Thursday Mashup (4/7/11)

post from The Liberal Doomsayer on 07 April 2011 06:52:00 PM. © The Liberal Doomsayer

Looks like Congressman Peter King, fresh off his SCARY MUSLIM! hearings on Capitol Hill, has found a new gratuitous way to generate headlines (here)?

On Monday, as Attorney General Eric Holder stood at the podium at the Justice Department headquarters in Washington to announce that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and other 9/11 terrorists would be tried by military commissions at Guantanamo, he still insisted that he'd much prefer to try them in civilian courts.

The guy just doesn't get it -- and because he doesn't, he should resign forthwith.

In response, I give you the following from here?

On Wednesday (December 15, 2010), a federal judge in Brooklyn sent a terrorist to prison for the rest of his life. Abdul Kadir, a former politician from the South American country of Guyana, was convicted in August of conspiring to blow up huge fuel tanks at JFK airport. The New York Times covered Kadir's sentencing, but I'll forgive you for missing it: it was on page A29 of the print edition, above a story about the Korean community in Palisades Park, New Jersey.

This type of media treatment is a big problem for supporters of civilian trials for terrorist suspects. Kadir was involved in an actual terrorist plot?one he hoped would "dwarf 9/11." He isn't an American, he wasn't arrested in America, and he is allegedly connected to a militant Muslim group that has been characterized as one of "Al Qaeda's Inroads in the Caribbean." In other words, he has a lot in common with the Gitmo detainees that civil libertarians so desperately want tried in civilian court. (The difference, of course, is that since he was captured by law enforcement in 2007, he was never subjected to "enhanced interrogation.")

But because Kadir was tried, convicted, and sentenced in the civilian system, the resolution of his case has received little media attention?and the federal justice system gets almost no credit for its success in dealing with him. If advocates of civilian trials for Gitmo detainees like Ahmed Ghailani want to win the argument, they're going to have to be more aggressive about drawing attention to every single example of the civilian system's success in dealing with terrorism cases. This is one of those successes.

And as noted here?

Over parts of three decades, from his days as an aspiring politician in Long Island through his early years in Congress, King was one of the nation's most outspoken supporters of the Irish Republican Army and a prolific fundraiser for the Irish Northern Aid Committee (NorAid), allegedly the IRA's American fundraising arm. The IRA waged a paramilitary campaign against the British presence in Northern Ireland for decades before peace accords were signed in 1998. Part of that effort included bombings and shootings that resulted in civilian deaths in England and Northern Ireland. During the period of King's involvement, the US government accused both NorAid and the IRA of links to terrorism.

So then, because of his support of a terrorist organization, I suppose King is the one who should ?resign forthwith? instead (rest assured that I?m not holding my breath).

Next, I came across something from Cal Thomas at clownhall.com here that was actually somewhat interesting (I?ll explain presently)?

HOUSTON -- On the day of the NCAA men's basketball final, the Supreme Court handed down a decision that is likely to produce champions for generations to come.

By a 5-4 vote, the majority upheld an Arizona tax-credit program that, writes David Savage of the L.A. Times, gives taxpayers a "dollar-for-dollar tax credit, up to $500 per person or $1,000 for a couple, for those who donate to organizations that in turn pay tuition for students attending private and parochial schools." The minority contends this violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. The majority opinion, written by Justice Anthony Kennedy, maintains that since such donations are with pre-tax dollars, the government never has the money, and thus, "there is no such connection between dissenting taxpayer and alleged establishment."

Hmmm?.

With this in mind, I give you the following (from here, in the Repugs? war against the dreaded ?lady parts?)?

Another step towards smaller, less intrusive government, courtesy of the libertarian-minded teabagger-dominated House majority: Internal Revenue Service agents will be required to determine whether your abortion was paid for with tax dollars. Even more horrifying, income tax return filing forms may need to ask if you?d had an abortion and how you paid for it.

?

Speaker John Boehner has declared this bill to be a top priority of the new GOP Congress. Can you find the jobs agenda in this bill, except possibly the need to hire more IRS auditors to review women?s tax returns and inquire about how their abortion was paid for? Or whether parents paid for a daughter?s abortion with pre-tax health savings accounts?

That?s right ? you can?t even use your own health savings account, set aside from pre-tax earnings, to fund an abortion under the bill...

