Tea Party Hearts Breitbart Lies

The men the American people admire most extravagantly are the most daring liars; the men they detest most violently are those who try to tell them the truth ~ H.L. Mencken (9/12/1880 to 1/29/1956) an American journalist, essayist, magazine editor, satirist, acerbic critic of American life and culture, and a student of American English.

Unqualified Candidates

If you're like me, you're probably asking yourself "how much longer will the Tea Party joke continue?" Wednesday night (9/15/2010) a lesser qualified and not quite as intelligent Sarah Palin wannabe and Conservative Christian nutjob by the name of Christine O'Donnell "defeated" her Republican opponent, nine-term US congressman and former Delaware governor Mike Castle in the Delaware Republican Primary. Her Democratic opponent in the November race for Joe Biden's old Senate seat will be moderate Democrat Christopher Coons.

O'Donnell, who has been accused of using campaign donations for rent and personal expenses, claimed a "big victory", even though only roughly 16% of registered Republicans in Delaware's closed primary cast their ballot for her (30,561 out of approximately 179,941). The fact that this is double the Republican turnout in the 2008 primary shows how much an influence angry idiots can have on an election.

The Tea Party apparently likes the idea of electing unqualified candidates to political office. Although I'm sure that isn't the way they'd state the case. I'd guess the Palin-endorsed O'Donnell is another "regular Jane" Tea Partiers mad at the "establishment" can relate to. Barack Obama is "professorial" and Liberals are intellectual elites who just don't understand them. The Tea Party Joes and Janes don't want someone to explain the issues to them, they want a dumbed-down message delivered by a charismatic Lonesome Rhodes everyman (or woman) who tells them what they want to hear, regardless of the facts.

Professional Liars

This explains why they turned out for the newly minted televangelist and huckster prophet Glenn Beck's sermon and book promotion "restoring honor" rally on 8/28/2010. And why they continue to place their trust in professional Conservative mud slingers like Andrew Breitbart. Most Democratic voters who follow politics know this is the slimeball who attempted to smear Shirley Sherrod with a deceptively edited video and got caught (7/19/2010).

But this wasn't the first nor the last manufactured video controversy Breitbart has been involved in. James O'Keef's undercover ACORN "sting" videos were used by Breitbart to launch his "Big Government" website (the videos were released between 9/10/2009 and 9/17/2009). The ACORN videos were found to be "heavily edited" deceptive splice jobs by investigating law enforcement agencies. In at least one instance an ACORN employee later called the authorities and filled them in regarding the illegal activities O'Keefe had described to him. No charges were ever filed against ACORN in connection with the videos.

Are we to believe Breitbart posts excerpts but never views complete videos? This is the lame excuse he offered when his Shirley Sherrod clips were revealed to be highly misleading. He offered no excuse or apology in regards to the ACORN tapes, but I suspect he viewed the complete tapes and was a participant in the editing process... in both cases. With his reputation (theoretically) on the line, it would be unlikely he would post any clip without viewing the complete tape. Breitbart's strategy clearly is simply to get the damaging video out there and hope the public doesn't notice (or care) when the "evidence" is debunked later.

It worked with ACORN, which no longer exists thanks to his efforts. I'm sure he expected the same results with the Sherrod tape... he just wasn't expecting to be outed as soon as he was. And, even though it was quickly debunked, there was damage done - the Obama administration was made to look foolish when US Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack over-reacted and asked for Sherrod's resignation without investigating the veracity of the claims. Being caught lying means nothing to the operatives defending the Republican (and now Tea Party) noise machine. It's guerrilla (class) warfare, or what Rush Limbaugh refers to as "the drive-by media".

Accusing your enemy of using the very same tactics you are employing tends to deflate the criticisms against you - especially when you make the accusations before your enemy does. This explains why Glenn Beck claimed President Obama has a "deep-seated hatred for white people or the white culture", why Breitbart (attempted) to smear Shirley Sherrod as a "black racist", why the Tea Party members often carry signs stating the Obama Administration is racist, and why so many conservatives blogs display placards saying the same (see images below).

More Video Evidence?

This brings me to a third (or second, chronologically - see "Breitbart Deceptively Edited Video Timeline" below) Breitbart manufactured video controversy that you may have previously been unaware of. Or at least I was until my recent visit to "The Voltron Ruffian Blog" (VRB). As reported by the Huffington Post, a 3/20/2010 health care legislation protest rally turned ugly when several Democratic Congressmen were assaulted by Tea Partiers who shouted racist and homophobic slurs at Georgia Representative John Lewis and Massachusetts Representative Barney Frank.

Indiana Representative André Carson recalls that, "while walking with John Lewis and his chief of staff from the Cannon building, amid chants of Kill the bill he heard the N-word at least 15 times". Missouri representative Emanuel Cleaver reported that he was spat on by a protester. Democrat Heath Shuler of North Carolina (who is white) said he also heard the slurs.

