Mental Cancer

Ever notice that nuts are unable to recognize their own nuttiness? They labor under the delusion it is they who are sane and that the sane among us are the nuts. Case in point is this column from flame-throwing know-it-all Craig R. Smith.

Smith rants:

Liberals are destroying the nation, and many people are sitting by and watching it happen. When you have five liberal justices afford a rapist life in prison while a jury of 12 calls for the death penalty, they disqualify themselves from being called justices. That is not justice. That is insanity.

No, insanity is nearer to believing there could not possibly be more than one way of looking at things.

Smith raves on:

I hope it is becoming increasing apparent to any sane person with an IQ of 75 or higher just what liberalism is doing to the nation. The big question is, just how long will America allow this mental cancer to eat away at the land we love and cherish?

Actually, what is apparent is that after nearly eight years of conservative tyranny the overwhelming majority of Americans feel we are headed in the wrong direction (take a gander at stories on this here, here and here).

Smith feels that, because some of us have doubts that the conservative agenda is a good one, it could only mean:

They hate this nation, plain and simple. Don't try and sugar coat it or justify it. Don't try and make it politically correct. They hate this country....

Now true enough, many of us certainly do hate what our country has become under the Bush/Cheney regime; but that is exactly why we seek change. It is the defenders of Bush and his policies who are bringing our nation down, I believe.

But if "mental cancer" be the subject under discussion, try to gasp the mental health of a mind that says something this:

Interventions are a very popular solution to people who are out of control. So we may need a million sane Americans to go to Washington and stage an intervention. They can start at the Capitol and finish at the Supreme Court – only leaving those who defend America, the Constitution and our children.

The "intervention" I envision is the one that hopefully will take place in November, and that will signal a true change of direction for our nation.

Protecting marriage or pushing an anti-gay agenda?

There is just something so very cheesy about this:

Two United States Senators implicated in extramarital sexual activity have named themselves as co-sponsors of S. J. RES. 43, dubbed the Marriage Protection Amendment. If ratified, the bill would amend the United States Constitution to state that marriage "shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman."

Sen. Larry Craig (R-ID), who was arrested June 11, 2007 on charges of lewd conduct in a Minneapolis airport terminal, is co-sponsoring the amendment along with Sen. David Vitter (R-LA).

You can read the full story here.

This is so transparent. Who can fail to see what is back of this? Two marital cheaters are so concerned about the "threat" gay unions supposedly poses to the institute of marriage that they totally ignore the bigger problem of which they are both a part.

To add to the hypocrisy, there seems to be a good deal of evidence (look here and here) that Senator Craig is either gay or bi-sexual.

Vitter's involvement in the infamous D. C. Madam scandal speaks volumes about his concerns for the institute of marriage.

So again, who can fail to see this as anything more than an attempt to further the anti-gay agenda of conservatives?

I would add that it seems that as a matter of principle these two flawed characters, Senators Craig and Vitter, should leave this fight to others with more credibility. These are foxes claiming to be guarding the hen house. But remember, actions aren't as important to conservatives as rhetoric.

The problem with conservative extremists

I just recently stumbled upon Hank Dagny's Liberal Quicksand blog. I took issue with one of his posts recently and was promptly treated to visitations from him to my blog. He left several comedic comments on some of my posts, and then challenged me to a debate. If my regular readers have noticed any of his comments, they will understand my lack of desire to "debate" or even seriously discuss liberalism with someone with an attitude such as his. But I welcome his comments ... I enjoy the hearty laugh. But I just can't take this type of conservative seriously.

Here is another example of Hank's humor:

Supreme Court traitors and justices Breyer, Ginsberg, Stevens and Souter almost placed our nation in a civil war.

Yes, as you might have guessed, this one is about the SCOTUS ruling on DC's gun ban. And had they not ruled as they did, the Supreme Court would have triggered a Civil War. I imagine the "law and order" conservatives would have grabbed their rifles and went to war against certain of their fellow citizens.

But against whom? Why, those cursed liberal terrorists! Check out this:

Just like with the other terrorists, like the ones in Muslim countries, appeasing and talking to liberals just doesn’t work. You have to defeat them. And since liberals wish to ignore the Constitution and the laws, restrictions on government and the balance of power as described within it, we will have to someday treat them as enemies to our Constitution that liberals truly are.

Even President Bush and Vice President Cheney didn't have that in mind with their "war on terror." Oh, brother!

Hank, you take yourself way, way too seriously.

The debt we liberals owe President George W. Bush

I was reading Paul Kengor's editorial on Where are the Bush Democrats? and it got me to thinking just how much President Bush has done for us liberals.

Kengor is one of a small but annoying band of conservative thinkers (including President Bush himself) who constantly assail us with the idea that one day the Bush legacy will be fondly recalled and honored among Americans everywhere. Kengor, doing his best impersonation of Pollyanna, writes:

I'm in a small camp of Republicans who believes that George W. Bush has the potential to be remembered as a leader who did great things -- a stoic, stable presence who stood the course and quietly transformed the Middle East and wider world, laying the groundwork for a much better 21st century. Of course, that's a big "if," depending on whether his extraordinary actions in Iraq and Afghanistan bear fruit over the long-run. If they don't, he will be seen as a failed leader.

Later in his piece, and after allowing time for the laughter to die down, Kengor adds this:

A couple of weeks ago at the website of the Center for Vision & Values at Grove City College, we received a disgruntled email from an excellent editor who frequently publishes our material. He is a conservative Republican. Angry over an op-ed I wrote commending George W. Bush, the editor zinged Bush as a "destroyer of the modern Republican Party." That's a complaint I'm hearing constantly from Republicans, and I fully understand the point. Bush will leave the GOP much weaker than the rebuilt party he inherited from Reagan.

And that brings me to my point. It is true that President Bush did accomplish something great during his reign of hubris: he indeed is the "destroyer of the modern Republican Party." And for that I shout a hearty "Hail to the Chief!"

The Bush/Cheney reign of terror, by virtue of their stubborn arrogance, their unprecedented grab for almost absolute power and authority, their ruthless cowboy diplomacy, and their totally irresponsible approach to economics, have done what other more timid ideologues had never done. They allowed us to see for all time how useless and counterproductive unrestrained Republicanism is - how dreadfully detrimental it is for America.

Kengor wasted much space comparing Bush the younger to Reagan the Great. He laments:

Further, consider Bush's total lack of inroads among Democrats. It is there, perhaps more than anywhere else, where Bush has completely failed. Remember the Reagan Democrats -- the converts who came to the Republican Party because of Reagan?

Well, yeah. Reagan was a master politician ... and therefore a hypocrite. While he spoke of the need to reduce government, he increased its size; while he spoke of tax cuts, he actually raised taxes ... or negotiated with Congress and signed into law "revenue enhancements" that raised taxes; while talking tough against the enemy, he courted "Evil Empire" leader Mikhail Gorbachev, he quietly withdrew Marines from Lebanon when the going got unnecessarily tough, and, we musn't forget, he DID negotiate an arms for hostage deal with Iran. Reagan, by virtue of his extensive acting career and considerable acting abilities, played the role of president as did no one in modern history. His sunny optimism made us feel good.

Bush, on the other hand, has conducted himself for what he truly is: a spoiled rich kid who fortuitously was ushered into a place of power and authority with help from his Pa. Oh, and he played the role of the fool excellently, except, sadly, he wasn't acting. None of this has made Americans feel good. He talked big and blindly and stubbornly followed through with his idiocy - ignoring pleas from his own friends and party members to moderate - and has damn near ruined our economy, destroyed our prestige and credibility in the world, and of course destroyed his own political party.

Kengor wails:

In the end, then, where are the Bush Democrats? Where are the Bush converts? There are few to none of them.

Hell, I'm not so sure there are that many Bush Republicans out there.

