Friday, November 30, 2007

Pretty Funny Assessment of the Republican Race

You can find it here, courtesy of BartBlog. Excerpt:

Meanwhile, Rudy can barely fill a coffee shop with his supporters and, like the winter weather that is descending on Corndog Country and the Live Free or Die Laughing states, he is a refreshing change at first, and then merely tedious and annoying. Soon, his dwindling audiences will remember to bring shovels, but not for the snow. Bernie Kerik’s BFF is also about to be slapped by another problem — a very well-funded media campaign by the NYC firefighters bringing down to Ground Zero-rubble Rudy’s claims of heroics and leadership on 9/11 that will be pretty hard for the GOP primary voters to ignore. And the sleaze continues to ooze out regarding Mayor Medici’s misuse of city funds, especially those earmarked for the handicapped and housing. Aside from that, he’s still nominally a liberal on social issues, although his recent bughouse comments about voting for McGovern in 1972 when he thought Nixon would be the better president — especially considering what happened after Dick was reelected — served only to make him look pretty damned stupid. As presidential fodder, Benito is entering the last act of one of those operas he craved in high school; one where the hero tragically dies of self-inflicted wounds. One more negative: Look at Rudy in profile — with his bald pate and hair plumped up in back, doesn’t he remind you of Dracula from Francis Coppola’s film? No wonder mothers hold their children tightly in the presence of the Artless Dodger from Flatbush.
Heh heh heh.

Item: Washington Post Uncritically Passing On Lying Rumors About Obama Being a Muslim

Wednesday, November 28, 2007

More on Karl Rove's Despicable Lies

Watch Keith Olbermann and Arianna Huffington calmly strip the bark off the lying criminal asshole Rove here. [There is a 30 second commercial at the start.]

"Obscene chutzpah" is the term Arianna uses to describe Rove's Orwellian attempt to rewrite history by asserting that Congress pushed Bush into the Iraq War and not the other way around. I'd say Ms. H is understating the case.

And most of the MSM Villagers like Rove. So what if he's a traitor (Plame) and a congenital, reflexive liar? Why, I'm sure he's very nice at Washington, D.C. dinner parties.

BTW, thought you'd be interested in this. It's a list of psychopathic traits as determined by psychiatrists. See how many apply to Rove or Rove's old boss, the Boy King himself:

glibness/superficial charm
grandiose sense of self worth
need for stimulation/prone to boredom
pathological lying
lack of remorse or guilt
shallow emotional response
callous/lack of empathy
parasitic lifestyle
poor behavioral controls
promiscuous sexual behavior
early behavioral problems
lack of realistic long term goals
failure to accept responsibility for their own actions
many short term relationships
juvenile delinquency
revocation of conditional release
criminal versatility

It's kind of eerie, isn't it? I can apply at least 17 of these to Bush. No wonder he and Rove are so close. They're soul mates, after all.

Tuesday, November 27, 2007

The Most Astonishing Lie Yet from Rove: CONGRESS Forced BUSH Into War

You wonder sometimes if there's anything this son of a bitch WON'T say, and then you see something like this. You then realize that the answer is no, Karl Rove will utter absolutely any lie to further the cause of the Radical Right.
Amazing. Absolutely amazing. Will these people ever take responsibility for anything? Don't be a fool. They're far-right conservatives. They blather on about "personal responsibility" but they don't actually believe in any of that crap. Everything has to be blamed on everybody else.
Will Rove be allowed to get away with this horseshit? Of course. He just got a regular column in Newsweek to "balance" Kos and he's got tons of friends in the Beltway Media Whorehouse, so yeah, he'll get away with it.
And our country moves another step closer to its death.

Monday, November 26, 2007

Giuliani: My Financial Affairs Are None of Your Damn Business

Remember when the Radical Right was obsessed with investigating Bill and Hillary Clinton's business affairs? The Wall Street Journal's editorial goons were so insanely obsessed with the so-called "Whitewater Scandal" that they published the equivalent of several VOLUMES about it, even though, as Right Wing Henchman Kenneth Starr later admitted, there was absolutely NOTHING to it. How much you want to bet the Journal devotes similar attention to this?

