Craziest Conservative of the Day: Bryan Fischer

By Michael J.W. Stickings

It almost sounds like a joke -- until you realize that this guy's insane (in a right-wing theocratic sort of way):

Bryan Fischer really hates it when animals attack. Like, hates it so much that he thinks we'd be better off without them.

Which is why Fischer, who is the "Director of Issues Analysis" for the conservative Christian group the American Family Association, wrote a blog post today called "A hot dog on two legs -- time for open season on Yellowstone grizzlies," in which he refers to Grizzly Bears as a "curse" and says that "it's time" for the grizzlies to go.

*****

Fischer posted the piece on his "Rightly Concerned" blog, which is "a project of the American Family Association." 

He's apparently concerned about the high number of bear-on-human attacks in Yellowstone this year:

"One human being is worth more than an infinite number of grizzly bears," Fischer writes. "Another way to put it is that there is no number of live grizzlies worth one dead human being. If it's a choice between grizzlies and humans, the grizzlies have to go. And it's time."

He continues: "Of course there is a simple answer: shoot these man-eaters on sight."

Actually, this fucking shithead isn't worth a single hair on a grizzly's back. (And they're not "man-eaters," and resorting to the Bible, as he does in his piece (of course), only makes him look even more stupid.)

And don't think Fischer's just some fringe figure:

Fischer is a favorite of social conservative Republicans, and even spoke at the Values Voter summit this fall alongside Mitt Romney, Jim DeMint, and other big-name Republicans.

And -- surprise, surprise -- he hates Muslims, too:

Many also know him for having suggested that there should be "no more mosques, period" in the U.S. because "every single mosque is a potential terror training center or recruitment center for jihad."

No wonder he's so popular on the right. 

**********

As Rachel Maddow notes, "not even Sarah Palin advocates shooting animals for the sake of wiping them off the face of the earth -- and especially not grizzlies." 

It's time for Stephen Colbert to get over his (satirical) fear and come to the bears' defence against this sort of abject craziness.

Newt and Dinesh, crazy together

By Michael J.W. Stickings

"Why is Gingrich pushing Dinesh D'Souza's crazy theory about Obama's 'Kenyan anti-colonialism'?" Because, as the title of David Weigel's Slate piece helpfully explains, "Newt is Nuts!"

And so is Dinesh, of course, who's pushing yet more unfounded idiocy in his new book, The Roots of Obama's Rage, just as he has in everything he's ever written. It's like he's desperate to shock, desperate for attention, and desperate to be accepted as one of the leading conservative minds of the day. Writes Weigel, "D'Souza was the first modern conservative author to discover -- the hard way -- that if you want to be a pundit, there is no downside to making a reprehensible argument." Needless to say, countless many on the right have followed in his footsteps.

And it's all ridiculous nonsense -- as if Obama can be explained away, written off, as an angry, bitter, Marxist anti-colonial (and hence, in D'Souza's view, as a radical anti-American leftist).

Newt is full of such bullshit himself. It's hardly any wonder these two are linked together in common cause, both crazy to the core.

(For more, see Mustang Bobby's post from yesterday, which suggests that Gingrich is "insanely jealous" of Obama.)

The Obama Code

By Capt. Fogg

What's black and white and red all over? What about proof that Barack Obama has a Muslim agenda?

The "Conservative blogosphere" as Raw Story calls that big ball of slime, is "abuzz" with much sound and fury now that the "Conservative" Drudge Report has identified the new logo of the Missile Defense Agency as a secretly coded message that Barack Obama is going to make the USA a Muslim country through the use of anti-ballistic lasers and missiles.

This fits in with my theory that because the US flag has red stripes and stars, Betsy Ross was a Chinese Communist.

"New Missile Defense Agency Logo Causes Online Commotion,"

says the Drudge Report. I'm sure he'd like that to be true and perhaps he will be able to create commotion amongst the large proportion of his readers with fewer working synapses than a jar of mayonnaise. Perhaps there are other mental midgets so terribly desperate for more absurd calumny to be flung at the White House they'll willfully suspend the kind of disbelief that would inhibit a normal person, but we'll see just how far the "conservatives" can pull that anti-American bandwagon before the clowns themselves jump off and the mules run away giggling.

Yes, it's red, white and blue and looks, if you're astigmatic, vaguely like the President's campaign logo based on the US flag. It has some curved lines perhaps to suggest missile trajectories and orbiting satellites. There's a point of light indicating a missile hit with a laser, which if you're trying hard might suggest a star and as everyone knows, the flag of Turkey, a predominantly Muslim secular democracy has a crescent moon, a red background and a star, and so does the American based Nation of Islam which has had known terrorist members like Mohammad Ali and Michael Jackson and Kareem Abdul-Jabbar and John Coltrane, so how can we avoid that hidden message shouting at us? Thorazine or some heavy anti-psychotic drugs perhaps?