Concerning Bush endorsee and co-hort John McCain, he writes:

McCain is not only failing to turn it around but probably will make it worse. He is a terrible communicator -- a painfully clear inability to speak well and to articulate conservatism. McCain's shortcomings in this regard will be made even more manifest by the Democratic presidential nominee, the most radical-left candidate his party has ever nominated but who has the slick ability to look good and speak well -- even when saying nothing -- and woo voters.

Yes, I gleefully admit that Bush the Destroyer has done what liberals have thus far been unable to do. He exposed the conservative Republican agenda what it truly is: an empty and dangerous bill of goods - we all see the evidence and it is irrefutable. McCain, therefore, is a dinosaur in more ways than one. Short of that secretly longed for terrorist intervention, it does seem that the GOP is destined to go down in flames in November. America is tired of all the BS.

This Kengor admits when he closes:

All of this means that the situation is pretty darned grim for the Republicans. To stand a chance in 2008, they need the votes of Bush Democrats. The only problem is that there aren't any.

Sounds to me as if the Republicans need to make a bit of a left turn. And it seems to me they need to remember the fine art of compromise, ala Ronald Reagan - who was only a ideologue in his rhetoric, but underneath that he was a realistic pragmatist.

Reality will always eventually trump unreality. The jury is back in and the verdict is clear: Bush and modern Republicanism have blown it. We owe it to President Bush that his true legacy will not be forgotten

Republinomics

There is this story in the Los Angeles Times with these poll results:

Three out of four Americans, including large numbers of Republicans, blame President Bush's economic policies for making the country worse off during the last eight years, according to a Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg poll released Wednesday, reflecting a sharp increase in public pessimism during the last year.

How do the Republicans see the matter? The story adds:

Among Republicans, 42% said the country was worse off, while 26% said it was about the same, and 22% thought economic conditions had improved.

Are the nearly half of Repubs that think things have stayed about the same or had actually improved liars or just ignorant? Perhaps they are who President Bush considers his base:

What an impressive crowd: the haves, and the have-mores. Some people call you the elite, I call you my base.

One thing is certain, a John McCain presidency would be disastrous:

The issue of economics is not something I've understood as well as I should. I've got Greenspan's book.

And we have the book on Republican economics. Let's close it.

And the point is what?

RedState bog's Andrew Hyman posted this bit on Barack Obama and the recent SCOTUS opinion concerning the death penalty for those who commit rape against children.

After duly noting and linking to an Associated Press news story detailing Obama's objection to this decision (by Justices Kennedy, Stevens, Ginsburg, Breyer, and Souter), Hyman makes an issue that "the latter three justices are Obama's model appointees" based on this previous statement by Obama:

Justice Breyer, Justice Ginsburg are very sensible judges. I think that Justice Souter, who was a Republican appointee, is a sensible judge.

Okay, what's the point? Supreme Court Justices are notorious for being unpredictable once seated. So Obama thinks Justices Breyer, Ginsburg, and Souter are sensible judges, even if now he finds himself in disagreement with them on this matter. What about the fact Obama alluded to, that David Souter was an appointee of a Republican president, George H. W. Bush? Can we suppose the first President Bush agrees with this decision?

The point is, I believe, that conservatives fear and do not want independent thinkers in the judicial branch of our government - they prefer conservative puppets and shills. But as I said, sometimes these things are unpredictable. I like that fact.

Rush Limbaugh: Blacks and other kooks

Right now the news outlets are still buzzing over the latest misstep by radio host Don Imus, an ambiguous and confusing comment concerning troubled football player Pacman Jones. But I wonder if we will hear much from the MSM about Rush Limbaugh's latest racial slur?

The story and video are here. Limbaugh, in response to one of his callers who had questioned why the GOP is ignoring 30% of their base (Christians and conservatives) while the Democrats are courting minorities such as blacks and gays, opined:

I think it's actually larger than 30 percent. But let me see if I can get your question right. You want to know why the Republicans are willing to say, "Screw you," to 30 percent or more of their voters and yet Democrats will bend over, grab the ankles, and say, "Have your way with me," for 10 percent and 2 percent of the population?

I always find it amusing that "culture warriors" are virtually obsessed with sex, especially of the homosexual variety. In comments at one conservative website I actually encountered a new word to describe gay male sex, "homoanalfecal." What gives with these guys? They claim to abhor homosexuality and believe it is an abomination, but they can't stop talking about it in the most colorful of terms.

But not content with that observation, Rush goes on to say:

The -- there's a complicated answer to this and I'm going to have answer some of it in the monologue in the next hour, but one of the simple answers that will require some elaboration is that a lot of money is coming from these kooks -- and I'm not talking about just the blacks -- I'm talking about a whole kook-fringe base because George Soros is running it --

Got that? Rush isn't just talking about blacks when he talks about these "kooks."

But we shouldn't hold our collective breath waiting for Limbaugh to be fired or to lose sponsors. He speaks for too many pinheads.

Obama drops "faux presidential seal"

The latest attack against Barack Obama has been over a seal that conservatives have been howling over because they feel it desecrates the official presidential seal (funny they never complain when candidates wrap themselves in the American flag, which - considering most politicians - is a bigger outrage).

Well, the "faux presidential seal" is apparently gone now and the conservative blogosphere can return attention to the weightier matters concerning Obama's candidacy, such as his Messiahship, big ears, suspicious middle name, and the question of whether he is more black than white or more white than black.

The politics of Armageddon always in style

On June 7, 1981, President Ronald Reagan recorded the following words in his personal diary: "Got word of Israel bombing of Iraq - nuclear reactor. I swear I believe Armageddon is near." He was known for his belief that the biblical prophecies concerning Armageddon were being fulfilled in the 1970s and 80s.

Jerry Falwell, his supporter, friend and spiritual adviser, held prophetic views that were sensationally geared towards our day. In 1999 he caused a stir with his statement that he felt the Antichrist was probably alive, was a male Jew, and that the Second Coming of Jesus would probably occur within 10 years.

Now son of Falwell, Jonathan Falwell, has released an editorial on this subject, titled "Last Days" are imminent, in which he writes:

This week, the Associated Press reported that a recent Israeli military exercise may have been intended to show the nation's abilities to attack Iranian nuclear facilities.

The International Herald Tribune called it a "major military exercise" that "appeared to be a rehearsal for a potential bombing attack on Iran's nuclear facilities," with more than 100 F-16 and F-15 fighters joining the maneuvers over the eastern Mediterranean earlier this month.

The reason for this training mission is Israel's belief that Iran is attempting to build nuclear weapons that could be used against it. Iran – whose president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, has vowed to wipe Israel off the face of the earth – counters that its nuclear enrichment facility is simply meant to generate power for the nation.

There is no doubt that the drama is mounting in the Middle East, and the eyes of the world are again focused on this volatile region.

As a Christian, I look at these reports with thoughts geared on biblical prophecy, which foretell of an invasion against Israel during the "last days"....

There has been for months a call for either our attacking Iran or our supporting an Israeli attack against the nation of Iran. Man is notorious for trying to give God a hand. The danger here is that sincere but gullible believers (which sadly represents a surprising number of Americans) will blindly support the starting of yet another war. Always with God (allegedly) on our side!

Ed Morrissey must be kidding

In an enormous overreach, Ed Morrissey ignores the facts of the case and totally - and I mean totally - misrepresents something Barack Obama said about the presidential campaign:

Barack Obama told supporters in Jacksonville that Republicans would launch racist attacks against him in the upcoming election. Without noting a single supporting piece of evidence, Obama cast any opposition to him as bigotry, and in doing so, recalled just a touch of Joe McCarthy’s tactics

What Obama really said was this:

It is going to be very difficult for Republicans to run on their stewardship of the economy or their outstanding foreign policy. We know what kind of campaign they’re going to run. They’re going to try to make you afraid.

