Arizona Violent Crime Down, Except Under Tough Anti-Immigration Sheriff

First Posted: 07/14/10 03:34 PM ET Updated: 05/25/11 06:05 PM ET 

A chart circulated by a leading immigration reform organization makes a basic, but compelling case that the new law passed -- though not implemented -- in Arizona could cause an increase rather than a drop in crime.
The non-profit group America's Voice sent out a chart on Wednesday, documenting the change in violent crime levels in various Arizona police jurisdictions from 2002 through 2009. The numbers tell two interesting stories.
The first is that, by and large, crime is down across the board. In Arizona as a whole, it has dropped 12 percent in the past seven years. But in major Maricopa County cities with their own police forces -- Phoenix, Mesa, Scottsdale and Tempe -- the rate has dropped even faster. (The group measured within Maricopa County because it is the epicenter of the immigration debate. But in Tuscon, which is not in the county, there has also been a drop in the crime rate since 2002, according to law enforcement statistics).


ArizonaCrime


Those findings alone suggest that the systemic violence often cited as the compelling argument for stricter border laws may be overblown.
But the more telling number may be the crime statistics for the portion of Maricopa County that is under the purview of controversial Sheriff Joe Arpaio. According to data compiled by America's Voice, crime in that area has actually increased 58 percent since 2002.
Arpaio is considered something of a visionary among conservatives with respect to his approach to immigration. Many of his reforms, indeed, have served as a basis for the law that Gov. Jan Brewer tried to implement statewide. But he has clashed with other sheriffs over his methods, with some complaining that such broad anti-immigration policies put an overwhelming burden on law enforcement officials while producing social friction rather than safety.

America's Voice's chart isn't perfect. For one, Arpaio's domain is much smaller than those of the major cities within the county. Crime as a whole remains lower under his watch than, say, in Phoenix (only it's increasing as opposed to decreasing over time). Moreover, not every factor responsible for the violent crime level can or should be tied to immigration.
But the group's underlying point is that the discussion around immigration policy both in Arizona and the United States at large needs to be reoriented. And the raw percentages of violent crime statistics shown in the chart have that effect.

 

Sam Stein stein@huffingtonpost.com

Read More

Right-Wing Christians Put Out Their Top-10 Favorite Racist Attacks on Obama (VIDEO)

 Right-Wing Christians Put Out Their Top-10 Favorite Racist Attacks on Obama (VIDEO)

November 24, 2013 | Filed under: Barack Obama,Racial Issues,Videos | Posted by: Mindy Fischer

The outright hatred for President Obama by right-wing groups who call themselves Christians and Patriots is just astounding. This website called “Americans Who Hate Obama” is one of many that proudly displays their racism and bigotry. Americans Who Hate Obama has put out a video with their top 10 favorite racist attacks on Obama.
This video proudly features things like calling the Obamas monkeys, terrorist Muslims, non-Americans, incompetent, and fried chicken and watermelon devouring negros.
It also features many unbelievably offensive slurs and signs. One says, “Send Obama back to the jungles of Kenya.” Another reads, “Don’t Re-Nig in 2012.” A girl shows off her new t-shirt that says, “Obama is my Slave.”
But, perhaps the most disturbing things in this clip are the pictures of nooses, including one with Obama literally hanging by a noose.

Read More

Conservative Christian Leader Says Single Moms Should Put Their Kids Up For Adoption

 
Author: Stephen D. Foster Jr. November 27, 2013 3:59 am

In what sounds like a strong suggestion for taking kids away from single moms by force, a ‘Christian’ leader urges them to give their kids up voluntarily. Photo from JuicyEcumenism.Com.

In what seems like a single step away from advocating that we take kids away from their single moms by force, a conservative Christian leader is urging them to give up their children voluntarily.

A conservative Christian leader says single moms should surrender their kids to Christian homes with two parents.

Right Wing Watch reports that Southern Baptist leader Richard Land is calling on single mothers to put up their kids for adoption so that Christian households with two parents can raise them.
In a November 23rd article published on The Christian Post, Land urges single mothers across the nation to stop being selfish and hand their kids over to good Christian parents so they can be raised properly, the way he thinks God intended.

“Keeping the baby is almost never preferable to allowing a baby to be adopted into a solid, faithful Christian home,” Land claims. “A single mother who keeps her baby is quite often denying that baby the father that God wants for that baby, and every baby, to have. Furthermore, in most circumstances, keeping the baby circumscribes and forecloses both the mother’s and the baby’s economic futures in tragic and unfortunate ways. If the mother is doing what is best for her baby (one of the defining marks of maternal love), she will part with her baby so that it will have the future God intended for him or her to have… Adoption allows the mother to give her child both a mother and a father who will love and cherish the child.”

Richard Land calls for a policy that would increase the number of kids in need of adoptive homes by millions.

Land says he understands that there are already 100,000 children waiting to be adopted in the United States, but he still thinks all 11 million single moms in the nation should freely surrender their kids. Why? Because he says the children of single moms are being raised improperly and really should be given the chance to have a father in their lives, even if they have to squander their childhood in orphanages waiting to be adopted.
Apparently, Land has no clue how many children that is. Try about 20 million. That’s how many children would be flooding the adoption system if Land had his way. Earlier in his article, before he completely insulted single moms, Land tried to make the case for adoption instead of abortion. He says that women should always choose adoption rather than seek an abortion. Since an estimated 1.2 million abortions are performed every year, that would be 1.2 million babies that the already overworked and underfunded adoption and child services system would have to deal with each year, in addition to the 20 million Land expects single moms to give up. Can anyone possibly imagine this turning out well?
Unless conservatives are literally willing to order their congressional puppets to open the government wallet and write a gigantic check (Can anyone honestly imagine that happening?), the system would implode upon itself. Millions of children would be stranded. And millions of children would be added to the million-plus children who are now homeless in America. It would create a crisis of epic proportions, with not enough Christian households around to solve it.

Richard Land’s call carves a dangerous path.

The fact is, abortion is a necessary choice that all women should have. Sure, they have ability to choose adoption. But it seems that Land is suggesting forcing that choice upon women. There are already so many children who have no home, why force women to thrust more children into that situation? It’s seriously insane.
Furthermore, after single moms read what Land said, it wouldn’t surprise me if they tarred and feathered him in a public square. As if conservatives haven’t attacked single mothers enough, this guy is openly claiming that they don’t raise their children right and that the only way they can do so is to have a husband. This personally enrages me, because I was raised by a single mother, as are millions of children every single year. Is it hard? Sure it is. But does that mean my single mother wasn’t a fantastic parent who raised me well? Absolutely not.
Land’s call for single moms to willingly surrender their children is a dangerous signal from religious conservatives. You know how conservatives are currently cheering for Russia to forcibly take children away from gay couples? It sounds like conservatives are now one step closer toward forcibly taking children away from single mothers here in America. I’m not sure what conservatives call that, but most sane people would call it kidnapping, which is illegal. Furthermore, Land’s call to for single moms to give up their kids to Christian couples is highly suspicious. Clearly, these Christian fundamentalists would be free to indoctrinate these kids. Basically, Land wants to take kids away from their single moms so they can be brainwashed with hate, fear, prejudice, and ignorance. Again, I’m not sure what Land calls that, but most sane people would call that child abuse.

Conservatives have stopped at nothing to attack single mothers.

