10 Biggest Doozies From the Right-Wing Wackosphere This Week

Who gets the prize for most deranged statement this week? Limbaugh? Palin? Santorum? Or maybe the RNC.

AlterNet / By Janet Allon

 

 

Photo Credit: Christopher Halloran/Shutterstock.com

December 7, 2013  |  

 

The week that began with talk of the socialist pope, ended with right-wing absurdities about Nelson Mandela. Is nothing sacred?
1. Rush Limbaugh: The pope rips America, causing Obama to orgasm! And then Mandela really showed those American blacks how to do civil rights!
The man who has continually raised the ante on outrageousness brought his A-game this week, starting with comments about Pope Francis and President Obama. “The pope is ripping capitalism, ripping trickledown economics, ripping America. And Obama is having an orgasm,” Limbaugh spewed. “The pope has co-opted Obama.” Because what really gets this president’s motor going is “ripping this country apart.” (Are you listening, Michelle?) Obama demonstrated his ejaculatory pleasure in criticizing America a few days later when he had the audacity to say that “increasing inequality is most pronounced in this country.” The nerve!
Nelson Mandela’s death provided fodder for the right-wing radio ranter to reach new paroxysms of offensiveness and denounce the civil rights movement in America, which of course helped bring about Obama’s presidency. Here’s his case:

“Nelson Mandela actually lived through the indignities, the punishment, the discrimination, the horrors of the South African apartheid system. Came out of it — you realize when he was inaugurated president, he invited as his special guests the white jailers from his Robben Island prison? He literally did forgive everybody.
“Nelson Mandela would not qualify as a civil rights leader in this country with that philosophy. They can’t let it go. It’s become too big a business. They will not let it go. Mandela let it go. It's just — amazing.”

Of course, Mandela went on to decry the ongoing “cancer of racism” in America and elsewhere. He did not think racism had ended (unlike the RNC, it seems: see item #3 below).
(h/t: mediamatters)
2. Sarah Palin: Thomas Jefferson and I agree. Those meanie atheists are trying to abort Christ from Christmas.
Sarah Palin managed to combine those dreaded atheists with abortion, Christ-killing and the dastardly war on Christmas all in one fell swoop in a speech at Liberty University. She was, of course, promoting her new book Good Tidings and Great Joy: Protecting the Heart of Christmas, and the former not full-term Alaska governor is nothing if not good at self-promotion.
She also revealed a new talent for channeling the founding fathers. She knows exactly what Thomas Jefferson would do if he were alive today: He’d go on Fox News to complain about the war on Christmas. In other words, he’d be Sarah Palin.
That’s because—and this might come as a surprise to those who have read the part of the constitution about separation of church and state—Jefferson and his buds wrote the constitution specifically for religious people. Nonreligious people, in other words, amoral people, are not capable of understanding the constitution, and they are therefore not able to follow its precepts.
Here’s an excerpt from this marvelous bit of oratory:

 “If you lose that foundation, John Adams was implicitly warning us, then we will not follow our constitution, there will be no reason to follow our constitution because it is a moral and religious people who understand that there is something greater than self, we are to live selflessly, and we are to be held accountable by our creator, so that is what our constitution is based on.”

There’s some more rambling after that, but you get the idea.

From there, she jumped back to her favorite topic and the one that promotes her book, saying Jefferson would agree with her that “angry atheists armed with an attorney” had set their sights on destroying the religious themes in Christmas celebrations.

“Why is it they get to claim some offense taken when they see a plastic Jewish family on somebody’s lawn—a nativity scene, that’s basically what it is, right?”
A plastic Jewish family. Is that in the scripture?
(h/t Raw Story)
3. Tin-eared RNC: Racism and sexism have ended.
The national Republicans deftly demonstrated how they can appeal to both women and blacks this week. They started offering lessons to candidates on how not to say offensive things about women, especially when you are running against one, as Todd “legitimate rape” Akin did. Clearly, a steep learning curve there. Emergency reinforcements may be needed.
Over the weekend, the RNC declared that racism has ended in a tweet marking the anniversary of the Montgomery Bus Boycott and celebrating Rosa Parks’ famous act of civil disobedience. “Today we remember Rosa Parks’ bold stand and her role in ending racism,” they said. Hilarious tweets ensued under hashtag #racismendedwhen, with answers like “when Mr. Drummond adopted Arnold and Willis,” “when Bill Clinton played the sax on Arsenio Hall” and “when the Fresh Prince moved to Bel-Air.”
Realizing their mistake after, well, millions of people ridiculed them, the RNC amended the tweet, “clarified it,” by saying Parks fought to end racism. But, let’s face it, they really think racism has ended. We’ve got a black president and the Supreme Court itself ruled there is no need for a Voting Rights Act anymore. That ought to settle it.
Does anyone still wonder why more than 90 percent of black America votes for anyone but the GOP?
4. Rick Santorum: Obamacare is like apartheid. And I am like Mandela. O’Reilly: Oh, you mean that commie?
Wow. Flabbergasting things happen when you combine two idiots on Fox with the death of a great man.
Here’s Santorum on Mandela:

“He was fighting against some great injustice, and I would make the argument that we have a great injustice going on right now in this country with an ever-increasing size of government that is taking over and controlling people’s lives—and Obamacare is front and center in that.”

Apartheid and affordable healthcare. Yes, very similar. And that would, of course, make you Mandela-like in fighting this injustice. Amirite? We’ve seen some questionable analogies before, i.e. Obamacare and Katrina, Obamacare and the Fugitive Slave Act, Obamacare and the Nuremberg Laws, but this one might be the biggest doozy of them all. Points for creativity, Rick!
O’Reilly couldn’t top that, so he just kept repeating the one thing he did have to say about Mandela.

“He was a communist, this man. He was a communist, all right? But he was a great man! What he did for his people was stunning!...He was a great man! But he was a communist!”

So, uh, wait? Does that make Santorum a communist?
5. Fox News: Sharia law is here and the proof is that Muslim girls are taking swim classes at the Y.
Head for the hills. Sharia is here and it’s coming after your women. Fox continued its quest to stoke the fires of Islamaphobia when it targeted a seemingly harmless YMCA swim class in St. Paul Minnesota that offers hour-long swim practice once a week for Muslim Somali-American girls between the ages of 5 and 17. The YMCA (that’s “C” for Christian, hello) even makes considerations for the girls’ modesty and religious beliefs. On Fox & Friends, an outraged Heather Nauert said this is just one more piece of evidence that "Sharia law is now changing everything."
Modesty considerations have long kept observant Somali-American Muslim girls from learning even basic swimming skills, which, of course, is the problem that the program is designed to overcome. This pernicious tolerance trend is spreading all over the Midwest, Fox reports. Thankfully, Nauert promised viewers that Fox will keep an eye on it.
We are sure they will.
6. S.C. Sheriff refuses to fly flag at half staff for Mandela.
Another great American with a modicum of power and a desire to use it, Rick Clark, the sheriff of Pickens County, S.C., is taking a bold stand against... ummm... Obama’s tyranny? Sheriff Clark is refusing to lower the flag to half staff in honor of Mandela on December 9, 2013, as the president ordered.
Now, we know what you are thinking, but this has nothing to do with race, Clark swears. It has to do with Amurrica. "Nelson Mandela did great things for his country and was a brave man but he was not an AMERICAN!!!” Clark wrote on his Facebook page. “The flag should be lowered at our Embassy in S. Africa, but not here."
Clark knows full well when it is appropriate to lower that flag. He did it last Friday in honor of a deceased deputy, and on Saturday in honor of Pearl Harbor Day. But then it’s straight back up for Ole Glory. Unless another Amurrican dies.
7. Texas Republican Rep.: Minimum wage, schminimum wage.
Sometimes the best defense is a good offense. So, in a week when low-wage workers went on strike to demand an increase in the minimum wage, and President Obama finally acknowledged that inequality is the defining challenge of our time, Rep. Joe Barton decided to be deeply offensive.
Abolish minimum wage, he told the National Journal. “I think it’s outlived its usefulness,” he said. His view is that it was only useful during the Great Depression.
Raising the minimum wage is bound to be on the list of things not to do in the Republican obstructionist playbook, now that Obama has announced making structural inequality the focus of the rest of his presidency.
Think Progress reports:

