Poll support repeal of don't-ask-don't tell

Last November, it was reported that more than 100 retired generals and admirals have called for the repeal of the policy.

In January, the Army fired 11 soldiers for violating the don't-ask-don't-tell policy.

Now a Quinnipiac University national poll shows that the majority of Americans want the policy repealed.

The ban on openly gay men and women in the military should be repealed, American voters say 56 - 37 percent, including 50 - 43 percent among voters with family in the military, according to a Quinnipiac University national poll released today. American voters who think being gay is an individual's choice, 36 percent, are generally less supportive of gay rights than those who think people are born gay, 42 percent.

White Catholics say 64 - 29 percent that gays in the military should be allowed to come out, while white evangelical Christians support "don't ask; don't tell" 53 - 40 percent. Voters reject 58 - 35 percent, including 56 - 39 percent in military households, the argument that allowing openly gay men and women to serve would be divisive, the independent Quinnipiac (KWIN-uh-pe-ack) University survey of 2,041 registered voters nationwide finds.

Unfortunately, while the majority agrees that don't-ask-don't-tell should be repealed, they aren't uniform in a pro-gay rights mindset.

Society is paying too much attention to the needs of gays and lesbians, 49 percent of voters say, while 21 percent say there's too little attention and 22 percent say it's "about right."

Hopefully, polls like this will spur the government into righting the wrong of that policy. When the policy is repealed (and eventually it will be) we clearly have more work when 49% believe that there is too much attention paid to the needs of gays and lesbians.

The Servicemembers Legal Defense Network has various petitions you can sign to prod the government into doing what is right. They provide an easy way to write to the House, the Senate, or even President Obama.

Supreme Court eyes Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act

Early in his Presidency, Lyndon Johnson pushed for a voting rights bill which would clarify and strengthen enforcement of the 15th Amendment. Section 2 of the 15th Amendment states: The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

Johnson got his appropriate legislation - The National Voting Rights Act of 1965. One specific aspect of the Act, Section 5, requires certain jurisdictions with a history of discrimination to "pre-clear" any and all voting changes with the Justice Department or the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.

Soon after, Congress extended Section 5 for five years in 1970 and again for seven years in 1975.

In 1982, Congress renewed the act for another 25 years and also amended Section 2.

Congress amended Section 2 to provide that a plaintiff could establish a violation of the Section without having to prove discriminatory purpose.

Before the 1982 renewal could lapse, it was granted another a 25-year extension signed by President George W. Bush on July 27, 2006.

That renewal was delayed at the time because Republicans had a problem with certain aspects of the Act.

...rank-and-file Republicans revolted over provisions that require bilingual ballots in many places and continued federal oversight of voting practices in Southern states.

Now in a case appearing before the Supreme Court, Northwest Austin Municipal Utility District Number One v. Holder, a Texas district is trying to overturn Section 5 of the Act.

The district's lawyer, Gregory Coleman, argued that conditions in Texas had changed so radically that "pre-clearance" was no longer needed. Justice David Souter and fellow liberal Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg expressed skepticism.

Project 21 has filed an amici curiae (friend of the Court) brief in support of the Texas District.

"The racist boogeyman of the past is just that - a thing of the past," said Project 21 Chairman Mychal Massie. "I think most people realize this, but the civil rights special interest lobby has been strong enough to keep this boogeyman alive to the legal detriment of our post-racial society. As we try to move forward, our children will continue to bear the burden of long-rectified mistakes."

Project 21 bills itself as "The National Leadership Network of Black Conservatives".

Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT) believes that The Voting Rights Act of 1965, and Section 5 of the act specifically, are still necessary to provide protection for the right to vote.

In 2006, after 19 hearings and in thousands of pages of testimony and documents, the Senate Judiciary Committee that I now chair found evidence in three critical areas:

> Even with Section 5 in place, covered jurisdictions continue to engage in discriminatory, often subtle, tactics, that play on racially polarized voting to deny the effectiveness of the votes cast by members of a particular race.

> Section 5 provides an effective deterrent against bad practices in covered jurisdictions.

> And Section 5 plays a vital role in preserving the gains minority voters have achieved.

I will refrain from pointing out that conservatives are attempting to use "activist judges" to overturn laws they disagree with and simply remind you of State Rep. Betty Brown (R).

Brown is a state representative in Texas. Earlier this month during testimony on voter identification legislation, Brown stated the following:

Rather than everyone here having to learn Chinese — I understand it’s a rather difficult language — do you think that it would behoove you and your citizens to adopt a name that we could deal with more readily here?” Brown said.

Brown later told [Organization of Chinese Americans representative Ramey] Ko: “Can’t you see that this is something that would make it a lot easier for you and the people who are poll workers if you could adopt a name just for identification purposes that’s easier for Americans to deal with?

I think it is safe to say that Section 5 might still be needed in Texas.

Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009 passes the House

Earlier today, the House of Representatives passed the Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009.

The Democratic-led U.S. House of Representatives Wednesday approved an expansion of federal "hate crime" laws -- an effort that former Republican President George W. Bush had opposed.

On a vote of 249-175, the House passed and sent to the Senate a bill backed by the new Democratic White House to broaden such laws by classifying as "hate crimes" those attacks based on a victim's sexual orientation, gender identity or mental or physical disability.

The bill would lift a requirement that a victim had to be attacked while engaged in a federally protected activity, like attending school, for it to be a federal hate crime.

Former Republican President George W. Bush had opposed a similar bill when he was President. This time the current President supported the bill.

I urge members on both sides of the aisle to act on this important civil rights issue by passing this legislation to protect all of our citizens from violent acts of intolerance – legislation that will enhance civil rights protections, while also protecting our freedom of speech and association. I also urge the Senate to work with my Administration to finalize this bill and to take swift action.

When the House met, Republican representative Virginia Foxx (NC) took a few minutes to speak about the bill on the House floor.

"The bill was named after a very unfortunate incident that happened, where a young man was killed, but we know that that young man was killed in the commitment of robbery,” Foxx said on the House floor. “It wasn't because he was gay. The bill was named for him, the hate-crimes bill was named for him, but it's, it's really a hoax, that that continues to be used as an excuse for passing these bills.”

The "unfortunate incident" she speaks of was the murder of Matthew Shepard.

Russell Arthur Henderson and Aaron James McKinney were both convicted of the murder of Matthew Shepard. Shortly after the murder, McKinney gave a statement to police:

...a statement McKinney gave to police just days after the killing, in which he referred to Shepard as a “faggot” and a “queer.”

McKinney's girlfriend at the time, Kristen Price, had this to say:

I don’t think it was a hate crime at all. I never did....They just wanted to beat him bad enough to teach him a lesson, not to come on to straight people, and don’t be aggressive about it anymore

So...it wasn't a hate crime. But they did want to "teach him a lesson" based on the fact that he was gay. If that isn't a crime based on hate, what exactly would make it a hate crime?

Regardless of what Congresswoman Foxx believes, Shepard's murder was a hate crime. Thankfully, this bill will address similar crimes and people in the LGBT community can take heart that the new administration cares more about them than the last one did.

The hate-crimes bill now moves to the Senate.

Arlen Specter....Democrat

Earlier, I wrote about Arlen Specter's re-election problems. Some were floating the idea that he should switch parties. While he repeatedly claimed that he would not be switching parties...he changed his mind. Needing to win re-election will do that.