Of course I'd heard about the "Kill the Bill" D.C. rally and the verbal and spitting assault on our Democratic House members - and Breitbart's offer of a $100,000 donation to the United Negro College Fund for any audio/video footage of the incident - but I wasn't aware that Breitbart actually found video footage proving the attack didn't happen as reported.

When I responded to the VRB post "Andrew Breitbart: The American People Are The 4th Estate", post author and VRB contributor Freedom Fan told me to "study the video evidence if you really care about the truth". According to Mr. Fan, "there is no question that Andre Carson and Eldridge Cleaver, The CBC, [and the] NAACP are liars". Freedom Fan described the incident as part of the Left's "Goebbels Big Lie Smear of the Tea Party movement as racists".

The video evidence, as one might expect, is of a different moment during the protest, and not of the moment when the racial slurs were uttered. Columnist Tommy Christopher of Meidaite correctly points out, "several crudely-shot 5 to 7 second video clips of poor audio quality [are not] proof positive that nothing happened that day". More importantly, "[we need] to go over the other evidence that the incident did occur, at least as told by the corroborating testimony of three credible eyewitnesses", notably "John Lewis [who] is a hero of the Civil Rights movement". Christopher concludes that "no video of the incident [is the] thinnest refutation possible".

Also, while no footage exists (or has been released) on which the racial slurs can be heard (possibly because of the poor audio quality of the Breitbart clips), the same cannot be said of the homophobic epithet hurled at Congressman Barney Frank. A 4/11/2010 Washington Post article reveals that "an ABC News video recorded the incident inside a House office building". The video "clearly captures a protester shouting, Barney, you faggot". The article does suggest that the spitting incident may not have been deliberate, but an accidental spraying by a rabidly screaming tea bagger. Fair enough, I say. It is believable that the loogies may have been unintentional.

However, while there may be no video on which the N-word can be heard being uttered, we do have the word of three respected members of Congress, "each of whom [has] little motivation to lie". It is NOT believable that the event was fabricated by the Left "to marginalize Tea Party supporters", as Breitbart claims. I think we have more than enough evidence to conclude that the incident happened as described by the Congressmen who were there. Breitbart was not present, and his video footage proves nothing.

Eldridge Cleaver (who Freedom Fan identified as one of the liars in his response to my comment) wasn't there either... because he has been dead for more than 12 years. Eldridge Cleaver was a leading member of the (original) Black Panther Party, and isn't related to Missouri Democrat Emanuel Cleaver. I mention this identification of the wrong man as being present at the rally because it is the lie direct from Breitbart's lips. The fool can't even be bothered to get the genuine facts right in his mostly fabricated story - and Mr. Fan can't be bothered to do any independent research - instead using a known liar as his only source.

Breitbart: Tea Party Hero?

Freedom Fan concludes by saying "Andrew Breitbart is a national hero for calling the Libs' bluff and defending the honor of the decent folks in the Tea Party movement". First of all, the preponderance of the evidence has unequivocally proven Breitbart to be a unethical lying slimeball. Secondly, no one on the Left has ever claimed EVERYONE who identifies with the Tea Party movement is a racist (or a homophobe). I believe, while I strongly disagree with their politics, there certainly are decent people who have been deluded into believing Tea Party economics would solve America's ills.

Because of the recent NAACP resolution that condemed "extremist ELEMENTS within the Tea Party, and called for "Tea Party leaders to repudiate those in their ranks who use racist language in their signs and speeches", Freedom Fan included the "current president and chief executive officer of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People" Ben Jealous on his list of liars. However, when the Tea Party claims the NAACP resolution is without merit they deny ANY of it's members harbor racist sentiments. Not one single racist has ever attended a Tea Party rally? That REALLY is unbelievable.

As I pointed out in my 11/29/2009 post titled "The Racists Who Disagree With Us", Jimmy Carter was absolutely correct when he said the racists in the Tea Party are a "radical fringe element". The debate could be put to rest very easily. The Tea Party leaders could agree with the NAACP resolution and issue a zero tolerance policy for any racist language or signage. The reason they don't do this is because they are using the racists in their movement to their advantage (in their smear campaign against the Obama Administration).

Asserting that our President isn't Constitutionally eligible to serve because he was born in Kenya or that he has an "anti-colonialist agenda inherited from his father" - is an attempt to delegitimize his presidency. It is also thinly veiled racism. Those putting forth these cockamamie theories are telling their base that it's OK to use racist arguments against Obama, his administration, and all minorities - so long as your racism/bigotry is at least thinly veiled. Or not. Take a look at some of the signs these Tea Partiers carry. I wouldn't call them "thinly veiled" at all. Which is why they attack Obama and the Left for their "racism". To deflect criticism of their own racism.