“At least 67 Republicans who are still serving in Congress today supported an increase under President George W. Bush, including Alexander and Ryan. Yet House Republicans unanimously voted down an increase in March.”

But while many of them won’t raise it, Barton’s going one better.
Let them eat cake!
8. House Chair of Science Committee Lamar Smith: Climate change, no way; aliens, sure.
Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX), who chairs the Science, Space, and Technology Committee, has no use for climate change science, and less use for the efforts to regulate carbon emissions. Setting standards for polluting power plants is partisan politics, he recently argued, blasting the EPA for trying to do so, not science. And the petroleum industry favorite knows from science. He’s using one of the seven days left on the legislative calendar to talk about extraterrestrials in a hearing called, “Astrobiology: Search for Biosignatures in our Solar System and Beyond.”
Well, if there are aliens out there living on some other planet, that could help give people a hint about where to go when the Earth becomes uninhabitable due to global warming, which isn’t happening, of course, no matter what 97 percent of scientists say.
9. California GOP-er: It’s part of Middle Eastern culture to lie.
Rep. Duncan Hunter must have been a cultural anthropology major. He displayed his deep knowledge of Middle Eastern culture in an interview with CSPAN this week when he expressed his opposition to the recent treaty with Iran. They lie, he said, in essence. Not only do they lie, they revere lying. Here’s how he knows. He’s heard about how bargaining goes on over there. "In the Middle Eastern culture it is looked upon with very high regard to get the best deal possible, no matter what it takes, and that includes lying," Hunter said.
His interlocutor gave him the chance to add some nuance to this keen geopolitical observation, and asked if he meant "all Middle Eastern countries are this way."
Yep, he said: "They like to barter there."
In damage control mode later, his communications director clarified that Hunter was talking about Middle Eastern political leaders, not all the people, especially Iranians.
Furthermore, Hunter, who also thinks U.S.-born children of undocumented immigrants should be deported and opposes gays in the military, recommends using a nuclear bomb on Iran if necessary.
"I don’t think it’s inevitable but I think if you have to hit Iran, you don’t put boots on the ground, you do it with tactical nuclear devices and you set them back a decade or two or three."
Then you can go back to the bargaining table.
(h/t TPM)
10. GOP Rep: "I wake up every day not thinking about social issues."
Virginia Rep. Scott Rigell is up for re-election next year, and he just wants to clarify what does and what does not keep him up at night. He apparently told Politico: “I wake up every day not thinking about social issues.”
You have to admire his succinctness!

Sarah Palin Disgraces History With Claim Adams and Jefferson Support Her War on Christmas

Sarah Palin Disgraces History With Claim Adams and Jefferson Support Her War on Christmas 

 

By:  Rmuse

Sunday, December, 8th, 2013, 6:40 pm

If there is one distinguishing feature unique to conservatives, it is their predilection for war. They will declare war on anything, seemingly for sport, but primarily to advance their sick agendas whether it is war against Muslims, women, the poor, gays, or equality; they just love war. It is interesting then, that conservatives of the Christian persuasion claim there is a war on their religious liberty when they are prohibited from forcing compliance to their religious dogmata on the entire population, and then there is their annual outrage that they are victims of the “war on Christmas.” Of course, the aggressors, according to conservative Christians, in the war on Christmas are the dreaded atheists who, interestingly, enjoy the winter “holiday” season as much as the next American, but resent the fact that any sector of government uses their tax dollars to promote the religious aspect of the uniquely commercial holiday.
America’s “resident dunce,” half-term governor, and failed vice presidential candidate has taken advantage of the  non-existent “war on Christmas” to speak to like-minded conservative Christians to sell her latest screed against President Obama and all-things secular proving once again why she has the “well-established-reputation as a world-class idiot.” One hesitates commenting on the absurdity that is Sarah Palin, but her latest contention that Founding Fathers John Adams and Thomas Jefferson would join her in the war against the imagined war on Christmas is too much of an affront to American history, facts, and reason to bear; especially for a secular humanist.
On Thursday, Palin pimped her “war on Christmas” book at Jerry Falwell’s Christian Liberty University, a place of “higher education” that Palin likely understands teaches David Barton revisionist history of America’s founding as a Christian nation based on the Christian bible. Palin told the audience that Thomas Jefferson and John Adams wrote the U.S. Constitution (Adams did not) for moral and religious people. She said, “If you lose that foundation, John Adams was implicitly warning us, there will be no reason to follow our constitution because it is a moral and religious people who understand we are to be held accountable by our creator so that is what our constitution is based on. So those revisionists, those in the lamestream media who would want to ignore what our founders actually wrote about in our charters of liberty” must not comprehend the principles espoused by the Founding Fathers. Principles, by the way, that apparently include celebrating Christmas the “religious way” by honoring the virgin birth she claimed atheists were hard at work fighting in an attempt to “abort Christ from Christmas” (note the “abortion” reference).

She said, “Why is it they get to claim some offense taken when they see a plastic Jewish family on somebody’s lawn – a nativity scene, that’s basically what it is right?  Oh, they take such offense, mentally distresses them so they sue, right?” No atheist considers plastic Jewish facsimiles of “virgin birth Jesus” on someone’s lawn offensive or worth a lawsuit. They do, however, take offense when Christians erect plastic virgin-birth Jesus displays, crucifixion crosses, or resurrection representations on land paid for with their tax dollars.
She continued that “heaven forbid we claim any type of offense when we say, ‘Wait, you’re stripping Jesus from the reason, as the reason for the season,’ but heaven forbid we claim any type of offense.” Then Palin went rogue and spoke for Thomas Jefferson she claimed “would recognize those who would want to try to ignore that Jesus is the reason for the season are angry atheists armed with an attorney. They are not the majority of Americans. So I think Thomas Jefferson would certainly recognize it and stand up and he wouldn’t let anybody tell him to sit down and shut up.”
Thomas Jefferson, a deist, eschewed everything divine about biblical Jesus; particularly what he called the “contrary to the laws of nature” virgin birth and resurrection story. What Jefferson did appreciate about biblical Jesus was the humanitarian ethics of goodwill toward human beings, charity for the poor, and his inherent humanism that Jefferson himself espoused.  To make his point, Jefferson gathered 4 translations of the gospel accounts, edited out each and every “contrary to natural law” part, and compiled humanistic Jesus into his version of the gospels minus Christ’s miracles, Christ as divine, and especially the virgin birth and resurrection. In fact, Founding Father Thomas Jefferson wrote to another Founding Father, John Adams, in 1823 that “The day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin, will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter.” So much for America’s resident dunce counting on Thomas Jefferson joining her in fighting against “atheists trying to abort Christ in Christmas” or the “reason for the season” that is as absurd as a star guiding wise men to Bethlehem around December 25.