Sooo?as far as the Repugs are concerned (at least on the High Court of Hangin? Judge J.R.), pre-tax dough is safe because ?the government never has the money,? at least when it comes to throwing it at parents who want to send their kids to private or parochial schools. However, as far as ?Orange Man? Boehner and his pals are concerned, pre-tax dollars aren?t safe to use to fund an abortion even if they?re coming from a private savings account?

Yes, I?m being tongue-in-cheek here, in case you hadn?t noticed. One of my points is that, if the Repugs are going to disallow pre-tax dollars from being used for abortions, even when subscribers pay for coverage aside from a plan in a government exchange (when the exchanges finally get here), then they should be equally draconian and try to deny anyone using those funds from a health savings account (Chris Smith is nuts, but at least he was consistently nuts in trying to do so in a recent bill). Of course, in response, I should note that, in accordance with a House amendment named after a now-deceased serial philanderer, it?s impossible to use government money to fund abortions anyway.

Such inconsistency (pre-tax dollars are safe for ?vouchers,? but not safe for icky stuff having to do with women?s health) is typical for an alleged political party, by the way, that is also guilty of this.

In addition (and staying with the topic of sex-ed), kudos to Philadelphia Mayor Michael Nutter for introducing the ?Freedom Condom? here in an effort to stem ?spikes in gonorrhea and infectious syphilis, and a 40 percent rise in new HIV diagnoses over three years in teens and young adults? in the City of Brotherly Love.

This tells us more about the effective use of condoms, and this provides some Q&A on condom use and the spread of sexually transmitted diseases (as with all things, education is preferable to ignorance on this vital public health issue).

And in conclusion, I suppose it?s weirdly appropriate to transition from that topic to J.D. Mullane?s editorial butchery here today on the pages of the Bucks County Courier Times ? his column has to do with President Obama?s visit yesterday to the Gamesa wind turbine plant in Falls Township, PA (here).

Through a combination of innuendo, cherry-picking of quotes from Obama and Energy Secretary Steven Chu and a thoroughly non-humorous reference to unicorns mixed in with some smatterings of actual fact, Mullane, ever the climate change denier, sought to portray Obama as hopelessly out of touch on energy issues.

In response, here is a rather thorough rebuttal from Media Matters on accusations from Mullane and his fellow wingnuts aimed at Number 44 on the issue of energy. Also, under Obama?s predecessor, gas reached $4.55 a gallon (noted here), and this tells us of the many ways that our prior ruling cabal contributed to what was, up to that point, ?the highest gas prices in 20 years.?

Besides, I?m not going to worry about Obama on the issue of the oil we receive from our ?dear friends? the Saudis unless I see him in a photo similar to this one.

Read The Full Article:
http://liberaldoomsayer.blogspot.com/2011/04/thursday-mashup-4711.html

Digg this

Wisconsin Supreme Court: Local clerk 'finds' over
7,000 votes for Prosser

post from Daily Kos on 07 April 2011 06:50:01 PM. © Daily Kos

The vote totals in the Wisconsin Supreme Court race swung back and forth today, first with incumbent Justice David Prosser taking the lead, then with challenger JoAnne Kloppenburg taking it back by 125 votes.

The latest, and by far most disturbing, development is that a clerk in Wisconsin's biggest conservative country has suddenly "found" a huge amount of votes for Prosser. JS Online:

David Prosser gained about 7,582 votes in Waukesha County, according to a summary statement from the board of canvassers.
Canvassers around the state were updating their totals Thursday, with Prosser and JoAnne Kloppenburg each making gains.
Those changes pale in comparison to the change in Waukesha County, where Prosser's total increased by 11,008 and Kloppenburg's rose 3,426.

This seems more than a little strange.

We've added the Kloppenburg recount fund to the Orange to Blue page. If you want to help get to the bottom of this, please chip in $5

Read The Full Article:
http://feeds.dailykos.com/~r/dailykos/index/~3/QcO6bx6saOI/-Wisconsin-Supreme-Cou
rt:-Local-clerk-finds-over-7,000-votes-for-Prosser

Digg this

UPDATED: Conservative Waukesha County Clerk
"Finds" 7,000 Votes For Prosser

post from Crooks and Liars on 07 April 2011 06:36:25 PM. © Crooks and Liars

4:30pm Update: In her press conference about a half-hour ago, Kathy Nickolaus claimed she failed to import the results from Brookfield City into her master tally that was reported to the press. The numbers she reported as an 'update' which gave Prosser 7,000 more votes were clearly reported in real time on election night.