Drudge packer Frank Gaffney, writing at BigGovernment.com, a Web site run by the well known "conservative" blogger Andrew Breitbart, says the new logo may be a sign that the Obama administration has "nefarious" plans for US defense. No, really. You couldn't make this up or at least you couldn't try to sell it while keeping a straight face, even to an idiot -- or to American "conservatives" whichever is stupider and more demented.

Hey, have you ever noticed that the Capitol building has a dome? Like the Dome of the Rock maybe? And the Washington monument looks a lot like a minaret - and don't you hear those voices?

(Cross posted from Human Voices)

Obscene holocaust exploitation, teabagger-style

By (O)CT(O)PUS

Notice this poster that equates Holocaust victims with national healthcare reform. Protestors displayed this poster today at a rally near the Capital steps, an event sponsored and organized by House Republicans. More than tasteless hyperbole, it goes far beyond all boundaries of civility and decorum. It is obscene to exploit the Holocaust to score a political point, and it offends me to the core! There are times when a non-violent Octopus would like to smack a tea bagger, and this is the time!

Here are the names of House Republicans sponsoring this insult:

Minority Leader John Boehner (OH), Minority Whip Eric Cantor (VA), Roy Blunt (MO), Jeb Hensarling (TX), Cathy McMorris Rodgers (WA), Michele Bachmann (MN) -- a key organizer of the event, Virginia Foxx (NC), Ginny Brown-Waite (FL), Jean Schmidt (OH), Sue Myrick (NC), among others.

One would think Eric Cantor, the only Jewish Republican in the U.S. Congress, would have shown better judgment than to associate with such shameful imagery. Noo! How do you spell s.c.h.m.u.c.k. ? If any of these reprobates appear on our beach, drown them at once!

(Cross-posted at The Swash Zone.)

Pat Robertson: Christianity as hateful bigotry

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Consider what fascist-theocrat Pat Robertson said about the Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Prevention Act, a bill, signed into law by President Obama the other day, that extends hate-crime protection to sexual orientation:

The noose has tightened around the necks of Christians to keep them from speaking out on certain moral issues. And it all was embodied in something called the hate crimes bill that President Obama said was a major victory for America. I'm not sure if America was the beneficiary. [...] We have voted into office a group of people who are opposed to many of the fundamental Christian beliefs of our nation. And they hold to radical ideology, and they are beginning put people sharing their points of view into high office. And not only that, they not only have control of both houses of Congress.

Consider Robertson's "logic" here: The legislation silences Christians. Apparently, it is Christian to be hateful. Apparently, anyone or anything that prevents Christians from being hateful, or speaking hate, is anti-Christian, and anti-American. America is Christian. Since Christianity is hateful, so is America.

Just so we're all clear.

Christians, and Americans, should be disgusted and outraged.

Craziest Conservative of the Day: Bill Donohue

By Michael J.W. Stickings

For his "On Faith" guest piece in Monday's WaPo -- sorry, I'm a bit late getting to it.

WaPo should be ashamed of itself for publishing this extremist rant by a man who gives all faith, but especially Catholicism, a bad name. As TNR's Chris Orr put it, Donohue's piece is "really too vile even to mock," a truly "foul screed." Here, for your reading displeasure, is a taste:

Sexual libertines, from the Marquis de Sade to radical gay activists, have sought to pervert society by acting out on their own perversions. What motivates them most of all is a pathological hatred of Christianity. They know, deep down, that what they are doing is wrong, and they shudder at the dreaded words, "Thou Shalt Not." But they continue with their death-style anyway.

*****

The culture war is up for grabs. The good news is that religious conservatives continue to breed like rabbits, while secular saboteurs have shut down: they're too busy walking their dogs, going to bathhouses and aborting their kids. Time, it seems, is on the side of the angels.

What's wrong with dog-walking? How is that part of our "death-style"? Whatever. Donohue lashes out with reckless, ignorant abandon at a variety of targets, including art and education -- indeed, he lashes out pretty much at the entirety of liberal modernity, at secularism broadly, though without much structure or focus, and certainly without intelligence.

Oh, here's another fantastic passage:

Catholics were once the mainstay of the Democratic Party; now the gay activists are in charge.

Gay activists like... Obama? Reid? Right, sure.

And another:

Secularists within Catholicism and Protestantism are so out of control that it makes one wonder how any serious-minded person would ever accuse these religions of being oppressive.

Right, because those "religions" (aren't they denominations -- isn't Christianity the religion?) aren't oppressive at all in keeping their deluded followers in a perpetual state of ignorance and submission.

 

Okay, enough. I've just mocked it despite its wall-to-wall vileness. But it deserves the mocking. As does Bill Donohue, bigot extraordinaire, our craziest, nastiest, most repugnant conservative of the day.