This is yet another aspect in the GOP’s war on women. They simply can’t stand single moms, even though it’s a good bet that many right-wingers were raised by them. Despite that, conservatives have stopped at nothing to attack single mothers.
Kansas Republicans are increasing the cost of childcare across the state to fund abstinence-only programs that don’t work. You know who is going to be affected by that the most? Single moms. In Wisconsin, the GOP thinks single moms actually want fatherless children and have compared single motherhood to child abuse. Republicans even blame single moms for the epidemic of gun violence in this country.
But that’s not all. Republican policies such as abstinence-only programs and their anti-contraception crusade lead to more women becoming single moms. Not only that, their policies only make the lives of single mothers harder, thus making it more difficult to care for their children. GOP efforts to eliminate child care services, preschool, food stamps, and equal pay for women have only made things harder for single women.
Here’s a thought. The he-man woman haters within the GOP should get off their collective asses and begin pushing birth control and comprehensive sex education. The number of unintended pregnancies would drop as would the number of abortions. And here’s an even better idea. What if Republicans actually supported and enacted equal pay for women? What if they increased child care services and pre-school at the same time? Those combined efforts would reduce the number of women who become single mothers via unintended pregnancies. And single mothers would have a large enough income and the assistance they need to take care of their kids.

Richard Land’s call is sure to drive more women and their children into the welcoming arms of the Democratic Party.

Conservatives have the gall to wonder why women are voting for Democrats, and yet they attack women on all fronts. Of course, it’s not going to get any better for the GOP considering one of their own just insulted millions of single mothers and the millions of children who are raised by them. On that same note, let’s not forget that young people are increasing voting against the Republican Party. By attacking their moms, the GOP is just giving them another reason to vote Democrat.

Richard Land, and conservative men like him, are sexist assholes.

It’s amazing how conservative men can claim to know so much about child-rearing when they have made it abundantly clear that they expect women to do all the work. Maybe if Republicans advocated for teaching men to be good partners with the women they have a child with, more kids would have a father in their lives. Unfortunately, conservative men like Richard Land are too busy being sexist assholes, and you can’t expect sexist assholes to teach other men not to be one. In short, these anti-women conservative men are totally unfit to raise children and are totally unqualified to judge single mothers and how they raise theirs.

Read More

Asshat Limbaugh Falls For "White Males Should Kill Themselves" Satire Piece

Asshat Limbaugh Falls For "White Males Should Kill Themselves" Satire Piece

by ProgLegsFollow

Conservative blogs have been abuzz the past few days over the latest round of bigotry against the oft-oppressed white male.   The "news" outlets are reporting that Noel Ignatiev, a real professor at Massachusetts College of Art, suggested in his final lecture that white males needed to kill themselves:

"If you are a white male, you don’t deserve to live. You are a cancer, you’re a disease, white males have never contributed anything positive to the world! They only murder, exploit and oppress non-whites! At least a white woman can have sex with a black man and make a brown baby but what can a white male do? He’s good for nothing. Slavery, genocides against aboriginal peoples and massive land confiscation, the inquisition, the holocaust, white males are all to blame! You maintain your white male privilege only by oppressing, discriminating against and enslaving others!
[...]
Obviously, all whites need to be destroyed, but why not start with white males? They are behind most of history’s greatest atrocities. Besides, some of the brothers like to bang white women. Eventually white women can breed out, but my feeling is that if you are a white male, you should kill yourself now. If you are a thoughtful person, with a social consciousness who considers himself white, you will consider suicide. It’s the right thing to do."

Today Rush Limbaugh picked up the story and ran with it--it fits perfectly with his ongoing narrative that white male Christians are subjected to nonstop persecution.
The only problem?  The lecture is completely fictional--as one of Limbaugh's office flunkies pointed out as soon as El Rushbo's Gucci ostrich loafer-clad foot was firmly in his mouth.

I shit you not, Limbaugh actually led into his aborted segment with the following statement:
"I look at how easily people are made to follow and made to believe things and lied to and act like sheep..."

Rush then attempted to lead his sheep into believing a false story about a professor whose white man's guilt leads him to suggest mass suicide for his white male students: Listen for yourself:
*
Just when the vein was bulging dangerously on his sweaty crimson forehead, one of Rush Limbaugh's staff told him off mike that the story was not real.
Egg dripping from his wattles, Limbaugh tried--and failed--to save a little face:

"Now they tell me that this professor's story has been debunked.  Well, it just showed up in a major blog last night.  Ok, so the story is a satire.  It's a major blog.  Where did it show up?  (Rattles papers to cover sounds of nervous flatus) Ahhhhhh, I'll have to click on the link to find out, cause the print...Washington Times reported it.  Why does something like that work?  There are professors who teach that the problem with the planet is human beings.  There are environmentalist wackos who teach that the world would be much better if there were no human beings.  And the left is filled with these kinds of extremists."

The story that suckered Limbaugh comes from a satirical website called Diversity Chronicle which includes such pieces as "Breaking News:  George Zimmerman Eats 3 Egg Omelet". Had Limbaugh actually done some research instead of getting all his information from headlines gleaned from easily outraged dimwit websites he would have found that the Ignatiev "lecture" included the following lines:

"Perhaps we are finally coming to an awareness in this country that the cancer known as the white race must be obliterated. Especially in the form of white males. Obama is president, and I think there is an excellent chance that we will never have a white male president again. I think we are witnessing the breaking of the back of the white male power structure. We will still have residual white males that must be dealt with, but I am confident that we’ve won. Eventually, I would like to put white males in concentration camps and work them to death just like they’ve done to everyone else. When they are all dead we can throw a party and dance around their corpses!"

But of course "facts" and "research" are not Rush Limbaugh's strong suit.

attribution: None Specified

Don't let them oppress you, my white brethren!!!!!

Decent folks who believe in tolerance and equality are no longer powerless against Rush Limbaugh's efforts to spread intolerance on the radio.  StopRush is making a major impact by convincing advertisers on this show to withdraw their ads--and with your help we can do even more.  Just a few emails, tweets, or Facebook messages a week to Limbaugh's advertisers can go a long way toward making hatred less profitable.  It is our collective voice that makes us strong.
Want to do something hold Limbaugh accountable?
Join StopRush!  We can use your help in the following ways:
Join:  The Flush Rush Facebook community
Visit:  The StopRush sponsor database
Tweet:  #stoprush Twitter campaign
Fact Check:  Limbaugh Lie Debunking Site
Install: ThinkContext StopRush browser extension--notifies you as you browse which companies advertise on Rush

Read More

Heart of Darkness: Criminal Investigation of WI Recall $

Heart of Darkness: Criminal Investigation of WI Recall $

Posted by Mary Bottari on November 25, 2013

 

 