Pennsylvania Sen. Arlen Specter will switch his party affiliation from Republican to Democrat and announced today that he will run in 2010 as a Democrat, according to a statement he released this morning.

Specter's decision would give Democrats a 60 seat filibuster proof majority in the Senate assuming Democrat Al Franken is eventually sworn in as the next senator from Minnesota. (Former senator Norm Coleman is appealing Franken's victory in the state Supreme Court.)

"I have decided to run for re-election in 2010 in the Democratic primary," said Specter in a statement. "I am ready, willing and anxious to take on all comers and have my candidacy for re-election determined in a general election."

He added: "Since my election in 1980, as part of the Reagan Big Tent, the Republican Party has moved far to the right. Last year, more than 200,000 Republicans in Pennsylvania changed their registration to become Democrats. I now find my political philosophy more in line with Democrats than Republicans."

While this will make a filibuster proof Senate, it will not give the Democratic Party 60 guaranteed votes. Specter has the reputation of being very independent...but the voting record shows otherwise.

Specter sided with the GOP on 62 percent of votes from when he entered the Senate in 1981 through last year, according to a University of San Diego database of votes. His highest party unity score: 81 percent in 2003-2004, when Toomey last challenged him.

Granted, Specter has always been a moderate Republican, but with today's Republican Party being as conservative as it is that isn't saying much. Specter is far from being a liberal.

Will he ease through re-election? Maybe. Maybe not. Specter has already pissed off labor by announcing that he doesn't support the Employee Free Choice Act. Labor had promised to support Specter, regardless of party affiliation, if he would support EFCA.

Senior officials with the powerful AFL-CIO have privately assured GOP Senator Arlen Specter that they’ll throw their full support behind him in the 2010 Senate race if he votes for the Employee Free Choice Act, a senior labor strategist working closely with the AFL on the issue tells me.

Specter announced that he didn't support EFCA (using the myth that EFCA removes the secret ballot as a reason) and in his party changing statement, Specter reiterated his lack of support.

My change in party affiliation does not mean that I will be a party-line voter any more for the Democrats that I have been for the Republicans. Unlike Senator Jeffords' switch which changed party control, I will not be an automatic 60th vote for cloture. For example, my position on Employees Free Choice (Card Check) will not change.

Specter clearly isn't going liberal...he just wants to win re-election. He knows he probably can't beat Pat Toomey in a primary so this move is pure politics. He is just saving his own skin.

A mere month ago, Specter told The Hill he intended to stay with the Republican Party.

I am staying a Republican because I think I have an important role, a more important role, to play there. I think the United States desperately needs a two party system. It is the basis of politics in America.

Obviously, disagree with his assessment that America "desperately needs a two party system". That being said, clearly political expediency trumped his belief about his important role in the two party system.

Staying a Republican would require Specter to defeat Toomey in a primary. Back in 2004, Specter beat Toomey by the slightest of margins. Since that time, Specter's approval ratings from Republicans have gone down the drain.

Voters approve 52 - 33 percent of the job Specter is doing, with a 71 - 16 percent positive score from Democrats and a 41 - 37 percent boost from independent voters, off-setting a 52 - 36 percent disapproval from Republicans. This is Specter's highest approval among Democrats and lowest approval among Republicans since Quinnipiac University began polling Pennsylvania in 2002.

With a disapproval rating that low, Specter could read the writing on the wall. A switch to the other side was in order to save his political hide.

Specter's switch won't alter the political landscape at all. While the Senate will technically have 60 Democratic seats, Specter will vote the same way he always has...62% with the Republicans. Specter's switch won't suddenly make him vote 62% with Democrats. It just won't.

It will, however, really piss off the Republican Party who will now be even less inclined to work with the Democratic Party. Prepare to see a whole lot of nothing getting done in government.

Military funding and the economy

Back on April 9, CNN reported that President Obama is asking for more money for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. A lot of money.

The Obama administration will ask Congress for another $83.4 billion to fund the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan through the end of September, Democratic congressional sources said Thursday.

The request is expected to pay for those conflicts for the rest of the 2009 budget year, two Democratic congressional sources said.

The money would bring the running tab for both conflicts to about $947 billion, according to figures from the Congressional Research Service.

Back in February, Obama approved a troop increase in Afghanistan.

How is that money being spent? Lots of air strikes.

Unfortunately, there have been a lot of casualties.

A UN survey tallied up 2,118 civilians killed in Afghanistan in 2008, a significant rise over the previous year's figure, of which 828 were ascribed to American, NATO, and Afghan Army actions rather than to suicide bombers or Taliban guerrillas. (Given the difficulty of counting the dead in wartime, any figures like these are likely to be undercounts.) There are, in other words, constant "incidents" to choose from.

Recently, for instance, there was an attack by a CIA drone in the Pakistani borderlands that Pakistani sources claim may have killed up to eight civilians; or there were the six civilians, including a 3-year-old girl and a 10-year-old boy, killed by an American air strike that leveled three houses in Afghanistan's Kunar Province. Sixteen more Afghans, including children as young as one, were wounded in that air attack, based on "multiple intelligence sources" in which, the US military initially claimed, only "enemy fighters" died. (As a recent study of the death-dealing weapons of the Iraq War, published in The New England Journal of Medicine, indicates, air strikes are notoriously good at taking out civilians. Eighty-five percent of the deaths from air strikes in Iraq were, the study estimated, women and children; and of all methods, including suicide and car bombs, air power "killed the most civilians per event.")

According to The War Resister's League, 54% of your Federal taxes go to the military.

How much is that 54%?

$1,449 Billion.





With California teachers losing jobs and massive job cuts at the post office that money could be better spend domestically to help individuals and the economy.

United for Peace and Justice has put together a petition to ask President Obama to cut military funding and end the wars.

In the spirit of Martin Luther King, Jr.'s work to end poverty, racism, and war, we, the people of the United States, call on the Obama administration and the U.S. Congress to end the U.S. wars and occupations in Iraq and Afghanistan, and to address the economic and environmental crises by cutting military spending by 25% in 2010 and redirecting our tax dollars to housing, health care, education, green jobs, and clean energy.

The petition asks President Obama to redirect those funds and each person signing the petition can suggest what he or she feels to be a better place for that money.

You can sign UFPJ's petition online here

If you would like to get others to sign, you can direct them to that website or you can download and print a PDF copy and send it to UFPJ when completed.

No FOX News, torture didn't help us

Last week, I wrote about how FOX News has been defending torture and dismissing waterboarding as not torture.

Bill O'Reilly had Ellis Henican of Newsday on his show and stated:

I would have done exactly what Bush did. Exactly. I would have dumped that guy in the water 1000 times to save your life. You.

The thing is...it wouldn't have saved Henican's life. Because it didn't save anyone's life.

The CIA inspector general in 2004 found that there was no conclusive proof that waterboarding or other harsh interrogation techniques helped the Bush administration thwart any "specific imminent attacks," according to recently declassified Justice Department memos.

Yep. Even back in 2004, the CIA inspector general claimed there was no proof that waterboarding helped stop any impending attacks. None.

Did that fact stop the Bush administration from torturing people? Hell no.

Did that fact stop the Bush administration from following up on false information garnered via torture? Hell no.

As one former intelligence official admitted:

We spent millions of dollars chasing false alarms

Wait. You might point out that in 2004, the CIA inspector general simply noted that torture didn't stop any impending attacks. He didn't say that torture brought forth false information.