Conservative craziness on climate change

By Michael J.W. Stickings

I love it when conservatives find one global warming denying "scientist" and pump him and his (or her) crazy ideas out of all justifiable proportion, as if a single denier is enough to overturn almost the entire edifice of legitimate and mainstream scientific thought.

Paul Bedard, author of right-leaning U.S. News and World Report's right-leaning "Washington Whispers" blog, did just that a couple of days ago, "reporting" -- in a neutral tone but with a clear bias -- that a geologist named Leighton Steward "has turned his attention to convincing Congress that carbon dioxide emissions are good for the Earth and don't cause global warming."

I kid you not.

Apparently, this geologist -- and it's not clear how exactly he's a climate expert -- has "a mountain of studies and scientific evidence that suggest CO2 is not the cause for warming" at his disposal. Apparently, all those scientists among the overwhelming majority of the scientific community that has concluded that carbon dioxide emission by human beings (or, rather, caused by human beings) is in fact the leading cause of global warming either aren't aware of this mountain or choose to ignore it, preferring instead to spin a lie. Apparently, this "noted geologist" knows the truth, namely, that global warming is actually caused by solar activity. Apparently, he actually thinks "CO2 levels are so low that more, not less, is needed to sustain and expand plant growth."

You want crazy? There's crazy.

You want more crazy? Here you go:

In taking on lawmakers pushing for a cap-and-trade plan to deal with emissions, Steward tells Whispers that he's worried that the legislation will result in huge and unneeded taxes. Worse, if CO2 levels are cut, he warns, food production will slow because plants grown at higher CO2 levels make larger fruit and vegetables and also use less water. He also said that higher CO2 levels are not harmful to humans. As an example, he said that Earth's atmosphere currently has about 338 parts per million of CO2 and that in Navy subs, the danger level for carbon dioxide isn't reached until the air has 8,000 parts per million of CO2.

His preoccupation with taxes gives away his political agenda -- and his credibility (not that he had much to begin with). He's solidly in the James Inhofe camp.

But the rest of that? Come on. It's one thing to offer an alternative scientific theory, quite another to make shit up. We're not talking about what is immediately poisonous to human beings, we're talking about rising CO2 levels to the point where the global climate is changing, precipitating potentially disastrous consequences. No, higher levels may not kill human beings directly, but they may cause, will cause, are already causing changes that are certainly harmful to human beings. Ask the residents of the Gulf Coast, for example, if stronger hurricanes caused by rising seawater temperatures are harmful. Ask the residents of Canada's north if changing migration patterns are harmful to their way of life. Ask the residents of low-lying areas of the world, notably in poverty-stricken, densely-populated regions, if the flooding they are experiencing and will experience even more strongly in future is harmful. It isn't just the scientific community that would disagree with Steward.

Of course, Steward has a culprit: solar activity. I'm sure he, his debunked theories, and his do-nothing approach will find a receptive audience among Republicans on Capitol Hill. And that's the real danger. He gives them what they want, which is token scientific support for their conservative agenda, and they'll defend that agenda with the weight of this supposed "mountain" of studies and evidence.

Democrats, and the rest of us who live in reality, would do well not just to dismiss him as a hack with a partisan agenda but to continue to summon to our side the full weight of the scientific community. There are dissenters, to be sure, but the overriding consensus is clear.

Craziest Conservative of the Day: Betsy McCaughey

By Michael J.W. Stickings

I cannot do justice here to Michelle Cottle's excellent article on Betsy McCaughey, one of the leading right-wing voices against health-care reform -- she was against Hillarycare and she's against it now. You may remember her from her embarrassing performance on The Daily Show recently, when Jon Stewart politely, but firmly, exposed as the know-nothing twit she is. She's one of the driving forces behind the whole "death panel" lie, which tells you all you need to know about her principles and priorities. And yet she also seems to be genuinely insane. Some of the critics on the right surely know better, and know that they are spinning misinformation, that they are working, in large part, to manipulate the masses, and their own mob. But McCaughey seems to be a true believer. For her, the lies are the truth, and she doesn't seem to know any better. Just watch the clips (linked to above). Check out her mannerisms, look at her eyes, listen to the utter nonsense spewing from her mouth. She's fucked up crazy. Or so it seems.

Make sure to read Cottle's piece in full.

Craziest Conservative of the Day: John Derbyshire

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Derbyshire, who writes for the National Review, is one of those retrograde conservatives who wants to take America back to the '50s. The 1850s... or the 1650s... back to some idyllic right-wing Dark Age.

Appearing on Alan Colmes's radio show the other day, and asked by Colmes about a section in his new book called "The Case Against Female Suffrage," he actually argued against women having the right to vote:

DERBYSHIRE: Among the hopes that I do not realistically nurse is the hope that female suffrage will be repealed. But I'll say this – if it were to be, I wouldn't lose a minute's sleep.