The post-Citizens United dark money showdown is underway in Wisconsin.
Wisconsin makes sense. In November 2010, Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker swept to power at a time of economic turmoil with a promise to create 250,000 jobs. Instead, with Republican control of both houses, he passed a bill knee-capping public-sector unions, sparking an 18-day occupation of the Capitol and weeks of mass protests, regularly topping 100,000.
The controversy immediately kicked off a struggle for control of the Wisconsin Senate. Between 2011 and 2012 Wisconsin voters across the state knocked on doors, circulated recall petitions, and put an unprecedented number of state officials up for recall. Thirteen state senators eventually faced recall elections. Close to one million people signed recall petitions for the Governor and Lt. Governor, and even before an election was certified, outside money began to saturate the state.  $137.5 million is estimated to have been spent on the recalls in total, the vast majority from out-of-state players.
The source of much of that spending remains unknown. Millions were spent in by "dark money" nonprofits -- most of them organized under 501(c)(4) of the tax code -- that allow deep pocketed donors to hide their identity. These groups spent boatloads, but attempted to evaded state disclosure laws by running phony issue ads that do not expressly advocate for the election or defeat of a candidate. These nonprofits are supposed to be social welfare groups, and cannot exist for the "primary purpose" of participating in political activity. Many have interpreted this to mean that no more than 49 percent of their funds can be spent on "issue" advertising.
Dozens of 501(c)(4)s spent huge sums in defense of Team Walker. Not only did they not disclose their donors, they engaged in a dizzying array of fund transfers, spelled out by my colleague Brendan Fischer at the Center for Media and Democracy/PRWatch, perhaps in an effort to stay under the 49 percent line.
These groups played big in the election along with Walker's own campaign committee and the Republican Governors Association, which dropped $9 million on what are called "independent expenditures." Independent expenditure groups are required to register with the state and swear an oath not to coordinate with candidates under Wisconsin law 11.06 (7).
As the funds flooded the state, no one was checking to see if the diversity of groups were playing by the rules. But now someone may be doing just that. In the past few months, a special prosecutor with Republican credentials has issued dozens of subpoenas reportedly related to the recall spending. Because of Wisconsin's unusual "John Doe" statute and its secrecy rules, little is known about the grounds of the investigation, although some reports say prosecutors are looking at illegal coordination between candidates and purportedly "independent" groups.

News Breaks of Criminal Probe into Recall Spending

A John Doe investigation is Wisconsin's version of a grand jury, where subpoenas can be issued and testimony can be compelled behind closed doors. There is no jury, just a judge overseeing proceedings under strict secrecy rules. According to news reports, a high-powered special prosecutor Francis Schmitz (who spent many years as a counter terrorism investigator) is in charge. The right-wing press fails to admit it, but Schmitz has bona fide Republican credentials having once been a finalist for appointment as the U.S. Attorney in Milwaukee during President George W. Bush's administration.
News reports indicate that Schmitz could be delving into "illegal coordination" between the groups based on evidence that came out of an earlier John Doe probe into Scott Walker 2010 race for governor. But because of the secrecy of the proceedings few know the exact nature of the probe and other laws, outside of campaign finance laws could be implicated.
Although the right-wing media likes to portray the previous John Doe probe as a witch hunt that came to naught, in fact six people were found guilty of felony and misdemeanor crimes and many -- including two top aides of then-County Executive Scott Walker -- will be spending quite a bit of time in the pokey. The convictions included various charges, but the allegation that county employees set up and operated a secret Wi-Fi system to raise campaign funds while on the taxpayer payroll, netted two convictions. (See our history of the case, revelatory Walker emails, and the stunning charging documents.) This aspect of the investigation closed in March with no charges against Walker himself or his political campaign committee.
While rumors of a new John Doe had been circulating for weeks, Dan Bice of the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel nailed it on October 24, breaking the story and confirming a five-county investigation. Why five counties? Bice cites a new Wisconsin law that allows legislators to be tried in their own counties, away from "liberal" Madison judges. The law was passed after the last Speaker of the Assembly, Scott Jensen, was charged with felony crimes and wanted to be tried in conservative Waukesha, a move that ultimately worked out well for him.
The right-wing site the Wisconsin Reporter, quickly picked up the story, citing unnamed sources to report that three groups were implicated in the investigation, including the Republican Governors Association, the Club for Growth, and David Koch's Americans for Prosperity. But the Wall Street Journal editorial board later expanded that list, naming some 29 groups (all Republican, mostly 501(c)(4)s), and the Walker campaign itself.
The Wall Street Journal put Wisconsin's Eric O'Keefe on the record as saying he received a subpoena in the John Doe. O'Keefe is an old Koch buddy going back to the days when David Koch ran for Vice President of the United States, bankrolling the Libertarian ticket in 1980. He helped create the Sam Adams Alliance, which trains Tea Party activists, and he is a co-founder of the SuperPac called the Campaign for Primary Accountability and is on the board of directors of Wisconsin's Club for Growth. He was spotted jetting around with Walker as the governor traveled the country raising funds for his recall fight.
O'Keefe's comments put Wisconsin Club for Growth at the center of the controversy. RJ Johnson, a longtime Republican operative, often cited in the press as "an official" at Wisconsin Club for Growth, is a close friend of Walker's -- named as his "chief political strategist" in Walker's new book Unintimidated. Club for Growth also spent an estimated $9 million on the recalls, according to the Wisconsin Democracy Campaign. Just days after Walker "dropped the bomb" and unveiled his union-busting budget repair bill, Club for Growth was up on air with TV and radio ads praising Walker and attacking public employees. When Walker's popularity plummeted, RJ Johnson advised Walker to get the bill passed "as soon as possible," Walker writes in Unintimidated.
The Wall Street Journal has spun the John Doe as an attack on free speech, a line that was immediately picked up by the echo-chamber on the right. Wall Street Journal board member and political operative Stephen Moore is a founder of Club for Growth and also served on the board of Donors Capital's dark money machine. He is also an ALEC "scholar" who helps to write and produce ALEC's debunked "Rich States, Poor States" report.
O'Keefe's move to break the story with friends at the Journal seemed foolish to some, as he could face sanctions under the John Doe, but he no doubt has the confidence of a man with a lot of money and quite a few lawyers ready to go to the wall on the all "money is free speech" theory.

Dark Money Hires Powerhouse Lawyers

The whole John Doe became much more interesting when the roster of high-powered defense attorneys moved to kill it. Madison's Dean Strang asked the Court of Appeals to halt the investigation on a number of grounds, but the appellate court rejected some of his claims out of hand and asked for more information on others. The Court of Appeals made the unusual decision to unseal its ruling in the case, bringing a welcome degree of transparency to the proceedings.
Strang is a highly respected criminal defense attorney. His most recent high-profile client was Steven Avery, who was jailed for murdering a young photographer shortly after being released from prison and declared innocent in another crime. Strang is also credited with setting up Wisconsin's Federal Defenders program. This is not his first foray into the world of campaign finance, he also represented railroad magnate William Gardner, who was convicted of making illegal campaign contributions to Walker in the first John Doe case. Gardner hid his identity by funneling funds to friends and employees asking them to hand over fat checks to Walker, thereby exceeding the state's campaign contribution limits. It's possible that more of this type of activity has been uncovered in the John Doe.
Joining Strang in representing the posse of groups under investigation are Todd P. Graves and Edward D. Greim, Tea Party attorneys from Kansas (home of Koch Industries). Grime and Graves are representing Tea Party groups and the Texas Public Policy Institute that are angry at the IRS for their clunky targeting of groups with political sounding names during their application process for tax-free status in the 2012 election cycle. Todd Graves was one of the six U.S. Attorneys improperly fired by the Bush White House in 2006 in order to pave the way for more political appointees.
Another prominent attorney with clients in the case is Michael Bresnick, a Washington, DC, lawyer who was the head of President Barack Obama's Financial Fraud Enforcement Task Force that netted the $13 billion dollar settlement against JP Morgan Chase.
James Bopp, Jr., the Dean of Darkness who has spent 30 years challenging federal and state campaign finance laws, has joined the fray. Bopp is the mastermind behind the Citizens United case, which likened non-profit group spending on issues ads to free speech and opened the flood gates for undisclosed corporate spending in elections. He is also behind the latest Supreme Court case on election spending, McCutcheon, which could erase limits on individual campaign donations. As the primary proponent of the "money is speech theory" to challenging clean election laws, Bopp thinks that anyone should be able to spend any amount they want in any election and that there is no reason for disclosure because "the vast majority of people don't care," he says.
Bopp may think he has his finger on the pulse, but he neglects to mention that every time the issue is put on the ballot, citizen's vote overwhelmingly for disclosure, for an end to big money politics and even for overturning his Citizens United case. So far, more than 16 states and more than 500 communities have taken a stand against Bopp's "money is speech" theory.

