Unarmed Man Charged With Wounding the Bystanders That Were Shot By Police

Unarmed Man Charged With Wounding the Bystanders That Were Shot By Police

by Heavy Mettle 

Back in September an emotionally disturbed man walked out into Times Square traffic causing a disturbance by throwing himself in front of cars. The police responded by trying to shoot him (because of course that is what you do when someone is displaying unbalanced behavior) and instead shot the bystanders on the scene.

Police officers arrived and tried to corral Mr. Broadnax, a 250-pound man. When he reached into his pants pocket, two officers, who, the police said, thought he was pulling a gun, opened fire, missing Mr. Broadnax, but hitting two nearby women. Finally, a police sergeant knocked Mr. Broadnax down with a Taser.

(Because of course any movement by anyone is the pulling of a gun).  Now he is being charge with charging the man with felony assault for the cops' shooting and injuring innocent bystanders.

This is where police decided to open fire on unarmed man

Initially Mr. Broadnax was arrested on misdemeanor charges of menacing, drug possession and resisting arrest. But the Manhattan district attorney’s office persuaded a grand jury to charge Mr. Broadnax with assault, a felony carrying a maximum sentence of 25 years. Specifically, the nine-count indictment unsealed on Wednesday said Mr. Broadnax “recklessly engaged in conduct which created a grave risk of death.” “The defendant is the one that created the situation that injured innocent bystanders,” said an assistant district attorney, Shannon Lucey.

One of the victims of Mr. Broadnax's "assault" has spoken out against the charges.

Mariann Wang, a lawyer representing Sahar Khoshakhlagh, one of the women who was wounded, said the district attorney should be pursuing charges against the two officers who fired their weapons in a crowd, not against Mr. Broadnax. “It’s an incredibly unfortunate use of prosecutorial discretion to be prosecuting a man who didn’t even injure my client,” she said. “It’s the police who injured my client.”

The incident recalled a previous one near the Empire State Building where bystanders were injured:

The incident calls to mind a 2012 case where nine bystanders were injured during a police shooting by police bullets, ricochets and fragments when two officers fired at a man suspected of gunning down a former co-worker outside the Empire State Building, calling in question the police's ability to handle such situations, endangering the lives of bystanders who were in little to no danger before the police showed up. In that incident, officers fired a total of 16 shots outside one of the world's most popular tourist attractions as a large crowd watched. While an investigation later determined the suspect, who was killed in the incident, had 10 bullet holes in him, many nearby were still wounded. The NYPD and Mayor Michael Bloomberg fiercely defended the officers' actions at the time.

As Salon notes, more than half the people shot at by police have mental health problems. The NYPD seems to have no training in dealing with and handling these types of incidents reasonably.

As reported here, an investigation last year by the Portland Press Herald and the Maine Sunday Telegram found that over half of people shot by police in the U.S. suffer from mental illness. The Times Square incident is no exception. As the Times reported, “after his arrest, Mr. Broadnax was taken to Bellevue Hospital Center, where he told a detective that ‘he was talking to dead relatives in his head and that he tried throwing himself in front of cars to kill himself.’” Luckily, then, New York’s finest were there to open fire.

We know the police in New York already have free rein to shoot people they think might be criminals or might be pulling guns. Now they have free rein not only on so-called suspected criminals, but unfortunate people who happen to make the mistake of being anywhere near their line of fire. This is a new low in justifying their behavior by the judiciary. Especially considering the daily crime taking place about 50 blocks south of Times Square, on a daily basis.

Originally posted to Heavy Mettle on Fri Dec 06, 2013 at 08:21 AM PST.

Also republished by Police Accountability Group.

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.

Nelson Mandela, revered statesman and anti-apartheid leader, dies at 95

By Yahoo News 

Former South African President Nelson Mandela has died at age 95 of complications from a recurring lung infection.