That is true.

It was in 2002 when Bush was warned about the fact that torture brings forth false information.

The military agency that provided advice on harsh interrogation techniques for use against terrorism suspects referred to the application of extreme duress as "torture" in a July 2002 document sent to the Pentagon's chief lawyer and warned that it would produce "unreliable information."

Furthermore, the Bush administration was warned that using torture could have extremely bad repercussions for Americans.

"The unintended consequence of a U.S. policy that provides for the torture of prisoners is that it could be used by our adversaries as justification for the torture of captured U.S. personnel," says the document, an unsigned two-page attachment to a memo by the military's Joint Personnel Recovery Agency.

But they continued doing it any way.

Even FBI Director Robert Mueller has admitted that he doesn't believe torture defended us.

Last December, FBI Director Robert Mueller told Vanity Fair magazine that he didn't believe that intelligence gleaned from abusive interrogation techniques had disrupted any attacks on America.

In an article written by 2009 Orwell Prize winning journalist Patrick Cockburn for The Independent, a member of the U.S. military who conducted 300 interrogations spoke about the effect of torture:

"The reason why foreign fighters joined al-Qa'ida in Iraq was overwhelmingly because of abuses at Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib and not Islamic ideology," says Major Matthew Alexander, who personally conducted 300 interrogations of prisoners in Iraq. It was the team led by Major Alexander [a named assumed for security reasons] that obtained the information that led to the US military being able to locate Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the head of al-Qa'ida in Iraq. Zarqawi was then killed by bombs dropped by two US aircraft on the farm where he was hiding outside Baghdad on 7 June 2006. Major Alexander said that he learnt where Zarqawi was during a six-hour interrogation of a prisoner with whom he established relations of trust.

Major Alexander's attitude to torture by the US is a combination of moral outrage and professional contempt. "It plays into the hands of al-Qa'ida in Iraq because it shows us up as hypocrites when we talk about human rights," he says. An eloquent and highly intelligent man with experience as a criminal investigator within the US military, he says that torture is ineffective, as well as counter-productive. "People will only tell you the minimum to make the pain stop," he says. "They might tell you the location of a house used by insurgents but not that it is booby-trapped."

Torture actual drove more people into the arms of al-Qaida which caused the deaths of numerous American soldiers.

So basically, actual intelligent professionals in the FBI, CIA, and military believe torture didn't help. FOX News believes it did.

Who would you believe?

Thoughts for Sunday

This is a day on which we pay our respects to those who have endured the unimaginable. This is an occasion for the world to speak up against the unspeakable. It is long overdue that a day be dedicated to remembering and supporting the many victims and survivors of torture around the world. - Kofi Annan

The point of nonviolence is to build a floor, a strong new floor, beneath which we can no longer sink. A platform which stands a few feet above napalm, torture, exploitation, poison gas, A and H bombs, the works. Give man a decent place to stand. - Joan Baez

The civilized have created the wretched, quite coldly and deliberately, and do not intend to change the status quo; are responsible for their slaughter and enslavement; rain down bombs on defenseless children whenever and wherever they decide that their 'vital interests' are menaced, and think nothing of torturing a man to death: these people are not to be taken seriously when they speak of the 'sanctity' of human life, or the 'conscience' of the civilized world. - James Baldwin

Perhaps it is a universal truth that the loss of liberty at home is to be charged to provisions against danger, real or pretended, from abroad. - James Madison

He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself. - Thomas Paine

Perhaps we cannot prevent this world from being a world in which children are tortured. But we can reduce the number of tortured children. - Albert Camus

Waterboarding and FOX News

Since President Obama released the Bush administration's torture memos, many on the right have defended the use of torture.

Christopher Hitchens, who has supported both the war in Iraq and the war in Afghanistan, initially felt that waterboarding wasn't torture. He then underwent waterboarding for an article in Vanity Fair. He had the following to say about waterboarding:

You may have read by now the official lie about this treatment, which is that it “simulates” the feeling of drowning. This is not the case. You feel that you are drowning because you are drowning—or, rather, being drowned, albeit slowly and under controlled conditions and at the mercy (or otherwise) of those who are applying the pressure.

Charles Grodin was recently on Sean Hannity's show and the subject of waterboarding was discussed.

Charles Grodin: You're for torture, right?

Sean Hannity: I am for enhanced interrogation. I don't believe that waterboarding is torture.

Grodin: But you don't believe it's torture. Have you ever been waterboarded?

Hannity: Ollie North has and I've talked to him about it.

Grodin: Would you consent to being waterboarded so we can get the truth out of you?

Hannity: Yeah. Sure.

Grodin: We can waterboard you?

Hannity: Sure.

Grodin: Are you busy on Sunday?

Hannity: I'll do it for charity. I'll let you do it. I'll do it for the troops' families.

Hannity is so dismissive of waterboarding that he thinks it would be a hoot to undergo the torture for charity.

Another FOX personality, Bill O'Reilly, has also come out hard in the defense of the use of waterboarding. Unsurprisingly.

I would have done exactly what Bush did. Exactly. I would have dumped that guy in the water 1000 times to save your life. You.

But would O'Reilly have done it to save Amanda Terkel's life?

This is where it gets interesting in FOX-world. FOX News anchor Shepard Smith, however, has a different take on the use of torture. (starting at 3:52)

We are America, we don't torture! And the moment that is not the case, I want off the train! This government is of, by, and for the people -- that means it's mine. That means they tor- I'm not saying what is torture, and what is not torture, but I'm saying, whatever it is, you don't do it for me! I want off the train when the government starts. I want off. Next stop, now!

On FOX News The Strategy Room, Smith went further. Visibly angered, he lashed out against the use of torture.

We are America! I don't give a rat's ass if it helps. We are America! We do not fucking torture!

In his Vanity Fair article, Christopher Hitchens outlined the arguments against the use of waterboarding.

The argument goes like this:

1. Waterboarding is a deliberate torture technique and has been prosecuted as such by our judicial arm when perpetrated by others.

2. If we allow it and justify it, we cannot complain if it is employed in the future by other regimes on captive U.S. citizens. It is a method of putting American prisoners in harm’s way.

3. It may be a means of extracting information, but it is also a means of extracting junk information. (Mr. Nance told me that he had heard of someone’s being compelled to confess that he was a hermaphrodite. I later had an awful twinge while wondering if I myself could have been “dunked” this far.) To put it briefly, even the C.I.A. sources for the Washington Post story on waterboarding conceded that the information they got out of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was “not all of it reliable.” Just put a pencil line under that last phrase, or commit it to memory.

4. It opens a door that cannot be closed. Once you have posed the notorious “ticking bomb” question, and once you assume that you are in the right, what will you not do? Waterboarding not getting results fast enough? The terrorist’s clock still ticking? Well, then, bring on the thumbscrews and the pincers and the electrodes and the rack.

It is rare that I find myself in agreement with Shepard Smith and Christopher Hitchens, but one of those rare occasions is right now. Torture is wrong. Period. A "the ends justify the means" approach opens doors that can't be unopened. Down that road lies ruin.

G20 protests lead to assaults

Thousands of people were held against their will. Pleading didn't work, neither did shouts or tears. Penned in for hours, some were forced to urinate in public. Others phoned spouses and bosses in mounting frustration as police ignored their requests to be allowed to leave.

