Radical Right

This is how loony the right is becoming, as they fear our newly elected Democratic congress:

A radio talk-show entertainer whose earlier statements that he "may" have to assassinate members of Congress if the wrong people were elected Nov. 7 now has set a timetable for those killings.

In a statement on his website, Hal Turner noted that a newspaper has reported that a bill granting amnesty to illegal aliens is expected to be enacted in January, when the Democratic Party takes control of the U.S. Senate and House.

"ANY MEMBER OF CONGRESS WHO INTRODUCES, CO-SPONSORS OR VOTES IN FAVOR OF ANY SUCH AMNESTY WILL BE DECLARED A DOMESTIC ENEMY AND WILL BE CONSIDERED A LEGITIMATE TARGET FOR ASSASSINATION," Turner posted on his website.

Reading further down the article, the Secret Service and FBI are apparently blowing this off also. Funny how when school kids make posters that the Secret Service feels are a threat to the President, they come to their school and pull them out, yet someone who uses our public airwaves to make his fame and advertise his website, which contains text calling for the assassination of our elected officials, it is nothing.

Look what happened a little over a month ago. They caught the guy sending fake anthrax letters to Democrats and left-wing media personalities. Turns out that guy was a product of the right wing blogo-sphere and frequented the sites of Michelle Malkin and Ann Coulter.

Make a serious note of this. The right is the ones that constantly engage in this sort of activity, yet they blame the left for engaging in it. Pretty funny, being the technical administrator for two of the largest left-wing blogs out there, I don't see this activity happening on our side. This is typical of them in politics and writing.

So what does Mr. Turner think about the majority of this country that overwhelmingly put the Democrats in power? Does he feel the same way about them?

Here is something for Mr. Turner to chew on. The people that come into this country that he apparently so despises, have a better knowledge of how our democracy works then him. His statement is very much a terroristic threat and should be handled as such. He is calling for the assassination of members of Congress. Ironically, the Democrats mostly support the same thing Bush does, so the President should be included in that (remember his Oval Office speech about immigration? HINT: Guest workers!).

So here is what should happen. 1) He be questioned and charged for his actions. 2) The hosting company for his site needs to suspend his account indefinitely. All hosting companies in the U.S. have some sort of policy against engaging in illegal activities. 3) The FCC must suspend his license indefinitely and he can never return to the airwaves in this country.

Even if all these punishments happened, it would be far less then what happened to people falsely accused of being terrorists. True Mr. Turner is more of a terrorist then any of those. Osama didn't take down the towers on 9/11. He was just the ring leader behind it. Sounds like the same position that Mr. Turner is shooting for.

(h/t AmericaBLOG)

This follows a typical line in Republican thinking - ignore the facts and they don't exist:

The Bush administration is clamping down on scientists at the U.S. Geological Survey, the latest agency subjected to controls on research that might go against official policy.

New rules require screening of all facts and interpretations by agency scientists who study everything from caribou mating to global warming. The rules apply to all scientific papers and other public documents, even minor reports or prepared talks, according to documents obtained by The Associated Press.

Top officials at the Interior Department's scientific arm say the rules only standardize what scientists must do to ensure the quality of their work and give a heads-up to the agency's public relations staff.

"This is not about stifling or suppressing our science, or politicizing our science in any way," Barbara Wainman, the agency's director of communications, said Wednesday. "I don't have approval authority. What it was designed to do is to improve our product flow."

So I wonder what big oil lobbyist will get the job of censuring all data. This is apparently what they are trying to do. Things work so much easier when you can change the science and facts to your liking (see - Iraq/WMD). Perhaps we should turn to religion and fight against the anti-Christ that is sitting in the White House. His policies are meant to destroy God's green planet.

The right-wing blogosphere is in meltdown over the loss of their beloved John Bolton.