Dark Money Press Ramps Up the Intimidation

Dan Bice, the 20-year veteran of the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel who broke the news of both John Does, is being slammed by right-wing media spinning the probe as a "witch hunt" and a "vendetta." His report of a major investigation underway in the state was called as "low point in the history of modern journalism," on the Journal's right-wing news site called RightWisconsin. Notably, RightWisconsin was launched with a handout from Club for Growth. Fortunately, the Journal Sentinel is unlikely to toss overboard the award-winning reporter who is one of the only people left in the state who actually breaks news.
Initially led by Milwaukee County prosecutors, the investigation is now being headed up by another big gun, former federal prosecutor Schmitz. Because he prosecuted terrorists for a living, Schmitz snapshot is not easily available online, prompting one reporter to hand draw a goofy portrait of him. Schmidt should be ready to have his house staked out and photos of him picking up the newspaper in his jammies published. During the last John Doe, the right-wing press made a big deal of the yard signs posted by one of the prosecutor's wives.
So far there have been no reports of any Democratic groups being investigated, which is not conclusive. The Democrats had a number of independent expenditure groups on their side, but spent very little through any of the controversial 501(c)(4)s. This chart by the Wisconsin Democracy Campaign shows the players and how much they spent or were estimated to have spent.
Illegal coordination is rarely charged in Wisconsin. Common Cause state director Jay Heck points to a 1997 case that netted big fines for the players. In 1997, former state Supreme Court Justice John Wilcox settled a suit that charged that his campaign had illegally coordinated with an independent expenditure group. He and his campaign manager, Mark Block, were fined and Block was barred from working on any state campaigns for seven years. Block went on to work for David Koch's Americans for Prosperity and run the Herman Cain presidential campaign in 2011 (the Center for Media and Democracy initiated a request with the IRS to investigate Block's use of a separate charity to help fund Cain campaign trips).
With regard to Bopp, Heck has this to say. In all of his years as an advocate for clean and open government, Heck says he has "never come across a Wisconsinite who said they wanted to know less about money in politics, they always want to know more" about the forces shaping their democracy.
For his part, Walker is staying mum. This week Walker told Bice, "To me, I'm leaving it up to the people who are authorized to talk about it." Walker said: "If you know anything about it, then you are legally prohibited from talking about it. If you don't know anything about it, you shouldn't be talking about it."
"So either way, I'm not going to talk about it."

Read More

Focus on the Family serves up a rancid turkey in time for Thanksgiving

Focus on the Family serves up a rancid turkey in time for Thanksgiving

by Steveningen

 

Ugh. Where to even begin with this one. The odious Focus on the Family has released a video designed to teach you how to explain the truth behind Thanksgiving to the kiddies. It is so rife with distortions, fabrications, omissions, persecution complex, and anti-government bias that it is a hideous thing of beauty.

Hi. I'm Stuart Shepard, This is Stoplight. About now, children are bringing home Pilgrim hats and turkeys made out of construction paper. And maybe making lists of things they are thankful for. But, it's up to us to make sure they understand the full context of what happened back around 1620.
We are the Pilgrims.
They were not called "the Pilgrims" back when this whole thing started. England would not allow these Christians to live out their faith they wanted to. They were told to fall in line with the government's view of religion. If not, they could be taken to court, fined or even imprisoned.
We are the Pilgrims.
So, some of them packed up and moved to Holland. Now thing were generally better there. But then they watched as the culture began to draw their children away from the Christian faith they were learning at home.
We are the Pilgrims.
So, then they booked that trip on the Mayflower. A cargo ship. Not really designed for passengers. Think of it as a floating tractor-trailer being tossed about by a stormy ocean. It was spartan, it was rough, but it eventually got them here to the New World.
We are the Pilgrims.
They signed the Mayflower Compact saying they were united in this undertaking for the Glory of God and the advancement of the Christian faith. Its simple framing of democracy would inform the U.S. Constitution more than 150 years later.
We are the Pilgrims.
They learned about human behavior: That if the colony took what each one produced and shared it with everyone else, well it brought out the very worst in human beings. The colony only succeeded once it allowed each family to have their own property and enjoy the benefits of their own labor.
We are the Pilgrims.
So--after having government trample on their God given rights--after seeing their children wooed away by a decadent culture, after a treacherous ocean voyage, a harsh winter, after learning how imperfect human beings function as a group--after all that--they held a feast to celebrate. And they thanked God for His Providence.
We are the Pilgrims.
It was only after Christian faith was turned into action, and after it was applied to real life troubles, and after they endured hardship while giving thanks--that they became known as "The Pilgrims."
We--are--the Pilgrims.

Even those with a rudimentary historical understanding of Thanksgiving would somehow remember to include the Indians at the first Thanksgiving table. But I suppose that is just too much for today's xenophobic, immigration-hatin' modern Pilgrim. Best just not to mention them and give over that time to further drive home all that persecuting, government intrusion and fear into your children's soft little heads. Among all the tripe to be found in this video is this doozy that sits at the very heart of the religious right.

They signed the Mayflower Compact saying they were united in this undertaking for the Glory of God and the advancement of the Christian faith. Its simple framing of democracy would inform the U.S. Constitution more than 150 years later.

Here they have taken the notion that it was our Founding Fathers who intended our Constitution to be divinely inspired and are now crediting the wacked-out Pilgrims for our Constitution that clearly states there shall be no separation of Church and State. Or something. The stupid, it burns.
So, when you find yourself at your own Thanksgiving table on Thursday, please remember to give a little moment of thanks that Stuart Shepard isn't sitting over there at your kid's table giving your little ones a history lesson.
Update: Thanks to Dave in Northridge for sharing this link: The Puritans and the Puritans who settled Massachusetts, 1620-1630.

Read More

10 Weirdest Fundamentalist Christian Conspiracy Theories

The world of fundamentalist Christians is crawling with conspiracy theories, urban legends, and just plain bizarre beliefs.