They’re going to try to make you afraid of me. He’s young and inexperienced and he’s got a funny name. And did I mention he’s black?

Okay, Obama didn't note "a single supporting piece of evidence," I suppose, for the simple fact that these GOP tactics are too well known to bother to mention.

Morrissey says:

The ironic part of this argument is that it ignores the tactics his fellow Democrats used in the primary, while also overlooking John McCain’s efforts to distance himself from the same tactics.

The battle for the Democratic nomination is over and now he is looking forward to November. This isn't an ironic part of Obama's argument. That Hillary Clinton was borrowing from Karl Rove's playbook was repeatedly addressed during the primary campaign. Why would Obama be readdressing it now?

Morrissey trips all over himself trumpeting McCain's distancing himself from Obama smear merchants such as Bill Cunningham (who warmed up one of McCain's audiences by repeatedly emphasizing Obama's middle name) as well as an unnamed staffer who had e-mailed a Rev. Wright video in an effort to embarrass Obama. I applaud those actions by McCain. However, it is fair to note that what Obama said was that Republicans would be using these tactics - and they have been from day one.

Morrissey concludes:

Just as with his untrue statements on Republican financing and 527s, Obama seems content to issue lies and smears in order to inflame the electorate. There is more than a little hint of McCarthyism in this tactic. Joe McCarthy waved pieces of paper around and claimed to have lists of Communists in government that he never substantiated. Obama likes to accuse Republicans of racism without any proof, either, while apparently discounting the real race-card playing in his own party.

If he has proof that the Republican Party and/or John McCain plan racist attacks on him, let him show it. If he doesn’t, then Obama is guilty of his own racial pandering and should apologize.

The proof that the GOPers are guilty of this is abundant. Anyone who checks out the right-wing blogosphere will be buried under such tactics, especially by front men such as Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity. The issue of Obama's race, his name, and certainly his level of experience have all been fodder for the Republicans. And John McCain is certainly on record concerning the experience issue.

This has to be one of the most dishonest attempts at claiming the moral high ground I have seen lately. An apology should be issued by Ed Morrissey.

Not so hard nuts to crack for gay marriage supporters

John Lillpop has asked what to him must have been searching questions with regard to gay marriage.

First, he asks why - "[g]iven the miserable failure rate of heterosexual marriages" - Any "sane" gay or lesbian couple want to get married?"

Looks here like Lillpop is attacking traditional marriage. Hey, given the modern divorce rate, why would anyone - gay or straight - want to marry? Tough one, John.

Next he asks what if, "God forbid," (or maybe we should say "American voters forbid" by denying McCain the presidency) we had a military draft: "would a married man, married to another man, be exempt from the draft?" Thinking he has a real riddle, he asks: "If both men sought military deferments, which partner would be spared, and which one would be sent off to war, and why?"

Well, inasmuch as a large (probably even larger than admit it) segment of conservatives support the idea of excluding altogether gays from military service anyway, this seems to me an argument in favor of gay marriage. This way gays could be more easily identified and barred from service and otherwise discriminated against.

Then he goes on to ask if Jesus had the California Supreme Court in mind when he uttered "By their fruits ye shall know them" in Matt. 7:16-20?

Um, I clearly read that he was referring to "false prophets" But nice try. You will probably win over quite a few bigots who never bother to read much of the Bible aside from select arcane laws such as you find in Leviticus with this question.

Lillpop goes on to question whether San Franciso Mayor will declare a successful election aimed at overturning the CSC decision (which seems much less than certain according to recent polling) unconstitutional.

After the presidency of George W. Bush, I don't see what concern conservatives have for our Constitution at all. And we already knew from decades of experience that conservatives have no desire to protect the rights of minorities - EXCEPT when they find themselves in the minority on some issue.

I especially liked this next one: "If Fred, a gay American citizen, weds Ricardo, a gay illegal alien from Mexico, will Ricardo automatically become an U.S. citizen?"

It might interest the conservatives - no, I'm only kidding myself and talking like a fool - that not all Americans share the fear and loathing of foreigners that they do. Why is this question even being asked? The same rule should or should not apply regardless of whether it is gay or straight marriage under discussion.

He then asks if the answer to the above is "yes" if "there a procedure whereby Representative Barney Frank could marry all 38 million illegal aliens in America in one ceremony, thereby granting immediate citizenship to all said invaders, and locking up the Hispanic vote for Barack Obama?"

How did we get from gay marriage to polygamy? And unless it is Lillpop's contention that all 38 million "invaders" are men, we have really traveled far afield. But what the heck, his whole purpose is to be obnoxious anyway, right? You have well succeeded, Mr. Lillpop. And do you really consider this one (or most of them) what you call "crucial questions"? Sheesh!

Here comes more of his twisted logic in his next question: "Given the fact that the California Supreme Court has wielded a wrecking ball to the institution of marriage, are there any guidelines as to whom or what can become “as one” by taking the marriage vows?"

It has never been satisfactorily explained how allowing gay couples to wed would destroy the institution of marriage. As Lillpop himself has noted, there is a soaring and outrageous divorce rate among heterosexual couples - if that hasn't destroyed traditional marriage, the small minority of gay couples that want to marry could hardly harm it.

But again, he wants to leap from gay marriage to polygamy by wondering by way of example "what if Fred, Ricky, and Harry decide that a gay threesome would make a nifty family, what would stop them from doing just that?"

Okay, I'll bite. Just what is keeping Fred, Ricky, and, say, Sally from doing it now? Can we please come back to reality now?

Mr. Lillpop, those aren't crucial questions. There are no "inevitable messes" that will need to be untangled. All that needs to be done is for people who think the way you do to look inside and see the bigotry and hate and feel shame enough to make a change.

But what would have happened?

I've said here before that it isn't people with conservative principles that offend me. Rather, it is the extremists. And I would extend that to all extremists of any kind - religious, environmental, political, health nuts, animal rights activists ... any kind of extremism grates on my nerves.

But on the subject of politically conservative extremists, they and their shrill, fear-mongering, innuendo-laden tongue wagging campaign that made this incident happen:

U.S. Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama apologized on Thursday to two Muslim women who were barred from sitting behind the podium where Obama was speaking because they were wearing Islamic headscarves.

At a campaign rally in Detroit on Monday, Shimaa Abdelfadeel and Hebba Aref were prevented by volunteers from taking seats behind Obama that would have been in view of television cameras, apparently because of their headscarves.

Said Obama:

"I reached out to Ms. Aref and Ms. Abdelfadeel this afternoon," Obama said in a statement. "I spoke with Ms. Abdelfadeel, and expressed my deepest apologies for the incident that occurred with volunteers at the event in Detroit."

Obama said the volunteers' actions were "unacceptable and in no way reflect any policy of my campaign."

"I take deepest offense to and will continue to fight against discrimination against people of any religious group or background," he said.

It is truly sad this happened. But you have to wonder how it would have played out in the conservative blogosphere had these Muslim women been photographed behind Barack Hussein Obama. This whole "Obama is really a closet Muslim" campaign, brought to us by the cowardly, unscrupulous, parrots of the right-wing, is uglier than ugly.

O'Bryant's latest blast

Jeff O'Bryant's latest bout of verbal flatulence concerns that "appeaser" Barack Obama. We'll get to that particular accusation presently; but first, here is a little insight into how O'Bryant's mind works:

During the Republican primaries some liberals had nice things to say about John McCain; enough evidence alone to demonstrate that he is not fit for the job. From his voting record, one would think conservatives already understood this fact. But in a spectacular failure of good judgment they nominated McCain anyway. Praise from those who stand against everything conservatives believe in somehow failed to set off a 10.0 on the Richter Scale of political mistakes.