Terrorists? Nope.

Enemy combatants? Nope.

These were protesters at the G20 Summit in London. Well, some of them. Some were just regular people who were rounded up by the police.

One man, a newspaper vendor who hadn't taken part in the demonstrations, died of internal bleeding shortly after being knocked to the ground by an officer. Other video showed a young woman being struck across the legs by a police baton -- she likened it to being "whipped by the Taliban" -- and another being smacked on the back of the head by a riot shield.

The woman mentioned, who was struck across the legs with a baton, had her assault filmed. The video is below.





Unfortunately, some of the comments from viewers are almost as scary as the act in the video itself.





Yeah...take that hippy! The obligatory derogatory jokes are a nice touch, too.





Indeed. A good tasering would have upped the entertainment quotient of the video...if you are a soulless dick.





Wow. That last guy thinks it is a "pity" the cop didn't have a gun to use on that unarmed protester.

Fortunately, the British police are "reexamining" their methods. I would imagine the fact that these abuses were filmed and spread all over the internet might have something to do with it.

A top government official said Tuesday that some officers had acted in an "utterly unacceptable" manner by concealing their badge numbers during the demonstrations. Worse, several amateur photographs and videos have surfaced showing police officers apparently knocking down and beating mostly peaceful participants.

Unfortunately, there is no body to reexamine the kind of assholes who leave comments like those listed above. And they weren't even some of the worst comments.

Maybe John Hawkins is right to some degree about the internet leading to an acceptance of boorish behavior. Sad.

More hate rhetoric from the right

I wrote earlier about how right-wing hate rhetoric has consequences. Since that time, teabaggers got together (some comparing Obama to Hitler) and the hate rhetoric was elevated.

Much like how the tea parties were nothing more than AstroTurf, much of this rhetoric is shaped and propagated by organized groups. In this case, the Republican party.

“Rhetorically, Republicans are having a very hard time finding something that raises the consciousness of the average voter,” said Saul Anuzis, a former chairman of the Michigan Republican Party who recently lost a bid to became national party chairman...

...So Mr. Anuzis has turned to provocation with a purpose. He calls the president’s domestic agenda “economic fascism.”

“We’ve so overused the word ‘socialism’ that it no longer has the negative connotation it had 20 years ago, or even 10 years ago,” Mr. Anuzis said. “Fascism — everybody still thinks that’s a bad thing.”

So Mr. Anuzis admits that they tried to smear Obama with the Socialist tag but unfortunately for him many don't fear or hate Socialism anymore, so instead they cooked up a new smear: fascism. The smear has as much verisimilitude as the Socialist one did (Obama is not a Socialist...at all) and is used simply for rhetoric to "raise the consciousness of the average voter".

What happens when you "raise the consciousness of the average voter" with fear rhetoric? Bad things, Mr. Anuzis. Bad things.

Look at how right-wing rhetoric affected Richard Poplawski:

It would be easy for us to cordon Poplawski off, pretend that his ugly and paranoid worldview had nothing to do with the Obama hatred spouted by the American right. But the truth is that Poplawski's hateful views cannot be separated from the increasingly extreme ideology and rhetoric that characterize the contemporary American conservative movement. As his friend, Edward Perkovic, told the Associated Press, Poplawski feared "the Obama gun ban that's on the way" and "didn't like our rights being infringed upon."

Glenn Back denied that right-wing commentators and the hate they sow had anything to do with Poplawski's violence....and then turned around and said of Obama:

...he will slowly but surely take away your gun or take away your ability to shoot a gun, carry a gun. He will make them more expensive; he'll tax them out of existence. He will because he has said he would. He will tax you gun or take your gun away one way or another.

Beck claims that he isn't responsible for people freaking out and getting violent based on right-wing hate and fear rhetoric...but then he continues espousing that same rhetoric.

False rhetoric.

As Griper Blade points out, even gun and ammo vendors know it is nonsense.

WinstonCartrige.com has a notice on their site which reads:

Due to hoarding of ammunition, you consumers have managed to raise the prices of ammunition and components 50 to 500 percent. You didn't even need the Government to impose taxes or bans. You did it all yourself.

But facts rarely get in the way or fomenting fear and hate.

Right-wing radio personality George Caylor spoke at a tea party. He literally stated that he would "pray to God" the audience was dangerous to the government.

George Caylor: The next American revolution begins here and begins tonight. […] Yesterday a friend of mine gave me a report from Homeland Security telling the FBI that people who are unhappy with government spending, the tax code, the general dismantling of our country, with supporting illegal immigrants with tens of millions of tax dollars, that you may be dangerous people.

Random Audience Member: We might be!

George Caylor: I pray to God you are.

Speaking of the tea parties, Mr. Anuzis even notes that his rhetoric was picked up and repeated at those festivals of uninformed angry white people.

Mr. Anuzis noted that the Fox News commentator Glenn Beck had picked up the theme, as did some participants at the antitax “tea party” rallies last week. Mr. Anuzis spreads the word on Facebook and Twitter.

He further defends the use of the term fascist.

“It’s politically very incorrect only because we’re not used to it,” concluded Mr. Anuzis, who recently joined American Solutions for Winning the Future, a group led by Newt Gingrich, a former House speaker. But he acknowledged, “You’ve got to be careful using the term ‘economic fascism’ in the right way, so it doesn’t come off as extreme.”

No, Mr. Anuzis, you need not worry about coming off as extreme. You clearly are being an extremist. When you have to manufacture a political smear just to motivate the masses, you are being an extremist.

When people listen to this fear mongering and hate and act out with violence, people like you are responsible. Not Obama. Not "the Liberals". Certainly not "the Socialists". You and others of your ilk from the right-wing.

Hemp for the economy?

What if we knew of a renewable resource that could be used for clothing, paper, food, rope, and more? What if the cultivation of that substance could provide loads of new jobs for people and boost the economy?

All of the above is true. The problem is that cultivation of the substance is illegal. The substance? Hemp.

In fact, it has only been fairly recently that hemp became a bad thing. The Controlled Substances Act (CSA) of 1970 formally prohibited cultivation of Hemp. Prior to 1970 it was was used for various purposes. Paper, clothing, rope, etc. Back in the early days of the company, Levi Strauss jeans were made from hempen canvas. Henry Ford even built a prototype car from biocomposite materials, using agricultural fiber such as hemp.

It was also important to America during WWII.

During World War II, domestic hemp production became crucial when the Japanese cut off Asian supplies to the U.S. American farmers who grew hemp were even exempt from military duty. A 1942 U.S. Department of Agriculture film called "Hemp For Victory" extolled the agricultural might of hemp and called for hundreds of thousands of acres to be planted for the war effort.

North American Industrial Hemp Council provides the following facts about hemp:

*Hemp has been grown for at least the last 12,000 years for fiber (textiles and paper) and food. It has been effectively prohibited in the United States since the 1950s.

*George Washington and Thomas Jefferson both grew hemp. Ben Franklin owned a mill that made hemp paper. Jefferson drafted the Declaration of Independence on hemp paper.

*Hemp fibers are longer, stronger, more absorbent and more mildew-resistant than cotton.

*Fabrics made of at least one-half hemp block the sun's UV rays more effectively than other fabrics.

*Hemp can be made into fine quality paper. The long fibers in hemp allow such paper to be recycled several times more than wood-based paper.