Redstate:

The good news just keeps on coming these days. John Bolton has tendered his resignation, and President Bush has "reluctantly" accepted it. I admit to a little frustraton with Mr. Bush on this; while I know confirming Mr. Bolton in a Democrat-controlled senate was an uphill battle, the President had signalled that he was ready to fight for his man. And I for one would be willing to fight along side him. The conflict could have been an opportunity to ask senators exactly what they were voting against when they opposed Mr. Bolton. Support for Israel? Intervention in Darfur? Reform at the UN?

Malkin:

Very depressing news this Monday morning. We are losing a staunch, devoted defender of America's interests at the U.N.

Reacting to the news, Eleanor Clift chuckled on Fox News that Bush is just "recognizing reality."

If the White House thinks throwing in the towel and throwing Bolton overboard will appease the Dems or the U.N., it doesn't know what reality is.

More to come as I find them. This is just a sample of the wingnuts feeling that democracy means their way or no way. Maybe we can keep Democrats in control and then they will have to either realize democracy is about sharing ideas and working out the best of both worlds, or just leave. America spoke last month and said that their extremist ideals are not what America is about.

Now this is something that is very interesting. An article in Today's Washington Post talks about Little Green Footballs and the altered Reuters' photo. When you get towards the end of the article, a side of LGF that many of us knew, but was never really talked about in the mainstream media, is talked about:

Not everyone, though, is a fan. Ibrahim Hooper, spokesman for the Council on American-Islamic Relations, a civil rights organization often vilified on Johnson's blog, calls Little Green Footballs "a vicious, anti-Muslim hate site . . . that has unfortunately become popular."

The irony, Hooper says, is that if the same kind of "hatred" that appears on LGF appeared on Muslim sites, it soon would be used by LGF's fans to justify their worldview.

Like many politically themed blogs, Little Green Footballs doesn't always traffic in subtlety and nuance. Dissenting points of view often are dismissed as "idiotarian" or "LLL" (for "loony liberal left"), and Islam is mockingly referred to as "RoP," meaning "religion of peace."

Hooper says the Reuters incident is unfortunate in itself, but says such sites as Little Green Footballs use such lapses "as a club against the entire mainstream media. Their line is basically that if one freelance photographer alters a photo, then everything Israel does must be justified. Or if one of the sentences that Dan Rather once uttered wasn't correct, then the media is corrupt and Dan Rather's whole career is rotten to the core."

The FBI, according to Hooper, recently investigated several threats of physical harm against Muslims posted by Little Green Footballs readers.

Johnson acknowledges the investigation but says Hooper's organization initiated the complaints to try to stifle free speech on his blog. And Johnson names the Council on American-Islamic Relations as one of the groups he's referring to when he talks about the undue influence of Arab-funded organizations on American society and the media.

Hooper most likely hit the nail on the head with this complaint. Take a few minutes and visit right wing blogs or political forums and one thing is constant - the hatred towards Middle Eastern people. They believe these people should be tortured simply because "they are brown". They make cute little names for them like "mooslims", yet they are the first to yell about their tolerance. Of course they are just trying to justify their hatred by saying this.

While saying things on the internet is not the same as actions in real life, they do have real life implications. Think of the people who read these type of posts and get enraged at Middle Eastern people as a whole simply because these authors do such a good job at lumping them all together. I wonder if any soldiers who are suspected of killing innocent Iraqis ever visited these sites. This is the new form of hate being bred on the internet and law enforcement needs to really be on the look out for influences in this. Sure these blogs and posters have a right to free speech, but Muslims, who are American citizens, have a right to life and liberty and be free from persecution because of religion or skin color.

I openly admit I am not a religious person. I consider myself an Atheist and, as much as people try, will not change my views unless something happens in my life to make me change.

Having said that, I find what the religious right is doing to America today is despicable. We all know that this is not a "Christian" nation, but rather a nation of religious freedoms. These zealots have tried relentlessly to rewrite American history, and what she stands for.