Tea Party Loves Liars

And this explains why Tea Partiers like Freedom Fan are eager to believe a discredited moral cretin like Breitbart. The Breitbarts, Gingrichs and D'Souzas tell them what they want to hear - it's OK to associate with a movement that condones racism within it's ranks. It's OK to use whatever methods, no matter how vile, if they are effective in taking down your opponent. The Communist and Socialist accusations have been levied at Democrats for decades now, and despite the fact that their side favors plutocracy, the Communist/Socialist/Marxist charges have gained traction. They've conflated socialism with fascism to the point where their followers don't know the difference.

Under the Obama administration they've managed to conflate legitimate concerns over racism with attacks on the entire Tea Party movement. They actually believe the Left is attacking them by labeling policy disagreements racism! The Tea Party fancies itself an anti-establishment movement - but this simply isn't true. They are pawns of wealthy elites like the Koch brothers who are playing them for suckers. You can't get more "establishment" than the upper one percenters. Don't try making this argument to a Tea Partier, however. They honestly believe the billionaire-funded FreedomWorks (headed by establishment figure and former House Majority Leader Dick Armey) is "grass roots".

In other words they truly do admire daring liars and detest those who try to tell them the truth. I don't know how a rational mind could reach any other conclusion regarding anyone who would suggest Breitbart is a "national hero"... but these are the same people who buy into Frank Luntz's spin (although, I'd say Luntz is a tad classier than Breitbart). Andrew Breitbart is a morally repugnant sleaze merchant and exposed liar - and the Tea Party loves him for it. That, and the fact that they'd vote for someone as unqualified as Christine O'Donnel to represent them in the US Senate really speaks to just how gullible and misinformed these people are.

Breitbart Deceptively Edited Video Timeline
->9/10/2009 & 9/17/2009: Deceptively Edited ACORN videos released. Note: O'Keefe dresses as a pimp outside ACORN offices, but wears a dress shirt and pants inside.
->03/20/2010: Breitbart releases several crudely-shot 5-7 second video clips with poor audio quality which he claims "prove" nothing "racially charged" happened.
->7/19/2010: Shirley Sherrod is forced to resign from her position as Georgia State Director of Rural Development for the US Department of Agriculture after blogger Andrew Breitbart posts deceptively edited excerpts of Sherrod's address at a March 2010 NAACP event to his website.

Further Reading & Viewing
[1] Teabaggers Money to Be Had! by Grung_e_Gene, Disaffected And it Feels so Good (blog), 9/15/2010.
[2] American Thinker: "Obama's racism against whites is upfront, in your face racism" Posted by Media Matters staff 11/23/2009.
[3] Zazzle T-shirt: I'm a typical white person appalled by Obama's racism.

Images: Placards often found on Conservative blogs.

SWTD #52

GOP Propaganda Campaign Turns Failed Petraeus Iraq Surge Into Success

With the passage of time, President Bush's decision to champion a new counterinsurgency strategy, including sending 30,000 additional troops to Iraq when most Americans were bone-weary of the war, will be seen as one of the most impressive and important acts of political courage in our lifetime. And those who fiercely opposed the so-called surge were not only wrong in their judgment; in some instances their actions were shameful ~ Peter Wehner, former bush speechwriter (and butt kisser), revising the bush legacy.

You were probably unaware that the Petraeus Iraq surge failed. The reason being that the Con propaganda campaign has largely been a success. Even our President (the current one, not the "courageous" unelected war criminal), has been taken in by the Con disinformation exemplified by the factually inaccurate Peter Wehner quote. Even though he originally criticized the surge, correctly stating, "the surge is not working", now, according to General Petraeus, "President Barack Obama acknowledged that the troop surge in the Iraq war was a success". Sadly this erroneous conclusion was cited "during deliberations over whether to enact a troop surge in Afghanistan".

According to Robert Woodward's book, "The War Within", the decline in violence can be attributed to three factors (none of which is an increase in US troop strength). First, "the Sunni rejection of al-Qaeda extremists in Anbar province". This was the so-called "Sunni Awakening", and it isn't that big of a surprise that they "laid down their arms against coalition forces, patroled neighborhoods, and fought against other Sunni insurgents", since we paid them to do these things (although some of the Sunni militia decided two monthly paychecks were better than one, and "moonlighted" with the insurgency).

The other two factors contributing to the decline in violence, according to Woodward's book, were "the surprise decision of al-Sadr to order a ceasefire", and "the use of new highly classified U.S. intelligence tactics that allowed for rapid targeting and killing of insurgent leaders". (This information is from the 6/29/2010 article "Gen. Petraeus and the Surge Myth by investigative journalist Robert Parry. See also "Iraq War troop surge of 2007: Opposition", on Wikipedia).