COLMES: We'd be a better country if women didn't vote?

DERBYSHIRE: Probably. Don't you think so?

COLMES: No, I do not think so whatsoever.

DERBYSHIRE: Come on Alan. Come clean here [laughing].

COLMES: We would be a better country? John Derbyshire making the statement, we would be a better country if women did not vote.

DERBYSHIRE: Yeah, probably.

Now, one would hope that Derbyshire was joking. But he wasn't.

And what is Derbyshire's argument against women's suffrage?

The conservative case against it is that women lean hard to the left. They want someone to nurture, they want someone to help raise their kids, and if men aren't inclined to do it -- and in the present days, they're not much -- then they'd like the state to do it for them.

So he's against it for partisan (women are anti-Republican) and ideological (women are pro-government). Of course, that's partly true, but what Derbyshire's argument amounts to is the desire to take away the vote from anyone who doesn't vote the right way, Derbyshire's extreme right-wing way. And of course he also wants to silence women along the way.

Nice to come clean, Derbyshire (no doubt speaking for many on the right). You don't just want women in the kitchen, obeying your orders and reduced to non-citizen status (if you don't have the right to vote, you're not really a citizen, are you?), you want to rig the political system so that you're guaranteed to win each and every time. Why not just come out against suffrage for blacks and Hispanics, too?

Hey, here's an idea, and it's certainly no crazier than Derbyshire's: I think America would be a better country if Republicans didn't vote. I'd lose a little sleep, I suppose, given my liberal support for universal suffrage, but I'm sure I could put country first and support what's best for America.

Anyone with me?

Craziest Conservative of the Day: Frank Gaffney

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Gaffney had another mediocre day on Sunday against the Raiders, with just four catches for 39 yards. Given that Orton isn't airing the ball out much, and given that he's fourth on the WR depth chart behind Marshall, Royal, and Stokley, he just isn't a good fantasy option at this point. Besides...

Oh wait. That's Jabar Gaffney. Sorry.

Frank's the crazy one -- not that they're related -- and he proved it again over the weekend at the "How to Take Back America Conference" hosted by the Eagle Forum. Take this, for example:

If Bill Clinton, on the basis of special interest pandering and identity politics, was properly called the first Black American President, on that same basis, Barack Obama should be called the first Muslim American President. […] But there is evidence that a lot of Muslims think he is Muslim. But whether he is or whether he isn't, the key to me is, is he pursuing and agenda that is indistinguishable in important respects from that of the Muslim Brotherhood, whose mission ladies and gentlemen, we know from a trial in Dallas last year, is to quote to destroy Western civilization from within by its own miserable hand? That's what we need to keep our eye on.

Uh-huh. Whatever. This is a regurgitation of an old smear, and it continues to be utterly ridiculous: Obama is a "Muslim," in spirit if not in fact, and wants to destroy America. The claim is wholly without merit, of course, but conservatives like Gaffney continue to beat the drum. And conservatives, especially those in attendance at this far-right lovefest of insanity, continue to applaud enthusiastically. (What exactly is Obama doing to bring down America? Then again, anyone who isn't pursuing a radical right-wing and/or neocon agenda is un-American to these extremists.)

Other speakers at the conference were rather less subtle. Obama was equated with Hitler and those speakers who followed Gaffney stated outright that he is a Muslim. (How he's both Hitler and a Muslim is beyond me. It's also beyond me how he's both a fascist and a socialist/communist, but one thing we can't expect from these hate-filled ideologues, apart from sanity, is consistency. They're just going after Obama with every lie they can dream up.)

But back to fantasy football for a moment. After Jennings and Houshmandzadeh, I'm pretty weak at WR. I was fortunate enough to pick up Manningham from the Giants, and I just picked up Nate Washington to replace the injured Laurent Robinson, a potential breakout star this year. I really need Holt to step up, though. I'm 2-1, but I've won a couple of easy match-ups, and I need significantly more production from my WRs if I'm to have any chance of making the playoffs. I'm so unhappy with my team this year. Orton and Favre as my second and third QBs? Portis as my #2 RB? Ouch. Maybe Forte could actually do something, you know, to justify my taking him fourth overall. That'd be nice.

Frank Gaffney is crazy, though, huh? I much prefer Jabar, mediocrity and all.

Craziest Conservative of the Day: Andy Williams

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Yes, Andy Williams, the singer. You know, "Moon River," all that crap. Well, it seems that the crummy crooner is a life-long Republican, and, quite clearly, a crazy conservative. As the Telegraph is reporting, he recently told the BBC's Radio Times that:

Obama is following Marxist theory. He's taken over the banks and the car industry. He wants the country to fail.

"Don't like him at all," he also said. "I think he wants to create a socialist country. The people he associates with are very Left-wing. One is registered as a Communist."