Every time reporters press Giuliani on his work with Giuliani Partners, his booming consultancy (Guiliani took home $4.1 million last year and his stake is worth anywhere from $5 million to $25 million), he's got the same answer: I'm not telling, but you should ask the firm. Then the reporter diligently calls over to Giuliani Partners to get the brush-off from its spokeswoman. That's what happened to The Wall Street Journal when the paper had questions about the firm's contract with Qatar. The Chicago Tribune got the same treatment when it asked about the firm's work for a developer's casino resort in Singapore.

When the AP asked him in an interview earlier this month if he'd disclose his client list, he responded that the business was "totally legal, totally ethical," "very ethical and law-abiding" and that there's "nothing for me to explain about it. We've acted honorably, decently." It was unfair to even ask, he said, employing the deft logic that since no one has found anything wrong, people shouldn't even ask the question...

Translation: Buzz off with your questions. You can trust me because I say so. The Journal was brushed off, as you saw. Will they press the matter Whitewater Style? Gee, I wonder.

The sad thing is that most of the MSM will simple let Benito Jr. get away with this crap. Don't want to make him mad, after all.
(BTW, make sure you click the link above to the Chicago Tribune article. It's very strong--and troubling.)

Saturday, November 24, 2007

How the Republicans Became the Party of Racial Hatred

When I was a kid, it was the (conservative) Southern Democrats who stood in ferocious opposition to justice for our country's African-American minority. Northern Republicans (such as Everett Dirksen of Illinois) were foursquare for civil rights legislation and used their legislative influence to help make it law. Among the most hateful of the Southern Democrats who opposed equal rights for blacks was the despicable Strom Thurmond, whose opposition to such measures bordered on the pathological. (He wore a diaper so he could conduct a 24 hour filibuster in the Senate against the 1957 Civil Rights Act!) Yes, the deal with the devil the national Democratic Party had made was truly shameful: tolerate the Southern racists as long as those same racists delivered states for Roosevelt or Stevenson on election day.
But in 1963-64 all of this began to change drastically. After John F. Kennedy's shocking assassination 44 years ago Thursday, a new president, a Southern Democrat named Lyndon Johnson, took over. And, fully aware of the political consequences of such a move, Johnson became the greatest civil rights president in American history. (The fascinating story of LBJ's courageous stand in favor of justice--and the price the Democratic Party paid in the South--can be found here.) Johnson was simply magnificent on these issues. His tragic legacy in Vietnam has taken attention away from his leadership on human rights, but it does not change the record. LBJ not only talked the talk, he walked the walk, more than any other president has.
In the same period, far-right conservatives began to take over the local machinery of the Republican Party. They found a hero in Arizona Senator Barry M. Goldwater. Goldwater, I am convinced, was not personally a racist, but he was willing to look the other way in regard to those who were. Goldwater's opposition to the 1964 Civil Rights Act made him a magnet to racists all over the country, especially in the former "Solid South". While the rest of America was shifting heavily Democratic in '64, there was a strong undercurrent of what used to be called "white backlash" in the country. It was already propelling George Wallace to national prominence, and it caused many southerners who had never voted Republican in their lives to support Goldwater. In the general disaster the Republicans suffered in 1964, this support stood out in startling contrast. From the article linked to above:
The one region in which Republicans gained was in the previously solid South. The five states that Goldwater won outside Arizona (Mississippi, Georgia, Alabama, South Carolina, and Louisiana) were the top five states in terms of black population levels. Goldwater's message of racial conservatism carried the day with the white electorate of those states, sometimes by landslide numbers (87 percent in Mississippi). Of the 507 Southern counties that Goldwater carried, 233 had never voted Republican before. [My emphasis.] The Goldwater effect was present even in parts of the urban ethnic North, if more muted...Moreover, while Goldwater was a disaster for most Republicans, of the twenty new Republican members of Congress, nine were from the South, and five were from Alabama alone. Eisenhower and Nixon had won border Southern states like Virginia and Tennessee. Goldwater lost those states while winning the heart of Dixie, the black belt.
And among the Southern Democrats who switched to being Republican was the aforementioned loathsome Strom Thurmond. The national Republican Party took a clear message from all this: opposing equal rights for black Americans (or at least slowing down the pace of such progress) was a political winner in the South (and in parts of Illinois, Michigan, New Jersey, or in any white suburb where voters felt threatened by black "incursions".) Naturally, this racism had to be subtle, lest more moderate or liberal voters be put off. The turmoil of the 1960s, the urban riots in such places as Detroit and Watts (which were tragically self-destructive and harmful to racial relations in America), the anti-war agitation, and the rise of violent crime handed the Republicans the perfect vehicle--"Law and Order" as a codeword for "Let's stop the blacks from threatening White America." Now those who hated blacks could hide behind a convenient label.