There is also the fact that a civil war was fought in Iraq, unlike in Afghanistan. The Shia and Sunni were fighting and killing each other, and so had less resources to devote to fighting and killing American troops. But when then Senator Biden suggested dividing Iraq into a loose federation of three ethnic states, thus quelling the sectarian violence, the bush administration (and Iraq's majority Shia government) rejected a partitioning of the country, deciding to allow the bloodbath to continue. The level of violence went down because the numerically superior Shia (55% of Iraq's population versus 18.5% Sunni) eventually either killed or displaced enough of their enemies to effectively win the war.

More than 1.3 million Iraqis have lost their lives since the start of the war. 4.7 million Iraqis lost or were forced to flee their homes (16% of the population). What portion of each of these estimates can be attributed to the US invasion and what portion can be attributed to the civil war isn't known, as the bushies certainly had no motivation to look into the matter.

The majority Shia government rejected partitioning because they deemed that it was payback time for their former Sunni oppressors. Under Saddam Hussein's Baathist dictatorship, which was Sunni-led, the Shia and Kurds were mercilessly persecuted. The Saddam regime also convinced their fellow Sunnis that they were not a minority - which explains why, when the US sponsored elections resulted in the Sunni netting "only a modest minority of seats", many Sunnis suspected fraud. This suspicion became one of the primary forces that fueled the insurgency. (They also overwhelmingly rejected the new Iraq constitution).

The bush administration knew that a civil war would produce an eventual victor, and then they could claim success when the violence decreased. Which explains why they worked so hard to deny one was taking place. This course of action resulted in a high of 3000 murders per month (according to a 2007 report issued by retired US Army General Barry McCaffre) - but the price was deemed quite acceptable. My opinion is that the bushies believed that if Iraqi ragheads wanted to kill each other there is no reason they should not allow it to happen, especially when the result was to make the war effort appear to be going better than it was.

An article published by "The Economist" on 6/17/2010 reports, "sectarian animosity still prevails", and that "Iraq's fledgling democracy remains frighteningly fragile" due to there being "little sign of a genuine cross-sectarian consensus". Despite these facts victory has been declared in Iraq, news coverage has dropped to virtually nill, and focus has shifted to the other war. The ouster of McChrystal and the installation of Petraeus led John Arquilla of the Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey CA to remark, "It's kind of sad and ironic that the fall of McChrystal will result in the reaffirmation of a highly problematic strategy".

On Friday 7/2/2010 (a day after General Petraeus won Senate confirmation) the House approved $37 billion in Afghan war spending and a 30,000 troop surge. Both the President and Congress are still fully behind the war, even though a poll in March revealed that "American support for the war in Afghanistan has ebbed to a new low", with "42% of respondents saying the United States made a mistake in sending military forces to Afghanistan" (Americans who considered the war a mistake was only 6% in January of 2002).

The President, who, on 12/1/2009 explained to the American people that we would give the war one last shot, and then begin a draw down in July 2011 (with a goal of withdrawing most U.S. forces by January 2013), is now walking back that promise, calling people who keep bringing up the draw down date "obsessed", and insisting "his focus is on making sure the mission there is successful".

Translation? The withdraw will be delayed to allow the new commander a chance to achive results. Even though the strategy isn't changing. How many more US soldiers will lose their lives or their limbs, and how many more billions will be wasted (money which could be used here to improve our economy) before Congress pulls funding and forces an end to this debacle? The Karzai government is corrupt. Accepting the results of Afghanistan's last "election" was the final nail in the coffin. If we ever had a chance of successfully completing the mission, any possibility of that happening ended when we allowed the former Unicol (Union Oil Company of California) consultant to steal the Afghan presidency.

The bushies hand picked Hamid Karzai to be Afghanistan's figurehead, installing him so that he could approve the proposed Trans-Afghanistan Pipeline (The pipeline will transport Caspian Sea natural gas from Turkmenistan through Afghanistan into Pakistan and then to India).

Following the 8/20/2009 elections in Afghanistan, former President Jimmy Carter announced, "Hamid Karzai has stolen the election", and that "now the question is whether he gets away with it". (Incidentally, Mr. Carter was also right about the Petraeus Iraq surge, correctly noting that "it wasn't the surge of American troops that had caused an increase in calm, but General David Petraeus' willingness to pay bribes and pay Iraqi soldiers").

There were some brief grumblings from the Obama administration regarding the legitimacy of the Afghan elections, but in the end Karzai was allowed to get away with it. I'm positive that if bush were still in power the election would have been heralded as a victory for democracy and the Afghan people - the same purple-finger nonsense they pulled in Iraq. The Obama Administration, knowing that contesting the election would be very bad for the war effort, stopped it's grumbling, and instead congratulated Karzai on "winning" a second term. President Obama, while visiting the country, told Karzai "Although the process was messy, I'm pleased to say that the final outcome was determined in accordance with Afghan law".