As expected, Brookfield city voters ran up a good turnout in the state Supreme Court race and gave incumbent Justice David Prosser nearly 11,000 votes.
Unofficial, unaudited results showed 76 percent of city residents who voted picked Prosser, with 24 percent voting for challenger JoAnne Kloppenburg.

The numbers were identical to the ones Nickolaus just reported. She claims they weren't imported into the spreadsheet, but if that were true, the discrepancy should have been 14,715 votes total.

Part of the problem is how she's using different numbers for the same conclusion. The difference between 14,715 and 3,456 is 7,403. Those would be the "extra". But in order to believe her, you have to assume the AP just let an entire town and a bunch of precincts stand at ZERO despite having reported in nearly 15,000 votes.

-->End update

Sure, sure it was a computer error. This comes from County Clerk Kathy Nickolaus just a few minutes ago.

David Prosser gained about 7,582 votes in Waukesha County, according to a summary statement from the board of canvassers.
Canvassers around the state were updating their totals Thursday, with Prosser and JoAnne Kloppenburg each making gains.
Those changes pale in comparison to the change in Waukesha County, where Prosser's total increased by 11,008 and Kloppenburg's rose 3,426.
County Clerk Kathy Nickolaus is planning a news conference in about 20 minutes to explain the change from initial reports Tuesday night.
Waukesha County's board of canvassers just met in the county courthouse in Waukesha. It was earlier reported that Prosser picked up 200 votes in New Berlin after a clerical error was discovered, according to Pat Karcher, a member of the board of canvassers in Waukesha County. Karcher spoke during a break in the canvassers meeting. The error occurred in Ward 12, where a vote for Prosser was reported as 37 but the tape revealed 237 votes for Prosser.

It seems that Kathy Nickolaus has a history with regard to questionable election practices:

The issue came to a head when Nickolaus removed the election results collection and tallying system from the county computer network this spring and installed it on standalone personal computers in her office. She has said they are backed up with redundant systems.
Director of Administration Norman A. Cummings said Nickolaus has been uncooperative with attempts to have information technologists review the system and confirm the backups.
He said he isn't interested in placing the system on the county network, but he wants to know whether the system is functional and secure and whether the county will have to replace equipment and programs in the next budget year - in time for the next presidential election.
"It is not a good idea to have one person in charge of everything," Cummings told the committee. "There should be someone who also reviews things. I'm not saying it should be IT. But there should be more accountability than there is now."
Nickolaus had asked for a postponement of the discussion because she had scheduled poll worker training before the matter was scheduled for committee action.
In several memos to the committee, she said she didn't have confidence that security wouldn't be breached with the county's information technology department.
She presented information from the U.S. Election Assistance Commission that said voting systems should never be connected to a network not under the election official's control.
She also said she's running the most current election software certified - as required - by the state.
The only old equipment, she wrote, was a computer that collects results from local polling places by modem over the telephone lines.
Waukesha County is one of three or four counties that use that method.

Read The Full Article:
http://crooksandliars.com/breaking-news/conservative-waukesha-county-clerk-f

Digg this

Conservative Waukesha County Clerk "Finds" 7,000
Votes For Prosser

post from Crooks and Liars on 07 April 2011 06:36:25 PM. © Crooks and Liars

Sure, sure it was a computer error. This comes from County Clerk Kathy Nickolaus just a few minutes ago.

David Prosser gained about 7,582 votes in Waukesha County, according to a summary statement from the board of canvassers.
Canvassers around the state were updating their totals Thursday, with Prosser and JoAnne Kloppenburg each making gains.
Those changes pale in comparison to the change in Waukesha County, where Prosser's total increased by 11,008 and Kloppenburg's rose 3,426.
County Clerk Kathy Nickolaus is planning a news conference in about 20 minutes to explain the change from initial reports Tuesday night.
Waukesha County's board of canvassers just met in the county courthouse in Waukesha. It was earlier reported that Prosser picked up 200 votes in New Berlin after a clerical error was discovered, according to Pat Karcher, a member of the board of canvassers in Waukesha County. Karcher spoke during a break in the canvassers meeting. The error occurred in Ward 12, where a vote for Prosser was reported as 37 but the tape revealed 237 votes for Prosser.