It is here that the Democrats dropped the ball. Fear of crime was a legitimate issue; a public opinion poll at the time indicated that half the women in America were afraid to go out at night. Foolishly, short-sightedly, Democrats in the late 60s did not work hard enough to address the legitimate concerns of Americans about crime, but simply let the Republicans, in effect, "have" the law and order issue. For fear of seeming to support the racists who were using "law and order" as a cloak, the Democrats didn't take a strong enough stand. We should have said, "Crime is not a racial issue". We should have said "We are for law and order AND justice." We should have pointed out that blacks were among the worst victims of crime. But instead of de-linking race and crime, the Democrats conceded the field to the Republicans. Those who were worried about crime were drawn into an alliance with those who opposed civil rights. Richard Nixon's "Southern Strategy", drawn up by advisors such as Patrick Buchanan, worked to create such alliances. The results were disastrous. The Democratic share of the vote dropped from 61% in 1964 to 43% in 1968. In the Old Confederacy, the Democratic share of the vote fell to 31%! Hubert Humphrey actually finished third in Arkansas, Georgia, South Carolina, North Carolina, and Tennessee, running behind Nixon and Wallace.
By 1972, the Nixon-Wallace voter alliance led to an enormous victory for Nixon in the South, who carried every state in the region, the first time ANY Republican had ever done so. Many of these states provided Nixon with astonishing shares of the vote--71% in South Carolina, 75% in Georgia, 72% in Florida, 72% in Alabama, 78% in Mississippi, 73% in Oklahoma, 66% in Texas. Jimmy Carter's regional strength in 1976 seemed a promising reversal of fortune for the Democrats, but by 1980, Ronald Reagan was again able to use subtle (and not so subtle) appeals to racism to win, edging out Carter in many Southern states. In 1984 Mondale was wiped out in the South, losing most states in the region by margins of 20, 25, or 30 percentage points. In the rest of the country. "Reagan Democrats", drawn by the social conservatism of Reagan (and the subtly anti-black undertone of it) helped cement Reagan's national landslide. The "Willie Horton" message of the Bush campaign in 1988 was simply a logical extension of the now classic Republican strategy: stirring up fear of those Awful Negroes was a winner.
Now, for myriad reasons, many of them unrelated to race, many southern voters are now firmly Republican, providing Bush with his narrow margin of victory in 2004 (and making 2000 close enough to steal). The appeals to hatred are no longer overt. But the roots of Republican dominance in the South are clear: Starting in 1964, when the Democratic Party took a stand for human rights, our base in the South began deserting us in droves. The rise of the Republican Party in the South was based, more than any other factor, on race hatred and prejudice, and the Republicans have never repudiated, or even admitted, this shameful history.
To sum up, let me quote the summary to the superb article I have linked to:
In 1960 the Republicans made a serious effort for the black vote, and failed. In 1964 they accepted black hostility and tried to win without minorities. The pendulum that had swung quite far toward civil rights in 1960 now had swung far closer to George Wallace, although it never reached his pure anti-black malice. Neither strategy was successful in the short term, but in the ashes of the Goldwater defeat, Richard Nixon and others saw hopes for a Republican renewal, based on peeling off white voters from their Democratic allegiance. One lesson of 1964 for Republicans was that the open racism practiced by Goldwater's Southern supporters must be decried, denied, and denounced. Yet the second lesson of 1964 for the GOP was central to later Republican victories. If racial politics could draw white voters into the camp of a candidate as extreme and unelectable as Barry Goldwater, then it was indeed among the most powerful forces in American politics. What might it do in the hands of a more appealing messenger? By 1968 the political alchemists of the Republican Party had refined a heady mixture of codeworded backlash appeals and surface adherence to racial egalitarianism. Nixon's 1968 and 1972 "Southern Strategy" campaigns were designed to bring in the backlash votes without alarming the rest of the electorate. More recently, the 1988 Bush campaign used the rape of a white woman by a convicted black murderer to encourage white Democrats to vote Republican, an odious campaign that Barry Goldwater would have refused to run on. While 1964 was a tremendous victory for the Democratic Party and for Lyndon Johnson, it was also the election that taught Republicans how to use racial politics to help pave the road to the White House for the next three decades.
Our country is still dealing with the fateful consequences of the decisions made in 1964, the year that in many ways was the decisive one in modern American political history.