Astronomers, real “wise men,” who use science, mathematics, and empirical data of the observable Universe have concluded that according to the Christian bible account of Christ’s birth, Christmas should be June 17 and not, as Christians contend, December 25. That particular date coincides with a pagan holiday celebrated around December 25th as a time for feasting, goodwill, generosity to the poor, the exchange of gifts, and the decoration of trees sometime after Roman Emperor Constantine’s conversion to Christianity that began imperial patronage of the Christian church. The festival of Saturnalia was a popular Pagan Roman holiday around the winter solstice, and if there really is a war on the Christ in Christmas, it is Christians celebrating a pagan holiday (Saturnalia) that, according to the god of the bible, is a major sin punishable by death; but that is another story.
The real story is that Palin is a charlatan, an imbecile, and an opportunist with no more knowledge of the “Christ” in Christmas than the Founding Fathers she attempted to channel to sell her pathetic book. Her assault and false account of the Founding Fathers’ intent in writing the Constitution is as offensive as her assault on atheists’ desire to abort Christ from Christmas or wage a war on Christmas. Sarah Palin is a parasite on America and this secular humanist has had just about as much of her bloodsucking pandering to pad her bank account as one person can take. Obviously, the Liberty University audience has not had enough of Palin because there were no reports of even one “higher education” student standing up and telling Palin that her lack of knowledge of the Christ in Christmas, or the Founding Fathers, informed that the only war this holiday season is her assault on intelligence of which she has none.

Sarah Palin Disgraces History With Claim Adams and Jefferson Support Her War on Christmas was written by Rmuse for PoliticusUSA.

© PoliticusUSA, Sun, Dec 8th, 2013 — All Rights Reserved

Hate Group Westboro Baptist Church Says They Are Going to Picket Mandela’s Funeral

Hate Group Westboro Baptist Church Says They Are Going to Picket Mandela’s Funeral

By: Jason Easley

The Westboro Baptist Church is trying to take their platform of hate and intolerance to a whole new level by planning to picket Nelson Mandela’s funeral.
Here is what they tweeted:

THANK GOD for Nelson Mandela being dropped into hell! Westboro Baptist Church booking flight to South Africa (not banned) to picket funeral!
— Westboro Baptist (@WBCSays) December 6, 2013

 WBC may not get very far with their picket because free speech is limited in South Africa. According to Article 16 of the South African Bill of Rights,

Section 16 states,
(1) Everyone has the right to freedom of expression, which includes -
(a) freedom of the press and other media;
(b) freedom to receive or impart information or ideas;
(c) freedom of artistic creativity; and
(d) academic freedom and freedom of scientific research.
(2) The right in subsection (1) does not extend to -
(a) propaganda for war;
(b) incitement of imminent violence; or
(c) advocacy of hatred that is based on race, ethnicity, gender or religion, and that constitutes incitement to cause harm.
Judging from their Twitter stream, Westboro Baptist Church looks to be in violation of both 2(b) and 2(c). Westboro Baptist Church thinks that Mandela is in hell, because he divorced and remarried. WBC is also promising to picket the late actor Paul Walker’s funeral. In fact, where ever there is a high profile death or natural disaster, WBC can be counted on to threaten to show up and spread their message of hate and intolerance.
People have stood up and done the right thing to stop WBC protests in the past. In 2011, 300 bikers foiled a planned WBC protest after tornadoes devastated Joplin, MO. Earlier this year, Teamsters formed a human shield to block a WBC picket of Boston Marathon bombing victim’s funeral.
I doubt that the Westboro Baptist Church gets entry into South Africa. If they get into the country and are foolish enough to protest Nelson Mandela’s funeral, the potential for violence would be higher than anything that the hate group has ever tried before.
What WBC is planning proves once again that they are one of the most vile hate groups in the world, and hopefully they will be stopped.

Hate Group Westboro Baptist Church Says They Are Going to Picket Mandela’s Funeral was written by Jason Easley for PoliticusUSA.

© PoliticusUSA, Sat, Dec 7th, 2013 — All Rights Reserved

 

Rand Paul Tells Millions He’s Doing Them a Favor By Cutting Off Unemployment Benefits

Rand Paul Tells Millions He’s Doing Them a Favor By Cutting Off Unemployment Benefits

By: Sarah Jones more from Sarah Jones

Sunday, December, 8th, 2013, 10:58 am

Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) was on Fox News Sunday to continue his minority outreach to African Americans, by saying we shouldn’t extend unemployment benefits set to expire momentarily because he knows one black businessman who wants tax cuts.
Video:


Paul said, “I do support unemployment benefits for the 26 weeks that they’re paid for, but if you extend it past that you do a disservice to these workers.” His reasoning is that when you “allow people” to be on unemployment for longer, you are causing them to be “perpetually unemployed”. Don’t forget about his one black businessman.
See, it’s not that there are no jobs, it’s that employers don’t like to hire people who have been out of work for very long. Thus, by taking away the “incentive” to stay unemployed, Paul thinks he can solve the unemployment problem. It’s the “firmer hand” theory, also used as an argument for slavery.
There can be no other explanation for Paul’s reasoning other than people want to stay unemployed, otherwise he wouldn’t think that taking away unemployment benefits creates job opportunities. This veers dangerously close to the “lazy urban” narrative that Republicans favor. It is not accurate to suggest that starving will create jobs. So this is not a good plan for jobs or for the unemployed.
Paul said that African American unemployment hasn’t budged under this President, implying that he thinks he can get the African American vote by criticizing this president and blaming him for higher unemployment among African Americans, as if this is a new phenomenon best addressed by letting a white Southern man make decisions for African Americans and this president. Some things just shouldn’t be said by certain people, especially not people who employed a white supremacist. It’s bad optics.
The carrot dangling is far from over. You know what the number once concern is for African Americans, after tax cuts for businesses? School choice, apparently. “My economic stimulus plan would stimulate Detroit. There is no other plan on the table. If my plan would pass I think it’s the only one that would pass. I am also talking about restoring voting rights and school choice.”
Voting rights? His party is the party that came after voting rights nationally and his party is the party that made Detroiters’ votes meaningless under Republican Gov. Rick Snyder. That’s going to be a hard sale.
When asked for alternatives to ObamaCare, Rand criticized ObamaCare and then said he’s for Freedom of Choice. Seriously. The anti-choicer is for Freedom of Choice, which means no plan. It means repeal ObamaCare because the “premiums are higher” – which they aren’t for the majority of people. So that’s his big sell to Detroit: Come and get nothing in order to protect the rich. That’s new for Republicans in Detroit. Detroiters will never see through that (see sarcasm). Clearly Sen. Paul is unaware of the high priority most Americans put on the issue of affordable healthcare. It’s an issue of economic survival for many. Not something they want to toss away into the GOP “freedom” for corporations ring.
Yes, 2016 2016 2016. The Senator is a GOP presidential front runner, and it seems he is already running for President, “the thought has crossed my mind, Chris.” But he’s concerned about the “haters and hacks”. So are we, Senator.
Image: Fox News

Rand Paul Tells Millions He’s Doing Them a Favor By Cutting Off Unemployment Benefits was written by Sarah Jones for PoliticusUSA.

