Category Archive

Is it ok to produce a graphic that is reminiscent of the presidential seal or isn’t it?

Partisan conservatives like those mocking birds at Illinois Review, among many other nattering nabobs, are downright apoplectic that Obama’s graphic design team came up with a graphic that looks kinda sorta like a presidential seal. (Of course, the Obama campaign had been using an engraved image of an eagle for a while before this non-issue was raised anyway. Why didn’t cons gripe about it before? Must’ve been a slow news weekend.)

Problem is, plenty of Republicans have done the exact same thing — producing graphics that mimic the presidential seal and the seals of other branches of government. In fact, Republicans from local replacement candidate Martin Ozinga to presumptive presidential nominee John McCain have also been mimicking Obama’s other graphics so it’s abundantly clear that conservatives used to be ok with echoing earlier design work.

So which is it? Either it’s ok for all candidates to ‘borrow’ graphic design or it isn’t. Conservative partisans can’t whitewash and ignore instances of their candidates parroting designs but then go bonkers when the presidential front-runner (who also happens to be a Dem) does it.

Which is it, con whiners? Or are the cons perhaps really just upset because McCain didn’t think of it first instead of borrowing a chiseled star from graphics related to the US military?

(And so much for the tattered, faded myth of “liberal” media seeing as how this non-issue seems to be all they can talk about, now that they’ve stopped overanalyzing Michelle Obama’s pantyhose, or lack thereof…)

(h/t Mark Nickolas)

The latest info-pimped non-issue to be drummed up as a “scandal” by the conservative partisans involves Sen. Obama’s birth certificate; which the campaign released today.

It’s a pretty standard form and reveals no new information.

But why the cons would run around yelping “he won’t release his birth certificate” is unclear when it’s such an asinine demand that his campaign probably didn’t consider anyone could be so asinine as to invent such a non-issue in the first place… And these con partisans then created a slew of blatantly false rumors as to why he wouldn’t meet their demands to see the document on top of that.

Maybe these Jerry Fletchers need to remove their tin foil hats and stop drinking that kool-aid.

What’s next, terrorist pineapples?

…And now that the bar has been lowered further by these hyper-partisan cons when will John Sidney McCain III release his birth certificate from the Panama Canal Zone?

Apparently this fellow named Larry Temple thinks that some regular ol’ workaday dad from the suburbs, who plays catch with his kids and grows veggies in his backyard, is “radical”.

Or maybe he thinks that whole “all men created equal” stuff that our country is founded on is “radical”….

Or maybe he’s just confused. And unsure. And insecure.

What is clear, however, is that Larry hasn’t figured out that fighting for fairness and standing up for justice, equality and honest-to-goodness, pure-as-sunshine love is actually the right thing to do — hardly “radical.”

That said, I wonder if Larry goes to gay bars with Petey LaBarbera and Dave Smith to help with “research”.

Perhaps Larry would give folks the honor of explaining why guys such as himself so loathe people that are in love with each other that they’re willing to denounce and discriminate against them — and hypocritically call their anti-family stance “family values”.

Regardless, thanks for the compliment and the link, Larry.

This is so wrong on so many levels:

Wife of founder of Ozarks Minutemen pleads guilty to fake rape claim

[Angela] Wilburn is the wife of Brian Wilburn, who helped form the Ozarks Minutemen. [...]

Angela Wilburn told investigators that three Hispanic men broke into her mobile home and that one of the men sexually assaulted her in the hallway, then shot her in the knee with a handgun.

She soon retracted her story and said she heard a noise, and grabbed her husband’s gun. She told police the gun went off as she reached for a flashlight.

By the time Angela Wilburn made the admission, Greene County deputies had already spent more than 100 man-hours investigating the fictitious attack.

The sheriff’s department said in December it would seek restitution from Angela Wilburn for the wasted time. [...]

There is the obvious problem that a woman with this many … ahem … “issues” related to paranoid fantasies probably shouldn’t be allowed near a gun in the first place, at least not one that doesn’t have a trigger lock on it.