*Hemp grows well in a variety of climates and soil types. It is naturally resistant to most pests, precluding the need for pesticides. It grows tightly spaced, out-competing any weeds, so herbicides are not necessary. It also leaves a weed-free field for a following crop.

*Hemp can displace cotton which is usually grown with massive amounts of chemicals harmful to people and the environment. 50% of all the world's pesticides are sprayed on cotton.

*Hemp can displace wood fiber and save forests for watershed, wildlife habitat, recreation and oxygen production, carbon sequestration (reduces global warming), and other values.

*Hemp can yield 3-8 dry tons of fiber per acre. This is four times what an average forest can yield.

Why am I bringing any of this up? Recently, Barney Frank and Ron Paul united to push a bill legalizing industrial hemp farming.

Liberal Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., and libertarian Rep. Ron Paul, the Texas Republican who made a fine show in the GOP presidential primaries last year, find common ground today on hemp farming:

Their new bill, "The Industrial Hemp Farming Act of 2009 otherwise known as HR 1866, would remove restrictions on the cultivation of non-psychoactive industrial hemp. They claim nine other sponsors, nearly equally divided between the parties.

Vote Hemp is a national, single-issue, non-profit advocacy group promoting the legalization of industrial hemp. Please consider writing your representative and urging him or her to support the legalization of industrial hemp farming.

Pat Robertson distorts the DHS report

Pat Robertson has decided to chime in with some wisdom about the DHS report warning of right-wing extremists.

It shows somebody down in the bowels of that organization is either a convinced left winger or somebody whose sexual orientation is somewhat in question. But it’s that kind of thing, somebody who doesn’t think that we should have abortion on demand, is suddenly labeled a terrorist! It’s outrageous!

[Robertson now gives out the number for dept. of homeland security]

And if you jam up their telephone lines, good for you.

So not only is the DHS report clearly the work of militant gays, but concerned citizens should jam the lines of homeland security.

The DHS report didn't refer to "somebody who doesn’t think that we should have abortion on demand". It referred to far right hate. The report cited Richard Poplowski as an example.

The alleged gunman’s reaction reportedly was influenced by his racist ideology and belief in antigovernment conspiracy theories related to gun confiscations, citizen detention camps, and a Jewish-controlled “one world government.

There is a world of difference between being anti-abortion and believing in a Jewish controlled government that wants to confiscate guns and throw citizens in internment camps.

The DHS report warns about extremist beliefs that promote violence. Something Robertson should be familiar with considering he called for the assassination of Hugo Chavez back in 2005.

There was a popular coup that overthrew him [Chavez]. And what did the United States State Department do about it? Virtually nothing. And as a result, within about 48 hours that coup was broken; Chavez was back in power, but we had a chance to move in. He has destroyed the Venezuelan economy, and he's going to make that a launching pad for communist infiltration and Muslim extremism all over the continent.

You know, I don't know about this doctrine of assassination, but if he thinks we're trying to assassinate him, I think that we really ought to go ahead and do it. It's a whole lot cheaper than starting a war.

That, Mr. Robinson, is the kind of rhetoric the DHS report warned about. Not anti-abortion beliefs.

Many who attended the various teabagging parties espoused the kind of rhetoric who should be wary of.





Why is Obama a fascist? "Because he is!".

George Caylor: The next American revolution begins here and begins tonight. […] Yesterday a friend of mine gave me a report from Homeland Security telling the FBI that people who are unhappy with government spending, the tax code, the general dismantling of our country, with supporting illegal immigrants with tens of millions of tax dollars, that you may be dangerous people.

Random Audience Member: We might be!

George Caylor: I pray to God you are.

George Caylor literally calls for another American revolution and prays to God that his listeners are "dangerous people". That is exactly the kind of anti-government behavior the DHS report was warning about.

The report was warning about people like Jim Adkisson. Adkisson opened fire at a Unitarian church.

He wrote a four page letter explaining his reasons.

The Democrats! The Democrats have done everything they can do to tie out hands in this War on Terror. They’re all a bunch of traitors. They want America to loose this war for reasons I can not understand. It makes me soooo mad!

n a parallel train of thought, it saddens me to think back on all the bad things that Liberalism has done to this country. The worst problem America faces today is Liberalism. They have dumbed down education, they have defined deviancy down. Liberals have attacked every major institution that made America great. From the Boy Scouts to the military, from education to Religion, the major news outlets have become the propaganda arm of the Democrat Party. Liberals are evil, they embrace the tenets of Karl Marx, they’re Marxist, socialist, communists.

...I hate the damn left-wing Liberals. There is a vast left-wing conspiracy in this country & these liberals are working together to attack every decent & honorable institution in the Nation, trying to turn the country into a communist state. Shame on them.

...Who I wanted to kill was every Democrat in the Senate & House, the 100 people in Bernard Goldberg’s book. I’d like to kill everyone in the Mainstream Media. But I know these people were inaccessible to me. I couldn’t get to the generals & high ranking officers of the Marxist movement so I went after the foot soldiers, the chicken shit liberals that vote in these traitorous people. Someone had to get the ball rolling. I volunteered. I hope others do the same, it’s the only way we can rid America of this cancer this pestilence.

When police searched his house, they found some indications of where his mindset was formulated.

Inside the house, officers found "Liberalism is a Mental Health Disorder" by radio talk show host Michael Savage, "Let Freedom Ring" by talk show host Sean Hannity, and "The O'Reilly Factor," by television talk show host Bill O'Reilly.

As I have noted before, right-wing hate rhetoric has consequences.

This is the kind of hate and violence the DHS report warned about. Not anti-abortion beliefs. Not voting Republican. Not being a Conservative Christian. Actual hate and violence.

I think Pat Robertson knows that. Ironically, fomenting anger and hostility by lying about the report only risks causing the kind of behavior the report was actually warning about.

Republicans don't care about democracy...just winning

Last Wednesday, the teabaggers gathered and decried Obama's "fascism".

Fascists advocate the creation of a single-party state. Let's look at which party is more vigorously attempting to do just that.

After Democrat Mark Begich defeated Republican Ted Stevens for the U.S. Senate, federal prosecutors decided to drop their case against Stevens. Governor Sarah Palin decided that Stevens should get another chance to be Senator. Not in the next election...now.

"Many voters did not choose Stevens because they were told he was guilty, and now, after the election we see there was improper conduct in his trial, so how fair an election was that?" asked Palin, in an email to an Alaska Public Radio reporter. CNN has confirmed the authenticity of the e-mail.

"I agree with other Alaskans who would like to see an election that's free from improper influence, and I can't imagine how Mark Begich could argue that," she continued.

Palin told the Anchorage Daily News that she does not want to "split hairs" on whether Begich should resign, while agreeing with state Republican party officials calling for a special election.

Let's overlook the fact that Palin, with her grand omniscience, feels qualified to declare why people did or didn't vote for Stevens...but even if people did vote for Begich for "the wrong reasons"...who gives a shit? That's how democracy works. You can vote for someone because you like his shirt.

We don't retroactively change elections in America. If that were the case, then we should have vacated the 1972 election results when Nixon stepped down in 1974. McGovern should have become President. That didn't happen.

And there is a really good reason for that.

That isn't how democracy works.

Some might just write this off because it is Sarah Palin making the statement. But it isn't just Palin. It is the entire Republican party.