© PoliticusUSA, Sun, Dec 8th, 2013 — All Rights Reserved

Rick Warren: Marriage Is Not ‘Equally Valid’ For Same-Sex Couples

By Zack Ford on December 9, 2013 at 9:24 am

"Rick Warren: Marriage Is Not ‘Equally Valid’ For Same-Sex Couples"

Rick Warren, the megachurch pastor who delivered the invocation at President Obama’s First Inauguration, defended his opposition to same-sex marriage in a discussion with CNN’s Piers Morgan Friday evening. Warren argued that gay people shouldn’t be allowed to “redefine” the term “marriage,” and agreeing to be “tolerant” shouldn’t mean that he has to treat marriage equality as “equally valid.”

WARREN: Tolerance used to mean we treat each other with mutual respect even if you have major disagreements. Today tolerance has been changed to mean all ideas are equally valid. Well, that’s nonsense. All ideas are not equally valid. [...]
I’m more against the redefinition of the term marriage than anything else. I don’t think other groups get the opportunity to redefine a term. For instance, if a Muslim says this is a term we use and all of the sudden I take that term and mean it for me. Well, that’s not right. [...]
Don’t take a term and and make it something different. Orwell talked about doublespeak, where words mean the exact opposite of what they used to mean.

Watch it (via The New Civil Rights Movement):


 Rick Warren has long maintained that marriage equality is wrong because God says so. He was a vocal supporter of California’s Proposition 8 banning same-sex marriage, though he has since said that speaking out for that measure was a mistake. He has admitted that some churches are responsible for promoting anti-gay hate, and he himself has suggested that having same-sex attractions is no different than wanting to punch someone in the nose — or as “natural” as arsenic.

Oops: Republican Obamacare Amendment Expanded Abortion Access for GOP Staffers

—By Molly Redden

| Mon Dec. 9, 2013 3:00 AM GMT

"Crap." Pete Marovich/ZUMA

Nearly 9 in 10 health care plans that members of Congress and their staff must choose from include abortion coverage, a fact that has Rep. Chris Smith (R-N.J.) and right-wing media outlets raising hell.
But the only reason that congressional staffers have to choose from these plans at all is because a Republican amendment to Obamacare requires it. Thanks to this amendment, congressional staffers, who once had to pay for abortions out of pocket, can now buy insurance that covers abortions.
The bizarre story of how a conservative, anti-abortion Republican ended up expanding abortion access for congressional staff dates back to the initial fight over the Affordable Care Act in 2010. Here's how it happened: The Obamacare exchanges were expressly designed to provide insurance to the uninsured, so congressional staffers—who, like most Americans, already had insurance—were initially excluded. Republicans claimed that this amounted to Democrats "exempting" themselves and their staff from Obamacare, and Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) introduced an amendment that would force members of Congress and their staff to use the exchanges. Grassley's proposal was intended to embarrass Democrats. But Democrats called Grassley's bluff, and the law passed with his amendment.
But Grassley's measure forced congressional staff out of the Federal Health Benefits Program, which federal law prohibited from offering any abortion coverage. Under the the federal plan, any congressional employee who wanted an abortion had to pay for it out of pocket. Now that they're on the Obamacare exchanges, though, congressional employees will only pay out of pocket for abortion insurance. They'll be able to choose any of the 112 plans available via Washington, DC's health care exchange, only 9 of which do not cover abortion.

Advertise on MotherJones.com

Grassley's office did not respond to a request for comment.
Smith claimed to the Associated Press that this means Congress is spending taxpayer dollars on abortions. But as ThinkProgress' Tara Culp-Ressler detailed, the employer contributions congressional staff receive for health care—i.e., federal, taxpayer dollars—will not be used to pay for abortions. The Office of Personnel Management has bent over backward to ensure that when congressional staff purchase health care plans, they'll be paying for any abortion coverage with segregated personal funds.
And the cost of that abortion coverage will likely be much less than that of an actual abortion. A 2013 Guttmacher Institute study using 2009 data found that the average out-of-pocket price women paid for an abortion was $485.
So to recap: Republican fearmongering about an Obamacare exemption for congressional staffers that never existed has earned congressional staffers a big abortion discount.

Molly Redden

Reporter

Molly Redden is a reporter in Mother Jones' Washington bureau. She tweets at @mtredden. RSS | Twitter

Cato Institute suggests an ‘overthrow’ of U.S. Government is needed

David PhillipsLas Vegas Democrat Examiner

December 5, 2013

Testifying before a Congressional hearing Tuesday on the President’s Constitutional powers, Michael Cannon the Cato Institute’s Director of Health Policy Studies, suggests that as a last “resort” the U.S. Government should be “overthrown” because President Barack Obama overstepped his executive powers implementing the Affordable Car Act. And Congressman Trey Gowdy (R-SC) who was questioning Mr. Cannon, agreed.

“There is one last thing to which the people can resort if the government does not respect the restrains that the constitution places on the government,” Cannon said. “Abraham Lincoln talked about our right to alter our government or our revolutionary right to overthrow it.”
“That is certainly something that no one wants to contemplate,” he continued. “If the people come to believe that the government is no longer constrained by the laws then they will conclude that neither are they.”

Cannon goes on to say that it's “very dangerous” for the President to “ignore the laws” by imposing an “obligation upon the people”

“That is a very dangerous sort of thing for the president to do, to wantonly ignore the laws,” Cannon concluded, “to try to impose obligation upon people that the legislature did not approve.”

There have been several calls for a revolution to overthrow the U.S. Government because of President Obama and the Affordable Care Act by right wing activists, and they have received some support from Republicans in Congress.
Last month right wing activists held a rally in Washington D.C., promoted by Larry Klayman a far right wing activist, along with Larry Pratt, Bob Barr, Pamela Geller, Alan Keyes, Bradlee Dean, Joseph Farah and Zeeda Andrews. All of these people are right wing activists who say that President Obama is either a Muslim terrorist or worse.
Klayman had suggested that there may be a violent revolution if his Nov. 19 rally failed, he even went as far as issuing a new Declaration of Independence to promote his rally, which did turn out to be a massive failure. During the promotion of the rally, Klayman said that he expected upwards of 1 million people, but only about 100 people showed up.
You can view the C-SPAN2 video clip of Michael Cannon testifying at the Congressional hearing attached to this article above.
Don't miss any of the Las Vegas Democrat Examiner articles: Click the Subscribe button and enter your E-mail address. You’ll be alerted to the latest column when it's published. You can also follow on Facebook, Twitter and Google+.