AlterNet / By Amanda Marcotte

 

For the Christian right, having a “faith-based” worldview extends far beyond claims about demons and angels. Unsurprisingly, the world of fundamentalist Christians is absolutely crawling with conspiracy theories, urban legends, and just plain bizarre beliefs about how the world works. Here’s a list of 10 of the weirder ones are currently in circulation.
1) Same-sex marriage is an elaborate scheme concocted by lesbians to entrap men. David Usher of the Center for Marriage Policy managed to cough up a theory that is an outstanding blend of homophobia, misogynist myths about the mendacity of women, and paranoia about the supposed gravy train that is child support. He argues that women will marry each other and conscript men into supporting them by “pretending they are using birth control when they are not.” The men will then “become economically conscripted third parties to these marriages, but get nothing in return,” presumably because the only reason a man would want to care for his own children would be in exchange for sex and housework. He also assumes that the only sources of income women have access to are child support and welfare; the possibility that women hold jobs doesn’t seem to occur to him.
Usher is trying to find a way to justify the increasingly ridiculous right-wing claim that same-sex marriage is somehow undermining “traditional” heterosexual marriage. He has zero-evidence for his claim outside of his belief that women are generally sleazy liars, and will “cheat” men out of the straight marriages they’re entitled to by sneaking off with women.
2) Planned Parenthood is trying to get kids “hooked” on sex. The anti-choice organization American Life League has been peddling the idea for a long time now that Planned Parenthood works like a mythical drug dealer, but with sex. The theory, summarized in this amazing video, goes like this: Planned Parenthood lures otherwise asexual young people into thinking sex is fun (something they are dead certain that you would never, ever think if not for Planned Parenthood). They then trick them into having sex by telling them contraception works, but (evil laugh), the contraception doesn’t work and the young people get pregnant and have to have abortions. Which means profit for Planned Parenthood! This neat little theory requires ignoring both the fact that Planned Parenthood is a non-profit and that the overwhelming scientific evidence shows that contraception does work, but ignoring facts and evidence is what the Christian right does best.
3) Gay men wear special rings for the sole purpose of giving innocent straights HIV. This one was trotted out recently by everyone’s favorite disseminator of Christian right urban legends, Pat Robertson. “You know what they do in San Francisco, some in the gay community there they want to get people so if they got the stuff they’ll have a ring, you shake hands, and the ring’s got a little thing where you cut your finger,” he explained, suggesting there’s a serial killing ring of gay men who kill with HIV for reasons undetermined. Robertson backpedaled, but as Anderson Cooper suggested, only because he got caught.
4) The abortion-mad Chinese eat human fetuses. This one is popular in anti-choice circles, because it hits both the abortion-obsessed and racist sweet spots. The claim is sometimes that the Chinese eat “fetus soup” as an aphrodisiac, because concern that other people are enjoying sex too much is always part and parcel of any anti-choice urban legend. This obviously false bit of racist propaganda is spread mostly through email, though prominent anti-choice activists like Jill Stanek have also perpetuated it.
5) Crazed liberals in Illinois want to teach 5-year-olds how to have sex.A Chicago school district has implemented a mandatory sex education program for each grade level, leading Christian right publications to accuse the district of practicing “pedophilia” by trying to get kindergartners to think about “sex and sexual acts.” While it’s no surprise that fundamentalists love the opportunity to titillate and outrage themselves by imagining kids getting blow job lessons, the reality is much more mundane….and pedophilia-preventive. Lessons for kindergarten and first grade will simply be about anatomy, with an emphasis on learning the difference between “good touch vs. bad touch,” specifically so children who are targeted by pedophiles know to report what’s happened. But perpetuating the belief that evil pervert liberals are targeting innocent children clearly matters more to the Christian right than stopping real-life perverts who are actually targeting children.
6) Obama is the Antichrist and plans to rule America by sharia law. Even though you’d think Obama would be getting on with this plan already instead of wasting time talking about bombing Syria, the belief that any day now a combination of sharia law and the apocalypse will be brought on by Obama still rules in Christian right circles. Public Policy Polling found that an alarming 13 percent of Americans are sure Obama is the Antichrist and another 13 percent entertained the possibility. Christian right-wingers are always on the lookout for “evidence” that Obama’s secret sharia plan is about to take off, leading to headlines likes this one from Breitbart.com: “Obama administration paves the way for sharia law.”
7) Charles Darwin took it all back the day he died. This one has been around since the 19th century, but still has a significant amount of play on the Christian right, as part of the ur-conspiracy theory which holds that scientists are just making up evolutionary theory as part of a grand atheist conspiracy conducted for reasons unknown. Interestingly, this is one legend leaders in the Christian right have been trying to put to bed recently, with even the group Answers In Genesis—which believes that dinosaurs and humans lived in harmony together—denying that Darwin recanted his atheistic views on his deathbed.
8) JK Rowling is trying to lure your children into Satanism with her Harry Potter books. Hardline Christian conservatives have always been afraid pop culture is a conspiracy of Satan’s to attract impressionable young people, so it’s unsurprising that Rowling’s Harry Potter series, with its portrayal of fantasy magic, made the top of the list of products to be feared. The hysteria hit a peak in 2001, with fundamentalist activists accusing the books of trying to “desensitize readers and introduce them to the occult” and “trafficking in evil spirits.” Things were made worse when the Onion published a satirical article Christian conservatives didn’t realize was satire, causing them to literally believe young kids told the Onion things like, “But the Harry Potter books showed me that magic is real, something I can learn and use right now, and that the Bible is nothing but boring lies.” The furor has died down somewhat, but plenty of evangelical leaders still routinely claim demons can possess your body if you read Harry Potter.
9) Pro-choicers in Texas were planning to pelt the state senate with jars of feces. This one rose up and was debunked within the space of six weeks over this summer of 2013. The claim, which unfortunately was given credence by the Texas Department of Public Safety back in July, was that evil pro-choicers were planning to sneak jars of poop into the debate and were only stopped by brave, poop-confiscating lawmakers. Eventually, the TX DPS reluctantly handed its actual documents regarding the protests over and sure enough, there is no evidence outside of urban legend-mongering from conservatives that there were any jars of any human waste whatsoever. Unfortunately, the legend was already out and circulating.
Humorless fundies are also perpetuating the claim that there was Satan-worshipping from pro-choicers at the protests, even though a cursory perusal of the evidence shows that the shouts of “hail Satan” were not a prayer so much as a joke aimed squarely at the Christian right protesters.
10) Birth control pill turns your uterus into a grave littered with teeny-weeny corpses of fully formed babies.Kevin Swanson, Christian right talk show host, expelled this one recently, claiming that “certain doctors and certain scientists” are finding that women on the pill have, “these little tiny fetuses, these little babies, that are embedded into the womb.” An evocative image, albeit one that requires not only falsely believing the pill “kills” embryos (it works by suppressing ovulation), but also simply refusing to believe that menstruation actually exists.
These are just a sampling of the stories you’ll hear in hushed, can-you-believe-it tones in Christian right circles, where the urban legend is a primary form of communication.

Amanda Marcotte co-writes the blog Pandagon. She is the author of It's a Jungle Out There: The Feminist Survival Guide to Politically Inhospitable Environments.

Read More

Ex-Generals Say President Obama Must be Forced to Resign

Ex-Generals Say President Obama Must be Forced to Resign

By: Hrafnkell Haraldsson

Monday, November, 25th, 2013, 7:46 am

Traitors Paul E. Vallely and Charles Jones

World Net Daily yesterday celebrated the idea that the time has come for the U.S. military to step in and force Obama to resign, a poll showing that 79 percent (822 votes) feel that the military should “Court martial our commander in chief for treason against our nation and its defense.” And WND managed to do it without ever once mentioning that the whole idea of a military coup – which is what they’re talking about – is unconstitutional. Or that there is something inherently creepy and banana republic-like about ex-generals keeping an eye on a twice legally elected president:

After one of them called for the “forced resignations” of President Obama and congressional leaders in response to multiple grievances, including the alleged political purge of hundreds of senior military officers, two retired U.S. generals are creating a citizens’ commission to scrutinize Obama administration actions on national security and economic issues.
“America’s Provisional Leadership Council” will look at major concerns, as outlined by Army Gen. Paul E. Vallely and Air Force Brig. Gen. Charles Jones, in an eight-point paper titled “The Americans Project.”
…
In calling for the forced resignations of Obama and the leadership of Congress, Vallely outlined suggestions for nationwide rallies and said a peaceful “civil uprising is still not out of question.”

