-up constitutions lodged in their sphincters, so we'd better hope they never get a bad case of diarhea, because lordy, the court will undoubtedly be doomed then.

Conservatidiot of the Day: Tom Tancredo

Day Three of the GOP's "Sonia Sotomayor is a big fat racist!" smear campaign: former Congressman Tom Tancredo -- who boosted his political profile by fanning the ignorant flames of hatred towards all brown-hued people -- has compared Sotomayor's association with the pro-immigrant group National Council of La Raza to being a member of the Ku Klux Klan. "If you belong to an organization called La Raza, in this case... which is from my point of of view any way... nothing more than a ... Latino KKK without the hoods or the nooses," Tancredo began to say in an appearance on CNN today, stuttering since there was just way too much ignorance to come out of his mouth at once. "If you belong to something like that in a way that's going to convince me and a lot of other people that it's got nothing to do with race. Even though the logo of La Raza is "All for the race. Nothing for the rest." What does that tell you?"

The former Congressman did get something right in that sentence. La Raza's motto is "All for the race. Nothing else." But he's imbecilic to assume that La Raza's motto is racist against whites, blacks, Asians, or any other ethnic group. La Raza focuses explicitly on expanding the rights of Latinos in the United States. It supports relaxing many strict immigration laws, ending unjust discrimination against Latinos, and is one of the largest Latino advocacy groups in the country. It holds corporate sponsorships with many multibillion dollar corporations, including Citigroup, and works with Latinos in multiple inner city neighborhoods to overcome prejudice and economic hardship to enhance their communities.

What La Raza isn't is a group which parades around a burning cross at night, lynching white people because they aren't as superior as the Latino race. La Raza doesn't advocate for laws which would mandate separate but equal facilities for Latinos and other races, with Latinos having far more adequate facilities than the other "inferior" ethnic groups. And La Raza doesn't go around obstructing the voting rights of other ethnic groups... all of which the KKK did in its heyday.

Of course, it shouldn't come as much of a surprise that Tom Tancredo has come out to attack a Latino advocacy group, comparing it to one of the most hate-filled, vitriolic racial groups to ever exist in this nation's history. After all, this is a man who insinuated that all illegal immigrants who come to the United States are closet terrorists waiting to bomb our malls and schools, and has endorsed a little group called the Minute Men which go around brutally beating and intimidating anyone who "looks like" an illegal immigrant. And by that, anyone who has brown skin and speaks in a Spanish-sounding accent is the subject of their brutal, racist attacks.

So, for the third day in a row, a conservatidiot is playing the "racist card" in an attempt to deflect their own racism. And, for the third day in a row, I find myself saddened that this moron is given a public forum to spew such horrendous nonsense. I guess the lesson we can all learn from this is, no matter how racist an ethically corrupt, white GOP congressman is, a proud minority who speaks of her own experiences and associates with groups which aim to enhance the lives of those minorities are far more racist and evil. This marks the next chapter in the white supremacist movement in the United States: All proud minorities are racist against white people, and white people are now the victims.

How ingenius...

http://www.politico.com/blogs/glennthrush/0509/Tancredo_La_Raza_is_Latino_KKK.html

Conservatidiot of the Day: Newt Gingrich

The right's bastardization of Sonia Sotomayor's 2001 speech continues today, this time as former House Speaker Newt Gingrich calls for Sotomayor to withdraw her nomination because she's "racist." Newt Gingrich, who deserves some credit for slowly learning how to use Twitter, tweeted the following today: "Imagine a judicial nominee said 'my experience as a white man makes me better than a latina woman.' new racism is no better than old racism," referring to Sotomayor's claim that "I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experience would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life."

It is apparent that the right is going to play the racism card well into this confirmation process. Nevermind, of course, that Sotomayor's claims are valid. A stuffy old white man from Georgia who has the liberty to cheat on his second wife while persecuting the President of the United States for cheating on his first wife doesn't really know what it is like to be a Latina woman, nor does he have the ability to make the proper decisions affecting the lives of Latina women. But Gingrich and many other conservatives, who like to distract people from their own racism by claiming that anything said by a minority against a white man is racist, are not actually looking at the context of Sotomayor's remarks, and are instead looking for any straw man argument they can find to drag her through the mud.

Gingrich also had this to say in a later Tweet: "White man racist nominee would be forced to withdraw. Latina woman racist should also withdraw." I actually agree with him. If a Latina said, oh, "the Latina race is superior to the white race," and was a member of an anti-white group, and made judicial decisions which discriminated against white men, then she should have to step down considering she brings a dangerous bias to the bench. But, considering Sotomayor never said such a thing, and has rendered decisions in favor of the rights of all races, I don't see where this is a valid argument.