It seems that Kathy Nickolaus has a history with regard to questionable election practices:

The issue came to a head when Nickolaus removed the election results collection and tallying system from the county computer network this spring and installed it on standalone personal computers in her office. She has said they are backed up with redundant systems.
Director of Administration Norman A. Cummings said Nickolaus has been uncooperative with attempts to have information technologists review the system and confirm the backups.
He said he isn't interested in placing the system on the county network, but he wants to know whether the system is functional and secure and whether the county will have to replace equipment and programs in the next budget year - in time for the next presidential election.
"It is not a good idea to have one person in charge of everything," Cummings told the committee. "There should be someone who also reviews things. I'm not saying it should be IT. But there should be more accountability than there is now."
Nickolaus had asked for a postponement of the discussion because she had scheduled poll worker training before the matter was scheduled for committee action.
In several memos to the committee, she said she didn't have confidence that security wouldn't be breached with the county's information technology department.
She presented information from the U.S. Election Assistance Commission that said voting systems should never be connected to a network not under the election official's control.
She also said she's running the most current election software certified - as required - by the state.
The only old equipment, she wrote, was a computer that collects results from local polling places by modem over the telephone lines.
Waukesha County is one of three or four counties that use that method.

Read The Full Article:
http://crooksandliars.com/breaking-news/conservative-waukesha-county-clerk-f

Digg this

Gates Floats Continued US Presence in Iraq, Says
Maliki Must Decide Soon

post from Firedoglake on 07 April 2011 06:34:34 PM. © Firedoglake

I don't think there's a bigger campaign promise that Barack Obama made than getting troops out of Iraq. His opposition to the war is the reason he won the nomination; I don't even think that's a controversial statement. And of the many advances he's[...]

Read The Full Article:
http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/firedoglake/fdl/~3/8_OUAksTj80/

Digg this

NH-Gov: John Lynch (D) Totally Romping

post from Daily Kos on 07 April 2011 06:20:01 PM. © Daily Kos

Lynch
Public Policy Polling (PDF) (3/31-4/3, New Hampshire voters, no trendlines):

John Lynch (D-inc): 57
Jeb Bradley (R): 33
Undecided: 10
John Lynch (D-inc): 57
Ovide Lamontagne (R): 33
Undecided: 10
John Lynch (D-inc): 57
John Stephen (R): 29
Undecided: 14
John Lynch (D-inc): 54
John Sununu (R): 36
Undecided: 11
^{(MoE: ±3.5%)}

John Lynch is nobody's idea of a partisan progressive fighter, and we don't even know if he'll seek an unprecedented fifth two-year term, but after last November's utter wipeout in New Hampshire, these numbers have to be heartening to any Democrat. Lynch faced a competitive race from John Stephen in 2010, ultimately winning by eight, so it's pretty remarkable to see Stephen not even cracking 30. The best performance comes from ex-Sen. John Sununu, but at 18 points back and terrible favorables, Bununu doesn't look so hot, either.

The obvious question to ask here is what does PPP's sample look like, since they're showing such a big reversal of fortune. It's 35 D, 29 R and 36 I, which makes it much more Democratic (and much less independent) than the last two exit polls have shown: 29 D, 27 R & 44 I in 2008, and 27 D, 30 R & 43 I in 2010. However (and this is an important however), respondents say they supported Obama in 2008 by a 51-42 score, very close to Obama's actual 9.6% margin.

In a number of states, PPP has been showing a 2012 electorate that's quite similar to the 2008 voter universe, something that's been greeted with some skepticism given what seemed like record-high enthusiasm for Barack Obama last time out. We'll see if history repeats, of course, but PPP nailed things last cycle, and unless and until another pollster (who actually shows their work - I'm looking at you, Quinnipiac) comes along to contradict their work, I'm going to give them the benefit of the doubt.