Foreign Press Says What America’s Won’t: Sarah Palin is a Traitor

Foreign Press Says What America’s Won’t: Sarah Palin is a Traitor

 

 from: Sarah Jones
 

Sarah Palin has made it to the big time; she’s been called out by international media. Three years ago, the Russian newspaper Pravda (this same paper has been quoted in numerous Right Wing publications when it criticized President Obama, and was considered a paper of merit at such time) eviscerated Sarah Palin for her unrelenting attacks upon the democratically elected President, at a time when America needs to stand together, united. When members of the International Press call Sarah Palin out for her lack of American patriotism, it’s time for the American Press to pay attention. It’s about time someone did. Timothy Bancroft-Hinchey wrote in Pravda:

“By attacking the democratically elected President of the United States of America at a sensitive time in her country’s history, she shows the tact of a boorish drunkard bawling obscenities at a funeral….
And now she turns not only against the fibre and backbone of her country, but against its democratically elected President, accusing him of being incompetent for not stopping Wikileaks. Where was she and where was her GOP before and during the 9/11 attacks? She accuses President Obama of not taking “steps” to assure the leaks were not published. What “steps”?……
If anything is a threat to the national security of the United States of America, it is this screaming, unrefined oaf with as much class as a searing release of flatulence followed by hysterical giggling at a state banquet. Is this what the people of the USA deserve?
To attack the President of the country at a time when the USA needs to close ranks and stand together to consolidate the enormous strides his (President Obama’s) intelligent and respectful approach has achieved in building bridges, when her party’s period in government bombed them, Spankin’ Sarah Palin comes across as a pitifully inadequate anachronism from the times of the Far West.”

Bancroft-Hinchey has been proven correct by the way MSNBC handled Martin Bashir. Palin was engaging in more treasonous talk when she compared the national debt to slavery. Her comments were more of Palin reminding everyone that the president is black, and in her view that is a very bad thing.
Bashir saw through her latest barrage of hate speech gibberish, and called her out in the most graphic way possible. The media responded by bowing to the imaginary power, and very real privilege of Sarah Palin.
The American Press won’t say what the International Press will for a variety of reasons, but suffice it to say that there are many agendas at play here, causing truth to take a back-seat to dollars. As a noted US media critic once said, “everything to sell and nothing to tell.” And what a shame, because this isn’t about partisanship or even elitism; it’s about patriotism and who better to cover this issue than our domestic press?
Ms Palin cloaks her myth in her flag, but one has to question just what that symbol represents to Ms Palin, given that she won’t stop attacking this country’s sitting President during each crisis that presents itself. The word patriotism derives from the Greek patriōtēs meaning “fellow countryman”; that would include all of us, even President Obama. I’m afraid Ms Palin and her followers conflate their false community of nationalism with patriotism, and under the guise of said nationalism, justify harming America’s standing in the world along with the very unity of our nation. One can’t help but question Ms Palin’s true motives, along with her jingoistic, tabloid-driven patriotism, since she beats this drum of division in each public appearance she makes.
One wonders, can Sarah Palin can see what the Russians see: a shrill, desperate demagogue more interested in making money and getting famous than in the best interests of her country; a woman so jealous of a sitting President that she takes every blow her country faces and exploits it, turning it into an even more negative, frightening moment while distracting from the real work – never once stepping into the debate to lead, to soothe, to unite.
Never once has Ms Palin shown her love for this great country by standing by it and her President in a time of need. Instead, she views each crisis as a cynical opportunity to sow the seeds of division among fellow countrymen. During the oil spill crisis, she took to Fox News to spew nonsense about the Dutch not getting their phone calls received, claiming she knew how to fix the leak if only the President had called on her. Of course, since she was on Fox News, no one bothered to ask her why, then, she did nothing to stop the oil spills that took place during her brief tenure as Governor of Alaska.
When she went to Hong Kong for a speaking engagement, Ms. Palin attacked her President on foreign soil during a time of war. On her first book tour, Palin and her entourage of hit men (aka, her father, et al) attacked the Commander in Chief on military bases. In times of major decisions regarding the war in Afghanistan, Palin has mocked the President when he followed the course of action recommended by his Generals. On 9/11, Palin bashed the President. In her speeches, Ms Palin is sure to remind her followers that Obama’s foreign policy is weakening America while she accuses the President of not loving his country. During the WikiLeaks crisis, Palin blamed the President instead of calling for a united front for our country.
Ms Palin and her followers justify this unpatriotic behavior by claiming the President is “un-American”. We all know what that’s about but if we’re left with any doubt, we have only to listen to Ms Palin assure her listeners that they have every right to ask for the President’s birth certificate:
And here she is just weeks ago suggesting that the failure to vet the President and his associations has harmed our democracy. Talk about projection.
Ms Palin’s heavily moderated Facebook page was just months ago full of comments calling for the death of our President, sedition, and the overthrowing of the Obama administration as being God’s will. Those comments were left standing while comments questioning Ms Palin in any way were scrubbed. Ms Palin stands for a level of vitriolic, simmering revulsion so steeped in delusions of self-righteousness, it’s tough to swim to sanity once you’ve been washed in the blood of her particular lamb.
We are at war, facing a global economic crisis, still reeling from a devastating oil spill and now facing the challenges brought on by the WikiLeaks dump. Yet, on every issue of importance, Palin has inserted herself with jarring accusations against the President, offering nothing but malicious hate fueled by a failure to understand what she doesn’t understand.
Ms Palin’s particular brand of tabloid patriotism leaves out anyone who disagrees with her, beats her in a contest, dares to question her, or has the temerity to actually read and debate important issues. She’s become an international embarrassment:
“If Sarah Palin is not some kind of a massive political joke in the USA, wheeled out to liven up the political scene from time to time with nonsensical and pastiche (one hopes) displays of sheer and utter ignorance, then it is worrying.”
Sarah Palin is the figurehead for an unpatriotic movement here in the United States of America. A movement so bereft of love for this country that they would go to any means to see it fail, in order to elevate themselves into power. A movement which just yesterday met with the democratically elected President of this fine country and then immediately stabbed him in the back in their post-game press conference.
And nestled into this web of traitors is one particularly odious senator, Senator John McCain, upon whose shoulders the blame for this national embarrassment rests. Ms Palin is the front-runner of this group for Presidential candidate in 2012 according to polls. This makes sense, given the Republican Party’s current gamesmanship of our political system, wherein their only goal is to destroy the President – not to lead, not to govern – but to destroy. At any cost necessary.
When the Russians are calling you out for failing to support your country in a time of need, for attempting to bring her to her knees with petty attacks on the President, you have seriously jumped the patriotism shark. Sarah Palin is the traitorous figurehead of the GOP, whose only purpose seems to be to assist them in their goal to bring down President Barack Obama.
So while a scant few of them (Rove, Scarborough, and a few of the “elites” who are not elected officials; the elected officials are quivering in the corner rather than standing up to the myth of Palin lest they alienate what little remains of the Republican Party base) make the rounds distancing themselves from her now, do not forget how they set her into motion in 2008 to do exactly what she’s doing now. And do not forget that even as they take a slight step away from the noxious whiff of disgust that follows in Ms Palin’s wake, they’re not silencing her; they’re not calling her out for her attacks on the President. No, the most they can muster from their cowardly bunkers of fear from which they wage their war on America is mild outrage that she would insult the Bushes or Reagan.
Nary a word about her outrageously destructive actions toward our current President. And why is that? Because Ms Palin is doing the dirty work for the Republican weaklings; sowing seeds of division, suspicion, hatred, and rage against a sitting President.
And those, my friends, are not the actions of a patriot. True Glasnost has arrived when the International Press says what the American Press will not. Sarah Palin is no patriot.
(Note: The original version of this story was first published on December 1, 2010. It has been updated to reflect recent events.)