The anti-apartheid leader and Nobel Peace Prize laureate was a beloved figure around the world, a symbol of reconciliation from a country with a brutal history of racism.
Mandela was released from prison in 1990 after nearly 30 years for plotting to overthrow South Africa's apartheid government. In 1994, in a historic election, he became the nation's first black leader. Mandela stepped down in 1999 after a single term and retired from political and public life.
History
Born Nelson Rolihlahla Mandela in Transkei, South Africa on July 18, 1918, he was one of the world's most revered statesmen and revolutionaries who led the struggle against apartheid in South Africa.
A qualified lawyer from the University College of Fort Hare and the University of Witwatersrand, Mandela served as the President of South Africa from 1994 to 1999.
His political career started in 1944 when he joined the African National Congress (ANC) and participated in the resistance against the then government¹s apartheid policy in 1948. In June 1961, the ANC executive approved his idea of using violent tactics and encouraged members who wished to involve themselves in Mandela's campaign. Shortly after, he founded Umkhonto we Sizwe, the armed wing of the ANC and was named its leader.
In 1962, he was arrested and convicted of sabotage and other charges, and sentenced to five years of rigorous imprisonment. In 1963, Mandela was brought to stand trial along with many fellow members of Umkhonto we Sizwe for conspiring against the government and plotting to overthrow it by the use of violence.
Jailed for life
On June 12, 1964, eight of the accused, including Mandela, were sentenced to life imprisonment.
His statement from the dock at the opening of the defense trial became extremely popular. He closed his statement with: "During my lifetime I have dedicated myself to the struggle of the African people. I have fought against white domination, and I have fought against black domination. I have cherished the ideal of a democratic and free society in which all persons live together in harmony and with equal opportunities. It is an ideal which I hope to live for and to achieve. But if needs be, it is an ideal for which I am prepared to die."
Mandela served 27 years in prison from 1964 to 1982, spending many of those years at Robben Island Prison, off Cape Town. While in jail, his reputation grew and he became widely known across the world as the most significant black leader in South Africa.
He became a prominent symbol of resistance as the anti-apartheid movement gained momentum in South Africa and across the world. On the island, he and other prisoners were subjected to hard labor in a lime quarry. Racial discrimination was rampant and prisoners were segregated by race with the black prisoners receiving the fewest rations. Mandela has written about how he was allowed one visitor and one letter every six months.
Free and fair
In February 1985 President PW Botha offered Mandela his freedom on condition that he unconditionally rejected violence as a political weapon but he rejected the proposal. He made his sentiment known through a letter he released via his daughter.
"What freedom am I being offered while the organization of the people remains banned? Only free men can negotiate. A prisoner cannot enter into contracts," he wrote. In 1988 Mandela was moved to Victor Verster Prison and would remain there until his release.
Throughout his imprisonment, pressure mounted on the South African government to release him. The slogan 'Free Nelson Mandela' became the new battle-cry of the anti-apartheid campaigners. Finally, Mandela was released on February 11, 1990 in an event streamed live across the world. After his release, Mandela returned to his life's work, striving to attain the goals he and others had set out almost four decades earlier. In 1991, the first national conference of the ANC was held inside South Africa after the organisation had been banned in 1960.
President Mandela
Mandela was elected President of the ANC while his friend Oliver Tambo became the organisation's National Chairperson. Mandela's leadership and his work, as well as his relationship with the then President FW de Klerk, were recognised when they were jointly awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 1993. South Africa's first multi-racial elections, held on 27 April 1994, saw the ANC storm in with a majority of 62 per cent of the votes and Mandela was inaugurated in May 1994 as the country's first black President.
As president from May 1994 until June 1999, Mandela presided over the transition from minority rule and apartheid, winning international respect for his advocacy of national and international reconciliation.

Honors and personal life
Mandela has received many national international honors, including the Nobel Peace Prize in 1993, the Order of Merit from Queen Elizabeth II and the Presidential Medal of Freedom from George W. Bush.
In July 2004, the city of Johannesburg bestowed its highest honour by granting Mandela the freedom of the city at a ceremony in Orlando, Soweto.
In 1990, he received the Bharat Ratna Award from the government of India and also received the last ever Lenin Peace Prize from the Soviet Union.
In 1992, he was awarded the Atatürk Peace Award by Turkey. He refused the award citing human rights violations committed by Turkey at the time, but later accepted the award in 1999. Also in 1992, he received of Nishan-e-Pakistan, the highest civil service award of Pakistan. Mandela's autobiography, "Long Walk to Freedom," was published in 1994. He had begun work on it secretly while in prison.
Mandela and his wives
Nelson Mandela's love life has seemingly run parallel to his political one — and can be divided up into three key eras. The young activist married his first wife, Evelyn Mase, in 1944. The couple, who had four children, divorced in 1958 — shortly before Mandela became an outlaw with the banning of the ANC.

Mandela's second marriage — and probably his most famous — largely coincided with the time he spent locked up at the hands of the apartheid regime. In 1958 he walked down the aisle with Winnie Madikizela, who stood by his side and actively campaigned to free him from prison. Winnie became a powerful figure in her own right while Mandela was imprisoned but a series of scandals involving her led to the couple's estrangement in 1992, her dismissal from his cabinet in 1995, and their official divorce in 1996. The couple had two children. Winnie was also later convicted of kidnapping.

His third marriage, to Graca Machel — the widow of former Mozambique President — came on his 80th birthday as entered his role of world statesman.
Yahoo! Australia contributed to this report.

Stephen Colbert mocks the do-nothing Congress

Stephen Colbert mocks the do-nothing Congress

by BruinKid
 

Last night, Stephen Colbert led off by mocking the do-nothing 113th Congress.

And you know where things are always happening, Washington, D.C., where Congress only has 10 work days left, so you know there's going to be a flurry of activity as they pack for vacation.  Because, folks, this Congress has earned a very special distinction.

THOMAS ROBERTS (12/3/2013): The 113th Congress is about to go down as the least productive in our American history. CHRIS JANSING (12/3/2013): If you can believe it, only 55 bills have been signed into law this year.  That makes this the least productive Congress ever.
CHRIS HAYES (12/4/2013): The least productive Congress in the history of the American republic.
ALAN COLMES (8/8/2013): It literally is a do-nothing Congress.

Oh that's not fair!  They're doing something.  They're getting into the Guinness Book of World Records!  And folks, that makes it twice if you count John Boehner's fingernails.
Now sure, the 113th hasn't passed the bills every Congress does, like a highway bill, or a defense bill, or a farm bill, or a budget.  But, I mean, what do we need a budget for?  Clearly not for highways, defense, or food.  Besides, Congress did pass a bill ensuring that people can fish near dams on the Cumberland River, and they also passed deep cuts in food stamps for the poor, which is good solid governing, because the poor don't need food stamps anymore, now that they can fish near dams on the Cumberland River.  Remember the old saying, "Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day.  Take away his food stamps, maybe he won't."  (audience laughter)
And folks, I am so excited to have others report that there's been an even bigger bipartisan achievement.