Wednesday, November 21, 2007

The Giuliani Video You Won't See on NBC

And why won't you see it? Because NBC (Olbermann excepted) is too busy trying to shove Giuliani down our throats, even though he'd be a bloody disaster. But Channel 4 in the UK is actually engaged in journalism, and they have the goods on this lying, two-faced "hero" right here.
If you care about our country, spread this to everyone you know.

Tuesday, November 20, 2007

One More Time: Al Gore and the Internet

From a poster on DKos:

Vinton Gray Cerf (born June 23, 1943) is an American computer scientist who is commonly referred to as one of the "founding fathers of the Internet" for his key technical and managerial role, together with Bob Kahn, in the creation of the Internet and the TCP/IP protocols which it uses.

And what did Bob Kahn and Vint Cerf have to say on the subject?

Al Gore and the Internet

By Robert Kahn and Vinton Cerf

Al Gore was the first political leader to recognize the importance of the Internet and to promote and support its development.
Last year the Vice President made a straightforward statement on his role. He said: "During my service in the United States Congress I took the initiative in creating the Internet." We don’t think, as some people have argued, that Gore intended to claim he "invented" the Internet. Moreover, there is no question in our minds that while serving as Senator, Gore’s initiatives had a significant and beneficial effect on the still-evolving Internet. The fact of the matter is that Gore was talking about and promoting the Internet long before most people were listening. We feel it is timely to offer our perspective.

As far back as the 1970s Congressman Gore promoted the idea of high speed telecommunications as an engine for both economic growth and the improvement of our educational system. He was the first elected official to grasp the potential of computer communications to have a broader impact than just improving the conduct of science and scholarship. Though easily forgotten, now, at the time this was an unproven and controversial concept.

When the Internet was still in the early stages of its deployment, Congressman Gore provided intellectual leadership by helping create the vision of the potential benefits of high speed computing and communication. As an example, he sponsored hearings on how advanced technologies might be put to use in areas like coordinating the response of government agencies to natural disasters and other crises.

As a Senator in the 1980s Gore urged government agencies to consolidate what at the time were several dozen different and unconnected networks into an "Interagency Network." Working in a bi-partisan manner with officials in Ronald Reagan and George Bush’s administrations, Gore secured the passage of the High Performance Computing and Communications Act in 1991. This "Gore Act" supported the National Research and Education Network (NREN) initiative that became one of the major vehicles for the spread of the Internet beyond the field of computer science.

As Vice President Gore promoted building the Internet both up and out, as well as releasing the Internet from the control of the government agencies that spawned it. He served as the major administration proponent for continued investment in advanced computing and networking and private sector initiatives such as Net Day. He was and is a strong proponent of extending access to the network to schools and libraries. Today, approximately 95% of our nation’s schools are on the Internet. Gore provided much-needed political support for the speedy privatization of the Internet when the time arrived for it to become a commercially-driven operation.

No one in public life has been more intellectually engaged in helping to create the climate for a thriving Internet than the Vice President. Gore has been a clear champion of this effort, both in the councils of government and with the public at large.

The Vice President deserves credit for his early recognition of the value of high speed computing and communication and for his long-term and consistent articulation of the potential value of the Internet to American citizens and industry and, indeed, to the rest of the world.

Now--is everybody clear?

My Letter to Chris Matthews

[This is what I actually just sent.]

Dear Mr. Matthews--So how long do you intend to keep telling the same lies about Al Gore, e.g., that he claimed he "invented the Internet", when in fact he said no such thing? (By the way, which member of Congress do you think the major internet players credit with doing the most to boost and promote the development of the Web? Hmmm? Can you guess?)

I'm sick and tired of your pathetic, discredited lies about Al Gore. You're one of the most dishonest people on television, and as long as you're on Hardball, that show can count me OUT as a viewer.


Joseph A. Miller

P.S. In light of your borderline-insane obsession with things like Hillary Clinton's clapping, do you intend to seek out psychiatric help?