Foreign Press Says What America’s Won’t: Sarah Palin is a Traitor was written by Sarah Jones for PoliticusUSA.

© PoliticusUSA, Fri, Dec 6th, 2013 — All Rights Reserved

 

How the Christian Right Plays Victim While Imposing Its Ideology on America

How the Christian Right Plays Victim While Imposing Its Ideology on America

Telling Grandma she's going to lose her church is a great way to get her to sign her Social Security check over to your organization. 

AlterNet / By Amanda Marcotte

 

December 5, 2013  |  

Religious freedom and separation of church and state have always been hated concepts to the religious right. Indeed, it’s fair to say that the religious right exists to fight any legal or cultural support for people who don’t want their narrow definition of Christianity foisted on them. From objecting to gay marriage to trying to wedge creationism in schools, the religious right exists as a political movement for the purpose of stripping away religious freedom and establishing their religious beliefs as the dominant organizing force in law, politics and culture.
So why then are we hearing all these people who live their lives attacking religious freedom complaining all the time that “religious freedom” is under attack from liberals? Why does every religious-right publication and event echo the claim that right-wing Christians are somehow being stripped of the very right to religious freedom the right has worked tirelessly to take from everyone else for decades?
The simple answer is they’re lying. Claiming the mantle of victimhood is so politically potent that religious-right leaders are going to do it, no matter how untrue it is, because, to be blunt, they’re not held back by any moral interest in honesty. Getting Grandma to think she's going to lose her church is a great way to get her to sign her Social Security check over to your organization.
The longer answer is that the religious right has concocted a new strategy to squelch religious freedom: By redefining “religious freedom” to mean its opposite. The hope is that by repeatedly using the term “religious freedom” when they mean “giving the Christian right power to impose their faith on others,” they can eventually drain the phrase of all its meaning and finally, after decades of fighting secularism, make it easier for the religious right to strip away individual protections for religion. In other words, they hope by saying that up is down long enough, the public and the courts will finally believe it.
This attitude—that their “religious freedom” can only be protected if they get to foist their faith on everyone else—is nakedly obvious every year when the whining about the mythical “war on Christmas” begins. Needless to say, there is no war on Christmas. There is no effort whatsoever to prevent anyone from celebrating Christmas, buying Christmas presents, going to mass on Christmas, or playing that Manheim Steamroller record until you want to claw your ears out. Without fail, every example the right comes up with to prove there’s a war on Christmas is, in fact, something else: An attempt to recognize that not everyone is a Christian and respect that there are multiple holidays people may be celebrating in lieu of, or in addition to, Christmas.
This belief that Christians, particularly right-wing Christians, are entitled to be acknowledged at the exclusion of everyone else and entitled to have their holidays held out as more important than everyone else’s cropped up immediately after Thankgiving, right on schedule this year. The National Republican Congressional Committeetweeted out a picture of a T-shirt they’re selling that says, “’Happy Holidays’ is what liberals say,” in Comic Sans font, of course. On the back it reads, “Merry Christmas.” The “joke” doesn’t make sense unless the viewer agrees with the premise that conservative Christians are better than everyone else, and in order to honor how much more important they are, all other holidays and faith traditions need to be hidden away, as if they’re shameful.

Now the belief that “religious freedom” actually means the religious right gets to impose its beliefs on you is going to be tested by the Supreme Court. While many think the case of Hobby Lobby suing to avoid having to offer insurance benefits that cover contraception is primarily about reproductive rights, the real question at the center of the case is how much is your boss allowed to impose his religion on you, just because you work for him? 

The employee/employer relationship should be simple: You work for a company, and they pay you with a combination of cash and benefits in compensation. Since you earned it, your cash and benefits belong to you to use as you see fit. But Hobby Lobby—and many other companies run by Christian conservatives—isn’t happy with that way of doing things. They want to claim that your compensation package still belongs to them after you’ve earned it and should be tailored to fit their religious beliefs, even if you, the rightful owner of the compensation package, do not share their beliefs. In their lawsuit, they claim that they should be able to determine how you use your insurance plan, and that they should be exempt from the federal government’s mandatory minimums in how they compensate you because they claim to have religious objections.
If Hobby Lobby wins its case, the precedent will create a massive incentive for corporations to sue to have all sorts of rights to use the fact that you work there as an excuse to force their religious beliefs on you. If your boss can force you to use your earned benefits according to his religious dictates, why not the rest of your compensation? Since he signs your paycheck, will he be able to sue and say that you shouldn’t be able to spend it in ways he believes violate his religion? Being able to claim that their “religious freedom” exempts them from all sorts of labor laws will be a massive boon to the religious right, and they will certainly start looking for ways to expand the ways they can force you to live by their religious rules, beyond how you use your insurance.
Unsurprisingly, Hobby Lobby’s owner is a big fan of ignoring the First Amendment and demanding that the government endorse religion, as well. Not just any religion, but specifically the conservative interpretation of Christianity. The owner of Hobby Lobby has spent a fortune trying to get Bible study into public classrooms. He thinks by making it an “elective” course, that creates enough cover, but the Constitution is clear that the government cannot endorse any religion. Having a Bible study course is a clear endorsement of religion, something conservatives would immediately grasp if a school tried to start a Koran study course. But part of the religious right’s new definition of “religious freedom” is the belief that conservative Christianity is special and that its followers are entitled to foist their religion on people in ways no other religious believers get to do.
That’s what the religious right means by religious freedom: The removal of your right to have your own beliefs, free from interference by people who have power over you. The right dearly wants religious freedom to mean the right of conservative Christians and only conservative Christians to foist their beliefs on you through your job and through the government and squelch any cultural attempts to be inclusive of all the diverse belief systems in America. The only way to fight back is for liberals to reclaim the term “religious freedom” for what it really means: The right to choose for yourself what you believe without having the law or your boss trying to tip the scales.

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.