But there are more subtle indications that this woman has lost her bearings. Indeed, maybe I missed that day in 2nd grade geography but I’ve always had the impression that the Ozarks — including Greene County, Missouri — did not meet any international borders and are instead in the middle of the country.

Speaking of borders, most estimates indicate that at least half of illegal immigrants are not from Latin America. Inexplicably, the rabidly anti-immigrant forces always seem to forget that a whole bunch of illegal immigrants fly over any walls we put up using these things called commercial jets and that they arrive here on a legal visa and simply stay past their time.

These same forgetful people also seem to forget that there’s no wall on our northern, more Caucasian Canadian border… Not that race would ever have anything to do with their rhetoric and their false police reports. Nope. Never.

(h/t Kos)

Mmm… donuts.

Count Rachel Ray as the latest victim to Big Brother the uber-partisan, wild-eyed rantings of the Cult of Malkin. Obviously, not enough EVOO in their diets…

Shame on Dunkin Donuts for falling prey to such mind-numbing, bile-spewing dunceness from the likes of knee-knocking fraidy cat hyperpartisan Michelle Malkin (who once stalked a 12-year-old disabled boy because she was so afraid that he may have been a secret agent for KAOS intent on destroying apple pie … or something).

I wonder if Fail Blog would cover this 30 minute empty-calorie meal from the Kooky Conservative perspective — failure to possess any shred of common sense let alone capacity to put things in perspective — or the Gotta Make the Donuts perspective — failure to anticipate that a fringed paisley scarf on a perky brunette talkshow/cooking show host might send a handful of conservative pundit crackers into spasms of oversensitive, overhyped, over politically correct pantsuit-wetting.

Who’s more moronic? Michelle Malkin for promoting such blatant idiocy or the people who treat her like a goddess of goop by buying into this bollix (and thus allowing her to earn a living pimping such propaganda)?

The Republican party’s conservative base can’t both be mum when a well-known Iraqi immigrant to America (who also happens to be the Imam of the largest mosque in America) visits with and even advises Pres. Bush — in the White House no less — but then get hopping mad with hysteria when Presidential candidate Sen. Barack Obama meets with that same guy for a few minutes…

So which is it, either conservative partisans hate Muslims even if Pres. Bush and Sen. Obama meet with them or they don’t…

From DHinMI, in his reaction to reporting by Oliver Willis:

It makes sense that Obama would meet with the Imam.  Qazwini came to the United States in 1992.  He was first in California, but eventually ended up in Dearborn Michigan, home of the largest population of Middle Eastern Arabs outside the Middle East.  The Arab-American population in Detroit—between a quarter and a half million—is diverse, but the largest group is Lebanese Shiite Muslims.  Beginning in the 1990’s, the Shiite Lebanese were joined by Iraqi Shiites.

Like these new immigrants, Qazwini is from Iraq.  His Grandfather was an Ayatollah in Karbala who Saddam arrested, and he died in prison.  The family fled Iraq, Hussein Al-Qazwini came to the US, and unlike most of the Arab-American community, was a strong advocate for overthrowing Saddam. Eventually, however, even many of the Arab-Americans who supported the invasion of Iraq—always a small group–became disillusioned with the US occupation of Iraq and turned on Bush and the GOP.

Which brings us to the fun part about the wingers going crazy over Obama’s meeting with Qazwini.  How many of the wingers were going crazy in 2003 when Qazwini gave an opening prayer before Congress?  Who complained that Qazwini met with staffers of the Bush administration’s National Security Council to talk about the overthrow of Saddam?  Where were the complaints about the four or five invitations to visit Bush at the White House extended to Qazwini?  Did the wingers flip out when Qazwini participated in the roll-out of Bush’s Faith Based Initiative, an event that took place at the White House?

(links are original)

Oliver Willis even has photos of a hug and a kiss between Pres. Bush and his friend and advisor, Imam Qazwini. The Imam has even met with Pope Benedict for crying out loud.

But a handshake and a chat with Sen. Obama causes frantic fits among the cons?

Hypocrites.