You see, in typical right-wing bully fashion, he seems to hold that unless one sees eye-to-eye with another person on politics, one shouldn't have any nice thing to say about that person. This certainly explains a lot of the nastiness and hate generated on the right. Conservatives vilify and demonize those who disagree with them to such a degree that it doesn't seem to occur to them that their "enemies" are humans just like them.

Enough of that. I just thought it was interesting that he put his shallowness front and center that way for all to see.

But the above set the stage for his carping about "testimonials" for Barack Obama from various characters such as Hamas advisor Ahmed Yousef, Fidel Castro, and Hugo Chavez. Well, O'Byant admits that Chavez:

...didn't exactly endorse Obama when he recently claimed that Venezuela’s relations with Washington would worsen if McCain were elected. “Sometimes one says, ‘worse than Bush is impossible,’ but we don’t know,” Chavez said, according to Reuters. “McCain also seems to be a man of war.”

But to O'Bryant "Chavez realizes he has nothing to fear from Obama." Again, you can't say nice things about someone you disagree with so such things count as an endorsement.

O'Bryant then roars:

Obviously, we do not want the whole world to fear us. But the fate of Saddam as an example of the good U.S. power can do in the world is not lost on those of a like kind, an example Obama clearly isn’t prepared and indeed has no inclination to make of others. He has offered to talk with no preconditions. Like Neville Chamberlain meeting with Hitler, Obama has no idea what he is doing.

You know, what strikes me as humorous about this - and the many conservatives who make this comparison day in and day out - is that Chamberlain was a conservative. Chamberlain was a highly regarded member of the United Kingdom's Conservative Party. The same party that gave us Reagan's political soul-mate Margaret Thatcher. I never see conservatives talk about this when they are comparing [insert whatever liberal leader they are attempting to vilify] to Chamberlain.

However, I believe Mr. Obama adequately answered this ridiculous charge in saying:

Anything but their failed cowboy diplomacy that has produced no results is called appeasement. Here's the truth: the Soviet Union had thousands of nuclear weapons and Iran doesn't have a single one. But when the world was on the brink of nuclear Holocaust, Kennedy talked to Khrushchev and he got those missiles out of Cuba. Why shouldn't we have the same courage and confidence to talk to our enemies? That's what strong countries do. That's what strong presidents do.

Mr. Obama continued by sagely observing:

The Soviet Union had the ability to destroy the world several times over, had satellites spanning the globe, had huge masses of conventional military power, all directed at destroying us. So, I've made it clear for years that the threat from Iran is grave. But what I've said is that we should not just talk to our friends. We should be willing to engage our enemies as well. That's what diplomacy is all about.

Indeed the choice is clear: more cowboy diplomacy or true leadership.

The truth is, Ronald Reagan, the conservative's favorite leader of all time was an "appeaser" by their definition. He caused no small spat among conservatives when he met with the leader of that "evil empire" Mikhail Gorbachev. But by far the best example was when he traded arms for hostages with Iran.

But I guess only liberals can be appeasers. Jeff, go wipe now.

M.Y.O.B.

Why is it the modern conservative feels that another's private matters are their concern? On some matters - sexual orientation for one, abortion rights for another, for popular examples - it seems they are bent on having their say on how others choose to live their lives. There is just something internally gratifying, I imagine, about trying force your views, your preferences, your prejudices onto others -- if you are conservative, that is.

I say that on these personal matters, they should mind their own business.

Case in point is anti-gay activist Peter LaBarbera, who is hoping for a voter backlash against the California Supreme Court's ruling allowing gay couples to wed:

I just think it is a tragic day for this country that the judges have imposed so-called gay marriage on the people of California, and the governor so easily relented to judicial activism. I think it is very wrong, and I hope it gets overturned in November," LaBarbera told Cybercast News Service.

How, pray tell, can a ruling allowing individuals to choose FOR THEMSELVES whom they wish to marry be imposing "so-called gay marriage on the people of California"? Is that not a stupid thing to say? Is it not dumbth to the nth degree? Nothing is being imposed on anyone.

Come on you guys ... the world is not going to come to an end just because people are allowed to live their lives the way they choose to live them. Mind your own business.

Mind rapers

I never had children of my own. Have had step-children. Also, I was very close to my nephews when they were young (still am, in fact). But no children of my own. Still, I'm certain that if I were the father of young children in these modern times I would ten times - nay, a hundred times - prefer explaining to my children why two men were holding hands than even attempt to explain how some people - lots and lots of people - are addicted to hate toward their fellow humans.

Michael Savage, in his vicious, overbearing, self-righteous, and idiotic way, has this to say about the matter:

You've got to try to explain to the children why the -- why God told people this was wrong. You've got to explain to them, to the children, how it twists everything. Just take them down to a duck pond and show them a boy duck and a girl duck and then show the ducklings and say to them, "There must be a boy duck and a girl duck for there to be babies." It's the same with a dog, puppies come from a mother duck -- a mother pup, a mother dog. There needs to be a boy dog and a girl dog. You have to explain this to them in this time of mental rape that's going on. The children's minds are being raped by the homosexual mafia, that's my position. They're raping our children's minds.

Sounds to me as if Savage could use a little explaining to himself ( "It's the same with a dog, puppies come from a mother duck") . But to my thinking, the Michael Savages of the world (and they are legion) are the real mind rapers. It is they who pollute the minds of people with bigotry hate.

Oh, and "homosexual mafia": how over the top can you get?

These are the times that try conservative's souls

James Lewis grabs the editorial megaphone in an attempt to rally the troops (the sixty million conservatives -by lowball estimation - that he says "can't be wrong"):

"These are the times that try men's souls," wrote Thomas Paine on December 23, 1776. It was a deeply demoralizing time for American independence fighters, with Gen. George Washington in constant retreat, always just managing to dodge defeat by the British. Keeping American morale strong was the crucial ingredient for victory then, just as it is today.

By comparison, we are living in a time of domestic peace and prosperity --- but we are under constant, minute-by-minute propaganda assault by the Left-wing media....

I fail to see the comparison. The mess that the Bush administration has made of the American economy, the damage to our national prestige his warmongering policies have wreaked, the general feeling of malaise of the American people who are fatigued after nearly eight years of Bush's mismanagement - all representing a fall from America's prior greatness - are in no way comparable to the throes of our nation's founding. Apples and oranges. The "Left-wing media" has nothing to do with the mess we are truly in.

Then Lewis stokes his audience with this:

But the stakes are higher than they have been in the last fifty years. No major US political party has ever nominated a radical Leftist before --- and Obama can't hide his real loyalties. Even Bill Clinton was more of a 'moderate' Democrat. Obama is a True Believer in the Left, like a younger Hillary Clinton after a sex change and a major sun tan.

Did everyone read between the lines here?

Mr. Lewis continues:

Will the American people be taken in by the Left? That's the crucial question that will decide the historic election of '08

Wait a minute. The sixty million or whatever number of conservatives CAN be wrong, and WERE grievously wrong in giving us George W. Bush in the first place and then reelecting him to a second term. I think the crucial question is whether enough people will understand this and not bring us a third Bush term with a McCain presidency.

The Bush presidency has given us eight years of conservative leadership. It has sucked! How could we endure another four years of this? Whether one is a conservative, moderate, or liberal, it should be abundantly clear that a change of direction is desperately needed.

Slay the gay!

The E-mail To The Editor section is for me one of the most titillating features of the World Net Daily. Some of the choicest gems of conservative thought (ahem!) are to be found right here. For example, here is a portion of a gay agenda rant from one of their readers, a John Mellgren:

It seems to me the best answer is for ALL Christians to get together and fight this thing rather than retreating and hiding our heads in the sand. Surely there aren't as many of them as there are of us. And God said that a hundred of us could put 10,000 of them to flight! Let's take Him at His word and stand up to this monster. We can win! We battle not against flesh and blood, but against powers and principalities. Concerted, fervent prayer will win.