In New York, Republican Jim Tedisco ran against Democrat Scott Murphy in a special election to fill the seat vacated by Kirsten Gillibrand following Gillibrand's appointment to the United States Senate (which was vacated by Hillary Rodham Clinton who assumed the office of United States Secretary of State).

At first, it appeared that Tedisco and Murphy were neck and neck. As the absentee ballot totals came in, Murphy took the lead.

First Tedisco tried to eliminate a load of Democratic voters. That didn't work.

Now he is trying to get a judge to declare him the winner...even though he has less votes in his favor.

In a ballsy move, despite being down by 178 votes at last count, Republican Jim Tedisco has petitioned Dutchess County Supreme Court to declare him the winner of the NY-20 Congressional post-election.

Not just that, Tedisco to alter the vote totals.

Tedisco is also asking the court to authorize recanvasing of all machine ballots to acquire the “proper” tallies. He would like them to reassess the validity of absentee votes already counted, and keep ballots challenged by Tedisco unopened.

He wants his challenges unopened. So nobody will know if the votes were actually for Murphy or not.

And the teabaggers call Obama a fascist?

Thoughts for Sunday

America was indebted to immigration for her settlement and prosperity. That part of America which had encouraged them most had advanced most rapidly in population, agriculture and the arts. - James Madison

Remember, remember always, that all of us, and you and I especially, are descended from immigrations and revolutionists. - Franklin D. Roosevelt

There was a time when we [the U.S.] had completely unrestricted immigration, when anybody could come to these shores and the motto on the Statue of Liberty had some real meaning. This was a country of hope and of promise for immigrants and their children, and as many as a million immigrants a year came in 1906 and '07 and '08. By 1914, roughly a third of the population was foreign-born or the immediate descendants of foreign-born...The fact that year after year hundreds of thousands of people left the countries of Europe to come to this country was persuasive evidence that they were coming to improve their lot, not to worsen it. - Milton Friedman

Stopping illegal immigration would mean that wages would have to rise to a level where Americans would want the jobs currently taken by illegal aliens. - Thomas Sowell

Immigration is the sincerest form of flattery. - Jack Paar

All the problems we face in the United States today can be traced to an unenlightened immigration policy on the part of the American Indian. - Pat Paulsen

Some thoughts on Socialism

Last month, I wrote some thoughts on Capitalism. I thought it might be time to write some thoughts on an alternate economic theory: Socialism.

Contrary to what some have said Socialism doesn't create a sense of entitlement nor does Socialism sap vitality.

Brian Moore has pointed out:

To the contrary, workers have a greater incentive to work in order to make MORE money, plus improve their families' and the society's well-being. In addition, they participate in setting criteria, determining the production and distribution of the products and services, and thus participate in such a democratic fashion that they feel a part of the outcome. They now, for the first time, like owners, take pride in their work, because they are the real owners. They can see the result of their labors, and know they had a full participatory role.

The idea of elevating the individual and his or her needs over society is what creates a sense of entitlement. If you have ever worked in the service industry you will have come upon the utter selfishness of many. If you haven't had the pleasure, just peruse some of the stories at Not Always Right (like this one) and enjoy the sense of entitlement many American's already have without Socialism.

Socialism promotes working with others towards a common goal. That is the opposite of selfishness and in no way creates a sense of entitlement.

Ayn Rand, that paragon of the individual and author of The Virtue of Selfishness, created the character of John Galt for her novel Atlas Shrugged. Galt, like Rand herself, was selfish. The term "Going Galt" refers to people emulating John Galt and ceasing to produce. But what people?

The doctors, lawyers, engineers, executives, serious small-business owners, top salespeople, and other professionals and entrepreneurs who make this country run work considerably harder than pretty much anyone else (including most of the chattering class, and all politicians).

If you seriously believe that professionals and entrepreneurs work harder than your average factory worker, janitor, or poorly paid waiter and are the "real ones" who make our country work...then you need to get your head examined. If all the stock brokers didn't show up for work tomorrow...most of our lives wouldn't change one bit. If all the garbage collectors stopped showing up...there would be a situation.

Socialists aspire to live in a classless world of equality regardless of age, race, sex, religion, or sexual orientation. The teabaggers don't want that world at all. The idea of being against equality for all comes from the belief that some are inherently inferior to others. If that isn't a sense of entitlement...

Capitalism is a system based on greed and selfishness. That is a system that creates a sense of entitlement.

As I noted before, contrary to what the teabaggers would have you believe, a recent Rassmussen poll discovered the numbers of people who disagree with Socialism are falling. Recently, yodafone of DailyKos has even recently used Thomas Paine's own writings to argue that Paine was a Socialist.

Contrary to the talking points, Socialists don't want to punish the rich; Socialists want to stop punishing the poor. Socialists aspire to live in a classless world of equality regardless of age, race, sex, religion, or sexual orientation.

In a socialist system the people own and control the means of production and distribution through democratically controlled public agencies, cooperatives, or other collective groups The primary goal of economic activity is to provide the necessities of life, including food, shelter, healthcare, education, childcare, cultural opportunities, and social services.

These social services include care for the chronically ill,persons with mental disabilities, the infirm and the aging. Planning takes place at the community, regional, and national levels, and is determined democratically with the input of workers, consumers, and the public to be served.

Socialism would allow us to raise the living standards for the average person dramatically. Instead of workers being paid the lowest amount the government will allow employers to pay them, they will be paid better. And CEOs won't be making a killing at the expense of the low paid workers.

CEO perks alone grew in 2008 to an average of $336,248—or nine times the median salary of a full-time worker.

Currently, teabaggers decry Obama bringing Socialism to America. First, Obama is not a Socialist. Second, we already have many Socialist programs that people use all the time.

What exactly is a Socialist program?

According to the Future of Freedom Foundation, any government-owned, -funded, or -subsidized operation is considered to be a socialist program.

In America, there are many things that would fall under this definition:

*publicly owned airports
*sports arenas
*public schools
*public parks
*public libraries
*fire departments
*police departments
*government-funded universities
*Social Security
*interstate highways

Wanna jettison all those?

With the current recession/depression going on, many have begun to question Capitalism. Some have even claimed that Capitalism has failed.

Even Forbes has stated Laissez-Faire Capitalism Has Failed

...However, while this crisis does not imply the end of market-economy capitalism, it has shown the failure of a particular model of capitalism. Namely, the laissez-faire, unregulated (or aggressively deregulated), Wild West model of free market capitalism with lack of prudential regulation, supervision of financial markets and proper provision of public goods by governments.

It is time to think about trying something new. Socialism isn't evil. Most of those who rail against it do so because they believe anti-Socialist propaganda. They fail to recognize that they would benefit from the system, not be "punished".

Ronald Aronson writing for The Nation has stated:

Today, when the bottom line is touted as the answer to every question, Americans are imprisoned in a mental world shaped by economic trends. Ironically, its ideologists have become pitchmen for a capitalist caricature of Marxism--promulgating a crude economic determinism in which the market rules every social, mental and geographic space. Since the fall of Communism, market-oriented ways of thinking, feeling and seeing have permeated our lives and our culture to a degree that Marx never dreamed of.