FOX32 (11/18/2013): Congress is about to shell out $55 million dollars to pay for retirement benefits for a group of chimpanzees.  The 300 chimps are part of a research testing facility, who are being sent to a habitat in Louisiana to live out the rest of their lives.  The money will be used to provide the animals with housing, food, and medical care.

That's right, the government is paying for research chimps to retire to Louisiana.  Because not even psychologically scarred apes want to live in Florida.  (wild audience laughter and applause)  Big Sunshine State fans tonight. Nation, this is great news, because it means Congress can agree on a social safety net, as long as it's not for human beings.  And if they're willing to reward research chimps with cushy retirement, I see no reason why we shouldn't just offer the same deal to our elderly, as long as we can use them for medical experiments first.

Face it, come on, face it, they already swallow whatever pills you put in the tray.  And since we won't need chimps for research anymore, we can have them do all the things Congress refuses to pay people to do.  Like rebuilding our bridges, or paving our highways.  I mean, it would be so much better!  Because a chimp on a tricycle is funny, but a chimp on a steamroller?  Hilarious!

And come to think of it, why don't we just put the chimps in Congress?

(wild audience cheering and applause)
After all, they've got a lot of experience... they've got the experience you need — they jerk off in public and throw shit at each other.  (wild audience laughter and applause)

Video below the fold.

The Colbert Report
Get More: Colbert Report Full Episodes,Video Archive

Stephen then had a Tip/Wag segment looking at the RNC's tweet about Rosa Parks "ending racism"

The Colbert Report
Get More: Colbert Report Full Episodes,Video Archive

He then looked at the new libertarian wet-dream fantasy of a Freedom Ship for the mega-wealthy. What could possibly go wrong?

The Colbert Report
Get More: Colbert Report Full Episodes,Video Archive

Meanwhile, Jon looked at how the big banks and other corporations are allowed to get away with ridiculous cases of massive fraud with a mere slap on the wrist in easily payable fines, and talked with Sam Bee about why cable news and even print journalism have kept quiet on these kinds of stories.

Stephen talked with the Equal Justice Initiative's Bryan Stevenson, and Jon talked with documentary filmmaker Jehane Noujaim about what's happening in Egypt, which went long. Here's the unedited interview in two parts.
 Part 1
 Part 2
Originally posted to BruinKid on Thu Dec 05, 2013 at 05:00 AM PST.

GOP: Founding Fathers created defect-free Constitution, ended slavery

GOP: Founding Fathers created defect-free Constitution, ended slavery

by Jon Perr

 

The Republican National Committee's proclamation honoring Rosa Park's "role in ending racism" is continuing to receive the scorn and derision it richly deserves. As it turns out, the GOP's attempt to literally whitewash American history is hardly its first.
Consider, for example, the RNC's response to President Obama's 2010 nomination of now Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan. Unable to prevent three-fifths of the Senate from voting on Kagan's nomination, the RNC instead suggested the Founders' three-fifths of a person standard for counting slaves was no defect. As The Hill reported, the RNC, including Michael Steele, objects to Kagan's citation of a 1987 Marshall speech in a 1993 tribute to her late mentor. Among the offending if self-evident passages from the 1987 address by Marshall:

[T]he government they devised was defective from the start, requiring several amendments, a civil war, and momentous social transformation to attain the system of constitutional government, and its respect for the individual freedoms and human rights, we hold as fundamental today. When contemporary Americans cite "The Constitution," they invoke a concept that is vastly different from what the Framers barely began to construct two centuries ago.

Even more alarming to the Republican mind than Marshall's spotlight on the early Constitution ("We the People" included, in the words of the Framers, "the whole Number of free Persons.") was Kagan's approving citation of his belief that the mission of the Supreme Court was to "was to "show a special solicitude for the despised and the disadvantaged." Inquiring conservative minds, the Hill reported, now want to know:

"Does Kagan Still View Constitution 'As Originally Drafted And Conceived' As 'Defective'?" the RNC asked in its research document. "And Does Kagan Still Believe That The Supreme Court's Primary Mission Is To 'Show A Special Solicitude For The Despised And Disadvantaged'?"

For her part, Minnesota Congresswoman and one-time Republican presidential front-runner Michele Bachmann has acknowledged the Constitution's original sin of slavery. In January 2011, the Bachmann told Iowans for Tax Relief that America was founded on diversity and the Founding Fathers eliminated the "scourge" of slavery in their lifetimes:

"How unique in all of the world, that one nation that was the resting point from people groups all across the world. It didn't matter whether they descended from known royalty or whether they were of a higher class or a lower class, it made no difference. Once you got here [to the United States] you were all the same. Isn't that remarkable?... We know we were not perfect. We know there was slavery that was still tolerated when the nation began. We know that was an evil and it was scourge and a blot and a stain upon our history. But we also know that the very founders that wrote those documents worked tirelessly until slavery was no more in the United States. And I think it is high time that we recognize the contribution of our forebears, who worked tirelessly, men like John Quincy Adams, who would not rest until slavery was extinguished in the country."