First, whatever happened to not criticizing your country when you're abroad? Didn't the Dixie Chicks get death threats for doing just that?

Second, Obama associates with one Communist? Is that really the extent of the scary Red Menace? So what?

Third, Williams is, evidently, a moron. Obama is a Marxist? Really? Does Williams even know what Marxism is? I suspect not. (Obama is trying to save American capitalism from its own despicable excesses not by replacing it with socialism but through additional regulation to preserve the primacy of the market.) The temporary takeovers of the auto and banking industries are not about nationalization but about trying to stabilize the economy at a time of historic economic crisis. I can only assume that Williams would prefer that the banks fail, which would ruin the economy completely, and that the auto industry collapse, putting tens of thousands of people out of work.

Fourth, it's quite a charge to suggest that Obama wants the country to fail. Obviously, there's no basis for it, but a moron like Williams no doubt buys extremist right-wing propaganda with glee. He is essentially accusing Obama of treason, but is it not treason to make that accusation, not least to a foreign audience?

Fifth... oh, what's the point? Enough of Andy Williams.

To put it nicely, he's clueless. To put it bluntly, he's fucking stupid.

Lefties

By Capt. Fogg

All political violence is committed by the left in this country,

said Ann Coulter, continuing her livelihood of making preposterous proclamations designed to inflame any reasonable person enough to produce a counter attack. Given a sufficiently absurd, preposterous or outrageous premise, that becomes so difficult that most of us are reduced to tears and she to witch-like cackles.

Of course, the fulcrum of that statement, as it so often is, is the definition of "Left." In this case, "Left" would have to include abortion doctor shooters and bombers, schizophrenics trying to impress Jody Foster, people like Byron De La Beckwith and, of course, how can we forget those Islamic "liberals" who blew up the World Trade Center and the Pentagon? If John Wilkes Booth can be a liberal, than there are only three conclusions we can make about Ann Coulter: insane, dishonest, or both.

When something like insisting that there is little danger to a president surrounded by angry opponents equipped with rifles and telescopic sights can inspire even Geraldo Rivera to say she's insane, logic again allows only two conclusions: Rivera is a liberal and ipso facto potentially violent, or he's right and she's insane.

Coulter has a long history of calling the police and claiming people are stalking her. She claims she's more likely to be shot than the president, although one wonders about her reaction to being surrounded by armed men carrying signs calling for her assassination. She said nothing, however, about being more likely to be fed rat poison than the federal judges she deemed worthy of such treatment. I wonder if she has a food taster -- or if she eats what humans eat.



(Cross-posted from Human Voices.)

Craziest Conservative of the Day: Michael Schwartz

By Michael J.W. Stickings

And just who is Michael Schwartz, you ask? Why, he's none other than the chief of staff to Oklahoma Sen. Tom Coburn, and like his boss, and perhaps even more so, he's a right-wing extremist, not least when it comes to that favourite topic of right-wing extremists, homosexuality.

Schwartz spoke at the Family Research Council's "Values Voters Summit" on Saturday, and it was, more or less, just what you might have expected -- but with a twist. Here's some of what he said:

-- It's "a good instinct" for adolescent boys to be anti-gay.

-- "Homosexuality is inflicted on people."

-- Homosexuality is a "lifestyle."

-- Homosexuality is a "malady."

Here's the twist, as Schwartz (amusingly, because so ridiculously) linked homosexuality to pornography:

-- A "very good friend" once told him that "all pornography is homosexual pornography because all pornography turns your sexual drive inwards."

-- Men need to be "healed of" the addiction to pornography.

Now, look, I'm not here to defend pornography. It is what it is, and I've seen enough of it to know that there's a dark side to it. I'm not against it -- far from it -- but I do see that it can tear relationships apart and that it can, if not kept in perspective, pollute one's mind. (Much of it is rather disturbing, to say the least, and there is no doubt it can create expectations that are not only unattainable but unhealthy to pursue.)

But to suggest that all pornography is homosexual is just inane. And insane.

What the likes of Michael Schwartz fear is not just homosexuality, which they see as a plague, but genuine human sexuality generally. They want people to live according to their own fundamentalist dogma -- that is, according to their own lies. They want people to live not according to what is human but according to a construct that seeks to suppress the human.

Schwartz isn't just a theocrat, though, he's a hateful bigot. And he's our Craziest Conservative of the Day.

Craziest Conservative of the Day: Michael Scheuer

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Maybe you read about it at C&L, maybe you heard about last night on The Daily Show. Here's what Michael Scheuer told Glenn Beck, crazy meets crazy, on Tuesday (video below):

The only chance we have as a country right now is for Osama bin Laden to deploy and detonate a major weapon in the United States. Because it's going to take a grass-roots, bottom-up pressure. Because these politicians prize their office, prize the praise of the media and the Europeans. It's an absurd situation again. Only Osama can execute an attack which will force Americans to demand that their government protect them effectively, consistently, and with as much violence as necessary.