Yet the real Marxism, although no longer embodied in movements or governments, has never been truer or more relevant: Most of the world's main problems today are inseparable from the dynamics of the capitalist system itself. With corporate capitalism everywhere in command, the outlook is for increased poverty, more environmental degradation, ever more uneven distribution of resources and the undermining of traditional societies and ways of life, for a culture dominated by marketing, advertising and uneven global development.

That was written in 2006 well before the economy collapsed. It is even more true today.

Start spreading the news...

Gov. David Paterson introduced a bill Thursday to legalize same-sex marriage in New York, comparing the effort to the fight for the abolition of slavery.

Well it is about time.

Gay marriage is a crucial issue of equal rights in America that cannot be ignored...

For many people around the world, New York (the city) is a symbol of freedom and hope. People have boarded ships and taken planes for decades with the dream of America. In the early to mid 1900s, immigrants huddled on over-crowded decks, waiting to see their first glance of Lady Liberty, and her famous torch that would light the way to freedom.

Freedom to practice their religion.
Freedom to speak their minds.
Freedom to choose their leaders.
Freedom to be.

These people came to New York, New York. A state which may now be trying to keep the promises alive. A place where all men/women ARE created equal, and are therefore entitled to the same rights, specifically the rights of Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness (with whomever they damn well please).

There are those who are in opposition of equal rights for EVERYONE.

One of which is Senator Rubin Diaz.

Diaz said it was disrespectful of Paterson to introduce the legislation in the same week that Catholics celebrated the installation of New York City Archbishop Timothy Dolan.

Really? What does that have to do with anything?

Diaz elaborates by saying

"I think it's a laugh in the face of the new archbishop," Diaz said Thursday before the start of his meeting. "The Jews just finished their holy week. The Catholics just received the new archbishop. The evangelical Christians just celebrated Good Friday and resurrection. He comes out to do this at this time? It's a challenge the governor is sending to every religious person in New York and the time for us has come for us to accept the challenge."

I have a few things to pick apart about this.

Catholics "received" the new Archbishop, alright. They didn't pick him. The Catholic Church is not a democracy, it does not "do" referendums, and there is no "representation". Unlike the United States.

The evangelical Christians were not the only ones to celebrate Good Friday and resurrection (Easter). Saying it that way is offensive to every other denomination of Christianity which does include the aforementioned Catholics.

The name of the Jewish holy week is Passover. If he doesn't know enough about it to know the name, perhaps he shouldn't mention it at all.

Why should affairs, celebrations and appointments of a religious nature have anything to do with legislation at all?? Separation of Church and State means just that.

If he wants to discuss being disrespectful, how about the disrespect that has been shown to homosexuals for centuries?

Be brave, Gov. Paterson, and stand your ground. The State of New York needs to once again show that it is a beacon of justice, the gateway to the Land of Opportunity for ALL people.

Friday fun

Because teabagging wasn't bad enough, now the National Organization For Marriage has decided to initiate a national campaign: 2 Million for Marriage....conveniently abbreviated 2M4M.

Somebody immediately grabbed www.2M4M.org and it is currently a pro-gay marriage website (which is really worth checking out).

And then Andy Cobb made this video...

...and I laughed for about an hour.

The Republican National Committee has created teaparty.gop.com where you can send a postcard with a photo of a teabag to one of the following: President Barack Obama, Vice President Joe Biden, Senator Harry Reid, Speaker Nancy Pelosi.





I am going to laugh for a week when somebody creates a website with postcards of actual scrotums to send to Republicans.

Enjoy your weekend.

Unions unite for immigration reform

On Monday, I wrote about the need for immigration reform. Now it appears that the nation’s two major labor federations are uniting to put forth an immigration reform outline for President Obama.

John Sweeney, president of the A.F.L.-C.I.O., and Joe T. Hansen, a leader of the rival Change to Win federation, will present the outlines of their new position on Tuesday in Washington. In 2007, when Congress last considered comprehensive immigration legislation, the two groups could not agree on a common approach. That legislation failed.

The accord endorses legalizing the status of illegal immigrants already in the United States and opposes any large new program for employers to bring in temporary immigrant workers, officials of both federations said.

“The labor movement will work together to make sure that the White House as well as Congress understand that we speak about immigration reform with one voice,” Mr. Sweeney said in a statement to The New York Times.

The opposition of a program for temporary immigrant workers appears to be a sticking point...at least to big business.

But while the compromise repaired one fissure in the coalition that has favored broad immigration legislation, it appeared to open another. An official from the United States Chamber of Commerce said Monday that the business community remained committed to a significant guest-worker program.

“If the unions think they’re going to push a bill through without the support of the business community, they’re crazy,” said Randel Johnson, the chamber’s vice president of labor, immigration and employee benefits. “There’s only going to be one shot at immigration reform. As part of the trade-off for legalization, we need to expand the temporary worker program.”

The new immigration reform outline calls for a commission to base immigration quotas based on labor need.

In the new accord, the A.F.L.-C.I.O. and Change to Win have called for managing future immigration of workers through a national commission. The commission would determine how many permanent and temporary foreign workers should be admitted each year based on demand in American labor markets. Union officials are confident that the result would reduce worker immigration during times of high unemployment like the present.

While the A.F.L.-C.I.O./Change to Win outline may mean a good start for immigration reform, personally I would like it to go much further. As I have said before, I support immigration. Completely.

As the Platform for Civil Rights of the Socialist Party USA states:

The Socialist Party works to build a world in which everyone will be able to freely move across borders, to visit and to live wherever they choose.

The Socialist Party also opposes guest worker programs...but for very different reasons than most.

We oppose "guest worker" programs. We call for full citizenship rights upon demonstrating residency for six months.

Yes. The dreaded S-word. Socialism. But contrary to what the teabaggers would have you believe, Rassmussen discovered, the numbers of people who disagree with Socialism are falling. Recently, yodafone of DailyKos has even recently used Thomas Paine's own writings to argue that Paine was a Socialist.

If citizenship could be granted after six months of residency, the backlog at Immigration and Customs would virtually disappear. No more citizens like Pedro Guzman being deported for the crime of being mentally ill and Latino.

DHS warns of rise of right-wing extremists

Back in January, I noted that violence is on the rise against gays, and a cursory examination of national news will show that racism has been growing since Obama was elected.

A new new report (PDF) from the Office of Intelligence and Analysis at the Department of Homeland Security has been released which analyzes right-wing groups.

The DHS/Office of Intelligence and Analysis (I&A) has no specific information that domestic rightwing terrorists are currently planning acts of violence, but rightwing extremists may be gaining new recruits by playing on their fears about several emergent issues.

The good news is that there is no evidence currently that there are organized right-wing groups with plans for a terror campaign. But as I noted earlier, right-wing hate rhetoric has consequences. Just because the organization itself doesn't plan to act, that doesn't mean the individuals won't. Jim Adkisson comes to mind. As does Richard Poplowski.

The DHS report agrees.

A recent example of the potential violence associated with a rise in rightwing extremism may be found in the shooting deaths of three police officers in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, on 4 April 2009. The alleged gunman’s reaction reportedly was influenced by his racist ideology and belief in antigovernment conspiracy theories related to gun confiscations, citizen detention camps, and a Jewish-controlled “one world government.”

Lest you dismiss this, the Southern Poverty Law Center has noted that hate group numbers have risen by 54% since 2000.

The report notes that extremist groups are making headway with recruiting by broadening their scope.