Read The Full Article:
http://feeds.dailykos.com/~r/dailykos/index/~3/OJIkaQOb1No/-NH-Gov:-John-Lynch-(D
)-TotallyRomping

Digg this

President Obamas speech at the National Action
Networks Keepers of the Dream Awards Gala

post from AAreports on 07 April 2011 06:02:26 PM. © AAreports

Watch President Obama’s speech at the National Action Network’s Keepers of the Dream Awards Gala in New York. April 6, 2011: http://aareports.com/2011/04/obama-speech-at-national-action.html

Read The Full Article:
http://glciii.wordpress.com/2011/04/08/president-obamas-speech-at-the-national-ac
tion-networks-keepers-of-the-dream-awards-gala/

Digg this

DOJ Probe Finds Obama Appointee Wouldn't Allow
Outright Dismissal Of New Black Panther Party Case

post from TPMMuckraker on 07 April 2011 06:01:53 PM. © TPMMuckraker

An Obama administration official at the Justice Department told a subordinate that he wouldn't accept the outright dismissal of a high-profile civil voter intimidation case against members of the New Black Panther Party, according to a report by DOJ's internal ethics office.

The report from DOJ's Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) found that Assistant Attorney General Thomas Perrelli told Loretta King (the then-acting Assistant Attorney General of the Civil Rights Division) that he "would accept any outcome in the case so long as the entire case was not dismissed outright (because a man with a nightstick at a polling place appeared to present a case of voter intimidation) and the proposed relief did not violate the Constitution." Adam Serwer was the first reported on the conclusions of the full OPR report, which was posted online by the Democrats on the House Judiciary Committee this afternoon.

OPR's finding is in direct opposition to the narrative that has been making its way through the conservative media in the nearly two years since the Obama administration obtained an injunction against the New Black Panther who was seen on a widely circulated video holding a nightstick outside of a polling place in Philadelphia. DOJ dropped the case against another New Black Panther and the national party. Republicans in Congress have even gone as far as to call the extremist fringe group a "political ally" of the Obama administration.

King, who is a career lawyer in the Civil Rights Division but was temporarily serving in a politically appointed position at the time she made the decision on how to proceed in the NBPP case, told OPR that the complaint written by the NBPP team appeared to be full of hyperbole and exaggeration.

The OPR report also indicates that, unsurprisingly, Attorney General Eric Holder isn't an active Fox News viewer. He told OPR that a meeting on May 5 in which King informed him of the litigation decision she was considering making with the voter intimidation suit was the first time he recalled learning about the NBPP incident. During the meeting, said OPR, Holder "acknowledged the negative media attention that might result from King's decision."

The gist of OPR's findings was previously disclosed in a letter to members of Congress and a full copy of the report was sent to House Judiciary Committee Chairman Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas) and Ranking Member Rep. John Conyers (D-MI) this week.

The 79-page report traces the genesis of the civil voter intimidation case back to Election Day 2008, when two Civil Rights Division lawyers (one in the Voting Section and another in the Criminal Section) learned of the story in the early afternoon. They shared the story, which had been reported on Fox News, with colleagues monitoring and responding to elections issues.

Craig Donsanto, who was the director of the Election Crimes Branch of the Public Integrity Section of DOJ's Criminal Division, emailed a number of Justice Department employees as well as the U.S. Attorney's office in Pennsylvania and the FBI. He wrote in the 2:53 p.m. email:

The report also describes a bizarre scene in which two DOJ lawyers (whose names are redacted but based on publicly available records are J. Christian Adams and Spencer Fisher) traveled to Philadelphia on Dec. 20 and showed up unannounced at the home of a couple who were serving as poll watchers for the Republican Party on Election Day. One of the lawyers told OPR that he vehemently argued against traveling to Philadelphia the weekend before Christmas, but that then-Deputy Chief of the Voting Section Robert Popper instructed them to do so.

They didn't record the interview or take any notes, but one of the attorneys said in an email written on the train ride back to Washington that the couple told them they didn't have any interaction with the New Black Panthers and that the husband emphasized that he wasn't scared by the two men. The DOJ attorney wrote that he believed they were the type of witnesses who would only be forthcoming if they were able to develop a trust and that he thought there was more to the story than the couple was willing to tell them when they showed up on their door on the Saturday evening before Christmas.

There's plenty more about how the decision played out in the full report, which is embedded below. But there's one part of the report that you can expect to raise the ire of conservatives going forward: the statement of Julie Fernandes in response to allegations from former Justice Department attorney J. Christian Adams and former Voting Section Chief Christopher Coates (both of whom were tied to the politicization of the Civil Rights Division during the Bush administration) that the Justice Department isn't interested in enforcing a provision of the National Voter Registration Act, which requires states to clean up their voter roles. From the report:

Fernandes told OPR that section 8 protects against voter fraud and that, when it comes to prioritizing work in the Division with limited resources, combating voter fraud (as opposed to finding ways to promote voter access) is not her top priority. Nonetheless, Fernandes said that she would consider authorizing suit in a meritorious section 8 case if one were presented to her.