Saturday, November 17, 2007

Giuliani and the Kerik Indictment

Bernard Kerik, as you may recall, was a corrupt individual with ties to organized crime recommended by Rudolph Giuliani to the Little King for the post of Homeland Security chief. When Kerik's shady past was revealed, the nomination fell through. Now Kerik is under indictment. The whole matter isn't just a question of Giuliani's (severely flawed) judgment, it's a matter of the credibility of his candidacy itself:

The Kerik indictment isn't merely news because it calls into question Rudy's judgment or vetting skills on one appointment or even on his recommending him for DHS. Rather, its real importance lies in the fact that it undercuts the core rationale of his entire candidacy. It perfectly captures the fraudulent nature of Rudy's entire Presidential quest.

Rudy's argument to voters is simple: He's the candidate best equipped to protect us from what he likes to call the "terrorists' war on us." To justify this he likes to say that as Mayor he shouldered the burden of maintaining the "safety and security of 8 million people," and that as Mayor of New York on 9/11 he alone understands just how frightful the terrorist menace really is and hence would be most effective in countering it. This is Rudy's central message: I alone am the best equipped to keep the country safe from Islamofascisterror.

It hardly needs to be pointed out that the post of Homeland Security chief is kind of important when it comes to doing this. Despite this, Rudy is the primary reason that a cartoonish joke like Kerik was ever considered for the all-important post of defending the nation in the first place. Remember, Rudy privately vouched for Kerik to Bush. If somehow Kerik's various shenanigans and misdeeds hadn't come to light in time, it's not inconceivable that he could have ended up as DHS chief, with potentially catastrophic results that would have been primarily Rudy's fault. Now Rudy is telling us he's the guy to keep us safe?
I keep telling everybody that Giuliani is a fraud and danger to the Republic. I hope enough people wake up in time and figure it out for themselves.

New Poll: Clinton Leads Giuliani in New York City by FORTY POINTS

You know, New York, the city where Giuliani showed us all his "heroism" and his great management style, the city he personally saved from disaster, according to him? Read 'em and weep, Rudolph:
In New York City, Senator Clinton beats the former mayor by a whopping 41% (62% to 21%).

On the issue seen widely as Giuliani’s greatest strength nationally, New York State voters are divided on which one would do a better job keeping the country safe (Clinton 40 % vs. Giuliani 39%). In New York City, where the tragic events of 9/11 occurred and where then Mayor Rudy Giuliani became a symbol to the country, Hillary Clinton is seen as better able to keep the US safe by a resounding 20 points (Clinton 50% to Giuliani 30%).

The city’s former mayor is viewed favorably by only a third of the city’s voters (34%) and less than half of the state’s voters (41%).
Oooooh, that's GOTTA sting!
Wise up, America. The people of NYC know him best, and he's getting trounced there. Maybe you should ask why.

Thursday, November 15, 2007

Fox "News" Porn!!

Check out every steamy second of it right here!!

From your family values network.

Sunday, November 11, 2007

A Poem for Veterans Day

Since Veterans Day was originally Armistice Day, the end of the First World War, I thought a piece from that era would be appropriate.


SOLDIERS are citizens of death's gray land,

Drawing no dividend from time's to-morrows.

In the great hour of destiny they stand,

Each with his feuds, and jealousies, and sorrows.

Soldiers are sworn to action; they must win

Some flaming, fatal climax with their lives.

Soldiers are dreamers; when the guns begin

They think of firelit homes, clean beds, and wives.

I see them in foul dug-outs, gnawed by rats,

And in the ruined trenches, lashed with rain,

Dreaming of things they did with balls and bats,

And mocked by hopeless longing to regain

Bank-holidays, and picture shows, and spats,

And going to the office in the train.

--Siegfried Sassoon

Thursday, November 08, 2007

Giuliani, Robertson, and the Depths of Moral Degeneracy

Few things in the current presidential campaign have been as instructive and appalling as the utterly cynical and perverse alliance between Rudolph Giuliani and America's favorite psychotic right wing "holy man" Pat Robertson. Giuliani wants to sell you the fiction that he's a "moderate". Robertson wants you to believe he's morally consistent. Both narratives are utter bullshit.