Rick Santorum: Nelson Mandela Fought 'Great Injustice,' Just Like Republicans Are Battling Obamacare

The Huffington Post  |  By Paige Lavender
Posted: 12/06/2013 9:53 am EST

During an appearance on Fox News Thursday night, former Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Pa.) discussed the death of Nelson Mandela, saying the former South African president fought "great injustice" just like Republicans who are battling Obamacare.
"Nelson Mandela stood up against a great injustice and was willing to pay a huge price for that. That's the reason he's mourned today, because of that struggle that he performed," Santorum said. "But you're right, I mean, what he was advocating for was not necessarily the right answer, but he was fighting against some great injustice, and I would make the argument that we have a great injustice going on right now in this country with an ever-increasing size of government that is taking over and controlling people's lives, and Obamacare is front and center in that."
The statement, pointed out by Slate's Dave Weigel in a tweet Friday morning, came after Fox News host Bill O'Reilly claimed Mandela "was a great man, but he was a communist."
"I would never attack Nelson Mandela," O'Reilly said next.
Watch a clip of Santorum's remarks above.

GOP Sen: An abortion to save a mother's life is simply a 'matter of convenience'

Robert SobelOrlando Liberal Examiner

July 24, 2013

A Republican state congressman got into a heated argument with a Facebook user over the weekend regarding abortion rights. During the exchange, the congressman claimed that keeping abortion legal to save the mother's life was simply a "matter of convenience."
Brian Nieves, the Republican Missouri Senate Majority Whip, posted a photo of a gun on his Facebook page. Nieves claimed that an unnamed "Modern Day Patriot" gave him the gun and Nieves made negative comments about House Minority Leader, Democrat Nancy Pelosi in the process. Responding to the photo and Nieves was a fellow Facebook user, who ridiculed the Republican congressman for posting the picture and making the comments. Nieves then commented back, asking the Facebook user is he was easily offended by "partial-birth abortions." Think Progress points out that the conversation continued with the Facebook user posting medical reasons for why a late term abortion may be necessary, but Neives fired back with comments that are on par with typical conservative logic.

"Brian Nieves: (Facebook user's name)... This is what you say in support of Partial Birth Abortion?? Here are your words from above: "Common Logistical and Personal Reasons for Partial Birth Abortions
-- Lack or lack of recognition of pregnancy symptoms, particularly by adolescents
-- Inability to afford a first trimester abortion
-- Inability to locate medical assistance during first trimester (due to lack of local medical professionals)
-- Lack of financial resources, emotional support, and/or partner
July 20 at 11:36pm · Like · 2
Brian Nieves (Facebook user's name).... "Life of the Mother?" Your own argument proves it is a matter of convenience! Tell me this - Do you even know what a partial birth abortion really is? No, seriously, do you actually know what it is?? If so, explain to me what a partial birth abortion is."

While a late-term abortion is never on anyone's "to do" list, there are times when the procedure is medically necessary. Both sides of the political fence continue to battle over this issue and the larger issue of abortions rights and a woman's right to choose. The "pro-life" movement and "pro-choice" sector have laid claims to small victories in the past and, at times, the issue has even found its way to the Supreme Court.
At the end of the day, the argument and battle wages on. No one will ever be able to convince the opposing side to believe their side of the argument. The abortion issue isn't one that can be convenient by numbers and statistics, it's a matter of moral and ethical code that can only bring small victories to the table, not one that will win over an entire nation.

ALEC spokesperson retreats after Ted Cruz advises, ‘Stand your ground’

ALEC spokesperson retreats after Ted Cruz advises, ‘Stand your ground’ (via Raw Story )

The reeling right-wing American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) backpedaled quickly after remarks by Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) seemingly linking it more explicitly to Florida’s heavily-criticized “Stand your ground” law. CNN reported on Thursday…

---

Remembering The Religious Right's Attacks On Nelson Mandela

Remembering The Religious Right's Attacks On Nelson Mandela

 

Submitted by Brian Tashman 
Thursday, 12/5/2013 5:45 pm

The news today of Nelson Mandela’s passing is also time to reflect on the complicated relationship between Mandela and his anti-apartheid African National Congress (ANC) with the US, which did not always support the anti-apartheid struggle. In fact, American conservatives lobbied the federal government in the 1980s to withhold support from the anti-apartheid movement.

President Reagan added the ANC to the US terrorism watch list, a designation not removed until 2008, and unsuccessfully vetoed sanctions against the apartheid regime. Many Republican lawmakers did break with the Reagan administration’s stance, but “all 21 [Senate] votes to sustain the veto were cast by Republicans.”

Mandela faced criticism from Republican leaders including Dick Cheney, who described Mandela’s ANC as a “terrorist organization,” and Jesse Helms, who “turned his back during Mandela’s visit to the U.S. Capitol.” Even in 1998, Eagle Forum founder Phyllis Schlafly lumped Mandela together with notorious dictators.

The late Jerry Falwell urged [PDF] his supporters to write their congressmen and senators to tell them to oppose sanctions against the apartheid regime. “The liberal media has for too long suppressed the other side of the story in South Africa,” he said. “It is very important that we stay close enough to South Africa so that it does not fall prey to the clutches of Communism.”

“South Africa is torn by civil unrest, instigated primarily by Communist-sponsored people who are capitalizing on the many legitimate grievances created by apartheid, unemployment and policy confrontations,” Falwell continued.

    Finally, we should, if possible, invest in South Africa, because this inevitably improves the standard of living for nonwhites there.

    Now is not the time to turn our backs on South Africa. The world has witnessed the Soviets capture nation after nation. They have been particularly aggressive in Africa. South Africa must not be the next victim!

David John Marley notes in Pat Robertson: An American Life that Robertson criticized the ANC because it was “led by communists and was hostile to Israel” and “far too radical an element to ever work with,” while “his campaign literature made similar claims for the need to support the white government.”

The televangelist regularly spoke ill of Mandela’s group and his Christian Broadcasting Network ran segments critical of sanctions against the apartheid government as Congress debated sanctions.

    In 1986 The 700 Club did a series of reports on South Africa and the white government’s struggle against the African National Congress. While many socially liberal religious leaders decried the apartheid regime, Robertson openly supported it because he felt that it was a bastion against communism. For Robertson, everything else was secondary to defeating what he saw as the enemies of God. Robertson sent a copy of The 700 Club program to Freedom Council’s Dick Thompson to have it forwarded to Pat Buchanan, who in turn promised to show it to the president. Reagan’s attitude toward South Africa was one of his most controversial foreign policy stands, and Robertson was one of Reagan’s few allies on the policy.

Sam Kleiner mentions that now-Sen. Jeff Flake, anti-tax activist Grover Norquist and disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff were also active in lobbying against the anti-apartheid movement:

    Jack Abramoff, now a disgraced former lobbyist convicted of fraud, conspiracy and tax evasion, got much of his start from his work with South Africa. Abramoff visited the country following his term as National Chair of the College Republicans in 1983 and met with pro-apartheid student groups linked to the South Africa’s Bureau of Security Services. In 1986, he opened the International Freedom Foundation. Ostensibly a think tank, it was later revealed as a front group for the South African Army as part of “Operation Babushka” meant to undermine Nelson Mandela’s international approval. The group had over “30 young ideologues in offices on G Street in Washington, Johannesburg, London and Brussels” working on propaganda in support of the South African government.