Here's the full OPR report:

Department of Justice OPR Report on the New Black Panther Party Matter

Read The Full Article:
http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/TPMmuckraker/~3/WM6K4YWUAi4/doj_probe_finds_obama_
appointee_wouldnt_allow_outright_dismissal_of_new_black_panther_party_case.php

Digg this

Just listen to Bryan Fischer: How can Newt claim
the AFA isn't a hate group

Bryan Fischer: Constitution only covers Christians, not Muslims -- so we should outlaw Muslim immigration

Click here to view this media

As Igor Volsky at ThinkProgress reported the other day, Newt Gingrich insists that the American Family Association -- a group he channeled massive amounts of funding into -- really isn't a hate group, as the SPLC has designated them, along with other viciously gay-bashing groups like the Family Research Council.

Obviously, he hasn't spent any time listening to Bryan Fischer, or better yet, reading his columns (via JoeMyGod):

We have spent over $16 trillion fighting the war on poverty, and it?s time to run up the white flag of surrender. Poverty has won. We now have more people on food stamps - think children here - than at any time in our history. The war on poverty has been a total, dismal failure and it?s time to recognize that. You get more of whatever you subsidize. You subsidize poverty, which we have done since 1965, and you just get more of it.
Welfare has destroyed the African-American family by telling young black women that husbands and fathers are unnecessary and obsolete. Welfare has subsidized illegitimacy by offering financial rewards to women who have more children out of wedlock. We have incentivized fornication rather than marriage, and it?s no wonder we are now awash in the disastrous social consequences of people who rut like rabbits.
And children are the ones who get chewed up. Welfare, as Walter Williams has pointed out, has done what slavery, racism and Jim Crow laws could not do: destroy the black family. The Christ-centered statesman puts himself in the place of a fatherless black child, sees the catastrophic damage that the meltdown of the family has caused, and pursues policies to wean people off marriage- and child-destroying welfare, and pursues policies that incentivize marriage, incentivize self-reliance rather than abject dependence, and incentivize the reconstruction of the American family.

Got that? All those black folks are ruttin' like rabbits because we've let them have welfare instead of their previous condition, which involved starvation in poverty. Most likely Fischer prefers the previous option -- it builds character, as Glenn Beck would say.

This is stuff straight out of the David Duke handbook. Indeed, it isn't hard to envision Fischer intoning this into a mike through a Klan Grand Dragon mask.

The AFA was obviously embarrassed by this outburst of naked racist hatemongering and changed the text of the post so that the last sentence now reads:

We have incentivized fornication rather than marriage, and it?s no wonder we are now awash in the disastrous social consequences of those who engage in random and reckless promiscuity, whether they are Caucasian, Hispanic, or African-American.

[A screen grab of the original is here.]

But that didn't matter -- because then Fischer published a new post not only defending his original post, but actually stating it all over again, including the "rutting like rabbits" bit:

This was in response to my statement that our welfare policies - in which we subsidize and reward sex outside of marriage - is incentivizing people of all ethnic groups to ?rut like rabbits.? This is a simple and unmistakable fact. You get more of whatever you subsidize, and we are clearly getting more sex outside of marriage and more children born out of wedlock than ever before. (I have since made changes in my original column to clarify any confusion and misinterpretation of my comments.)
I was commenting on the effect of our misguided welfare policies across the board, and was not singling out the African-American community in particular, although the consequences of our disastrous welfare policies are felt most acutely there. I was speaking generally to the fact that fallen human nature is going to gravitate to whatever behavior government rewards, even if the behavior itself is self-destructive.
Because we are subsidizing fornication and illegitimacy - every illegitimate baby means more taxpayer money for the mother - we now have 40% of all babies being born out of wedlock overall. In the Hispanic community, the number is over 50% and in the African-American community, the number is now catastrophically over 70%.

And that's just how he talks about black people. As Karoli has explained, he's every bit as bad when it comes to gays and lesbians.