…Actually, this round of “Which Is It” has a clear-cut answer.

Hard-line con hack Debbie Schlussel, no stranger to conspiracy theories and the originator of this most recent infopimped malarkey, has been attacking Bush, the Pope, and now Obama for the same reason — they’ve met with this Imam from Michigan her rabid, paranoid fear of Muslims…

What one person labels ‘vigilance against all Muslims’ is what most mainstream Americans refer to as “bigotry“… and clearly now the Pope, Bush and Obama are all automatically Muslim Manchurian Candidates simply for being in the same room as this Iraq escapee.

Oy.

There must’ve been a run on coo-coo puffs lately…

Despite the fact the bottom is pretty far down on that side of the pool, desperate con partisans are still managing to bonk their beans as they jump off the deep end to wallow in their mucky, vile hatred of Sen. Obama.

If you scroll down at that post, you’ll notice frequent critics of reality and reason such as Citizen Wells and Pat Hickey make an appearance with comments supporting the tripe.

Remember the good ol’ days of oddball but cute/fuzzy presidential sideshows? Why do the conservatives feel the need to act so blatantly desperate?

While it’s fun to joke about this sort of tinfoil hat tripe, we also have to realize that this tripe is precisely why rational people have to be just as engaged and take their right and responsibility to vote just as seriously as these wackos.

If wackos like these are the only ones talking and voting… we all end up living in the same hateful, wacko world in which they appear to be ensnared.

Either immigrants are the worst thing ever* and they’re stealing all our jobs or we don’t have enough people in this country willing to fill all the manual labor, low-wage, hourly positions to keep up with demand.

This has been another rousing edition of “Which is it?” … brought to you as always by divisive partisanship.

* - keep in mind about 99 bajillion percent of Americans are either immigrants or descendants of immigrants…

Evil Bender says it better, and in more depth, than I…

Announcing the winner of the 2nd Phyllis Schlafly award:  Phyllis Schlafly

The staunchly anti-reality Ms. Schlafly recently whined about the folks who are panning Ben Stein’s goofy “Expelled.” While the movie is a work of fiction … wait, it’s not supposed to be fiction? … well, then.

Perhaps Ms. Schlafly will share her dubious distinction of dunceness with Mr. Stein.

And, of course, both Schlafly and Stein present perfect illustrations of self-fulfilling martyrdom: they publicly promote easily refuted garbage and then complain when regular folks point out that their bunk is, in fact, easily refuted garbage.

Whatever floats your boat, eh? Thank goodness for the 1st Amendment which allows for such amusing comedy.

Didn’t Christ teach us to love one another? Why, yes, He did.

Why then would Illinois Review conservative and former state lege candidate Eric Wallace, PhD, bash Obama with the following snide, anti-Christian remark:

Needless to say, the black community’s first warning should have been after Barack Obama professed his Christian values, and then advocated for gay rights…

Advocating for equal rights is a Christian value, Dr. Wallace. Simple as that.

Why would Dr. Wallace take Christ’s own teachings out of Christianity? Perhaps he ought to change his name to Peter, since he is denying Christ with his self-interested partisan ranting.

You don’t think Dr. Wallace’s was pure, unadulturated self-interest? His own words belie his aims:

Thus we ask, that all our conservative friends support our [Freedom's Journal] magazine. To purchase a subscription click here. To advertise your business, and support our efforts click here.

Who publishes Freedom’s Journal (not the historical 1800s version but the modern conservative version which usurped that proud publication’s name)?

You guessed it.

Seeing as how Dr. Wallace’s denial of Christ’s teachings in his post is related to his pursuit of money, perhaps he’s more like Judas than Peter.

Oops. DeSmog blogger Richard Littlemore reports that nearly 10% (and counting…) of the Heartland Institute’s list of “500 scientists” who supposedly dispute climate change are quite surprised and shocked to find themselves on such a list considering their scientific research has led them to conclude the opposite — that the climate is changing and that it is due, at least in part, to human activity.