I take it the author is referencing Leviticus 26 (my how Christian bigots love the book of Leviticus!), which contains certain promises from God to Israel and in part says:

I will grant peace in the land, and you will lie down and no one will make you afraid. I will remove savage beasts from the land, and the sword will not pass through your country. You will pursue your enemies, and they will fall by the sword before you. Five of you will chase a hundred, and a hundred of you will chase ten thousand, and your enemies will fall by the sword before you.

Put "this Monster," those sinful homosexuals and their supporters (those of us naive enough to believe that our nation should stand for freedom and equality for all), to flight? This is talking about slaying your enemy!

Perhaps the author didn't think this through. But perhaps he did.

How conservatives view women

The ever helpful Media Matters For America has this tidbit concerning the question of why most women vote Democrat:

On the June 16 edition of MSNBC's Hardball, when host Chris Matthews asked why "most women vote Democrat," radio host Heidi Harris responded, "Most women? I don't know. I think women -- sadly, a lot of women are very emotional, and they tend to think with their hearts and not with their minds about some of these issues. They tend to feel more of these kind of things than think it through." She added, "I hate to say it, but it's true."

Perhaps this is why conservatives were staunch opponents of women's suffrage. Consarn uppity women trying to get out of the kitchen and the laundry room long enough to read the newspapers!

I assume that Heidi Harris doesn't include herself in this "most women." But anyone who has studied the rhetoric of conservatives - their cataclysmic, apocalyptic, sky is falling rhetoric - could only find laughable a comment like Harris'.

Every issue conservatives discuss, be it abortion, illegal immigrants, gay rights, Iraq, whatever, is a "go for the gut" emotional appeal, usually with a heaping dose of the fear factor thrown in for good measure. From what I read day after day, it seems the intellectualism of the majority of conservatives - both male and female - is a faux intellectualism.

So I want to salute the many women who really do think and find that the Democratic party has more room for intellectual debate than the GOP.

Where are all the gay bashers?

Sadly, they are all around us. But leave it to The World Net Daily to feature this hate-filled attack against the gay community, coming from a follower of Jesus no less! This is truly dumb.

Dr. Ted Baehr, chairman of the Christian Film & Television Commission and publisher of MOVIEGUIDE, evidently feels that there is a conspiracy to inflate the numbers regarding homosexuals, and as one proof he offers that movies with gay themes "averaged only $7.97 million at the box office" while movies "with very strong Christian worldviews have averaged $76.97 million, or 10 times more money!" He also cites that only a "small number" of reservations for the gay wedding package being offered as California's "day that will live in infamy" ( the day when gay couples can obtain marriage licenses there) approaches have been made.

Dr. Baehr writes:

If there are very few homosexuals who show up at the box office, or who show up to get married, it could mean that the press, the government and businesses have vastly overrated their size and importance. That would mean that a very small minority is dictating the Judeo-Christian laws of the United States of America, or at least California.

On the other hand, it could also be that most homosexuals realize they want lots of sex and couldn't care less about marriage ... or about movies featuring homosexuality. It would be interesting to find a way to really do the numbers.

Until that day comes, and people are willing to come out of the closet of phony figures, I can only continue to challenge them to show up and show off at the box office. If they don't, then the movie industry should stop wasting money on this tiny group, and the government of California should be embarrassed that they have allowed a tiny group of Mensheviks to rule the state, destroy marriage and tyrannize the people!

First off, this concept of "the Judeo-Christian laws of the United States of America" should be pointed out to be the myth that it is. This just isn't the case, thankfully. Second, the overblown rhetoric about equal rights for minorities being tyranny is fear mongering at its worst.

Why do so many straight people fear gays?

Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse unleashed

...according to Southern Baptist theologian (and president of The Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission) Dr. Richard Land.

A recent news story says:

Land believes there are four “modern horsemen of the apocalypse” that are “riding forth to wreak havoc and destruction in our society” – the denial of the sanctity of human life, the rise of hardcore Internet pornography, the radical homosexual agenda and its attempt to undermine marriage and radical Islamic jihadism.

A lack of empathy and lack of concern for our fellow humans seems to me to be the biggest threat the world faces.

Real men act mature and reasonable

Temper tantrums are a hallmark of childhood. In this ridiculously immature and illogical rant, Hank Dagny proposes that: "By definition, Democrat men are not real men."

Of course we know what is coming next because conservatives have their own unique definition of what a "real man" is. Their ideal of a real man is someone who is arrogantly stubborn, big-talking, condescending towards women, bigoted, and homophobic. Sad but true.

Dagny writes:

Real men take care of their own problems and deal with what happens. Liberal men cry for their government ‘mommy’.

And Democrat men don’t want to be the one to make the hard decisions or say tough things. They let their wive’s do it.

What parallel universe does he inhabit?

Hold on ... here come his "proof":

As proof, I give you Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, John Kerry, John Edwards and the latest Democrat sissy;

Barack ‘KKK Never Proud of and God Damn America Disown Grandma Disown Church Disown Resko Blow Up the Pentagon Want High Gas Prices Have Terrorist Fund Raisers’ Hussein Obama.

The last in the long line of weak men trotted out as ‘leaders’ in the Democrat Party. They are not even the leaders in their own house, so how can they lead a nation?

This smear of Barack Obama has to be one of most dastardly I have yet to witness from the right. Hate is a key component of right-wing ideology. It cannot be denied. This type of thinking which I document day after day on this blog demonstrates the reason you cannot have an intelligent dispute with the modern conservative: their worldview is not grounded in intelligent reasoning in the first place.

Dagny continues:

Jimmy Carter surrendered to Iran and this nation is still paying for that cowardice.

It would be incredible that someone could write such a thing except for the fact that what came before it demonstrates some kind of dementia on the part of the one making the argument.

For the record, Carter did anything but surrender to Iran. Under his leadership an ill-fated rescue mission was attempted to recover the American hostages being held in Tehran. A very ballsy move, I think, that had it proved successful would have made President Carter a hero.

But it was the careful, determined, and painstaking negotiations on Carter's part that finally secured the release of our hostages. In fact, he-man and Republican icon Ronald Reagan - who had just been inaugurated president - in acknowledgment of Carter's role in obtaining the hostages' freedom, asked him to travel to West Germany in order to greet the freed Americans. (This also would be a good place to recall Reagan's dealings with Iran when he was attempting to free American hostages.)

Dagny raves on:

Bill Clinton let the terrorists murder Americans for eight years. Then he let his wife take the rap for the first attempt at ‘Communist Medicine.’

Asinine! All of it. Unworthy of further consideration.

Here is his closer:

Democrat men, by definition, are just weak people. No backbone. No courage. No belief in their own abilities. No sense of a greater good that is more important than their own existance.

If these men were not as I just described, they would not be Democrats. Pure and simple.

What the devil would he have to say about Democrat women?

Hate is good: The "societal glue" that binds us together.

Teach me to think like a conservative. This looooooong article intends to do that. We are in trouble as a nation and the reason is that we just don't have enough good old-fashioned hate anymore:

We are unsure, we remain confused and conflicted, we can barely conjure up a reasonable facsimile of anger without it generating some immediate liberal moral backlash. We have gutted our military and outlawed our masculinity and rendered ourselves all but defenseless. Half of our nation believes we are at war and half of our nation doesn't. We live nervously in our Cowardly New World of clever obfuscations and elaborate denials, we cower behind a wall of euphemisms and confront our enemy's virulent hatred with the only weapons we have left, those pitiful weapons of Tolerance and Understanding. We attempt to defend ourselves against the Murderous Beast by pretending that he's really not there. We would rather be dead than be impolite. We refuse to identify our enemies for fear of offending them.

We have forgotten how to fight back, we only know how to talk. We have forgotten that omnipotent power of hate; foolishly, we have systematically eliminated the most powerful weapon in our arsenal. We have thoroughly expunged that dreaded word from our vocabulary, and we have declared that the word War is now our real enemy.