Then there's the way he bashes Muslims -- by claiming they have no constitutional rights:

Islam has no fundamental First Amendment claims, for the simple reason that it was not written to protect the religion of Islam. Islam is entitled only to the religious liberty we extend to it out of courtesy. While there certainly ought to be a presumption of religious liberty for non-Christian religious traditions in America, the Founders were not writing a suicide pact when they wrote the First Amendment.
Our government has no obligation to allow a treasonous ideology to receive special protections in America, but this is exactly what the Democrats are trying to do right now with Islam.
From a constitutional point of view, Muslims have no First Amendment right to build mosques in America. They have that privilege at the moment, but it is a privilege that can be revoked if, as is in fact the case, Islam is a totalitarian ideology dedicated to the destruction of the United States. The Constitution, it bears repeating, is not a suicide pact. For Muslims, patriotism is not the last refuge of a scoundrel, but the First Amendment is.

And because they have no constitutional rights, there's no reason to permit Muslim to immigrate to America, either -- in fact, Fischer insists such immigration should be outlawed, along with the building of mosques on American soil:

Immigration is obviously a matter for Congress, since authority to control immigration is vested by the Constitution in Congress. But we must never forget that immigration to the United States is a privilege, not a right, and that we should follow the wisdom of the Founders who urged that we only admit to our shores those who will strengthen our nation and assimilate themselves into it, adopting our flag, our history, our heroes, and our values. This is something that devout Muslims simply cannot do. The privilege of immigration should be reserved for those willing to integrate into our culture, become unhyphenated Americans, and adopt American values.
So immigration is a congressional issue. But as I explained above, states have considerable latitude in religious liberty matters, and states are thus free to ban the building of any more mosques within their borders. If states won?t do it, then local planning and zoning commissions can and must do it. And if we understand the Constitution as given to us by the Founders, there is no constitutional impediment in their doing so.

More recently, his anti-Muslim rants have taken on a distinctly familiar cast:

Via Brian at RightWingWatch:

We allow unrestricted Muslim immigration into the United States we are welcoming to our shores, welcoming to our borders, men who are determined to destroy us. They?ve said it themselves, it?s in their own writings, it?s in their own words; they?re out to eliminate and destroy western civilization. It?s just absolute folly to invite that kind of toxic cancer into our culture, but that?s what we?re doing every single day.

This, of course, fits my basic definition of eliminationism to a T:

[A] politics and a culture that shuns dialogue and the democratic exchange of ideas in favor of the pursuit of outright elimination of the opposing side, either through suppression, exile, and ejection, or extermination.
Rhetorically, eliminationism takes on certain distinctive shapes. It always depicts its opposition as beyond the pale, the embodiment of evil itself, unfit for participation in their vision of society, and thus worthy of elimination. It often further depicts its designated Enemy as vermin (especially rats and cockroaches) or diseases, and disease-like cancers on the body politic. A close corollary?but not as nakedly eliminationist?are claims that opponents are traitors or criminals and that they pose a threat to our national security.
Eliminationism is often voiced as crude "jokes," a sense of humor inevitably predicated on venomous hatred. And such rhetoric?we know as surely as we know that night follows day?eventually begets action, with inevitably tragic results.

Read The Full Article:
http://crooksandliars.com/david-neiwert/just-listen-bryan-fischer-how-can-ne

Digg this

Troops won't get paid but Boehner will if govt
shut down

This would be a good time for everyone in Congress to put their money where their mouth is. If they're comfortable with screwing military families, they should be fine with going without a paycheck as well. Why do Teabagging members of Congress hate the military? The Atlantic:

If lawmakers are unable to pass a budget before the April 8 deadline, soldiers will stop getting their paychecks. Meanwhile, President Obama, Speaker Boehner, and the rest of our federally elected representatives will continue to get paid. The comparison is quickly becoming the easiest way to frame the point of how the people who are responsible for averting a government shutdown will be shielded from its impact. Thus, headlines like "Boehner to Be Paid as Soldiers Wait If Government Closes," which is running on Julianna Goldman's Bloomberg report.

The President and members of Congress will be paid during a shutdown, in part because their salaries aren't paid out of regular appropriations bills but instead through a mandatory spending statute. If they want to change that, they'll have to pass new legislation. The Senate unanimously passed such a bill in March, but it went nowhere in the House. Some politicians are smart enough to realize this situation doesn't offer the best optics, which is why Sen. Joe Machin, Barbara Boxer, and several other legislators are now pledging that they won't take a salary if the government shuts down.