You might be interested to know that Vallely, an Islamophobe, is senior military analyst for Fox News and that Jones, an apparently VERY angry old white man, wrote an open letter in support of birther Orly Taitz, claiming that the president was “possibly [a] citizen of Kenya.”
We are told that “In their paper, Vallely and Jones call for adherence to the Constitution with strict congressional oversight of all executive actions.”
What a great idea for saving our Constitution! Except…
NOTHING in the United States Constitution provides for using force to terminate a presidency. NOTHING. Yet the claim made here is that this would be done in order to protect the Constitution. Yes, protect the Constitution by violating it.
Interesting concept. Something that would make sense only to a tea party mind.
It’s kinda funny too, in a way, in that these generals are angry at Obama for “forcing resignations.” Did they forget their oath? Did they forget that the U.S. president is the “commander-in-chief”?

The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States….
ARTICLE II, SECTION 2, CLAUSE 1

Did they forget that the president was legally elected according to the Constitution and that neither a military coup nor leading a civilian uprising would not be in accord with the Constitution they swore to uphold?

“I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.” (Title 10, US Code; Act of 5 May 1960 replacing the wording first adopted in 1789, with amendment effective 5 October 1962).

This is Vallely back in 2010 telling a bunch of Republicans in Virginia City, Montana, about his plans:


Perhaps he doesn’t remember the significance of the oaths he is talking about here? Is it possible he does not see that violating the Constitution does not protect the Constitution?

The current crop of leaders, he said, must face a “demand resignation” process, which he explained requires massive grassroots protests and social networking which he envisions can be undertaken through his organization. And example of a “forced resignation,” he said, was that of President Richard Nixon.
“Our federal government continues down the path of destroying America,” Vallely said. “Americans must now stand up and put America back on the right track.”
…
Vallely and Jones in their paper say “The Americans” leadership has developed workable solutions to “help solve and fix what has without question stunted our nation’s ability to clearly, legally and peacefully function as a constitutional republic.”

Never mind that Nixon – who, unlike Obama, actually did something wrong – was not forced to resign – he chose to resign rather than face impeachment.
Vallely, if he really cares about this country, should be pointing the finger at the tea party anarchists in the House of Representatives, at the Citizens United ruling, and at a host of other problems that can be laid at the door of Republican ideology and governance from 2001-2008.
Republicans really can’t get over the fact that Americans have rejected them – twice, and that their brief tea party resurgence in 2010 did not imply that President Obama relinquish his role as president to a small band of lunatics in the House of Representatives. It did not alter Democratic control of the Senate. The Constitution did not change in 2010 from what it was in 2008. Barack Obama is still the president of the United States. He was re-elected president of the United States by 5 million votes in 2012.
Recent elections and polls show support for the Republican and tea parties to be at an all-time low. Deadly diseases are more popular than the Republicans in Congress.
What part of this do you treasonous clowns not get?
You can stomp your little feet if you want, sure. You can rant and rave, which is something you have shown us all you love to do. But you don’t get to shut down the government because you don’t like how America voted. How is that patriotic – or constitutional? And you certainly don’t get to impeach the president simply because you don’t like him, and what in the world gives you the idea that the military can remove a legally elected president because you don’t like the results of an election?
Don’t even pretend that you are doing this for us. What you want has nothing to do with what polls and elections show the American people want. Don’t even pretend you are doing this to protect the Constitution. Neither is true.
You are conservative reactionaries. You are doing this for yourselves, because you don’t like the fact that we as a culture have moved on, that the American people are no longer interested in what you have to offer. You ran our country into the ground and we aren’t going to let you do it again.
Not on our watches. Government OF the people, BY the people, and FOR the people. It is no more government of, by, and for the military than it is of, by and for the corporations or of, by, and for God.
If you don’t like the results of the last election, win the next election if you can, a possibility that is daily – thanks to your own insane behavior and ideas and actions – becoming more remote.

Ex-Generals Say President Obama Must be Forced to Resign was written by Hrafnkell Haraldsson for PoliticusUSA.

© PoliticusUSA, Mon, Nov 25th, 2013 — All Rights Reserved
 

Read More

Ted Cruz’s Aggressive Campaigning Could Hurt Him With Crucial Iowa Voters

By Ben Jacobs

November 25th 20135:45 am

followMore Stories by Ben Jacobs

After leading the shutdown and making headlines for months, the senator is aggressively campaigning in Iowa. But will voters burn out on him before the crucial caucus vote?

Eventually, even the most gleeful child learns that there is such a thing as too much ice cream when the carton is empty and all that’s left is the toothache. Might conservative Iowa Republicans, a demographic that plays an outsize role in the presidential nominating process, ever feel the same way about Ted Cruz?
The Texas senator has been in office for less than a year and has already become a national figure and a frontrunner not just in the 2016 Iowa caucuses but eventually to receive the GOP nomination as well. Indeed, according to prominent Iowa conservative leader Bob Vander Plaats, Cruz would win the Iowa caucuses “going away” if they were held today. His problem is that they still are two years away, plenty of time for even those conservatives most excited by Cruz to tire of the Texas senator.
Cruz’s 21-hour anti-Obamacare speech on the Senate floor on the eve of October’s government shutdown established him as a national figure, but his star had been rising before that. It was Cruz’s performance in the 2012 Texas Senate primary, when he won as an underdog Tea Party candidate, that gained him prominence in the Republican Party. Cruz combined Hispanic heritage (his father was born in Cuba) with unimpeachable conservative credentials and a sterling legal record as Texas’s solicitor general, arguing nine cases before the Supreme Court and drawing comparisons to a fellow Harvard Law graduate, Barack Obama.

Campaigning aggressively at this stage in the election cycle would expose any political weaknesses far earlier than they might otherwise.

The Obama comparisons ended once Cruz took office. As a junior senator, Cruz has aggressively courted national media coverage to promote his causes, a strategy counter to the one President Obama used when he first entered Congress. According to Tommy Vietor, a former Obama Senate press aide who later worked for Obama both on his 2008 campaign and in the White House, the then-Illinois senator “basically declined every national press interview for nine months once he took office.” It was the same approach taken by Hillary Clinton when she was elected in 2000: “Keep your head down, focus on your work, and don’t look like you’re a show horse.”
In Vietor’s opinion, “when you’re an elected official and out doing every possible interview and on cable news, it diminishes you and makes people wonder why you aren’t spending more time doing your actual job.” As senator, Obama also took pains to avoid the appearance of even considering a presidential campaign and only visited Iowa twice before beginning his presidential campaign, both times while campaigning for fellow Democrats in the runup to the 2006 midterm elections.
By contrast, some grassroots Iowa Republicans say Cruz has hit just the right notes. Jamie Johnson, a member of the Republican Party of Iowa’s state central committee, said Cruz’s approach to the Hawkeye State has been “just right.” He noted that the Texas senator has made three trips to Iowa, each for a high-profile event, and that he likely won’t be back in the Midwest until next spring. Craig Robinson, a former party operative and editor of the Iowa Republican, voiced a bit more skepticism. While he acknowledged that Cruz has been in the state “a lot,” his criticism is not so much that the Texas senator is spending too much time in Iowa but that he has been concentrating on the wrong parts of the state. Cruz has been “been Des Moines-focused,” Robinson said. “It would be a bigger deal to me if he went to Dubuque or Davenport. That would be more interesting, rather than repeating” his trips to metro Des Moines.