In summation, we're in serious trouble.

If we are to survive as a nation, as a free and honorable people, if we are to survive as a viable Democracy, we must once and for all abandon all the lies and obfuscations. We must make all euphemisms illegal. We must go all the way back to 1945 and relearn that cold hard masculine vocabulary of War.

To live, we must learn how to hate again. For without the strength of that unmitigated and unquestioned passion, weakened by our own civility, we will most assuredly perish, subsumed in the onrushing tsunami of our enemy's unanswered rage.

Wow! What a worldview. According to this thinking the problem is the solution. Incredible.

"The law is an ass": A conservative explains the "real result" of Supreme Court ruling

Dear God in heaven ... what manner of thinking is this? Warner Todd Huston has explained his take on yesterday's SCOTUS ruling:

But, here is the real result of this ruling. No, it doesn’t “help” the murderers and terrorists get habeas corpus, or find rights, it will kill them on the battlefield. What battlefield commander will waste his time trying to figure out what rights the terrorist he is facing has or doesn’t have?

The proper and reasonable decision to make on the battlefield will be to automatically kill EVERY captured person as soon as you do a quick interrogation. After all, anything else will simply just get the commanders on the line in trouble with the “law.”

And, I cannot say I’d blame any American soldier on the battlefield. Just kill every one of those captured without regard for their status. Their innocence? Immaterial. Kill them anyway.

And also:

So, here’s hoping that more of these people are merely executed on the field and left for dead instead of brought into custody, introduced to American rights, and then released into OUR country as they await their undeserved day in court. As they are let go HERE in THIS country while those who would assist them to destroy this country pretends to get them their day in court, they then will have access to THIS country where they can wreck their terrorist agenda.

Chomsky well said, "terrorism is what they do to us." The attitude expressed by Huston would take us down to the level of terrorists. Words fail me to express my contempt.

Typical conservative knee-jerk reaction to SCOTUS decision

So judgmental and arrogant are modern-day conservatives that of course they are outraged because the Supreme Court has ruled against the Bush Administration's immoral detainment of "terrorists." That's right. They can't understand that the detainees - many rounded up by bounty hunters - might not all be guilty as charged. In their minds they are all "guilty as sin."

Rick Moran provides a good example in this silly tantrum:

Well that's it, war over. I wonder who won?

The Supreme Court has all but said that the US is not at war with anyone, that the detainees at Gitmo are just like any other foreigners who come to the US to see the sights. Perhaps we can get them all in a bus and have them visit the Supreme Court building. I am sure they would wish to thank the justices personally.

Just make sure to keep them away from sharp objects that could be used to saw off heads. We wouldn't want to lose any of our eminent jurists because of the actions of some foreign tourists.

How silly. How illogical. How typically conservative. We aren't talking about tourists here. Our nation - which boasts of its devotion to liberty and justice - is acting like a third-world dictatorship in our treatment of the detainees under Bush & Co.

Moran concludes:

Just whose side are these guys on anyway? Don't tell me they're on the side of the "Constitution." The Constitution is not a suicide pact. And yet 5 justices felt it necessary to empower those who would just as soon stick a knife in our ribs as say "Howdy."

So why do conservatives get angry when those of us on the left accuse them of being mindless parrots and blind followers? Bush says the detainees are terrorists, so they are terrorists. Period. No trials necessary. And those of us who believe in basic human rights are supporters of the enemy.

God! Their attitude makes me want to vomit.

Vote Sidney for president in '08?

Who are these mentally challenged people who believe that repeating Obama's full name incessantly (or some variant like B. Hussein Obama, a la Ann Coulter) is an argument against voting for the man? This slimy suggestion that because he has a Muslim-sounding name he must truly be a Muslim at heart (and this is an issue only because most conservatives are unable to distinguish Muslims from Muslim extremists) is beneath anyone claiming to be a rational human -- which is why so many conservatives accept it and repeat it like the mindless little drones they are.

But how many voters are aware that Obama's opponent in the fall presidential election is John SIDNEY McCain. That's right, Sidney wants your vote in '08! Sidney thinks he can protect us and keep us safe against all the enemies that President Bush has made for us. Sidney will stand tough in these tough times. John SIDNEY McCain needs your support! Sidney sounds like a sissy name - not as masculine and testosterone laden as John, huh?

Hey wait! A thought just occurred to me. I wonder if conservatives are aware that Sidney was also the name of the gay lead in the 80's television series Love, Sidney, starring Tony Randall? Remember that show? I'm sure the older conservatives do as they were the ones vehemently protesting its positive portrayal of homosexuality.

Could this mean that perhaps, deep down, John SIDNEY McCain is a latent homosexual? Perhaps he secretly supports that dreaded "gay agenda" conservatives are always warning us about. Why have the conservatives been silent about the "truth" concerning John SIDNEY McCain? How is they have ignored what has to be one of the most pressing issues in this campaign?

Every conservative needs a good dictionary

I believe this is so.

I laughed and laughed and slapped my thigh when I first heard about Jonah Goldberg's book Liberal Fascism. That book, from what I can gather from excerpts and reviews (I haven't time nor inclination to read it cover to cover), brings either parody or ignorance to a new level. (I'm thinking the latter, though.)

Now comes John Lillpop attacking what he calls "liberal bigots" for not partaking of conservative xenophobia!

Lillpop writes:

Most liberals have nothing but contempt for one the most lasting and cherished symbols of the South; preferring to label those who revere the Confederate Flag as red-necked racists and hate mongers.

Okay, I - as both a natural born southerner and an avowed liberal - more or less plead guilty to that one.

But articles like Lillpop's gives the reason:

If ever there was a flag that should be banned in America, it is the flag of Mexico, our third-world neighbors who dump their illiterate peasants on the US side of the border for US taxpayers to feed, house, educate, and provide medical care for.

Bottom Line: Give me a redneck with a Confederate Flag any day over a brown-necked illegal alien with a Mexican flag.

[By the way, the bold emphasis is Lillpop's, not mine.]

Alright, John. And I also would give you a dictionary and ask you to recheck the definition of bigot.

John McCain: Mental Giant

Conservative Cassy Fiano is gushing about the supposed mental superiorly of John McCain over Barack Obama, all because of this "golden little line" of his:

Senator Obama says that I’m running for Bush’s third term. It seems to me he’s running for Jimmy Carter’s second.

From that she extrapolates the following:

McCain seems ridiculously sharper and more quick-witted at 71 than Obama is at 47.

God, I can’t wait for these two to debate face-to-face!!

Uh, Cas, for the record, Obama is 46. Incidentally, he will turn 47 in August, a few weeks before McCain turns 72.

Oh, President Carter left office, let's see, over a quarter of a century ago - some second term separated by that gap. Sheer genius on McCain's part!

But I, too, am looking forward to seeing the eloquent Obama debate master of the gaffe John McCain.

Why I don't plan on quitting my day job

Once, in the early days of this blog, I decided to do a little prognosticating about who the major presidential candidates would be once all was said and done.

Simply put, I thought it would be Hillary Clinton and Mike Huckabee.

It seemed likely to me that coronation that was taking place in the MSM for Hillary was a done deal. Then a thing called Obamamania swept the nation like a tsunami. It still was a close, tough, hard-fought battle, but finally Clinton faced the inevitable, "suspended" her campaign and threw her support to Obama. It remains to be seen what effect her vicious campaigning against him will have in the long run.

On the Republican side, I just couldn't imagine McCain getting past the far-right talk radio gang. In fact, his campaign seemed dead and all but buried at one point, but the strong support of the MSM (which almost but wasn't quite able to come through for Hillary but did for him) made the difference. It is still hard for me to accept that this guy is who the Republicans ultimately chose, but he is facing a divided party and (at best) lukewarm acceptance from party conservatives.