You know my position on Giuliani. Read my blog archives if you're not sure. He's a closet fascist, an authoritarian who hates our Constitution and who dreams of dictatorship. He's also damn near a pathological liar. He combines all of Bush and Cheney's worst traits, and that's terrifying.

And just to remind you, here are some "highlights" of Robertson's sick, vicious career.

Robertson the Anti-Semite

From The Christian Century:

IN HIS PUBLISHED WRITINGS, especially his 1991 book The New World Order, Pat Robertson has propagated theories about a worldwide Jewish conspiracy. Michael Lind raised the issue in February in the New York Times Book Review, and in April Jacob Heilbrun, writing in the New York Review of Books, cited chapter and verse of Robertson's borrowings from well-known anti-Semitic works. After the New York Times and the Anti-Defamation League of B'nai B'rith called attention to the matter, Robertson issued a statement denying any anti-Semitic intent, affirming his alliance with the Jews and his support for Israel, and saying he "regretted" any offense his writings may have caused...

The New World Order was written principally to condemn the United Nations' command authority during the gulf war. Robertson presents a sweeping warning about an age-old conspiracy designed to control world politics and economics. In Robertson's view, the conspirators belong to a secret "society" led by satanic atheists and financial "money barons." [He means JEWS--J. Miller] According to the evidence he marshals, these conspirators have taken over international banking and American academic and cultural institutions, and have carefully planned to use the UN and Federal Reserve Bank to impose upon the globe a "one-world" government. The real purpose of the conspiracy, however, is the destruction of American Christian culture and of Christianity itself.

ROBERTSON TRACES the historical progress of this conspiracy, back to Lucifer and his machinations in antiquity. In the modem era the conspiracy has been promoted through a small secret society founded in late 18th-century, Bavaria called the Illuminati, whose members purportedly infiltrated Freemasonry, organized the French Revolution, recruited Friedrick Engels and other communists to their cause and orchestrated the Bolshevik takeover of Russia. Through their control of international banking, the Illuminati-dominated servants of Satan, [He means JEWS--J. Miller] according to Robertson, have imposed a system of national and private credit and interest that has saddled the nation with debilitating and enslaving debt, robbing the American people at once of their independence and their control over their religious life.

A 2004 Robertson attack on Jews is here. Excerpt:

A misleading article prominent on Robertson's makes the stunning claim that the Jews manipulate their Sabbath services so that synagogue worshipers reject Jesus. The article, "The Passion According to Isaiah", claims that the weekly recitation of verses from the Prophets (haftara) in synagogues worldwide were specifically designed to avoid a passage in Isaiah that Christians interpret as a reference to Jesus.

"This is a serious charge against Judaism for which there is not a single shred of evidence…. The absurdity of this claim lies in the fact that the selections for the weekly reading of verses from the Prophets, including those from Isaiah, predate Christianity by two centuries. What motive did Jews have for preventing worshipers from converting to Christianity, when at the time the custom to read from the Prophets was created, Christianity and Jesus didn't even exist?" asks [Rabbi Toviah] Singer.

Robertson, btw, was, at the time, defending Mel Gibson's anti-Semitic religious pornography, known as The Passion of the Christ.

From The Virginian Pilot:

Sometimes, however, words speak louder than actions. If Mr. Robertson is surprised to find himself regarded as anti-Semitic, perhaps he should look to his own house: In the April 1992 issue of ``The Paper,'' a newsletter published by the School of Journalism of Regent University (one of the organizations Mr. Robertson controls), an editorial appeared titled ``Anti-Judaism is not anti-Semitism.''

While the editorial claims that "anti-Semitism goes against the very heart of Christianity,'' it states in the same sentence that "it is understandable that the world would hate Jews, the people called by God to be His chosen nation.'' It goes on to say, ``Even if the Jews were enemies of the church, Christians are commanded to love their enemies.'' Well, once you have called me your enemy, it hardly matters whether you label that epithet anti-Jewish or anti-Semitic. It is clearly anti-me.

The editorial says that ``Jews, as nice as they may be, if they do not believe in Jesus Christ as their savior, are eternally condemned by God.'' It states that God will punish Jews in hell forever. It calls Judaism a cult.

The editorial condemns the selection of Rabbi Yechiel Eckstein (whom it calls a pagan) to give the opening prayer in the U.S. Senate because ``anyone who does not accept Christ as savior, does not acknowledge Jesus as the King of Kings, is therefore an enemy of God.''