As a presidential hopeful on the right of the Republican Party, Cruz has far more reason to visit Iowa in an effort to attract publicity than most of his potential competitors. After all, the past two winners of the Iowa caucuses, Rick Santorum in 2012 and Mike Huckabee in 2008, might run in 2016, along with a number of other conservatives with strong links to the state, such as Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) or Gov. Rick Perry (R-TX), another former presidential candidate. Cruz is appealing to a specific slice of Iowa caucusgoers, committed conservatives who are far more familiar with his competitors. As one observer pointed out, he has “more ground to make up.”
The risk for Cruz with Iowa voters is that campaigning aggressively at this stage in the election cycle would expose any political weaknesses far earlier than they might be otherwise. Doug Gross, who was the Republican nominee for governor in 2002 and is associated with the pro-business, establishment wing of the GOP, said the Texas senator is exposing his “feet of clay.” Gross said he thought Cruz performed poorly on his most recent visit to the state in October, when he spoke at the Republican Party of Iowa’s Ronald Reagan dinner in Des Moines. In Gross’s opinion, Cruz gave “a 45-minute self-indulgent rant” that hurt him with Iowa Republicans and “was better suited for D.C.” than a friendly part of the Midwest, where “neighbors know neighbors.”
Of course, as Cruz spokeswoman Catherine Frazier emphasized, his speaking schedule isn’t just about Iowa. “The senator accepts event invitations and schedules interviews that offer the best platform for him to share his priorities and make the argument for the policies he is pursuing in the interests of the Texans he represents,” she said. She noted that Cruz’s camp was “mindful” of the risk of overexposure but still “pleased that his message has been able to resonate largely through the work he has done in his role as a senator—in committee hearings, statements on the floor, etc. Of course, media interviews are a part of getting that message out, too.”
The problem for most politicians is that they are never “new” for long. They all eventually become known quantities. While Vietor pointed out that Cruz has “completely diluted his sort of freshness factor and everything he says is completely predictable,” that’s the case with almost every public figure who has stuck around in politics. The Texas senator was always going to lose his initial bloom after the wave of publicity surrounding his 21-hour speech and his leadership role during the government shutdown. The question now is whether Cruz and his team can deliver a message that resonates and maintain an appeal with Hawkeye State voters who no longer see him as the exciting new guy.

Read More

Survey: Low IQ Leads To Racism And Extreme Conservatism

By Maeby Gever on November 24, 2013

 Studies correlate low IQ with rabidly racist and right-wing views.

Studies correlate low IQ with rabidly racist and right-wing views

Does talking to a Teabully leave you asking: What’s wrong with this person? Do Teabully posts and memes make you wonder if people, who believe those things, could be cray-cray?   Take heart! A 2012 Canadian study suggests conservatives with racist and extreme views just might be born that way.

Psychology Today featured psychologists Gordon Hodson and Michael A. Busseri’s findings in its April 22 issue. Hodson and Busseri work at Borck University in St. Catherine’s, Ontario, Canada. They concluded the following:

Lower intelligence in childhood  is predictive of greater racism in adulthood, with this effect being mediated (partially explained) through conservative ideology.

and

Poor abstract reasoning skills were related to homophobic attitudes which was mediated through authoritarianism and low levels of intergroup contact.

and

For those who lack a cognitive ability to grasp complexities of our world, strict-right wing ideologies may be more appealing.” and “people with less cognitive capacity will be attracted to simplifying ideologies.

According to University of Virginia psychologist Brian Nosek:

Reality is complicated and messy…Ideologies get rid of the messiness and impose a simpler solution. So, it may not be surprising that people with less cognitive capacity will be attracted to simplifying ideologies.

And the studies making the connections to low IQ and to the racists and far right wing views–that seem to be at the root of the views expressed by the GOP/Teabully party of today–go back to 1970 and to 1958. Psychological studies have also linked a Conservative political point of view to an authoritarian upbringing.


Psychological studies have longed linked the appeal to political points of view, such as Fascism, to an authoritarian upbringing.  For a refresher course on “Isms,” grab the free downloadable primer available at LiberalAmerica.org.

The current rise of the Christian Right embedding itself into the present GOP/Teabully Party is proof that there’s a link between authoritarianism and these political points of view. The “Christian Fundamentalist Nation,” of which Teabullies dream, has been referred to as an ideology that is:

A form of debilitating shortsightedness. It replaces reality with an idealized version that usually has too little to do with the real world to be workable.

We should be careful not to conclude all liberals are smart and all right-wing conservative/Teabully types are stupid.  And, we must also be careful not take IQ tests at face value. They’ve long been suspected of being culturally biased. But, the studies connecting low IQs to racist, homophobic, bigoted, and conservative thinking are there.

Conservative Teabully types will no doubt scream and stomp, yelling, “Liberal bias!” That, of course, wouldn’t be surprising. They deny facts and have very little interest in science. But, like the Affordable Care Act and other legislation about which John Boehner’s GOP/Teabully House of Representatives whines, why bother?  It’s too hard, and reading is for Liberals.
About the Author:
Maeby Gever (45 Articles)I am the voice of my human parents. Dad, 58, mom 56, both retired lawyers. Dad worked privately as a personal injury lawyer in the Philadelphia, PA area before retirement. He has a BA in Political Science, a Masters in Secondary Social Studies Education and he did some public school teaching before retiring again. Mom also has a BA in Political Science and she spent her entire 33 year career working as an attorney for a US Defense Department Agency located in Philadelphia, PA. She spent the last four years of her career as the Chief Counsel. She retired in April of this year. I have two human brothers, both Graduates of the George Washington University. My older human brother is working his way up in Airport Management at the Philadelphia International Airport. My younger human brother is a Peace Corps veteran.

Read More

Rand Paul Throws a Tantrum on CNN and Calls Harry Reid A Big Bully

Rand Paul Throws a Tantrum on CNN and Calls Harry Reid A Big Bully

By: Jason Easley and Sarah Jones 

Thursday, November, 21st, 2013, 3:27 pm

The crying has only just begun now that Republicans won’t be able to hold up judicial and executive branch nominees (the filibuster rule changes do not apply to SCOTUS nominees or legislation). Mitch McConnell’s spokesperson inaccurately accused Obama of court packing, and now Rand Paul started a whine fest on CNN during which he complained that Republicans need an anti-bullying ordinance to protect them from “dictator” Harry Reid.
Video:

Senator Rand Paul said on CNN, “I think what we really need is an anti-bullying ordinance in the Senate. I mean, now we’ve got a big bully, Harry Reid says he’s just going to break the rules and make new rules. Never been done this way before.”
“He’s gotta have everything his way, he’s gotta control everything. This is more about them trying to control the agenda and shift it away from Obamacare than it is about anything else. Basically, he’s become the dictator of the Senate. He’s going to bend and break the rules to get his way.”
Rand Paul has been one of the main sources of Republican obstruction in the Senate, so it isn’t a surprise that he would cry a river over the fact that he has lost a critical tool that he has used both to gum up the works and call attention to himself.

Harry Reid’s rule change will make it a lot more difficult for look at me 2016 Republican wannabes like Paul and Ted Cruz to use obstructing the Senate to further their presidential ambitions. Obstruction of nominees will no longer be a prime PR tool for Sen. Paul as he daydreams about a presidency that may never be.
The root problem is that Rand Paul rejects the purpose of the Senate. Sen. Paul doesn’t believe in passing laws. Rand Paul thinks he is in the Senate to prevent progress. If Paul can’t obstruct, he serves no purpose in the Senate.
Sen. Paul is throwing a tantrum because he had his favorite toy taken away. Instead of looking like a visionary leader for America’s future, Rand Paul is stomping his feet because Republicans are no longer going to get their obstructionist way on everything.
Mostly though, Rand Paul is upset because he lost a vehicle to promote Rand Paul.