Insane. On so many levels.

First, who exactly desires the praise of Europeans? Obama? I'm sure he wants Europe to like him -- and to like America (and what's wrong with that? isn't in America's best interests to have Europe as an ally? -- but it's crazy to suggest that somehow "these politicians" (and again, who?) -- are driven primarily by a concern for Europe.

Second, who are "the media" and "the Europeans"? Are all media the same? Does "the media" include Politico, Fox News, and The Wall Street Journal, three leading media outlets that also happen to lean to the right? And is Europe just some monolith of monotony? Crazy on both counts.

Third -- okay, I was just putting it off, here's the key point -- what the fuck?

You know, sometimes you just have to thank whatever god or gods you happen to believe in, or, if no god, just thank you lucky stars, when a conservative comes out and tells it like it is.

Because isn't that what Scheuer did?

Now, look, I'm not saying all conservatives are hoping for a massive terrorist attack on the U.S. I hope that most aren't -- and I'm sure the more sane among them aren't.

But what's clear is that conservatives like Scheuer -- and there are many of them (neocons, mostly, but not only), -- promote a Cheney-esque national security agenda that is, at its core, violent.

Consider how Scheuer put it: "with as much violence as necessary." What does that mean? It means, presumably, an agressive, warmongering foreign policy and an agressive, repressive domestic policy. It means war abroad but also a trampling of the Constitution at home. It means an executive branch, and a president specifically, liberated from any and all checks and balances. It means domestic surveillance without checks. It means torture. It means, essentially, a police state. Actually, what it means is fascism. And you'd be correct to find in Scheuer's words the very justification for oppression that has underpinned authoritarian and totalitarian regimes throughout history: An enemy is upon us; therefore, we crack down.

The problem is, try as they might, these conservatives can't get what they want just by scaring up an enemy. 9/11 provided the basis for the Bush Administration's crackdown, but, alas, 9/11 has receded into memory, and, well, Americans still cherish their liberties.

So what Scheuer and his ilk need, if they are to be successful in achieving their fascistic aims, is not just another attack but a major attack, an attack with "a major weapon" -- a nuclear attack, a biological or chemical attack, something much bigger than 9/11, something that would scare the people into submission.

This is clearly what they think they need, and -- yes, thank you -- Scheuer admitted it. It's rare to get such a far-reaching glimpse into the conservative mind.

And it is possible that, in the event of such an attack, the people would willingly give up their liberties and allow a fascistic cabal to rule them. Something as massive as a nuclear attack would surely turn America upside-down. I wouldn't put it past them.

I don't know, though. Sometimes I'm optimistic about the indomitable spirit of the American people -- the spirit that was on display throughout Obama's presidential campaign and on election night, sometimes not so much. It could go either way.

But back to the point at hand: Conservatives (and Republicans generally) claim that liberals (and Democrats) are weak on national security, that their policies weaken America and open her up to attack. And yet, conservatives, not liberals, are openly wishing for another attack. Which begs the question: Do these conservatives actually want to protect Americans, or, rather, do they simply want power, the unified, fascistic power of a police state?

I'll go with the latter.

No lie too big, no mind too small

By Capt. Fogg

Get ready for it: another surge in the Anti-Obama wars will be arriving in about a week with a new and more specious attack from the Derangement Rangers, or as these vampires call themselves, the Our Country Deserves Better PAC. Twisting facts and flinging fallacy, they intend to pump up the rage junkies for some purpose we can only imagine and we can be sure that if someone stupid enough to buy their product acts on that rage, they will wash their hands of it and blame the liberals. In fact they're already doing it.

I can say that because the ad will apparently reference the recent intelligence report warning of increased right-wing terrorist activity -- which of course proved true: blood, bullets, bodies, and all -- as an example amongst many, of how Barack Obama is just like Adolf Hitler:

As the regime spun out of control, they labeled political opponents domestic terrorists, and warned of confrontations between such groups and government authorities.

This is their view of an all-too-correct observation. Too damned bad more attention wasn't payed over the howls of offended wingnuts and too damned amazing that they're still howling after the warning was proved accurate.

Of course, it takes a special person to see this alleged spin-out of the administration, but the accusation is quite predictable. Indeed, every accusation made against Bush, no matter how true, is going to be re-labelled and returned in the same fashion as Watergate was reprised in every word and action and relaunched against Bill Clinton:

They proposed a civilian security force, and a Congressman warned it was exactly what Hitler did in Nazi Germany. Opposition heightened after voter fraud by the president's allies, including thousands of bogus voter registration [sic].