Alas, math and history are hard.

John Quincy Adams was extinguished in 1848. Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation was not issued until 1863 and the 13th Amendment to the Constitution which ended slavery was not ratified until 1865.
Of course, in the telling of Republicans like Sarah Palin, Mike Huckabee, Trent Franks and legions of others, there are many things at least as bad as slavery. That list includes the U.S. national debt, Obamacare, gun control, abortion and just about everything else conservatives oppose. As Franks put it in 2010:

"In this country, we had slavery for God knows how long. And now we look back on it and we say 'How brave were they? What was the matter with them? You know, I can't believe, you know, four million slaves. This is incredible.' And we're right, we're right. We should look back on that with criticism. It is a crushing mark on America's soul. And yet today, half of all black children are aborted. Half of all black children are aborted. Far more of the African-American community is being devastated by the policies of today than were being devastated by policies of slavery."

No doubt, that news would have come as a surprise to Rosa Parks.

Originally posted to Jon Perr on Mon Dec 02, 2013 at 10:13 AM PST.

Also republished by Daily Kos.

The GOP might as well be dead

By Jonathan Capehar
December 2 at 8:34 pm

The Growth and Opportunity Project, aka “the autopsy,” was heralded as the Republican Party’s clear-eyed assessment of its 2012 presidential defeat. Autopsies are done on dead things, and ever since its March 2013 release, the GOP has done everything possible to stay dead.
The Republican Party is dead to African Americans. Not that there was much of pulse to begin with. Romney won 6 percent of the black vote to 93 percent for Obama, which isn’t surprising since Romney was looking to unseat the nation’s first black president. But it is also not surprising considering all of the voter suppression efforts around the country.
That the GOP ought to try to appeal to African Americans was recognized in the autopsy. “There are numerous outside groups that are studying the best way for the Republican Party to better reach African American voters,” the report pointed out. “The Republican Party should leverage the best practices identified by such organizations.” You employ that “best practices” nonsense when you and your staff haven’t a clue what to do. And it’s clear that if Michael Steele, the former chairman of the Republican National Committee who is black, were still head of the party, at least two egregious episodes would not have happened.
A tweet from the party’s official Twitter account on Sunday would not have celebrated Rosa Parks on the anniversary of her historic bus-boycott arrest by lauding “her role in ending racism.” Sure, the tweet was later corrected. But, come on, people. The lowest level black person at the RNC could have told them that the tweet as flat-out wrong and offensive. Not that anyone would have listened, assuming there are any low-level black people there.
That RNC tweet was so egregious that when I asked Steele about it via e-mail yesterday, all he could muster was a pitying response. “What can one say about such a gross misunderstanding of the African American experience in America.” 

Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah), Sarah Palin and Larry Klayman (Joshua Roberts/Reuters)

Another gross misunderstanding of the African American experience in America took place on Oct. 13. That was when a young man unfurled the menacing Confederate flag in front of the White House, home to a black family, as part of the protest of the government shutdown. And that was after grassy knoller Larry Klayman had called on on the president at an earlier rally “to put the Quran down, to get up off his knees, and to figuratively come out with his hands up.” A rally where Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) and Sarah Palin, the 2008 Republican vice presidential nominee, also spoke. And nary a peep from the grown-ups of the party about any of this. Not the palling around with conspiracists. Not the Confederate flag. But to continue dabbling in blatant disrespect of Obama — as current RNC Chair Reince Priebus did when he said the president cultivated “a culture of hatred” — is to continue to write off African Americans.
The Republican Party is dead to Latinos. Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney won 27 percent of the Hispanic vote compared with 71 percent for President Obama. Therefore, winning back the Latino vote was paramount to the GOP resurrection effort, and changing its tone on immigration reform was a key part of it. “In essence,” the report notes, “Hispanic voters tell us our Party’s position on immigration has become a litmus test, measuring whether we are meeting them with a welcome mat or a closed door.” The Senate put out the welcome mat in June. The House slammed the door hard in November. “We have no intention of ever going to conference on the Senate bill,” Speaker John Boehner told reporters last month. So much for the Latino vote.
Since the truth-telling of the first 12 pages of the GOP autopsy, the Republican Party has energized the black vote for the Democrats, and it’s alienated Latino voters. How it plans to regain national relevance — let alone regain the White House — without the latter is beyond me.

Gov. Chris Christie celebrates his reelection. (Mel Evans/AP)

Oh, and if you’re tempted to say, as I was, that there was a lesson for the GOP in black and brown in the reelection of New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, think again. He won 51 percent of the Hispanic vote because he promised to support the Garden State’s version of the DREAM Act, which is making its way through the legislature. The early front-runner for the 2016 Republican presidential nomination, who will need the far-right conservative base to win it, flip-flopped on that promise last week.
Follow Jonathan on Twitter: @Capehartj

20 Obvious Lies That Will Shock Conservatives (If They Ever Bothered To Read A Book Or Two)

 
Author: Justin "Filthy Liberal Scum" Rosario June 22, 2013 4:30 pm

Whenever conservative bloggers try to be clever and “expose” liberal myths, you just know it’s time to pull out the rain coat, ’cause there’s gonna be a whole lot of bullshit flying around. The latest example of this is John Hawkins’ “20 Obvious Truths That Will Shock Liberals” whose real title should be “20 Easily Disprovable Stories That Conservatives Chumps Buy Hook, Line & Sinker.” Let’s take a look shall we?
1) The Founding Fathers were generally religious, gun-toting small government fanatics who were so far to the Right that they’d make Ann Coulter look like Jimmy Carter. That’s nice. They also thought leeches could cure illness. Does that mean we should stop advancing medicine or building on their ideas for a better future? I’ll keep this mind the next time some gibbering buffoon demands that “original intent” be the only guide for interpreting the Constitution. The original intent of the Founders was that slavery was just fine, black people counted as only 3/5 of a man and women couldn’t vote at all. Let’s get back to basics!! Warning: you might find that women and African-Americans have some objections.