Rightwing extremists have capitalized on the election of the first African American president, and are focusing their efforts to recruit new members, mobilize existing supporters, and broaden their scope and appeal through propaganda, but they have not yet turned to attack planning.

Pamela Troy at Thought Crimes has noted that White Supremacist groups are already writing up instructions on how to take advantage of the situation.

Hundreds of us will take to the streets next week and join the nation-wide Tea Party. This is excellent for WN. If the history of revolutions teaches us anything, is that they begin as one thing and ultimately morph themselves into another...

...Remember that “taxes” are merely a symptom. Yeah, Americans are angry about taxes . . . but then what? What happens on April 16th? Where do we go from here?

It's up to us, WN, to provide those answers. We do it by simple prodding of accepted dogma. Remember . . . these are brainwashed people we're dealing with. For years, they've though that everything was "O.K." Suddenly, just like Neo . . . they take the red pill . . . and now they're realizing that it's all lies.

You . . . my fellow WNs . . . are that red pill.

Ask questions that will challenge Americans to look beyond the symptoms they easily see. Only when they begin to question the dogma most have accepted since high school (which is no easy task) will they begin to understand the need for a true white revolution.

My advice: Don't even mention "race" or "jew" or even "white." Keep it simple. The point is taxes . . . so stay on point.

The DHS report agrees and remarks that extremist groups have gone beyond single issues to recruit members. It further draws a parallel to the militia movements of the 1990s...an uncomfortable thought.

Paralleling the current national climate, rightwing extremists during the 1990s exploited a variety of social issues and political themes to increase group visibility and recruit new members. Prominent among these themes were the militia movement’s opposition to gun control efforts, criticism of free trade agreements (particularly those with Mexico), and highlighting perceived government infringement on civil liberties as well as white supremacists’ longstanding exploitation of social issues such as abortion, inter-racial crimes, and same-sex marriage. During the 1990s, these issues contributed to the growth in the number of domestic rightwing terrorist and extremist groups and an increase in violent acts targeting government facilities, law enforcement officers, banks, and infrastructure sectors.

Sean Hannity brought James Dobson onto his show to discuss the DHS report. Even though the report expressly states "The historical election of an African American president and the prospect of policy changes are proving to be a driving force for rightwing extremist recruitment and radicalization", Hannity couldn't help himself. He had to engage in a little propaganda.

What do you think of that interpretation, especially coming from a guy that started his political career in the home of an unrepentant terrorist who bombed our Pentagon and Capitol and sat in Rev. Wright's church for 20 years?

Last week, John Stewart pointed out the difference between fascism and simply losing an election.





Unfortunately, while these commentators that Stewart was taking to task simply use Obama backlash to garner political points, many that listen to them take it far too seriously. Like Richard Poplowski, there are people who listen to the fearmongering and act upon it. And there will always be groups that are willing to recruit those people.

Companies are still fighting unions

Much akin to Republican lawmakers and auto execs expecting union members to make large concessions in pay and benefits, now one newspaper company is doing the same.

The New York Times Company, owner of The New York Times and The Boston Globe, has taken the gloves off (and put on a pair of brass knuckles) in hard-line negotiations with its unions. The company is threatening to close The Boston Globe unless the newspaper's unions quickly agree to $20 million in concessions, the Globe reported on Friday, quoting union leaders.

While times appear to be tough at The Boston Globe, you might imagine that everyone was buckling down and making concessions. You would be wrong.

Forbes.com reports that The New York Times Company CEO Janet L. Robinson raked in $5,578,451 in compensation for 2008. This includes $1,552,603 in restricted stock awards, as well as a salary of $1 million.

Like the auto companies, these rich CEOs want the unions to take a bite of a shit sandwich rather then have to personally take a pay cut.

But some companies aren't in that position...because they won't allow unions at all.

In 1997, Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz wrote that he wanted workers “to believe in their hearts that management trusted them and treated them with respect...If they had faith in me and my motives, they wouldn’t need a union.” Whole Foods’ avowedly libertarian CEO, John Mackey, has compared the prospect of having unions at his stores to “having herpes.” An internal Whole Foods document listing “six strategic goals for Whole Foods Market to achieve by 2013,” obtained by Mother Jones, includes a goal to remain “100% union-free.”

How serious is Whole Foods about maintaining their "100% union-free" workforce? Serious enough to begin subtly threatening workers before President Obama was even inaugurated.

Shortly before the inauguration of President Barack Obama, the manager of a Whole Foods grocery store in the San Francisco Bay Area gathered his employees in a conference room for a chat about labor organizing. “This is not a union-bashing thing whatsoever,” the manager began, adding, however, that he’d called the meeting because Whole Foods believed Obama would sign the Employee Free Choice Act, legislation intended to ease unionization that was opposed by the company’s lobbyists. According to a tape of the meeting obtained by Mother Jones, the manager went on to imply that joining a union would lead to reprisals: “It’s interesting to note that once you become represented by the union,” he said, “basically everything, every benefit you have, is kind of thrown out the window, and you renegotiate a contract.”

How about Starbucks? Do they desire to stay as "100% union-free" as Whole Foods? You bet they do.

In December, a National Labor Relations Board judge ruled that Seattle-based Starbucks Corp. violated federal labor law by trying to stop union organizing at four Manhattan cafes. Starbucks is appealing the decision.

That trial, which took place between July and October 2007, produced a decision that reads at times like a reality-TV script, revealing Starbucks baristas and managers yelling at each other, mishandling blenders and cursing.

The National Labor Relations Board found on Dec. 23 that Starbucks had illegally fired three New York City baristas as it tried to squelch the union organizing effort.

Recall the previously mentioned quote from Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz:

In 1997, Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz wrote that he wanted workers “to believe in their hearts that management trusted them and treated them with respect...If they had faith in me and my motives, they wouldn’t need a union.”

In the 1980s, Starbucks had unionized. Howard Schultz took over as CEO in 1987. By 1992, Starbucks was union-free.

Recently, outspoken union member and barista Joe Tessone attempted to confront CEO Howard Schultz about how the company treats employees. Two weeks later, the company notified Tessone that he was being fired.

Both Starbucks and Whole Foods are, of course, lobbying against the Employee Free Choice Act. In fact, the two companies in league with Costco have unveiled "Committee for a Level Playing Field for Union Elections" which aims to offer a corporate-friendly alternative to the Employee Free Choice Act.

Who else doesn't support passage of The Employee Free Choice Act?

*Bank of America and AIG
*Burger King
*McDonald's

A new advertisement created by American Rights at Work attempts to counter anti-union propaganda by breaking down the beliefs of the large corporations who are lobbying against the Employee Free Choice Act.





As Kim Fellner, author of Wrestling With Starbucks: Conscience, Capital, Capuccino states:

Starbucks' and Whole Foods’ anti-union, pro-worker stance "is the essence of benevolent paternalism," says Kim Fellner, whose book, Wrestling With Starbucks: Conscience, Capital, Capuccino, praises many of the company’s other employment practices. “These are companies that want to do good by their workers, but want to decide what that good is, rather than letting the workers decide for themselves. And that’s a problem.”

The majority of people eligible to unionize actually desire to do so, contrary to what anti-union propaganda claims.

In a survey conducted in December 2006 by Peter D. Hart Research Associates, 58% of non-managerial working Americans indicated that they would join a union if they could.

Support workers. Workers deserve to decide for themselves what is good for them.