So, I'm not quitting my day job in order to go into business as an odds maker or soothsayer. And I think also that I will resist hazarding a guess as to who will come out on top in November. Sadly, I have to say that a nation that would elect George W. Bush president two consecutive times is capable of anything. And that scares the hell out of me.

Back from the dead

I suppose I celebrated prematurely when I recently mentioned that Jeff O'Bryant's inflammatory far-right blog Right News and Views was apparently defunct. But he's back. After a two-and-a-half month hiatus he comes limping back with this attack on Barack Obama. Actually, it is a plug for his latest newspaper column (which as his columns go, wasn't bad at all), but he used this plug as an opportunity to take swipe at Obama.

Underneath a picture of Democrats Bill Richardson and Hillary Clinton saluting the flag while Obama stands hands folded across his pelvis is this caption:

Love for your country is part of a persons character- so it isn’t about what a countries current leaders are doing that you may not like- it is about believing in its core ideals. For America, that’s liberty and equality. But Obama doesn’t look like he cares much, does he?

So much for "it isn't about what a country's leaders are doing that you may not like," huh? From this single photograph that O'Bryant dislikes because Obama does not have his hand over his heart, he thinks he is able to discern Obama's understanding of America's core ideals, and he apparently invites his fellow right-wing sheep to join in that assumption.

O'Bryant writes:

What's really worth considering when you weigh the important factors in voting. As Martin Luther King, Jr. did, make the judgment based on the content of a persons character and nothing else.

Is he serious? He thinks you should base your vote on a candidate's character "and nothing else"? Does he not recognize the possibility that a candidate can have sterling character and still might not have the skills necessary to lead? I suggest one look a little deeper than character alone when choosing for whom to vote. And it goes without saying that MLK Jr. was not speaking about how to choose a candidate to vote for when he made his character statement.

But as far as the character card is concerned, this is still laughable when you consider that O'Bryant has wasted much space down through the months defending President Bush, who has brought us the most corrupt administration in our nation's history. George W. Bush's skill at lying to and misleading the nation is unsurpassed.

Furthermore, O'Bryant is supporting McCain in '08, as his column makes clear. What can you say about this man's character? He is known as a foul-mouthed, hot-headed firebrand. He is a panderer's panderer. He has fliplopped on key issues so many times that it is hard to know just where he does stand on matters. Great character.

So welcome back to the fray, Jeff - I've got my dumbthometer on you.

That "Hollyweird mentality"

I got a real chuckle out of Warner Todd Huston's latest rant over at Stop The ACLU concerning what he perceives to be "Hollywood miscasting."

It seems his gut is all in knots over

...a movie role miscasting that would be akin to picking Michael Moore to portray George W. Bush, a new flick that is starting production soon will feature an unlikely actor as the president of the United States of America. Leftist activist, and virulent anti-American Danny Glover has been tapped to star as a U.S. president that will be confronted with a “global cataclysm” in the film "2012."

Huston elaborates:

There’s a “cataclysm” alright. That such a U.S. hater would be picked to star as the occupant of the White House is as big a disaster as can be imagined. It is just amazing how Hollywood likes to stick their fingers in the eyes of the American public. Of all the actors in LaLaLand that they could pick to take the role of POTUS, they have to pick Glover, one of the worst anti-Americans in the business. And in a business over flowing with folks with anti-American ideas, that is really saying something.

He then goes on to give several examples of Glover's leftism. And for icing on the cake Huston comments that, aside from Glover's leftism, he is also "one of the worst actors in the town." (Which of course is a matter of opinion.)

Look, actors act. It is absurd to think an actor should resemble in real life the person they are portraying in an acting role in order to be credible. I've seen movies where serial killers such as Ted Bundy and John Wayne Gacy were convincingly portrayed by talented in actors who were not wanton criminals. This just seems a silly objection to make.

Silly also is Huston's analogy of Michael Moore playing George W. Bush. First, Moore is NOT an actor as is Danny Glover; and secondly, Bush is an historical figure whereas the POTUS Glover is to portray is fictional.

Huston goes on write:

Still, to cast one of the most loud detractors of the U.S.A. as the president of the same is ridiculously unbelievable. But, it sits perfectly well with the Hollyweird mentality.

Sheesh! What a tempest in a teacup. What is unbelievable to me is that Huston would bother to waste a blog post on such a stretch.

Ronald Reagan was a liberal Democrat

If you know your history you know that conservative icon Ronald Reagan was once a New Deal Democrat. Reagan left the party in 1962 and was noted for saying that he didn't leave the Democratic Party, it had left him.

Now if I were in that often despicable business of coming up with political campaign ads, and if I were to therefore make one attempting to co-opt the Reagan legacy in order to support the Democratic Party based on the fact that once upon a time the Gipper was a Democrat, it would not only be dishonest, it would be stupid as well.

That sums up my feelings upon opening my e-mail mailbox this morning and finding an appeal for a donation from the fine folks at Human Events in order to help them with their little campaign to "win just 25% of the black vote" - which they feel is all they would need to win to 2008 election - by convincing black voters that Republican policies better represent their concerns than Democratic policies, and that the proof of this is that Martin Luther King Jr. was a Republican!

Part of their four-point plan includes using the funds they are attempting to collect to put up a billboards all across America that has a large black and white picture of King Jr. and says:

National Black Republican Association

Martin Luther King Jr. Was a Republican

www.NBRA.info

The appeal letter ends:

If we can convince just 25% of black voters that the Republican Party already represents the values they most care about, we can take back Congress and stop the Democrats from capturing the White House.

But all this is blatantly dishonest.

The Rev. Joseph Lowery, former president of Southern Christian Leadership Conference (the civil rights organization that MLK Jr. founded in the late fifties), said about a similar conservative effort to include King Jr in their merry band of cretins:

To suggest that Martin could identify with a party that affirms preemptive, predatory war, and whose religious partners hint that God affirms war and favors the rich at the expense of the poor, is to revile Martin.

Absolutely very well said.

The problem with this sort of thing is that the major political parties have realigned themselves somewhat down through the years. At one time the black vote was largely Republican. The Republican Party of today is no longer the party of Lincoln, however. And the Dixiecrat Democrats of the Jim Crow era have now gone over to the Republican Party where they are much more at home.

To begin to understand my contempt for modern conservatism you have to understand how much I despise hypocrisy and anti-intellectualism -- which seems to me to be the very foundation of modern conservatism. This whole "MLK Jr. was a Republican" thing is just one more example.

For the record, MLK Jr. was concerned about the 1964 presidential campaign of Barry Goldwater, in which he saw what he called "dangerous signs of Hitlerism." Hardly a ringing endorsement for conservatism. King Jr. supported and voted for liberals John F. Kennedy and Lyndon B. Johnson. There is nothing in King Jr.'s words or actions that would lead any rational person into believing he would have anything but loathing for the modern Republican Party.

Bushvilles?

It seems we have been inundated of late with articles and opinion pieces from conservative thinkers explicating what a recession actually is and playing down the fact that - technicalities aside - we are in a recession.

Here is one sure sign right here:

Foreclosures hit a record high - and more coming

The foreclosure hammer is hitting ever harder. People lost their homes at the highest rate on record in the first three months of the year, and late payments soared to a new high, too _ an alarming sign that the housing crisis and its damage to the national economy may only get worse.

The same story relates:

In fact, Americans' equity in their homes - usually their single biggest asset - now has dropped to the lowest level on record in figures going back to the end of World War II. Homeowners' portion of equity fell to 46.2 percent, which means the amount of debt tied up in their homes exceeds the equity they have built up.

You know it's bad when you see stories about rich celebrities facing foreclosure - and this we are seeing.