The Heartland Institute is fairly well-known as a conservative- and corporate-funded ‘think tank’ designed to promote conservative partisan platforms (in other words, propagandize ‘conservative’ views). To the point, among other backers, Exxon had funded Heartland to the tune of nearly $800,000 in recent years and execs with Amoco and Exxon have also served on the Heartland Institute Board of Directors.

Mr. Littlemore had a hunch that Heartland’s “list” of 500 scientists wasn’t on the up and up so he started emailing the people listed. He’s been getting plenty of feedback about Heartland’s use of so many people’s names with at least 45 telling him directly they’re name was used without permission and falsely since they actually disagree with the Dorothys chirping ‘there’s no such thing as climate change, there’s no such thing as climate change…’

Here is just one note Mr. Littlemore was cc’ed on:

I have NO doubts ..the recent changes in global climate ARE man-induced. I insist that you immediately remove my name from this list since I did not give you permission to put it there.

Dr. Gregory Cutter, Professor, Department of Ocean, Earth and Atmospheric Sciences, Old Dominion University

Why did the conservatives at Heartland feel a need to lie and, in so doing, mock these scientists? Disgraceful.

The only people who ought to be doubtful here? The folks on the receiving end of Heartland’s propagandist fallacies.

The Ol’ North State’s primary is coming up in a few weeks and Sen. Obama has had a solid lead there over Sen. Clinton for some time.

Polls are showing that Sen. Obama even makes North Carolina a toss-up for November should he be the Dem nominee…

Perhaps this is why conservative Tar Heels can’t figure out whether to lie about him being a Muslim (dear Pastor Byrd: the answer is no) or lie that he’s some kind of radical Christian. It’s still a long way to go to November for we Americans to have to keep putting up with these falsehoods from partisan conservatives.

And again… do the cons even stop to think that he can’t be both a Muslim and a Christian before they start their tirades of lunacy? Duh.

Welcome to kindergarten…

• John “Poopy Head” Ruskin compares a journalist — Rich Miller — who covers Springfield and other Illinois political matters to Ted Kaczynski, the Unabomber. Why? Because Miller posted a few facts that put the lie to the spin being promoted by a comrade of Ruskin’s. In his role as a reporter, Miller has gone after Dems, GOPs and even Greens with equal aplomb when they fib, flop or go flakey, as Sen. Steve Rauschenberger has been doing of late in his anti-Obama zeal. This isn’t the first time the pseudonymous Ruskin has flailed around spewing crap instead of keeping his bizarre inanities to himself… (What’s that? There’s a financial stake for the denizens of Illinois Review to prop up the head of the United Republican Fund, an organization that so many of them also help operate? Go figure…)
• Jill “Likes Sex Ed” Stanek once compared an incumbent, duly elected State Senator to a porn star and, when called out for her depravity, upped the ante by continuing to make a fool of herself. Why? Because said State Senator was advocating for a vaccine that former nurse Stanek didn’t like. Instead of rational debate, are porn references really how Jill would rather get her jollies?
• Lee “Wets His Pants” Newcom recently claimed a Democratic candidate for Congress was “aiding terrorists” even though she’s not even in Congress. Why? Because he has nothing better to do at his day job working for the citizens of McLean County, apparently. Or perhaps it’s because he has no valid explanation for why he would choose to trample on our Constitution instead of upholding our rights.

And an honorable dunce cap mention must go to ilgopnet.com’s Warner Todd “Has a Problem Alright” Huston, for comparing a duly elected, incumbent Congresswoman to a brutal African dictator simply because she wants folks to be able to eat their dinner in peace.

Someone calling out your comrades on their lies? Call ‘em a Unabomber!

Upset that a legislator is advocating potentially life-saving medicine? Compare her to a porn star and ask about her sex life.

A legislator running for Congress from the party you oppose? Squeal like a stuck pig that they’re “aiding terrorists” even though they’re not even in office (yet) and they don’t even know any terrorists in the first place … all while trying to hide from the fact that you want to literally rip out parts of the Bill of Rights.