The editorial ends by stating that Jews (and all non-Christians) are under God's wrath and should be pitied by Christians. The editorial concludes, ``We cannot allow them to lead us in worship until we have led them in the sinner's prayer.'' These words do not, to me, sound like "respect for the beliefs and traditions of the Jewish community.''

Robertson the General Lunatic

A collection of Robertson quotes here:

"You say you're supposed to be nice to the Episcopalians and the Presbyterians and the Methodists and this, that, and the other thing. Nonsense. I don't have to be nice to the spirit of the Antichrist. I can love the people who hold false opinions but I don't have to be nice to them." Pat Robertson, "The 700 Club," January 14, 1991

"I know this is painful for the ladies to hear, but if you get married, you have accepted the headship of a man, your husband. Christ is the head of the household and the husband is the head of the wife, and that's the way it is, period." Pat Robertson, "The 700 Club," January 8, 1992

"(T)he feminist agenda is not about equal rights for women. It is about a socialist, anti-family political movement that encourages women to leave their husbands, kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism and become lesbians." Pat Robertson, 1992 Fund Raising Letter

(Talking about apartheid South Africa) "I think 'one man, one vote,' just unrestricted democracy, would not be wise. There needs to be some kind of protection for the minority which the white people represent now, a minority, and they need and have a right to demand a protection of their rights." at Robertson, "The 700 Club," March 18, 1992

"There is no such thing as separation of church and state in the Constitution. It is a lie of the Left and we are not going to take it anymore." Pat Robertson, November 1993 during an address to the American Center for Law and Justice

"Many of those people involved with Adolf Hitler were Satanists, many of them were homosexuals--the two things seem to go together." Pat Robertson, "The 700 Club," January 21, 1993

"Just like what Nazi Germany did to the Jews, so liberal America is now doing to the evangelical Christians. It's no different. It is the same thing. It is happening all over again. It is the Democratic Congress, the liberal-based media and the homosexuals who want to destroy the Christians. Wholesale abuse and discrimination and the worst bigotry directed toward any group in America today. More terrible than anything suffered by any minority in history." Pat Robertson, 1993 interview with Molly Ivins

"[Homosexuals] want to come into churches and disrupt church services and throw blood all around and try to give people AIDS and spit in the face of ministers." Pat Robertson, "The 700 Club," January 18, 1995

"[The National Organization for Women] is saying that in order to be a woman, you've got to be a lesbian." Pat Robertson, "The 700 Club," December 3, 1997

"Maybe we need a very small nuke thrown off on Foggy Bottom (home of the State Department) to shake things up." Pat Robertson, "The 700 Club," June 2003

Robertson the Crook and Con Man:

Rudy Giuliani's presidential campaign has hungered for some form of blessing from the religious right. Today, the former New York City mayor and supporter of abortion and gay rights got an unexpected endorsement from televangelist Marion G. "Pat" Robertson.

But the world famous Christian conservative's declaration of support left out a few things.It did not, for example, refer to Robertson's approval of abortions for the purposes of population control as expressed in China in a 2001 CNN interview.

Nor did the Giuliani campaign's press release mention Robertson's business partnership in a gold mining venture with former Liberian dictator Charles Taylor. For that matter, what about Robertson's suggestions that it might not be a bad idea to assassinate or "take out" Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez and North Korea's Kim Jong-Il?

Robertson's near-legendary status on the Christian right is based on his founding of three institutions, the Christian Broadcasting Network (CBN); his television program, The 700 Club; and the formerly extraordinarily influential Christian Coalition.

On matters affecting the bottom line, however, Robertson - who has made himself millions as the proprietor of a Christian empire - has repeatedly demonstrated his willingness to let his belief in free market capitalism override traditional morality.

Yes, this who Giuliani is proud to have teamed up with--an anti-Semite, a misogynist, a vile bigot in almost every possible sense, and someone who is just borderline insane as far I'm concerned. And while Giuliani savaged Ron Paul in a Republican debate for suggesting that U.S. policies may have had something to do with provoking the 9/11 attacks, it was Robertson (and Falwell) who blamed the attacks on America itself, particularly liberals, gays, and the ACLU!! Yes, the two fruitcakes were pressured into apologizing three days later, but you get the feeling Old Pat didn't really mean it.