Unfortunately Obama's proclamation was complete baloney. He knows the election was stolen. The American people and the Afghan people also know that Karzai's win was illegitimate (Karzai has been president since being "chosen" as interim president in 2002, served one five year term beginning in 2004, but will be ineligible to run again in 2014 due to term limits). How in the hell can we expect to win Afghan hearts and minds when they see our government give it's blessing to a corrupt administration's theft of it's supposedly democratic election?!

President Karzai (who says the US has undermined his legitimacy with the ballot stuffing allegations, even though they were made by independent monitors) is seeking to make his "own deal with the Taliban and the country's archrival, Pakistan, the Taliban's longtime supporter". A 6/11/2010 story in the New York Times reports that, when presented of evidence that the Taliban were behind a "spectacular rocket attack on a nationwide peace conference earlier this month", president Karzai said "he believed the Taliban were not responsible" and then suggested that Americans were behind the attack.

58% of Americans favor a timetable for withdrawl of US troops. 73% of Afghans opposed the Obama surge (according to a 2009 poll). The Taliban are united in their opposition to our military (unlike, as I pointed out earlier, there being multiple factions fighting each other). And the corrupt Karzai government is seeking to make deals with the Taliban and "blocking corruption probes [regarding the theft of] huge amounts of foreign aid" (a 6/30/2010 Huffington Post article alleges that "Afghan powerbrokers are moving millions of dollars out of the country").

Karzai will use the money he has stolen from the US, the proceeds from the Unicol pipeline (what this war was really all about in the first place), and eventually, the estimated 1 trillion in mineral wealth to create a "coalition government" by bribing the Taliban, cementing the country's status as a criminal and oppressive oligarchy. Foreign corporations will move in to build the pipeline and extract Afghanistan's mineral wealth. The rich will get richer, the corrupt will retain power, and the poor of Afghanistan will remain poor and oppressed. Mission accomplished. BTW, these things will happen regardless of when we pull out.

Continuing on this path is complete insanity. We either need to begin an orderly withdrawal as soon as possible, or come up with a plan for a negotiated peace. This isn't ideal solution, especially with Karazi still in charge for at least another 4 and a half years. I don't think it matters, as this war was lost some time ago (certainly before Obama's surge). That is, if it was ever winnable. Unfortunately, with the Republicans set to gain seats in the upcoming election, the prospect of a draw down anytime soon is looking quite dim.

Further Reading
[1] Petraeus: We Are In This To Win in Afghanistan by Deb Richman, AP 7/4/2010.
[2] Is Karzai punking Obama, yet again? by Laurence Lewis, The Daily Kos 6/11/2010.
[3] Afghanistan, the Taliban and the Bush Oil Team by Wayne Madsen, Democrats.com 1/2002.

7/6/2015 Update: The Libertarian blogger Willis Hart asks "if the surge was so damned successful, then why did it all come apart as soon as we took our finger out of the dike". Answer: gwb (and John McCain, Lindsay Graham, Joe Lieberman and anyone else who claims the surge was a success) were/are lying.

SWTD #44

The Racists Who Disagree With Us

[President Obama] has exposed himself as a person with a deep-seated hatred for white people or the white culture. I'm not saying he doesn't like white people, he has a problem. This guy is, I believe, a racist ~ Glenn Beck, American's Fear-Mongerer-in-Chief on the 7/28/2009 episode of Fox & Friends.

I've heard a lot of talk recently about how President Obama is a racist. Actually Glenn and Rush told me. They told their narrow-minded followers as well. If you take a look around the blogosphere you'll find the wing nuts are busy spreading the message that President Obama is a racist. So are Eric Holder, Professor Henry Louis Gates, Jeremiah Wright, Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton. They are all black men who hate Whitey.

Of course not all African-American politicians and social activists are racist - just the Democrats (actually, if you're black and a social activist you're guaranteed to be a Democrat and a racist). However, if you are white and a Democratic politician you're 100% certain to be racist. White Democrats want to keep black people on the government dole so they will vote Democratic, not realizing that they'd be better off if they voted Republican and were forced to make something of themselves.

So, I'm wondering why Barack Obama, a black (or half black) racist, would be working with Whitey to keep other blacks down? It doesn't quite make sense, does it? I thought he hated white people? Remember, that's that Glenn said.

I guess it's just a ruse to allow President Obama to enact legislation (like the health care bill) which will really just be a cover for reparations. And the racist white Democrats are going along with it because they'll gain power.