I firmly believe that our forefathers knew the dangers of having politics and religion mixed. They wanted a separation of church and state to not only protect our nation, but more importantly to protect religion. They knew the dangers of politicians getting power hungry and invoking faith as a reason to wage war.

This millennium has shown a big change in those views. We now face more and more churches throwing their political hats in the ring and our leaders crediting their decisions with the “will of God”. This is very dangerous and leaves people like me feeling even more disconnected from our country.

Check out my latest post at Crooks and Liars to find out what FOX is doing now to try and scare the American people.

Bowing down to Rick Santorum and placing his lips on Santorum's ass, Hannity has taken the lead in suck ups for lies this year. On his site hannity.com, Hannity ran the following poll:

This of course follows Santorum talking about the WMDs found in Iraq. Of course what Santorum and Hannity both fail to mention is that these were the weapons from the early 90's that were essentially destroyed. These are the same weapons that we have known about and the U.N. weapons inspectors even admitted being destroyed. This is the typical style of lies these warmongers will resort to in order to win elections. They want to try and scare Americans into voting for Republicans when in fact these are the biggest pussies in the country.

Another interesting poll running on Hannity's site right now asks "Do you think Israel is justified in attacking Hezbollah?" Interesting results in that one. Currently 74% of the respondents say Israel has gone to far. I am sure the webmasters at Hannity's site will quickly change those numbers around to something more right wing sounding.

The AP has a good article up taking a look at the recent agenda items in Congress:

With votes this week on gay marriage, stem cell research and the Pledge of Allegiance, the Republican-controlled Congress is systematically working through an agenda of conservative causes, eager to mobilize hard-core voters in the months before the midterm elections.

The votes are part of an "American Values Agenda" designed by House Republican leaders to distinguish GOP lawmakers on social issues that are heartfelt by a small but active segment of the Republican electorate. Those voters will be crucial this year when turnout is expected to be low and when Republicans are facing a headwind of public antipathy.

As expected, the House on Tuesday failed to pass a constitutional amendment that would let Congress ban gay marriages. The 236-187 vote in favor of the constitutional change fell short of the necessary two-thirds majority.

[SNIP]

Republicans in the Senate were unable to block legislation Tuesday that would expand federally funded research of human embryonic stem cell lines, a step vigorously opposed by social conservatives. The House passed the same bill last year. But the legislation faces a certain veto from President Bush and the majorities in the House and Senate are not large enough to override him.

In a nod to conservatives, congressional leaders permitted votes on bills that would encourage scientists to find alternatives to embryonic stem cells and to prohibit inducing pregnancies to obtain stem cells from an embryo. Both those measures passed the Senate on Tuesday. In the House, the latter measure passed, but the first bill failed.

With the Republicans facing an uphill battle this fall, they are turning the country into a theocracy. They are pandering to the small percentage of their base, only because that is the portion that generates the most votes. This shows that Republicans care only about themselves and not the nation as a whole.

To get an idea of how badly the right wants another world war, we look towards Media Matters, who brings us this great little synopsis:

With the recent escalation of violence in the Middle East and a terrorist attack in Mumbai, India, the right-wing media have declared a new "world war" but have not agreed upon which world war the United States now faces: World War III, IV, or V.

• World War III?

Most recently, on the July 13 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor, host Bill O'Reilly said "World War III ... I think we're in it." Similarly, on the July 13 edition of MSNBC's Tucker, a graphic read: "On the verge of World War III?" As Media Matters for America has noted, CNN Headline News host Glenn Beck began his program on July 12 with a discussion with former CIA officer Robert Baer by saying "we've got World War III to fight," while also warning of "the impending apocalypse." Beck and Baer had a similar discussion on July 13, in which Beck said: "I absolutely know that we need to prepare ourselves for World War III. It is here."

• World War IV?