Since I'm personally involved with civilian security (Amateur Radio Emergency Services), I would have to laugh at a bunch of retired engineers volunteering to do emergency communications in a disaster being compared to Storm Troopers, but it's hard to understand why a thousand or two bad registrations, which don't seem to have produced any actual votes could account for the 9-million-vote Obama victory. Hard, unless you're up to no good yourself, and of course the OCDB PAC is up to just that. It's the illegitimate child of Howard Kaloogian, the fellow who during his losing campaign to replace disgraced Congressman Randy "Duke" Cunningham told us that Iraq was safe and almost free of violence and that the fact was being hidden by -- you guessed it -- the Liberal Press, which of course supports terrorism. Is there any doubt?

And now the Obama Administration is warning law enforcement to focus their attention on the dangers of conservatives,

says the website. They're not, unless you describe murderers as conservatives, but I am, and I can't help but mention that this kind of rhetoric and this kind of campaign was pioneered by Adolf Hitler himself.

These people are deranged, malignant, well-financed, and well-armed. Oh, yes, and dishonest -- did I mention dishonest?



(Cross-posted from Human Voices.)

Craziest Conservative of the Day: Gary Schmitt (for attacking soccer)

By Michael J.W. Stickings

For this post at the American Enterprise Institute's blog attacking "the beautiful game," soccer. It includes this remarkably inane passage:

As someone who didn't play soccer growing up, but had a dad who did and whose own kids played as well, I can say unquestionably that it is the sport in which the team that dominates loses more often than any other major sport I know of. Or, to put it more bluntly, the team that deserves to win doesn't. For some soccer-loving friends, this is perfectly okay. Indeed, they will argue that it's a healthy, conservative reminder of how justice does not always prevail in life.

Well, hooey on that. And, thankfully, Americans are not buying it.

That's right. His case against soccer is that it rewards losers. This is why it's still so unpopular in the U.S., which conservatives like Schmitt think of as some brutally Darwinian playing field, and yet is so popular in Europe and Latin America, where, apparently, losers prevail.

Of course, on one level, this is just yet another example of the right's deluded view of American exceptionalism: Americans are different. They're winners. To make the case that soccer proves this point is just silly, and hardly worth a response.

But let me make a few points anyway:

First, even if you accept Schmitt's point that soccer is for losers, it is simply not the case that soccer is the only popular sport in Europe and Latin America. Track and field is also popular in Europe, much more so, relatively speaking, than in the U.S. Is being able to run faster, jump higher or further, and throw further simply for losers? Furthemore, rugby is highly popular in the U.K. and France, as well as in South Africa and Oceania. Is rugby a sport for the losers who live there? In short, Schmitt's claim that the huge popularity of soccer in other parts of the world allows us to judge those parts of the world, both relative to the U.S. and in absolute terms, just plain stupid. Yes, soccer can help explain the world, as TNR editor Franklin Foer explained in his wonderful book, but not in the way Schmitt imagines. It certainly doesn't explain a world in which it's America versus everyone else.

Second, contrary to Schmitt, soccer is hugely popular in the U.S. The MLS, the professional North American league, is growing, but where it is truly popular is not at the professional level but at the amateur one, especially with youth. Does this mean that America's children are losers?

Third, Schmitt obviously doesn't know soccer. (How can he "unquestioningly" conclude anything without ever having played himself?) It can be a sport that rewards defence -- consider, for example, Italy's success at the international level, in World Cup after World Cup -- but it is simply not the case that the team that dominates usually (or often) loses. What soccer has he been watching? Has he ever seen Brazil play? Or Spain? (Yes, I suppose he saw Spain lose to the U.S. at the Confederations Cup, a stunning victory for an outmatched U.S. squad, but in recent years Spain has been one of the most exciting and, yes, most dominant teams in the world. And is it not possible for a team to dominate with defence, or with a system, as Italy often does? The Steelers won the Super Bowl this year largely because their historically great defence made up for a mediocre offence. They were hardly a dominant team, yet they triumphed. Schmitt wants "excellence" to "prevail," but excellence comes in many forms, and there is certainly excellence in soccer, excellence that prevails, even if Schmitt is too (willfully) ignorant to understand the sport, or to emerge from the depths of his ideological prejudices.

And that is what comes through here: ignorance. There may be some smart conservatives out there -- George Will on baseball, for example -- but with this one atrocious post Gary Schmitt makes himself look like an idiot and the rest of them, who may or may not agree with him, look bad.

**********

For more on this, see Matthew Yglesias, as well as a fine rebuttal from Alex Massie (who makes the case that European sports leagues are actually more Darwinian than American ones).

Craziest Conservative of the Day: Robert Kagan (for smearing Obama over Iran)

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Kagan's column yeterday in the WaPo, in which he argued (to the extent that he really argued anything -- he was just spouting stupidity) that Obama sides with the Khamenei-Ahmadinejad regime and actually wants the "Green" opposition to lose (all for the sake of his strategic realism), was appallingly bad even by Kagan's own appallingly low standards (even if reads as par-for-the-course from Obama's neocon critics).