If I ever needed another reason to fight to the utmost to keep Giuliani out of the White House, this idiot's endorsement would be more than enough. In making an alliance with each other, Robertson and Giuliani have found in each other kindred spirits--people who hate everything good that America stands for. In embracing the nominally pro-choice Giuliani, Robertson has blithely shed what was supposed to be his most sacred issue. In embracing Robertson, Giuliani has told much of his own home city to go to hell.

And if that isn't moral degeneracy, than I don't know what the hell is.

Questions We Should Ask Tim Russert

From a correspondent of Alterman:

When I'm not fantasizing about the Guardians of the Universe bestowing me with my own Green Lantern Power Ring, I fantasize about stupid questions like Russert's being answered along these lines: "Tim, I assume you are a voter and a citizen, and therefore have a stake in this election beyond playing "gotcha" with the candidates. So let me ask you a question: What are YOU willing to give up to keep Iran from developing a nuclear bomb? Will you support a sizable increase in your taxes to pay for the war necessary to prevent it? If not, then how many generations of Russerts are you willing to saddle with debt to pay for such a war? Are you willing to have your children drafted to keep Iran in line? If not, why do you expect other Americans to fill that gap? How many dead Iranian civilians do you personally consider an acceptable price? How many of our allies are you, Tim Russert, willing to alienate? How much are you prepared to pay for a gallon of gas? Do you even realize or acknowledge that you, Tim Russert, as a citizen of this nation will have obligations and burdens imposed on you if we go to war with Iran? And if not, why do you consider yourself exempt?"

Tim Russert (also known to Glenn Greenwald, wonderfully, as the Head Raccoon) is a detriment to American political life. When he's not parroting the Republican talking point of the day he's playing "Gotcha" with Democrats, especially Hillary. In 2000 George W. Bush got a ludicrously softball interview from Russert while Al Gore was attacked mercilessly. Timmy Boy is the ultimate insider and part of the reason the political media in this country are generally so god-awful.
Oh, and by the way, there's one more question I'd like to ask Old Pumpkin Head: Did Jack Welch order you to call the 2000 election for Bush on NBC on that fateful November night?
Just asking.

Wednesday, November 07, 2007

Utah--Yes, UTAH--Rejects School Vouchers

Anti-public school zealots go down to defeat in America's most conservative state.

Yes! Now to dismantle the fraudulent, anti-public education No Child Left Behind law, which has inflicted a disastrous rise in senseless test mania on America's schools. NCLB has one purpose above all--to set a standard so high that no school can reach it, thus allowing the right wingers to declare public education a failure and push for replacing it with private schools that teach that Adam and Eve were real people.
Good to see good sense prevailing in the Mountain West.

Monday, November 05, 2007

Still Think the Right Can Be Talked To?

Then read this piece here. Make sure you read the story in the large blue box that comprises the bulk of the post.

I'm a peaceful person, but right now I'd like to cave in the heads of the fucking bastards that pulled this bullshit.

REPEAT: The radical right/Bush worshipping/Free Republic scum CANNOT be negotiated with. They can only be utterly defeated and politically destroyed.


The American People Are Finally Getting the Idea

They've figured out that SEVENTY PER CENT of the entire national debt accumulated since 1789 was piled up under just THREE REPUBLICAN PRESIDENTS--two of them named BUSH.

They've figured out that under the two oilmen who seized power in 2000, the price of a barrel of oil has gone up FIVE HUNDRED PER CENT.

They've figured out that no real reform of the broken health care system will happen with the Republicans.

They've figured out that our "prosperity" is built on the sand of cheap credit, debt, and excessive borrowing--and that now the bills are coming due.

Democrats, SEIZE THE MOMENT. Restore our country's faith in itself and build our well-being on solid ground. Do that and you will govern for most of the rest of this century.

Friday, November 02, 2007

Thursday, November 01, 2007

What Digby Said, Part 67

Read it right here. Excerpt:

The Village [The National Media], in other words, is comprised of the same people who are giving money and time and support to the lunatic Rudy Giuliani. They think being simultaneously stupid and madly aggressive is normal. After all, they pretty much gave George W. Bush a nonstop blowjob for years until he had been below 40% national popularity for so long they couldn't ignore it.
Heh heh.