On the July 10 edition of Fox News' The Big Story, host John Gibson interviewed Michael Ledeen, resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), and said "some are calling the global war on terror something else, something more like World War III." But Ledeen responded that "it's more like World War IV because there was a Cold War, which was certainly a world war." Ledeen added that "probably the start of it [World War IV] was the Iranian revolution of 1979." Similarly, on the May 24 edition of CNBC's Kudlow and Company, host Lawrence Kudlow, discussing a book by former deputy undersecretary of defense Jed Babbin, said "World War IV is the terror war, and war with China would be World War V."

Other conservatives have previously suggested the "war on terror" as "World War IV." In a September 2004 article, Commentary editor-at-large Norman Podhoretz noted "World War III (that is, the cold war)" and that "the great struggle into which the United States was plunged by 9/11 can only be understood if we think of it as World War IV." And in January 2005, FrontPageMag.com hosted a symposium called "Ukraine and World War IV."

• World War V?

On the July 13 edition of his nationally syndicated radio show, Fox News host Sean Hannity declared: "we are loaded up today, as the Middle East on the brink of World War V, here." Hannity did not explain what he regarded as World Wars III and IV. But earlier in the show, Hannity suggested the current conflict is World War III, stating: "[I]s World War III breaking out in the Middle [East]? It may very well be."

The entire article deserves a reading over. It is amazing how much they want to see the world in another global war. Of course these are the same ones who are too coward to even go and fight, instead they sit there and act like Monday morning quarterbacks while true Americans pay the ultimate price.

Wow the whackos on the radical right get all up in arms about the bank story from the New York Times and look what happens:

Police and environmental workers responded to The New York Times offices today after an employee in the postal services department opened a letter addressed to the newspaper and saw a powdery substance he believed to be suspicious, the police said.

The incident unfolded at about 12:35 p.m. on the eighth floor of the newspaper’s West 43rd Street offices as the mailroom worker opened the white, business-sized envelope with no return address and saw what he later described as a white powder, the police said.

The letter had a postmark from Philadelphia, the police said, and contained an editorial published by The New York Times on June 28 titled “Patriotism and the Press,” with a red “X” written across it, said Paul J. Browne, the Police Department’s chief spokesman. Mr. Browne said the substance had yet to be identified but that it was later deemed to be beige in color, not white.

Shortly before 5 p.m. an announcement was made over the Times public address system saying that the powder had been found to be “nonthreatening and nonhazardous.” According to field tests conducted by the Department of Environmental Protection, the substance was preliminarily identified as corn starch, though further analysis will be done at the city Health Department’s laboratory, as the protocol requires.

Funny how the right always says the left is the whackos out breaking the law (just think of how many times we are accused of threatening physical harm to them with no actual proof), yet this happens. Goes to show you where the real nut-jobs lie.

There is a really interesting article in the Kansas City Star today, which talks about some state candidates that have recently dropped the Republican Party and joined the Democrats. In this article, they highlight three candidates who have recently made the change and give the reasons why. What is interesting is the reason two of them made the choice:

Steve Lukert, Sabetha

Age: 58

[SNIP]

“I see the Democrats as more willing to compromise on issues in order to come up with more sensible solutions. I think about half of the Democratic Party is very conservative.”

[SNIP]

Cindy Neighbor, Shawnee

Age: 57

[SNIP]

“When I talk to them (Democrats), they don’t say if you disagree with us you don’t count.”

Every time I hear the Republicans attack the Democrats on issues and say "they have no unity", I cringe. Thankfully the Democrats haven't bowed down to that tactic because it appears to be hurting the Republicans. I have said this before - we are the most diverse nation on the planet and representing such diversity can not be done with only two parties. The only way to accommodate everyone's different views is to allow some dissent within a party.