Rep. Virginia Foxx (R-NC) is right, the Republicans ARE the only party which believes in equality for all. As Rep. Foxx pointed out recently "we were the people who passed the civil rights bills back in the 60s without very much help from our colleagues across the aisle".

Oh, no, wait a minute. I think that it was Rep. Dennis Cardoza (D-CA) who got it right when he said (in response to Foxx's ludicrous claim), "It was the Kennedy and Johnson administration where we passed that Great Society legislation. It was over the objections of people like Jesse Helms from the gentlewoman's state that we passed that civil rights legislation".

Actually what's going on here is known as "projection", which is "the unconscious act of denial of a person's own attributes, thoughts, and emotions, which are then ascribed to the outside world, ...the government, or to other people". When President Jimmy Carter said, "I think an overwhelming portion of the intensely demonstrated animosity toward President Barack Obama is based on the fact that he is a black man, that he's African American... I think it's bubbled up to the surface because of the belief among many white people, not just in the south but around the country, that African Americans are not qualified to lead this great country", the reason the Right hollered in indignation so loudly was because Mr. Carter's statement was entirety accurate.

The proof that Mr. Carter's words were accurate, and that projection is at play, is the speed at which the Right turned the accusations around on those calling out the racism demonstrated at the tea parties. First they falsely claimed that the Left was calling them racist over policy disagreements. From that they moved to bogus and laughable allegations that President Obama and (the black male) members of his administration are racist. The proof that President Obama is a racist is that he attended the church of, and listened to the sermons of Jeremiah Wright for twenty years.

They call African-Americans bigots when they speak out too loudly against white racism. And they call you anti-American when you speak out against American interventionism (whatever your race). In any case, the purpose of this rant is not to defend Jeremiah Wright, because I haven't agreed with everything he's said or done. Nor does Barack Obama, regardless of how often he attended his church and listened to him speak.

The purpose of this post is to illustration Republican hypocrisy and how they utilize projection in attacking the Left. In the health care debate, the Right is fighting to preserve the actual death panels the insurance cartels use to jack up their profits. They accuse the Left of "voter fraud" while they engage in election fraud. They decry socialist "wealth redistribution" while what they're actually in favor of is shifting the tax burden to the middle class and doling out government largess to corporations. And they use the military to accomplish this via Halliburton and other GOP administration connected corporations. While branding the Democrats as anti-American, anti-troop and soft on terror.

Just to be clear, I am not accusing all Conservatives of being racist. I agree with President Jimmy Carter who described the bigots as a "radical fringe element". But when those on the Right buy into the lie that the Left is calling any disagreement racist, fail to denounce the tea party bigots, and then turn around and call the President racist - in agreement with that nutcase Glenn Beck - they are enabling the racists in their party and, in my opinion, no better than the actual racists. At least those people are honest about their prejudices, unlike the liars who are using them to falsely attack the President.

Shame on Glenn Beck for his blatant lies and vile race baiting. Unfortunately this man, who the Anti-Defamation League recently dubbed the "fear-monger-in-chief", knows no shame - millions of dollars can have that effect on a person. But what is the excuse of the gullible Righties who are singing his praises and cheering him on? I respect your right to disagree, but open your eyes and stop enabling the bigots in your party and those who are using them for political advantage.

Glenn Beck's charges that President Obama has a "deep-seated hatred for white people", and is a "racist", even though, in the same breath he also claims that he's "not saying [President Obama] doesn't like white people" is just as insane as Rep. Foxx's claim that it was the Republicans who passed civil rights legislation. The people who believe these transparent lies are clearly incapable of rational thought.

These are the same dupes who believe that ACORN stole the election, Barack Obama is a Muslim Kenyan Socialist Manchurian Candidate, and refer to people expressing legitimate concerns regarding bush administration war crimes as suffering from "Bush Derangement Syndrome".

There is obviously something psychologically wrong with these people, given their willingness to believe the other side is guilty of the misdeeds they and their politicos and pundits are committing (projection) being just one symptom. The actual racists may a tiny minority, but they're loud and persistent. And it does not help when many within the party are in complete denial regarding the racists. They pretend those of us on the Left are labeling them racist because they disagree with us politically. Nope. We're only calling out the ACTUAL racism, as they should be. That most are not is quite shameful, IMO.

See also: GOP Repeatedly Duped by Scurrilous Anti-Obama Rumors by Aaron Keyak, National Jewish Democratic Council 3/20/2009.

Image Descriptions: [1] Racist Protester, [2] Liar enabling racism.

SWTD #31

A Day to Honor President Jimmy Carter

This ninth of November is a historic day. East Germany has announced that, starting immediately, its borders are open to everyone ~ Unknown Moderator speaking for the West German television channel, ARD (11/9/1989)

Short-circuiting the long-established principles of patient negotiation leads to war, not peace ~ Jimmy Carter, 39th President of the United States (1/20/1977 to 1/20/1981)

I hope everyone enjoyed the holiday yesterday. I would have posted on this topic then, but I was too busy celebrating. I am talking of course about the 20th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall, and also the day we recognize how President Jimmy Carter, by ending the cold war, made it all possible.