The Center for American Progress has a killer article comparing the economies of presidents Herbert Hoover and George W. Bush. Read the entire thing, please. But concerning the present topic, this article states:

Under both presidents, housing foreclosures rose rapidly—even more rapidly under Bush than Hoover. Housing starts also fell significantly, though to a much greater degree under Hoover than Bush.

Housing starts fell by 79 percent under President Hoover, declining from 105,000 in 1929 to just 22,500 in 1932, at the end of Hoover’s term. Under President Bush, housing starts fell by 16 percent from 2001 to 2007, declining from 1,600,000 to 1,350,000, though from 2005 to 2007, a more severe decline of 35 percent occurred.

Foreclosures under Hoover increased by 84 percent between 1929 and 1932. Under Bush, foreclosures increased by 45 percent from 2001 to 2007. From 2005 to the end of 2007, however, foreclosures more than doubled under President Bush (see chart and table below). Foreclosures are expected to continue to grow in 2008. During the Great Depression, the displaced worker camps that resulted from mass unemployment were popularly referred to as Hoovervilles. President Bush’s housing record may soon make “Bushvilles” the appropriate term for the suburban and exurban developments, formerly home to large concentrations of subprime borrowers who are now faced with an extremely high number of foreclosures.

Had enough of conservative economics yet?

Conservatives and private matters

While social and religious conservatives have been going bonkers over the recent California Supreme Court decision allowing gay marriages in that state, there is reason to hope that maybe ... just maybe, mind you ... the tide is beginning to turn in this long war.

According to this story in USA TODAY "[s]ix in 10 Americans say the government should not regulate whether gays and lesbians can marry the people they choose...." The story states:

As same-sex couples line up to get marriage licenses in California on June 17, the USA TODAY/Gallup Poll found that 63% of adults say same-sex marriage is "strictly a private decision" between two people.

Exactly.

On the other hand, opponents of individual freedom and champions of bigotry such as Randy Thomasson, president of Campaign for Children and Families, are mounting an offensive by "advising county clerks in California to ignore that state's recent Supreme Court ruling legalizing homosexual 'marriage,' according to this report.

That piece elaborates:

Thomasson argues clerks would not only be doing the right thing by refusing to obey the court's ruling, but they would also be carrying out the people's will. Most of California's 58 counties supported a state law banning homosexual marriage eight years ago when Proposition 22 passed overwhelmingly.

Catch that? Eight years ago. Long time ago ... things change.

What is it with the majority of conservatives that they feel the most private of matters ought to be public policy issues?

Racist Rush rides again

When it comes to ability of combining dumbth and offensiveness into a single sentence or sound bite Rush Limbaugh is certainly at the top in this field. He recently lambasted the "Democrat" party for supporting a candidate who

...does not come off as the messiah, he doesn't come off as this great unifier. He has trouble articulating with a bunch of stutters and pauses and so forth. So -- but my point in telling you this is that there must be real animosity toward the Clintons at high levels of this party. To go with a veritable rookie whose only chance of winning is that he's black.

Yeah, Rush, that is what it is ... because he's black.

Less than two weeks ago this dynamic speaker and charismatic campaigner drew the largest crowd (75,000 people) of the presidential campaign thus far ... because he is black.

His message of hope, change, and "yes, we can" has revitalized the "Democrat party," bringing scores of young people into the party ... because he's black.

And now he has accumulated enough delegates to claim the nomination of the "Democrat party" ... because he's black.

Why has the "Republic" party done little else but make the Dem's major candidates' sex and race the major issues? Oh, yeah, I suppose it is because all they are offering as an alternative is a third Bush term. A black man or a woman would be much more terrifying than another warmonger at the helm, huh?

The philosophy of Jesus?

Entire books have been written highlighting stupid things our current president has said. In retrospect one of his sillier utterances was in response to the question asked him during one of the Republican primary debates in 2000, "who is your favorite philosopher?" Bush answered that it is Jesus Christ. I say this is silly in retrospect because even his most ardent admirers would be hard pressed to find many similarities between the two men, and his presidency has been a litany of lies and abuses of power.

I was reading a story concerning the autobiography of former commander of U. S. troops in Iraq retired Lt. Gen. Ricardo S. Sanchez. In it he gives this report of a Bush pep talk given to his national security team and generals:

"Kick ass!" he quotes the president as saying. "If somebody tries to stop the march to democracy, we will seek them out and kill them! We must be tougher than hell! This Vietnam stuff, this is not even close. It is a mind-set. We can't send that message. It's an excuse to prepare us for withdrawal."

"There is a series of moments and this is one of them. Our will is being tested, but we are resolute. We have a better way. Stay strong! Stay the course! Kill them! Be confident! Prevail! We are going to wipe them out! We are not blinking!"

Where is the philosophy of Jesus in this speech? Not that my problem with President Bush is his lack of Christ-likeness. It isn't. But certainly this is an example of the man's hypocrisy and dumbth.

Stop The ACLU explains ... sort of

Saturday's post concerned the ACLU's having filed a lawsuit in behalf of librarian Deborah Smith, who was disciplined for refusing to work a promotional event for one of the Harry Potter books. I pointed out that ACLU director Brenda Jones summed this up by saying, "Federal law requires accommodation of religious beliefs so that every citizen's religious liberty is safeguarded." I sarcastically noted that you wouldn't read about this story in the Stop The ACLU blog - a blog offensive to reason and which deals with lots more than just the ACLU.

Of course I was right. Stop The ACLU did however respond to my post here by offering the (sort of) explanation that one can always read about exceptions such as this at left-wing blogs and in ACLU press releases. They are making this out to be a 1st Amendment case rather than one dealing with religious liberty.

Again I say what I have said before: Conservatives ignore the many times the ACLU defends personal religious liberty and make a commotion whenever they come out against cases where the government is in a position of endorsing religion. Several times I have actually been told by right-wing bloggers that the ACLU only takes an occasional case defending Christians in order to keep their true agenda hidden. That would be a strange way to do business, would it not?

In response to my original post Jim O'Sullivan commented that I should explain several examples of cases that in his mind demonstrates how the ACLU "continues its assault on traditional American culture." He then provided a few links. The first I could not get to work. Then there was one where the ACLU opposed a program of school employees escorting students during school hours off campus to receive Bibles from the Gideons. If you follow the link I provided you will see where ACLU attorney Carrie Davis observed concerning this matter that legal precedent leaves religious upbringing in the hands of parents rather than public schools. (I wonder how O'Sullivan and his fellow conservatives would have reacted had this been taking place to allow students to go receive free Korans, or copies of The Book of Mormon or, say, LeVey's Satanic Bible?)

The next working link O'Sullivan provided was for a blog called Doctor Bull and Ronin and is an offensive slur against Muslims in their coverage of a case where The University of Michigan-Dearborn decided to spend $25,000 in order to install footbaths that would allow Muslims to wash their feet before praying. They had been using the sinks for this. The ACLU response in deciding not to challenge this decision was given by Detroit's ACLU director Kary Moss: “We view it as an attempt to deal with a problem, not an attempt to make it easier for Muslims to pray. There’s no intent to promote religion.” Please be sure to check out the disgusting picture the blogger used in their "ad campaign."

No, clearly the problem is that the modern conservative critics of the ACLU are not believers in true religious liberty; they are Christian supremacists who believe that America should be a Christian Nation.

For the record, attorney Allen Asch maintains a site that collects the many examples where the ACLU has defended individual Christians or Christian organizations (this doesn't include their defenses of adherents of other religions). I would direct Mr. O'Sullivan and others of a like mind there and ask them to explain how this could be if the ACLU is so anti-God.

And again, you won't read much about these cases - these "exceptions" - in the Stop The ACLU blog.

Note: I want to make clear that I am not a member of the ACLU. Neither do I claim to agree with every case they make an issue of. I just feel that fair is fair and that conservatives do not deal with the ACLU fairly or honestly.