Rand Paul Throws a Tantrum on CNN and Calls Harry Reid A Big Bully was written by Jason Easley and Sarah Jones for PoliticusUSA.

© PoliticusUSA, Thu, Nov 21st, 2013 — All Rights Reserved

Read More

Fox News Chastises People For Giving To The Homeless: ‘You’re An Enabler’

By Scott Keyes on November 21, 2013 at 2:23 pm

According to Fox News, this woman is likely a scammer,
alcoholic, or addict who doesn’t deserve your help.
CREDIT: AP

I don’t throw around the term “hero” lightly, but it takes a special kind of person to look at a homeless man on the street — with no home to stay warm in, little access to a shower or clean clothes, and few possessions — and decide that he’s got it too good. But Fox Business host John Stossel bravely took up that mantle Thursday morning during a guest appearance on Fox & Friends, warning viewers about the perniciousness of giving money to the poor.
Donning a fake beard, Stossel sat on a New York City sidewalk with a cardboard sign asking people for help. “I just begged for an hour but I did well,” he said. “If I did this for an eight-hour day I would’ve made 90 bucks. Twenty-three thou for a year. Tax-free.”
Elizabeth Hasselbeck, who recently purchased a $4 million home in Greenwich, gasped in horror at the prospect of poor people earning $23,000 a year. Some people asking for money “are actually scammers,” Hasselbeck warned, seemingly unaware of the irony that the only panhandling “scammer” Fox News identified was Stossel.
Because he was able to successfully convince good-hearted pedestrians that he was poor, Stossel went on to chastise people who gave the homeless money because, in his view, “most are not…for real.”
He implored viewers to stop giving money to poor people because if you do, “you’re an enabler.”
Watch the segment:

There are a multitude of incorrect claims and assumptions in this short segment: $23,000 per year: Stossel spent a single hour on the streets and was given approximately $11 by people who wanted to help out someone in need. Therefore, Stossel assumes he would make $23,000 per year. (That figure is actually a steep drop from Stossel’s claims in the past, that he knew of beggars who made $80,000 per year panhandling.) There are a multitude of false assumptions here. First, one of the only scientific surveys of panhandlers found that the vast majority made $25 per day or less, annualized at just over $9,000. Second, $9,000 — or even $23,000 — is difficult to survive on, especially in a city like New York where the median apartment rents for more than $3,000 in Manhattan and more than $2,500 in Brooklyn. Third, spending 8 hours a day asking for money is time that can’t be spent going to classes, gaining skills, picking up diapers for a crying child, or interviewing for a job. Homeless people “are actually scammers”: Hasselbeck noted that “scammers” were rife among beggars, implying that panhandling is some get-rich-quick scheme engaged in by hucksters. Stossel agreed, saying that most beggars were not “for real.” Their only evidence for this claim? The fact that Stossel spent an hour undercover as a homeless person and was able to fool people into believing he was needy. An actual study of beggars, on the other hand, found that 82 percent were homeless, two in three were disabled, most earned less than $25 per day, and nearly all used the money for food. If Stossel and Hasselbeck truly do believe there is a scourge of well-off people acting as though they’re impoverished so they can successfully panhandle — nobody’s idea of a fun time — what would Stossel have people do? Ask beggars for a tax return before giving them a buck? Drugs and alcohol: Stossel cautions that well-intentioned people are actually enabling bad behavior because poor people will just use the money for drugs and alcohol. But that’s not what the data shows. While some do use the money for drugs and alcohol, most don’t. What did a survey find 94 percent of panhandlers used the money for? Food. Chastising beggars is an annual tradition for Stossel: Pretending to be poor and homeless is becoming an annual tradition for Stossel. Here’s his 2011 segment, his 2012 segment, and now his 2013 segment. Some journalists use their perch to give voice to the voiceless. Stossel’s hobby horse, on the other hand, is apparently to convince Fox viewers that poor people are too well off. Privilege: “I felt foolish and uncomfortable,” Stossel said of the experience, right after imploring viewers not to give poor people the dignity of believing they are actually poor instead of drunks, addicts, or scammers. Watching four wealthy white people sit in a New York television studio and banter about the evils of giving money to homeless people is like waking up the day after your 21st birthday: it’s not surprising, but still painful. Only Stossel would be capable of benefiting from people’s generosity, and then deciding that they were rubes with too much holiday spirit and we should really all be grinches who are suspicious of one another. War on Christmas, indeed.

Read More

Anti-Obama ‘Revolution’ Fizzles As Only About 100 People Attend

Author: Wes Williams November 19, 2013 5:22 pm

 

Radical Obama-hater Larry Klayman called for a revolution
to remove the president. That revolution started today,
and drew about 100 people. – From Right Wing Watch

What if you gave a revolution and (almost) nobody showed up? That’s the question that deranged Obama opponent Larry Klayman has to answer now.
In October, Klayman called upon “millions of Americans” to march on Washington, D.C. The goal? To remove “usurper” President Obama from office. Today, November 19, 2013, is the date Larry Klayman picked for his “revolution.” Did the millions he forecast to descend upon the city arrive in planes, trains, and automobiles? Are the Obama’s hastily packing and preparing to sneak out of the White House under cover of darkness? Hardly. Larry Klayman’s revolution was not quite what he predicted it would be. Right Wing Watch estimates that “no more than a hundred people” attended today’s event.

So, who is Larry Klayman?

In case his total lack of relevance has caused you to forget, Larry Klayman is a lawyer and founder of the groups Freedom Watch, and Judicial Watch. He is also a columnist at the unhinged anti-Obama site World Net Daily. Klayman has been on a personal anti-Obama jihad for some time. In 2012 he claimed that the president had been indicted by a “citizens’ grand jury.” It seems to be of little concern to Klayman that his citizens’ grand jury was not approved by the courts, and therefore is a total sham.

The revolution starts…now?

The right wing site BizPac Review proclaims “Over 40 groups converge on WH to ‘Reclaim America’; MSM ignores.” Over 40 groups? Let’s see…100 divided by 40 is… Apparently those groups didn’t get the memo that they were supposed to bring more than just their officers. And regarding the mainstream media “ignoring” the event? A few years ago I stood on the steps of the Capitol and watched a similar sized group protesting infant circumcision. The media didn’t cover that one, either.
Another site sympathetic to Klayman, FreedomOutpost.com, offers a list of 32 speakers who were scheduled for the event. The list includes former Congressman Bob Barr, Alan Keyes — the man who was beaten by President Obama for the U.S. Senate, anti-Muslim fanatic Pamela Geller, and singer Pat Boone. The site also offers a live video feed of the event. As of 2:30 PM EST the feed says “off air.” Instead of a live broadcast we are treated to a replay of 13:27 seconds of the event, which may have actually been the sum total of the whole affair.

Larry Klayman revolutionaries prepared to wait it out.

Larry Klayman originally said that his intent was to stay in Washington until the president resigns or is forced from power by the military. Those plans may have changed following the turnout in the high two figures. If Klayman and his group still plan on camping out until the president leaves office, they need to be settled in for the long haul, since that will occur on January 20, 2017. One word of advice to this tiny band of revolutionaries: there are squirrels in Washington, and this time of year, they are looking for nuts.
There are some images from the revolution you can see on Right Wing Watch.

Read More