It would have been, however, President Walter Mondale who uttered the historic phrase, "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!", since that challenge was issued in 1987, which would have been several years after President Carter completed his second term. Everyone would have, however, rightly acknowledged that it was President Carter who set things in motion.

Alas, it was not to be. President Carter did not win a second term, and instead credit goes to a senile B-movie actor who was probably the worst president our great nation has ever known. Reagan's October Surprise was just the first of many acts of treason he would commit after stealing the presidency from Mr. Carter.

A day to celebrate, or a day to mourn what might have been? The words preceding the "tear down this wall" line crafted by Saint Reagan's speech writers was "...if you seek liberalization, come here to this gate. Mr. Gorbachev, open this gate". He was, of course, talking about the bad kind of "liberalization", which has nothing at all to do with the Liberal, or Progressive wing, of the Democratic Party. "Most often, the term is used to refer to economic liberalization, especially trade liberalization or capital market liberalization".

The Reagan Presidency started us down the path to ruination, and every president since Saint Reagan has bought into the lie that sending our middle class manufacturing jobs to China is a good idea. Luckily the united German people did not buy into Reagan's hogwash. They moved to the left along with the rest of Europe, and thus were not hit as hard by the worldwide effect of the bush recession.

If you read my previous day's post, you know I was obviously not celebrating, but mourning. For 28 years we've been following Reagan's advice to seek economic liberalization. As I pointed out with my 9/6/2009 post, all the Republican - and, unfortunately, a majority of Democrats PLUS our current President still have not realized we can't survive as a first world nation by relying primarily on the Service and Financial sectors while creating nothing of value (because we've outsourced virtually all our manufacturing).

See also: The Myth of the Gipper: Reagan Didn't End the Cold War by William Blum, Strategy Page 4/29/2004.

SWTD #28

America's Presidential Crisis

Americans cherish the greatness of our homeland, but many do not realize how extensive and profound are the transformations that are now taking place in our nation's basic moral values, public discourse, and political philosophy ~ Jimmy Carter, Our Endangered Values (Introduction).

I regularly visit conservative blogs just to see how messed up the other side's way of thinking is. It was shortly after the president's State of the Union Address and I was reading some wing-nut comments concerning how great it was... One of the posts included a link to C-Span where you can find all of the State of the Union transcripts going back to Harry Truman's 1945 speech. Having recently finished listening to the audio book version of Jimmy Carter's "Our Endangerd Values: America's Moral Crisis", I decided to take a look at the transcript from Mr. Carter's last SOTU address in 1980.

I was a little surprised by what I found. Near the beginning there is what may as well be a direct reference to the bush Administration's illegal preventative war in Iraq. I've excerpted a few key passages and added some comments:

Comparing Jimmy Carter's 1980 and George W. Bush's 2006 SOTU addresses

Jimmy Carter: I'm determined that the United States will remain the strongest of all nations, but our power will never be used to initiate a threat to the security of any nation or to the rights of any human being.

George W. Bush: Abroad, our nation is committed to an historic, long-term goal - we seek the end of tyranny in our world. Some dismiss that goal as misguided idealism. In reality, the future security of America depends on it. On September the 11th, 2001, we found that problems originating in a failed and oppressive state 7,000 miles away could bring murder and destruction to our country. Dictatorships shelter terrorists, and feed resentment and radicalism, and seek weapons of mass destruction.

SWTD Commentary: The United States, under President George W. Bush, launched it's illegal preventive war against Iraq on March 20th 2003, breaking President Carter's pledge to never use our power to threaten the security of another nation. Mr. Carter also promised to protect human rights - another pledge that our current president has broken. Whether it be torture of terrorist suspects, or spying on American Citizens, human rights obviously mean very little to Mr. bush. (The length of bush's speech is 0:51:04. September 11th reference made at 0:03:31.)

.........................

Jimmy Carter: Three basic developments have helped to shape our challenges: the steady growth and increased projection of Soviet military power beyond its own borders; the overwhelming dependence of the Western democracies on oil supplies from the Middle East; and the press of social and religious and economic and political change in the many nations of the developing world, exemplified by the revolution in Iran.

George W. Bush: Keeping America competitive requires affordable energy. And here we have a serious problem: America is addicted to oil, which is often imported from unstable parts of the world.

SWTD Commentary: Lip service from a former Texas Oilman. Vice President Richard B. Cheney is a former Wyoming Oilman for whom the first order of business as Vice President was HUGE giveaways to the energy industry (oil companies in particular). Only 9 days after assuming office, Cheney, as chairman of the newly created National Energy Policy Development Group, invited energy company executives to help him develop National Energy policy. The result? Billions of taxpayer dollars given away in the form "subsidies" for the oil industry.