Let's take the Iraq war debate. I have spoken to countless people regarding the best thing for us to do in Iraq. Some are Democrats and some are Republicans. I have heard different ideas from all these people from immediate pull-out to stay the course. When the debate came up on the Senate floor, Democrats were accused of having no "unity" once again because they had a couple different plans. What the Republicans want is only two ideas being brought forth, theirs and ours. For something as important as the war in Iraq, a full debate examining all possibilities is the lease they can do for the soldiers, Iraqis and American people, and that full debate means entertaining a host of ideas.

While doing the last post, I noticed this little banner on top of NewsMax's page:

Interesting. First - that is breaking news? We got North Korea test firing missiles and a poll about prosecuting the New York Times is their "breaking news"? We really see the kind of "news organization" NewsMax is.

This brings me to the further attack by the right on the New York Times. Powerline did this little post earlier this week:

You know it is bad for McCain when you got NewsMax going after him with this little piece:

McCain's Out-of-Control Anger: Does He Have the Temperament to Be President?

Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., is considered a front-runner for the 2008 race, but does McCain have the temperament to be president?

As portrayed by the mainstream media, McCain is an engaging war hero, a man of political moderation positioned between the left and the right.

But to insiders who know him, McCain has an irrational, explosive side that make many of them question whether he is fit to serve as president and be commander in chief.

Nowhere is that sentiment stronger than in the Senate, where McCain has few friends or supporters. In fact, when McCain ran for the Republican nomination for president in 2000, only four Republican senators endorsed him.

"I have witnessed incidents where he has used profanity at colleagues and exploded at colleagues," said former Senator Bob Smith, a New Hampshire Republican who served with McCain on the Senate Armed Services Committee and on Republican policy committees. "He would disagree about something and then explode. It was incidents of irrational behavior. We've all had incidents where we have gotten angry, but I've never seen anyone act like that."

It is true - these radical right wingers will eat their young. Funny how this comes out a day after an article comes out about Grover Norquist being pissed at McCain. So either NewsMax is a major follower of old Grover (and his corruption) or Grover has some major pull in NewsMax.

Tell me he is kidding -

Conservative activist Grover Norquist says a Senate report connecting him with convicted felon Jack Abramoff is a personal attack from Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) that could hurt the senator’s recent efforts to woo the right for a presidential bid.

Norquist says a Senate Indian Affairs Committee report last month outlining his efforts to funnel money from Abramoff’s tribal clients to former Christian Coalition head Ralph Reed is riddled with half-truths and falsely implicates his nonprofit group, Americans for Tax Reform (ATR), in wrongdoing.

The activist says McCain, chairman of the committee, issued the report in retaliation for Norquist’s efforts to thwart McCain’s 2000 presidential bid.

“He has exhibited personal animus toward me,” Norquist said. “McCain, who’s running for president and is ostensibly the front-runner, takes time and effort to throw a punch at me and Ralph Reed. Why? He has told people we stopped him in the presidential election last time, and he thinks we might do it again. He is delusional. George W. Bush Beat him in South Carolina. But that’s high praise of the taxpayer movement that he has told so many people this.”

McCain has had no problem sucking up to the other's that helped destroy his 2000 bid:

So now Grover is the reason McCain lost in 2000? Sounds like someone has a bad ego problem.

After key members of the lunatic right's internet force took to the binary world this weekend to launch their attack on the New York Times Travel Section for publishing an article talking about St. Michaels, Md. last week, things have gotten ugly.

Glenn Greenwald has been all over this story. From their original claims that the New York Times has engaged in some "murderous plot" to their attempts to ascertain personal information of Times personnel, the right has once again made a bunch of noise out of nothing.

Today Glenn gets the icing on the cake with his post that says this:

Although I haven't heard yet from Kilborn, I received an e-mail from Spillers this morning, in which she said:

Ironically, photos were taken with Secretary Rumsfeld's permission.

Glenn has a great rundown of everything in this post and I encourage all to read it. It gives us a good look at how much the right engages in witch hunts and conspiracy theories. With this kind of lunatic reporting, it is no wonder why the right's web traffic is in a free-fall, while the lefts is in a constant rise.