If you missed it, make sure to check out Mustang Bobby's response to Kagan here. Like me, Bobby thinks that Obama is pursuing the right course of response/action to the Iranian election and its aftermath, and that he is right not to rise to the neocon bait.

And see also Jonathan Chait's fine takedown of Kagan over at The Plank. To put it mildly, Kagan's column was "fairly embarrassing." Kagan claims that Obama is "objectively" on the side of the Iranian government, as well as on the side of "normalcy" (i.e., the existing regime), but "[i]t's a highly subjective proposition, one that Kagan" -- surprise, surprise -- "does absolutely nothing to defend."

Robert Kagan, neocon... full of shit? Huh.

Jon Voight? The actor?

By Michael J.W. Stickings

At the Palin-and-Gingrich-blessed Republican Congressional fundraiser the other night, Jon Voight -- the actor, not the periodontist -- called President Obama a "false prophet":

Everything Obama has recommended has turned out to be disastrous.

*****

We are becoming a weak nation. Obama really thinks that he is a soft-spoken Julius Ceaser. He thinks he's going to conquer the world with his soft-spoken sweet talk. And really thinks he's going to bring all the enemies of the world into a little playground where they’ll swing each other back and forth. We and we alone are the right frame of mind to free this nation from this Obama oppression.

Yes, Jon Voight -- a great actor, once upon a time, in one or two great films (Midnight Cowboy, at least) -- is a Republican. And he's our Craziest Conservative of the Day.

But, given the extent of his inanity, where to begin? (Check out Tom Watson, who runs down "the paroxysms of pleasure quivering in the downtrodden conservative blogosphere" -- great line.)

Oh, why bother? It's Jon Voight, not Liam Neeson, and one has come to expect such nonsense from him.

-- Everything Obama has touched? Really? Like what?

-- America is weakening? Because of Obama? Really? He's to blame?

-- Obama as Julius Caesar? Caesar was a soft-spoken sweet-talker? I'd like to ask the Gauls about that, if I may. (And did not Caesar help usher in the Roman Empire?)

-- Obama as false prophet? But he's neither false nor a prophet. In fact, Obama is being criticized from the left, and from many of his supporters (including the proprietor of this humble weblog), as too pragmatic and as too much of a realist.

-- The Obama "oppression"? Of what? Of whom? Well, of idiots like Jon Voight, apparently, who see whatever they don't like, whatever challenges their right-wing ideology and partisan orthodoxy, as somehow oppressive. In loss, they do so whine and complain, don't they?

I'd prefer it if Mr. Jon Voight, the once-relevant actor, stopped talking politics, or whatever this shit-spewing was, and went back to the post-stardom oblivion whence he came.

Craziest Conservative of the Day: Sean Hannity

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Along the lines of James Inhofe, Sean Hannity gets the award today for arguing that Obama, with his Cairo speech, "decided to give 9/11 sympathizers a voice on the world stage."

Umm... what?

Steve Benen: "The point, which even someone of Hannity's limited skills could understand, was to address the persistent conspiracy theories in some parts of the region (9/11 was not a real terrorist attack, was not launched by al Qaeda, etc.). Obama was not giving "9/11 sympathizers a voice on the world stage," he was setting the record straight, characterizing terrorists as bloodthirsty monsters, and encouraging Muslims to reject outrageous lies."

Actually, I think that is beyond Hannity's (ridiculously) limited skills.

Hannity's "a sad joke," yes, and seemingly "incapable of shame," but he's also extraordinarily crazy.

Craziest Conservative of the Day: G. Gordon Liddy

By Michael J.W. Stickings

A candidate for craziest conservative of the day each and every day, Watergate felon and celebrity conservative G. Gordon Liddy jumped on the anti-Sotomayor smear campaign with this doozy:

Let's hope that the key conferences aren't when she's menstruating or something, or just before she's going to menstruate. That would really be bad. Lord knows what we would get then.

And that was after he referred to Spanish as "illegal alien."

Yes, I expect such sexism, racism, and nativism from conservatives like Liddy, but what we mustn't overlook is that Liddy himself is extremely popular. He's just not some wacko outlier. And his assault on Sotomayor mirrors what other conservatives have been saying about Sotomayor.

The popularity of Liddy, and of his views, and, in this case, of these views on Sotomayor, a distinguished jurist who just happens to be a Hispanic woman, says a lot about conservatives and conservatism today.

And it makes me wonder how any self-respecting woman is a conservative, or a Republican, given that this sort of bigotry is so popular on the right and throughout the GOP. The same goes for any self-respecting Hispanic -- or any self-respecting person generally.

For more, see Jill over at Feministe, as well as Eli at Firedoglake, Yglesias, Skippy, Larisa Alexandrovna, and Blue Gal.