.........................

Jimmy Carter: Our excessive dependence on foreign oil is a clear and present danger to our Nation's security. The need has never been more urgent. At long last, we must have a clear, comprehensive energy policy for the United States.

George W. Bush: Breakthroughs on this and other new technologies will help us reach another great goal: to replace more than 75 percent of our oil imports from the Middle East by 2025.

Article Excerpt: One day after President Bush vowed to reduce America's dependence on Middle East oil by cutting imports from there 75 percent by 2025, his energy secretary and national economic adviser said Wednesday that the president didn't mean it literally. What the president meant, they said in a conference call with reporters, was that alternative fuels could displace an amount of oil imports equivalent to most of what America is expected to import from the Middle East in 2025. (Knight Ridder Newspapers: Administration backs off Bush's vow to reduce Mideast oil imports, 2/2/2006).

SWTD Commentary: I guess that line was total BS. It was added because it sounded good. If it was really true I'd say GREAT. But I honestly don't believe it given the fact that bush and the Republican congress are obviously in the pocket of Big Oil. In a time of RECORD PROFITS for oil companies, bushco is still ripping off taxpayers though subsidies, royalty relief, and other tax breaks -- at the same time the Republican congress is slashing things like home heating assistance for the poor from the budget!

How about ending corporate welfare? How about a windfall profits tax? How can you believe anything bush says given the constant lying? Does anyone else find this man's hypocrisy astounding?

.........................

Jimmy Carter: The American people are making progress in energy conservation. Last year we reduced overall petroleum consumption by 8 percent and gasoline consumption by 5 percent below what it was the year before. Now we must do more. After consultation with the Governors, we will set gasoline conservation goals for each of the 50 States, and I will make them mandatory if these goals are not met.

George W. Bush: (Doesn't mention conservation).

Article Excerpt: Our fuel economy standards in 2005 are 21 miles a gallon for all cars and SUVs. In 1987, they were 22.1 miles a gallon. We've been going in reverse. And when the energy bill was up last year, Republicans in Congress not only voted down Democratic amendments to increase fuel-efficiency standards, they actually made it more difficult to raise those standards in the future. (The Progressive: "More Dishonesty from Bush in State of Union", 2/1/2006).

Article Excerpt: ...this president has never been interested in changing consumer behavior. On the contrary, when asked at a 2001 news conference whether Americans needed to do anything about their high energy consumption, his then-spokesman, Ari Fleischer, said, "The president believes that it's an American way of life, and that it should be the goal of policymakers to protect the American way of life". (The Washington Post: Feeding the Oil Addiction, 2/3/2006).

SWTD Commentary: Does anyone else find this type of thinking as WRONG as I do? Just say no to conservation? Ironic, considering the dictionary definition of conservative says, "Tending to conserve; preservative: the conservative use of natural resources".

.........................

Jimmy Carter: The decade ahead will be a time of rapid change, as nations everywhere seek to deal with new problems and age-old tensions.

SWTD Commentary: Age old tensions which bush has only made worse...

For months after the terrible terrorist attack in 2001, the American people were inundated almost daily with claims from top government officials that we faced a devastating threat from Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, or from large and well organized cadres of terrorists hiding in our country. But as was emphasized vigorously by foreign allies and key members of our own intelligence services, there was never any existing danger to the United States from Baghdad. It was obvious that, with the United Nations sanctions, intense weapons inspections, and overwhelming American military superiority, any belligerent move by Saddam Hussein against a neighbor, an overt display of a weapon of mass destruction, or sharing of such technology with terrorist organizations would have been suicidal for Iraq. Iraq's weapons programs had already been reduced to impotence before the war was launched to eliminate them.

If Saddam Hussein had actually possessed a large nuclear, biological, or chemical arsenal, then the American invasion would have resulted in hundreds of thousands of casualties. Many of them US troops. There is no evidence that British or American leaders really expected or prepared for this eventuality.

We cannot ignore the development of such weapons in any potential enemy nation or organization. But unilateral military action based on erroneous or deliberately distorted intelligence is not the answer ~ Jimmy Carter, Our Endangered Values (Chapter 14: Worshiping the Prince of Peace or Preemptive War).

Further Reading
1. U.S. Has Royalty Plan to Give Windfall to Oil Companies. The Washington Post, 2/14/2006.
2. Feeding the Oil Addiction. The Washington Post, 2/3/2006.
3. Addicted to Lies. Is Bush the Antichrist (blog), 2/1/2006.
4. More Dishonesty from Bush in State of Union. The Progressive, 2/1/2006.

 swtd-3