The right will no doubt continue this argument. Whenever a minority points out the richness of minority experiences, or dares to question the horrific actions of white Americans against minorities in our long sordid history, the conservatidiots on the right deflect their own racist leanings by screaming "racism!" at other minorities. What's sad is that some people in this country will undoubtedly listen to Gingrich, much as some do Rush Limbaugh, and will continue to bastardize Sotomayor into a racist demon nominated by an equally racist Super Terrorist who was only elected because racist minorities voted in record numbers in 2008. Oh well-- Thankfully, we have a Senate comprised of at least 55 intelligent people who refuse to cater to such stupid wedge tactics.

Conservatidiot of the Day: Rush Limbaugh

I think it goes without saying that Rush Limbaugh is one of the most detrimental figures in the American conservative movement. He gets on his radio show and rants about bullshit few people aside from the extremist fringe cares about, mocking people with Parkinson's Disease and homosexuals and soldiers who oppose the Iraq war in the process. I really don't want to spend too much time ranting about how much of an asinine buffoon he is, because it certainly goes without saying, but today he said something which I think lingers deep down inside the narrow little minds of conservatidiots everywhere.

Limbaugh has reportedly referred to President Obama's Supreme Court nominee, Sonia Sotomayor, as a "reverse racist" because of a comment she made during a 2001 speech, where she said the following: "Wise Latina woman with the richness of her experience would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life." He then went on to slam her views on affirmative action, and referred to Obama as the "greatest living reverse racist in America."

Okay, so where exactly is the racism in Sotomayor's speech? Frankly, I don't think many white men should assume that they know more than Latina women when it comes to the lives of Latina women. But naturally, the extremist fringe, angry at being called racist whenever they compare black NFL runningbacks to convicts on the run or tell African American callers to take the bone out of their nose, has decided to call anything which exits the mouth of a minority regarding a white man "racist" without searching for the context of what was said. They think that it is racist for minorities to talk about the injustices perpetuated by white men for centuries. They think it is racist for an impoverished minority to want the same access to education and employment as privileged white men have. And they think it is racist for a minority to claim that they know better about minority rights than the majority does.

Keep on shining, Rush. You are one of the greatest gifts ever given to the Democratic Party. Few take you seriously, and the ones who do are just as hopped up on whatever narcotics you're on or bunkered down deep beneath the surface of the Earth with their ten tons of guns and ammo they plan to use against the black Devil president of our's.

Conservatidiots of the Day: The Confederates

Today is Memorial Day, a day where we remember America's fallen heroes who fought in wars dating back to the American Revolution and through the war in Iraq. These soldiers were true American heroes who fought for the principles which have held this union together all throughout history, making the United States a beacon of freedom and democracy looked up to by millions around the world. They deserve to be remembered and honored as some of the greatest Americans who ever lived.

But something that bothers me is the recognition of Confederate soldiers who fought during the Civil War, a tradition that has unfortunately existed since the ever-so-racist Woodrow Wilson laid a wreath at the Confederate Memorial at Arlington National Cemetery. Quite truthfully, the Confederacy was un-American-- it consisted of states which had seceded from the Union, and fought to dismantle democracy in its own right. The reason being, of course, was because the selfish racists who lived below the Mason-Dixon line feared that they would no longer be able to treat African Americans as property, to be traded and sold and commanded to do back-breaking manual labor at their pleasure. So they launched the Civil War, because the democratically-elected President Lincoln appeared to be an abolitionist, and the man they wanted to be President wasn't elected, and they wouldn't be able to demonize black people any longer... or, as confederate sympathizers say today, they went to war because of "economics."

And strangely, that rationale, that the Civil War was a war based on "economic principle," has stood in the revisionist histories perpetuated by politicians in former confederate states. That is why the Confederate Flag, perhaps the second-most racist symbol behind the Swastika, is allowed to fly over numerous state capitols. That is the reason why the confederate flag's "stars and bars" are a part of several state flags, from Mississippi to Arkansas to Georgia. Yes, the conservatives, not wanting to admit fault, continue to claim that the Civil War was an "economic" war, and have even gone as far as to laughingly declare that, had the Confederacy won, African Americans would achieve freedom far faster than they had under the Union.

This is preposterous. The whole reason why Jim Crow laws, poll taxes, grandfather clauses, and separate-but-equal institutions existed was because the South didn't want to treat African Americans as equals. Once former slaves became free, they searched long and hard for ways to treat blacks as lesser human beings than whites. The Confederate States seceded because they were the home of racist scumbags who didn't truly believe that the line "all men are created equal" applied to those with a different skin tone than them. The Civil War was fought on "economics" just as much as the American Revolution was fought on "tea taxes."

The Confederacy does not need to be remembered on a day when we remember America's fallen heroes. Someone who went to war to fight against our Constitutional liberties, who was an enemy of the state, and who helped contribute to one of the most unnecessary wars in American history, does not deserve to be remembered as a hero. They deserve to have their graves spit on by passers by. They deserve to have the flag they fought under taken down from every statehouse and burned. And they deserve to be forgotten.