As for “small government?” Pure ignorance. They had laws dictating what kind of public behavior was acceptable and what size barrel could be used to transport food stuffs. Small government? Don’t make me laugh.
2) The greatest evil this country has ever committed isn’t slavery; it’s killing more than 50 million innocent children via abortion. Tell that to a slave. But, in reality, abortion is a very complicated issue. Far more complicated than the bumper sticker mentality of your typical conservative can process. I’ll help conservative make their case, though. All a conservative has to do to convince me that they truly consider abortion to be the murder of a human being is explain to me why they do not have a funeral for miscarriages and demand a death certificate be issued.
Good luck with that.
3) Conservatives are much more compassionate than liberals and all you have to do to prove it is look at all the studies showing that conservatives give more of their money to charity than liberals do. Only a conservative can equate money to compassion. You’re pro-death penalty, pro-war, anti-gay, anti-universal healthcare, anti-Medicare, anti-Medicaid, anti-Social Security but you give some money to a church that might use it to feed the homeless but could just as easily use it (and millions more) to deny gay couples the right to marry. Therefor, YOU are more compassionate than a liberal who wants an end to war and poverty.
hah…ahahah…ahahahahahha…bwahahahahahahaAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!
(the author must take a break to catch his breath)
4) When the Founding Fathers were actually around, there were official state religions and the Bible was used as a textbook in schools. The so-called “wall of separation between church and state” has absolutely nothing to do with the Constitution and everything to do with liberal hostility to Christianity. Ah, the old “America is a religious country” bit. And to a conservative, that can only mean “Christian.” Here’s a fun fact about the Founders: to them, religious did not mean “Christian,” a very subtle nuance that seems to escape conservatives even when they read quotes from Jefferson like “Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law” or from the Treaty of Tripoli signed in 1797 that states: “As the Government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Musselmen (Muslims); and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.”
That is directly from the mouths of the people who created the country. It literally cannot be stated more clearly than that.
5) The biggest problem with our economy today is Barack Obama. His demonization of successful people, his driving up gas prices, his regulatory overload and threats to increase taxes have terrified businesses into hunkering down, refusing to spend money, and declining to hire new people. Replacing him would do more than any government policy to spur economic growth. Funny how American gas prices have mirrored the fluctuations of the world market precisely. I guess President Obama controls the entire oil market single-handedly. It’s also amazing, how, despite the fact that we’re supposed to “drill, moron, drill,” the United States is now a net oil exporter. That’s right, we sell more oil than we take in but gas prices are still going up. I have yet to meet a conservative that can honestly explain why that is. As for refusing to spend money, why is it that no conservative can ever tell me WHAT corporations should spend the money on? Hire more people to do…what? Fill demand? They’re already filling what demand there is. More employees won’t fill it any better. Despite this, the unemployment rate has steadily (if slowly) declined under Obama as opposed to skyrocketing under the conservative policies that the right pretends didn’t cause the crash in the first place. 
6) Not only are conservatives more patriotic than liberals, but most American liberals “love” America in about the same way that a wife-beater loves his wife. In 2008, a black man was elected to the White House in a fair and open election. It was not a suspiciously close vote that required the conservative Supreme Court to stop a recount and give the election to the Republican candidate. The Democratic Party won a super majority in the Senate (but only for eight months) and a large majority in the House. What did the “patriotic” right do? Immediately started to scream that it wasn’t fair and it wasn’t right and they wanted their country back. The GOP (ab)used the filibuster more than any other time in history, death threats against the president spiked and right-wing militias dramatically increased in numbers, along with foiled plots to start a revolution. Right Wing politicians started talking about secession and “second amendment remedies” and Rush Limbaugh stated, publicly and repeatedly, that he hoped Obama would fail.
If THAT’S what a conservative considers “patriotism,” they’re delusional. Patriotism is more than wearing a lapel pin. It’s more than polishing your gun and swearing to shoot the first federal agent that steps foot on your land. It’s more than wrapping yourself in the flag while screaming “I hate that nigger!” at Fox News.  It’s more than being against something. You have to stand for something besides your own petty little needs. Conservatives have forgotten this, if they ever knew it the first place.
7) Out of every 100 cries of “Racism” you hear these days, 99 are motivated by nothing other than politics. That would be because they are directed at Republican politicians and pundits passing around racist emails, calling President Obama a skinny little crackhead or man-child and demanding to see his “real” birth certificate because being born to an American mother and a Kenyan father magically makes you “not American” despite several past (white) presidents having a foreign national as a parent. When the Right stops using the Southern Strategy of racial resentment that they have flat out stated that are using, we’ll stop calling them racist. 
8) Anyone paying income taxes is certainly paying his “fair share” — and then some — compared to the people who pay nothing. When the rich paid a 90% marginal tax rate, the rich still got richer but the economy boomed. The less the rich paid, the richer they got but the worse the economy did. So let me ask you this: How is it “fair” when the rich take the most from the economy but give less, as a percentage of their profits, than the rest of us back to that economy? 
9) You don’t have a “right” to anything that other people have to pay to provide for you. Then you do not have the right to police protection, a fire department or even a 911 emergency line. You do not have the right to clean air or safe food. You do not have the right to a military to protect you from foreign invasion. You do not have the right to a single thing that is government-run. Oh? What’s that? You pay taxes so you deserve all of those things?
Exactly, you stupid bastard. If everyone else was not chipping in, i.e. “paying to provide for you,” you would not be able to afford all that nifty stuff. It’s called “socialism” and only very stupid people think they are completely self-sufficient.
10) If we can ask people to present an ID to buy alcohol, drive a car, or get on an airplane, then asking them to present identification to vote is a no-brainer. Only a conservative could debase the right to vote by comparing it to getting drunk. Liberals hold their franchise to a higher standard, apparently. Tell me again how liberals are the ones that hate what America stands for?