    …

    Like Abramoff, GOP tax guru Grover Norquist became enamored with the conflict in South Africa and went there to extend his support. Norquist ran College Republicans from 1981 to 1983 and went to South Africa in 1985 for a “Youth for Freedom Conference” sponsored by South African businesses. While other college students, such as Barack Obama, had been active in anti-apartheid work, this conference was seeking to bring American and South African conservatives together to end that movement. In his speech there, Norquist said, “The left has no other issue [but apartheid] on campus. Economic issues are losers for them. There are no sexy Soviet colonies anymore.” A few months after the conference, Norquist went to Angola to work with Jonas Savimbi, the rebel leader that Abramoff valorized in his film. Norquist became a ghost-writer for Savimbi’s essay in Policy Review. When he returned to Washington, he was greeted in conservative circles as a “freedom fighter,” and he proudly placed an “I’d rather be killing commies” bumper sticker on his brief case.

    A few years later and much further along in the anti-apartheid movement, a young Jeff Flake (now a senator from Arizona) became active in lobbying for South African mining interests in the late 1980s and early ’90s, after returning from his Mormon mission to South Africa. As a graduate student at Brigham Young University, he testified against an anti-apartheid resolution in the Utah State Senate and then became a lobbyist in Washington for Smoak, Shipley and Henry, a lobbying firm specializing in representing the South African mining industry. Flake went on to personally represent the Rossing Uranium plant in Namibia, which had been a major target of anti-apartheid activists for its discriminatory and unsafe practices.

    Decades later, these Republican leaders would prefer not to have their adventures in South Africa mentioned. While Abramoff went down in a corruption scandal, Norquist went on to remake himself into a libertarian anti-tax activist, and Flake moved back to Arizona. The anti-communism that motivated the Republican allegiance to South Africa fizzled with the end of the Cold War, but the history of the Republican entanglement with South Africa remains one of the party’s darker episodes.

    President Obama can proudly talk about how his first political act was in response to apartheid. While a few Republicans stood against apartheid, much of the Republican Party has nothing to offer about its position at the time but silence. I wouldn’t expect any reflections on apartheid from Abramoff, Flake or Norquist anytime soon.

Irritating Conservatives: Facts and Common Sense Thoughts Republicans Really Won’t Like

November 30, 2013 

By Allen Clifton 

 

Every once in a while I like to write an article listing a few facts Republicans really won’t like hearing.  For most, debating Republicans is a mind-numbing venture that should only be taken on by those who wish to punish themselves.
For me, I love presenting them with facts to see them try to ramble off whatever talking point they’ve been fed by Fox News and others within the right-wing media.
But it’s not just facts that Republicans seem immune to.  Common sense and logic seem to be two other traits conservatives seem completely devoid of.
So, in no particular order, here’s a few facts and common sense thoughts you can share with Republicans to drive them crazy.
Our Constitution and Health Care
In the late-1700′s, we didn’t have an organized military and required armed citizens to defend our outlying borders on a moments notice until help could arrive from the government.  The average life expectancy was also around 35 years old and a bad cut to the leg often meant amputation.  Could it possibly be that’s why the right to own guns is our Second Amendment but health care is mentioned absolutely no where?
Isn’t it a little asinine to completely base a modern society in 2013 on ideas written hundreds of years ago?  And don’t even give me “the Constitutional Amendment process.”  We will probably never see another Constitutional Amendment passed in our lifetimes.  The process for passing one, with a political environment saturated with big money and lobbyist influence, is simply not conducive to passing any kind of amendment to our Constitution.

Economic Improvement
Moving onto our economy.  We’ve gone from a point where we were losing hundreds of thousands of jobs per month to gaining hundreds of thousands.  In fact, there are some months where the headline, “Economy Only Adds 175k Jobs” is considered bad news because the numbers didn’t beat estimates.
For those who are mathematically challenged, gaining nearly 200,000 jobs as opposed to losing 200,000 jobs is actually a great way to define economic improvement.
If you really believe our economy hasn’t drastically improved under President Obama, you’re simply living in denial.
Oh, and we can still blame Bush for the areas of our economy that are slower to improve.  Cleaning up a mess is always much harder than creating one.  When we’re still having to fix problems caused prior to January 2009, those issues didn’t suddenly become President Obama’s fault simply because Bush’s time in office ran out.
And can you people be honest with yourselves for once?  If a Republican president came into office in 2009 and created nearly 8 million jobs, presided over record stock levels, killed Osama bin Ladin and reduced our year to year deficits by their largest margins since World War II — you’d be calling him a Republican hero.
Religion
I’m a Christian and I love my faith.  If you’re a Christian that’s great too.  Faith and religion can be wonderful things in our lives.  Well, our personal lives.  Keyword being personal.  
Religion is something that’s rarely a good topic to be discussed in public because it’s something that millions of people — many within the same faith, mind you — strongly disagree on.
Which is why a strict separation of church and state is vital for government.  If you want more religion in your life, go to church more often.  Don’t try to force it into our government where it has no place.
The Media
Conservatives are right about one thing: the media is often a joke.  But it’s the conservative media that’s by far the worst.  At least MSNBC openly admits they lean left.  Fox News tries to portray itself as “Fair and Balanced” while being neither.  Then some of your biggest “voices of conservative media” are some of the most reprehensible, paranoid and disgusting people in all of the media.  People like Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck and Ann Coulter.  People with next to no redeeming qualities whatsoever.
I love how facts often suddenly become “liberally biased” simply because they might not support your ideology.  Take climate change, for example.  It’s amazing how not too long ago climate change was pretty much an accepted fact — until some within your party decided that something supported by the vast majority of the global scientific community wasn’t as credible as the “science” done by right-wing think tanks like the Heritage Foundation.
And at least liberals get their news from a variety of sources.  You people only trust Fox News.  Why do you think their ratings are often higher than everyone else?  It isn’t because they’re better, it’s just because conservatives have been brainwashed not to trust anyone else.
Taxes
Whenever I talk about trickle-down economics I rarely get the sense that conservatives actually believe in it.  They do, however, seem to support the popular Republican economic theory because the “dirty America-hating liberals” oppose it.
I think it’s funny how basically every credible economic statistic since trickle-down economics was put into place in this country shows income inequality has never been greater or wider.  The rich are richer than ever before while the poor and middle class continue to fall further and further behind.
The promise of trickle-down economics is that the more the rich have, the better it will be for the rest of us.  Well, over 30 years since trickle-down economics was chosen as the scam to con millions of Americans plan usher in new economic prosperity — we’re still waiting for it to “trickle down.”
Honestly, how much richer do the top 2% need to get before we say, “You know what?  This is a load of crap.”
Then again, Fox News will never say that, so conservative voters will never believe it.

–

I’ll go ahead and cut if off there.  I think I might just make this a series because there are many more areas I would love to have covered, but the article would end up being thousands of words long.
So, maybe a “Part 2″ in the future?  I guess you’ll just have to keep an eye out and see.

Related Posts on Forward Progressives:

• Pope Francis Slams Trickle-Down Economics, Calls Out Republican Economic Policy
• 10 Questions Every Liberal Should Ask Every Republican
• If Republicans Would Just Get Out of the Way, Our Economy Would Be Much Better Off
• Satire Has Become Reality: Rush Limbaugh Attacks Pope Francis for Acting Like a Christian