So for Mike Huckabee, Rick Perry, Mark Sanford, Haley Barbour, and all the other conservatives out there who still wave the confederate flag as a symbol of "heritage" and "economics" and use secession as a way to deal with the election of a liberal black man to the presidency: When are you going to start loving the United States? When are you going to start loving the Constitution and what it stands for, and the democracy which has allowed us to heal the wounds caused directly by the South's horrific treatment of blacks ever since this country was founded? Or are you more willing to live in the past, the good old days where shouting "nigger" to black schoolchildren was the norm and lynching a black teenager was considered a grand ole hootenanny, celebrating the confederacy and invoking their bastardized ideals as the way to guide the Republican Party into the future? Hopefully I'm not the only one who sees the connection here.

Conservatidiots of the Day: The Senate GOP

Supreme Court confirmation proceedings are expected to be long, drawn-out processes, and for a number of valid reasons. Whoever is nominated by the president to sit on the bench could theoretically be there for the rest of his or her life, presiding over several hot-button issues which could shape the legal, political, and cultural landscapes of the United States for years to come. However, the battle over a Supreme Court nominee should be based on that nominee's qualifications, legal expertise, political predispositions, and moral character, and should not be a battle fought for petty, partisan reasons.

Lo and behold, today's conservatidiots have already launched a full-frontal assault against the Supreme Court nominee, vowing to drag out the confirmation process in the Senate for as long as humanly possible-- even though a nominee has yet to be officially selected by President Obama. The Senate GOP, led by ranking Judiciary Committee member Jeff Sessions (R-AL), has stated that they might want to carry the confirmation proceedings all the way through the end of September as a response to the President's request that the nominee is confirmed by the Senate's August recess. The math on this should be quite simple: If Obama announces his Supreme Court nominee by the end of next week, which apparently is a strong possibility, there will be just over two months until the Senate is adjourned for the month-long August recess. That gives the Senate over sixty days to vet, question, and confirm or reject his nominee. The nominee would then have enough time to prepare for the next Supreme Court term, which begins in August.

So naturally, the Senate GOP has announced that it wants to take as much time as it needs to "thoroughly vet" the President's nominee. Which, in today's Republican Party, means sit idly by screaming "no!" while complaining about how the nominee will destroy America. At face value, their rationale for extending the confirmation process for "as long as it takes" seems fair: this is an important appointment and a rare opportunity to help shape the make up of the Judicial Branch. But, if the Senate GOP was so concerned about "taking their time," why didn't they take eighty, ninety, one-hundred days or so to confirm President Bush's Supreme Court nominees when they were in the majority four years ago? Samuel Alito and John Roberts were confirmed approximately seventy days after they were nominated by Bush. In fact, then-Senate Majority Whip Mitch McConnell (R-KY) had strongly opposed efforts by Democrats to slow down the confirmation process: "Slow-walking the process beyond historical norms and engaging in a paper chase simply to delay a timely up-or-down vote are not hallmarks of a fair process."

Sen. Sessions says he wants sixty days from the announcement of the nominee to the beginning of the confirmation hearings. The typical confirmation process takes between sixty and eighty days to complete. The idea that this is just offering a "check" on the President's nominee is ludicrious. This is stonewalling at its finest.

For more insight on this, read Mike Allen's article at Politico: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0509/22892.html

Conservatidiots of the Day: Liberty University's department of student affairs

Ben Smith, a blogger from Politico, is reporting that Liberty University's department of student affairs has revoked recognition of the Democratic Party club on campus. The reason being is because the administration feels that the Democratic Party does not represent the overall mission of the university and to the Christian doctrine because it "supports abortion, federal funding of abortion, advocates repeal of the federal Defense of Marriage Act, promotes the “LGBT” agenda, hate crimes, which include sexual orientation and gender identity, socialism, etc."

Of course, Liberty University is an evangelical college which has a long history of implementing draconian rules (such as no-hand holding in public), and this should not come as a surprise to those familiar with its long, sordid history. Founded by evangelical demagogue Jerry Falwell, Liberty University is one of the foremost evangelically conservative universities in the nation. Despite these facts, this action is still disturbing in a number of ways. First, the campus is promoting a radical political agenda by telling its students that they either have to adhere to conservative principles, or else they are not good little Christian warriors. Never mind, of course, that the Bible doesn't offer an opinion on abortion, gay marriage, or socialism, since these political issues did not exist when the omnipotent, ever-present Sky Being wrote the Bible. But worse yet, Liberty University fails to acknowledge that Christians-- no matter how conservative they are in their practices-- do not fundamentally identify with one party over the other. There are evangelical Democrats, much as there are atheistic Republicans. This action marks the end of free speech at Liberty University-- not that political independence was encouraged in the first place-- and is yet another example of an extremist conservative organization irrationally flipping out because the Democratic Party won an election and is viewed favorably by the majority of Americans.

The original post by Ben Smith can be found here: http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0509/Liberty_U_bans_Democrats.html