11) There’s absolutely nothing that the government does smarter, better, or more efficiently than the private market with roughly equivalent resources. Except be held accountable to the people of the United States of America. The conservative push to privatize everything is the rush on Lemmings going over a cliff. It is a fact that terrifies conservatives that when you add a “for profit” motive to basic necessities like health care and military contractors, the inevitable result, proven again and again, is corruption, theft of taxpayers dollars on a grand scale and reduced service. As long as the bottom line is the true goal, we, the people are a secondary consideration. Unless, of course, you want to make the argument that a multinational corporation has the best interests of the consumer in mind.
Good luck with that, too.
12) The biggest problem with education in this country is liberals. They fight vouchers, oppose merit pay, refuse to get rid of terrible teachers, and bend over backwards to keep poor kids trapped in failing schools. The Gordian Knot of education reform has so far eluded both liberals and conservatives. Guess what, though? No Child Left Behind was an abject failure. You know what else doesn’t work? Cutting school budgets in an attempt to “prove” public education doesn’t work. Vouchers haven’t provided better results but it HAS exacerbated the problem. Try again.   
13) Fascism, socialism, and communism are all left-wing movements that have considerably more in common with modern liberalism than modern conservatism. Oh noes! Socialism! Communism! Fascism! Conservatives don’t know what these words mean so they lump them all together!! And they’re scary words!!! Communism is when the government controls the means of production and dictates what gets produced in what quantities. Mainstream liberals do not advocate this. Socialism (the american version, at least) is when everyone gets to enjoy the fruits of out collective labor. The interstate highway system is SOCIALISM. National monuments and parks are SOCIALISM. The public education system is SOCIALISM. Community colleges are SOCIALISM. The police and fire departments are SOCIALISM. Medicare is SOCIALISM. Social Security is SOCIALISM. My god! The word “social” is right there in the name!!!
Let me know how many of those SOCIALIST programs you’re willing to do without.
Fascism is a movement predicated on rabid nationalism (America is for REAL Americans), racism (White Power), isolationism (build the dang fence!), political violence (militias) and wars of aggression (Iraq). Now, which political movement does that sound like? Sure doesn’t sound like any liberals I’ve ever heard of!
14) The Democratic Party was behind slavery, the KKK, and Jim Crow laws. It was also the party of Margaret Sanger, George Wallace, and Bull Connor. It has ALWAYS been a racist party. Even today, white liberals support Affirmative Action and racial set-asides because they still believe black Americans are too inferior to go up against whites on an even playing field. My god! You’re right! I Agree completely. The Dixiecrats were a bunch of racist scumbags. They did fight against equal rights for blacks. Those Democrats were terrible, vile racists! 
Hey, did you know, that after the signing of the Civil Rights Act, all of those racist Democrats that we just agreed were absolute scum left the Democratic Party? Yeah, they became Republicans.
History didn’t stop after the 1960s. 
15) A man with good morals who falls short and becomes a hypocrite is still a far better man than a liberal who can never be called a hypocrite because he has no morals at all. And what lack of morals is that? Do liberals commit more crimes? “Blue” states, by and large, have a lower crime rate than “Red” states. Do we get divorced more often? Again, Red states outstrip Blue. Do we get pregnant at a younger (unmarried) age? Sing with me now, “Red trumps Blue!” Do liberals threaten political violence on a regular basis the way conservatives do? Nope. Who commits the most hate crimes in the country? Liberals or conservatives? Who encourages unsafe sex, thus increasing the number of abortions and the transmission of STDs? Conservatives. Who cheer the death penalty knowing, for a fact, that innocent men get executed? Conservatives. Who wanted to continue the war in Iraq that saw tens of thousands of children killed by American bombs? Conservatives.
Seriously, you think conservatives are moral? Why? Because you’re Christian and everyone knows that all liberals hate Jesus? There are serial killers out there that display a healthier set of morals than the freak show that is the Fox News audience.
16) The most dire threat to America’s future and prosperity in the last 150 years hasn’t been the Nazis, the Soviets, or Al-Qaeda;, it’s the spending and overreach of our own government. You mean the out of control spending of the Republicans? I agree! Reagan roughly tripled the deficit. Bush 41 actually tried to curb it and was punished by his own party for doing so. Clinton balanced it two years in a row and was on track to erase the national debt in a decade. Bush 43 sent the deficit into the unheard of territory of $1 trillion+ with his $700 billion tax cut, two wars and the Medicare Part D corporate giveaway. None of which were paid for or offset. We still have those tax cuts, one war (now a part of the budget like it should have been the whole time) and Medicare Part D. How is it Obama’s fault again that the deficit is outrageous? 
Just as history didn’t stop in the 1960s, it also didn’t just start when Obama was sworn in. Almost 30 years of the conservative one-two punch of “cut taxes and deregulate” under the guise of “trickle down” have crushed the economy. But let’s blame the black guy!!
Correction: the original article listed the Bushes as president 42 and 44 respectively. Only one person out of tens of thousands caught this. Shame on all you! ;)                  
17) Greed isn’t someone wanting to keep more of what he earns; it’s people demanding a greater share of money that someone else earns. Greed isn’t when you want to secure the health and prosperity of others; greed is when you put your own self-interest above the good of the whole.
Conservatives have isolated themselves in a bubble of rhetoric in which no one is accountable to anyone else. That is not how a society works. It is not how human beings work. It’s not even how the Bible they claim to worship works. It is, however, how a child thinks. The right suffers from infantilism. They even throw temper tantrums when they don’t get their way in the form of the Tea Party and filibusters. Time to grow up, kiddies.
18) Most of the time in American politics, the liberal “victim” is really a bad guy who is absolutely delighted by the opportunity to pretend to be “offended.” Interesting hypothesis. Of course, you must mean that “a bad guy” is someone who has been insulted, belittled or discriminated against because of their race, religion, gender or sexual orientation. They sure are “bad guys” for taking offense! The nerve of them, wanting to be treated with respect!
On the other hand, conservatives thrive on being offended when they’re told they can’t insult, belittle or discriminate against others because of their race, religion, gender or sexual orientation.
Only a conservative could feel oppressed because they can’t inflict their hate on others.
19) Jesus Christ was not a conservative, a liberal, or a politician. He was also not a capitalist or a socialist. Still, you can say this: Jesus drew sharp lines about what’s right and wrong, he wasn’t tolerant of what the Bible categorizes as sinful behavior, and there’s absolutely no question that he would adamantly oppose abortion and gay marriage. Really? Please cite, chapter and verse, where Jesus says he is against gay marriage and abortion. While you’re struggling to find a verse you can creatively interpret to mean “protect the unborn” and “persecute fags,” here’s a few verses that clarify Jesus’ stance on capitalism as practiced by the 1%:

 ”Matthew 19: 23 Then said Jesus unto his disciples, Verily I say unto you, That a rich man shall hardly enter into the kingdom of heaven. 24: And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.
“Luke 16:13 No servant can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and Mammon.

 I think it’s quite clear what Jesus thought about the mindless acquisition and hoarding of wealth that is THE defining characteristic of American capitalism.
20) When you demand that other people fund your sexual escapades by buying your contraception, your sex life becomes their business. Ok, make you a deal. We’ll stop pestering insurance companies about contraception when you stop making laws against homosexuals. Think you can do that? Think you can stop making other people’s sex lives your business? No? What a shock. Conservatives are hypocrites. I never would have guessed.
Feel free to tell me what a terrible person I am on Facebook here (public) or here (not so public) or follow me on Twitter @FilthyLbrlScum

GOP Scandal Dies as Republicans Are Reduced To Whining About the Back End of ACA Website was written by Sarah Jones for PoliticusUSA.

© PoliticusUSA, Sun, Dec 1st, 2013 — All Rights Reserved

Voter ID Gets Another Day in Court

By THE EDITORIAL BOARD

Published: November 30, 2013

A federal trial in Milwaukee on Wisconsin’s 2011 voter ID law concluded recently, and the verdict, when it comes, will help define the future of the Voting Rights Act, which has been in question since the Supreme Court gutted a core provision, Section 5, in June. This case could also set an important precedent for lawsuits recently filed against similar laws in Texas and North Carolina.

Related

• Judge in Landmark Case Disavows Support for Voter ID (October 16, 2013)

The Wisconsin law, which is now on hold, is among the strictest in the country. It requires a voter to show poll workers government-issued photo identification, like a driver’s license or passport.

The law’s challengers, which include the A.C.L.U., the League of United Latin American Citizens, the League of Young Voters and several private citizens, sued under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. That section, which survived the Supreme Court’s ruling, prohibits state and local governments from imposing any “voting qualification or prerequisite to voting” that has a racially discriminatory effect. The test is whether a law causes minority voters to have “less opportunity than other members of the electorate to participate in the political process.”

The plaintiffs presented substantial evidence that the Wisconsin statute had precisely that effect.

For example, a political scientist testified that it is likely that more than 63,000 residents of Milwaukee do not have the required photo ID, and that black residents are 40 percent more likely than whites not to have such ID. In addition, one-third of those without a photo ID do not have the underlying documents, like a birth certificate, needed to get one. The court heard testimony from several such witnesses, including Lorene Hutchins, a 93-year-old black woman who was born at home in Mississippi at a time when the state’s hospitals refused to accept black patients.

For those living in poverty or on a fixed income, who are disproportionately people of color, even the $20 charge to get a copy of a birth certificate can be unaffordable, and is in practice no different from a poll tax. As is typical in voter ID cases, the state presented virtually no evidence of voter fraud in defending the law. One election official could not recall a single case of identity fraud in his three decades of service to the state.

The law’s backers know their case is weak, and Republican legislators are scrambling to revise the statute to permit indigent voters to take a verbal oath and sign an affidavit that they cannot afford the paperwork needed for a photo ID. But the revision would set no guidelines for determining when someone is poor enough to qualify, and it would put residents in the embarrassing position of having to declare their poverty in public.

State voter ID laws may vary in their particulars, but their underlying purpose is to prevent eligible voters from voting. That point was reiterated when Judge Richard Posner of the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit said recently that he had been wrong to uphold an Indiana voter-identification law in 2007.

Such laws are “now widely regarded as a means of voter suppression rather than of fraud prevention,” Judge Posner wrote in a memoir, adding that if he had been alert to the “trickery” of voter ID laws at the time, the case would have come out differently. He may soon have the chance for a do-over. Whichever way the trial court rules, the losing side is sure to appeal to the Seventh Circuit, which includes Judge Posner and his colleagues. Perhaps this time, they will not be fooled.

Former KKK leader and his mother indicted in Alabama cross-burning and cover-up

Former KKK leader and his mother indicted in Alabama cross-burning and cover-up (via Raw Story )

An Alabama grand jury indicted a former Grand Cyclops in the racist vigilante group the Ku Klux Klan in the town of Ozark on Wednesday. The man was charged with burning a cross at the entrance to an African-American neighborhood. According to the U.…

---

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

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

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


ArizonaCrime


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

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

 

Sam Stein stein@huffingtonpost.com

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

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

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

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

10 Headlines Fox News Might Have Written Had They Existed During Key Points in U.S. History

November 27, 2013 By Allen Clifton 

I’m sure I’m not the only one who’s noticed the tendency for conservatives to have what can best be described as a foggy recollection of history.  While modern day right-wing media outlets like Fox News mostly paint the Republican party in a positive light, anyone with any kind of common sense knows that, while political parties might have shifted over time, the beliefs of the “conservative” have not.
Hell, these people now try to claim that President Kennedy was actually a conservative and if MLK were alive today he would be a Republican.  And while many conservatives today love programs like Social Security and Medicare, their rabid opposition to anything “socialized” leads me to believe with great certainty that had Fox News been around during the time when Social Security and Medicare were created, conservatives would fiercely oppose both programs as well.
So while this idea has been explored by others, I decided I would give my own take on the type of headline I believe Fox News would write about certain issues that have happened throughout our history.
I figure, let’s have a little fun.
In no particular chronological order, here we go:
1) Watergate:
Liberal Witch Hunt Continues: Mainstream Media’s Relentless Attack on President Nixon Proves Their True Liberal Bias


2) MLK’s “I Have a Dream” Speech:
Racist Martin Luther King Descends on Washington D.C., Continues to Try to Make Race an Issue
3) Social Security:
FDR the Socialist? President Signs Largest Redistribution of Wealth Legislation in United States History
4) Medicare:
Following Kennedy’s Assassination, President Johnson Signs Communist-like Law Forcing Younger Americans to Pay for Free-Loading Seniors 
5) Truman’s Election:
Rampant Voter Fraud Leads to Unexpected Truman Victory
6) Pear Harbor Bombing:
FDR’s Nazi Sympathizing Backfires: German Ally Empire of Japan Attacks United States Naval Base 
7) Custer’s Last Stand:
American Hero General Custer Slaughtered by Pack of Illegal Immigrants
8) Lincoln’s Push to Free Slaves:
“King” Lincoln Wants the Federal Government to be Able to Seize Your Personal Property, Destroy United States Economy
9) University of Alabama Integration:
Police State in Alabama: President Kennedy Attacks States Rights, Sends Military to Protect Inferior Negros Trying to Mix with Whites 
10) Building of the Interstate Highway System:
Government Spending is Out of Control as President Eisenhower Plans Socialist Takeover of Interstate Travel 
Alright, I’m going to stop there.  Honestly, I could do this all day.
Did I exaggerate a bit on some of them?  I’m really not so sure.  Considering the radical nature of the Republican party — tea party Republicans in particular — and Fox News being the mouthpiece for the GOP, I think most of them would be fairly accurate.


But of course Republicans won’t agree with any of these.  Then again, most conservatives are in complete denial about the sad reality of their own party.
I hope those reading this will share this around and see if others agree with what these “headlines” from Fox News might have been.
Image via “If Fox News Was Around” on Facebook

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

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

by ProgLegsFollow

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

attribution: None Specified

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

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

Ex-Generals Say President Obama Must be Forced to Resign

Ex-Generals Say President Obama Must be Forced to Resign

By: Hrafnkell Haraldsson

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

Traitors Paul E. Vallely and Charles Jones

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

Survey: Low IQ Leads To Racism And Extreme Conservatism

By Maeby Gever on November 24, 2013

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

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

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

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

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

and

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

and

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

According to University of Virginia psychologist Brian Nosek:

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

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


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

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

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

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

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