Crabby because a Democratic Congresswoman is sitting in a seat you thought should go to a Republican? Claim that some innocuous legislative proposal is akin to the dictatorial policies of a madman.

Congrats conservative partisans, with each passing day you seem wont to gleefully dig your own vacuous holes of irrelevance that much deeper. It used to be that the conservative philosophy had some meaning. Now that Pres. Bush has implemented many conservative policies and they’re failing miseable, those scales are falling from people’s eyes and all the con partisans have left are their insults and self-pity.

At least you guys are good at comedy, even if unintentionally so.

(And, Ruskin, if it’s Miller time it’s MGD for me — though lately I’ve been reaching for a nice cold Berghoff. …Woof.)

Update: “A Republican Committeeman in Aurora, IL” makes the same points in a much more forgiving manner…

If we spent a lot less time on this sort of stuff and more time on facts and logical arguments I think we would be in better shape. You don’t save too many people preaching the same message to choir.

If you think his facts or analysis is wrong provide reasons not cute little things about ’secret locations’.

By spending “a lot less time on this sort of stuff” I take it to mean OneMan isn’t a fan of calling people “poodles”. I tend to find that sort of dysfunctionally juvenile crap hysterically funny, however, and (obviously) enjoy going toe to toe with that sticks-and-stones crowd. Somebody’s gotta do it or “Ruskin” might get an ego as big as his (poopy) head.

I wouldn’t be surprised if the thin-skinned “Ruskin” up and calls OneMan a Nazi just for pointing out the obvious.

Con partisans are positively giddy claiming that Sen. Obama is somehow “whining” about Wednesday night’s True Hollywood Story - “On Stage” … “debate”. (Methinks they need to get their mock-o-meters checked. Making fun of how odious that Reality TV programming was is not the same as “whining”.)

Would conservative complainers like Anne Leary, John Ruberry and Dan Curry be saying the “hard questions” needed to be answered had it been Sen. John McCain … and if he had been asked a litany of Heathers fodder such as:

• McCain’s role in Keating 5
• when the violence will end in Iraq in order for the proposed 100 (or million, take your pick) years of American deployment to begin
• “Bomb-bomb-bomb-Iran“
• the blonde lobbyist, Vicki Iseman, riding on McCain’s “straight talk” bus
• McCain’s divorce from his injured first wife (who remained true to him as he was held as a POW) and affair before his divorce
• why would John McCain’s Florida co-chair offer $20 to perform oral sex on another man
• Keating 5
• Pastors Parsley and Hagee and their anti-Catholic, pro-Armageddon preaching and why McCain would specifically seek out endorsements from such men
• why did he wear a bulletproof vest and require a large military escort (replete with gunship helos) while declaring a Baghdadi market that has seen many horrific bombings (including within days of his visit) was just jim dandy
• the blonde lobbyist riding on his bus
• Keating 5
• tax cuts for the wealthy while mainstream Americans (the other 90% of us) are struggling
• the blonde lobbyist riding on his bus
• why McCain caved on unAmerican torture
• is McCain Episcopalian or Baptist and why switch if switch he did
• the blonde lobbyist riding on his bus vis a vis McCain’s reputation as a skirt-chaser
• McCain’s record of coziness to lobbyists in contrast to his media persona as a straight talker
• McCain’s relationship with conservative pastors who blamed 9/11 and Katrina on Americans, thus making them anti-America conservatives
• the patriotism of conservative pastors who blamed 9/11 and Katrina on Americans
• is McCain an elitist because he married into a $100 million fortune
• his current wife’s past drug habit
• why Americans should vote for someone like McCain who admits he doesn’t know much about economics and, of all people to advise him, turned to the architect of much of the nation’s current credit woes, especially during a widespread downturn
• would John McCain consider Florida State Rep. Bob Allen for VP
  
• the blonde lobbyist riding on his bus

My hunch is conservative partisans would be hopping mad. In fact, we’d likely be hearing weeks’ worth of “Woe is me, the mean media is soooo snively and (gasp) lib’rul…”

Their concern would likely be especially acute if some of the questions were initially raised a day or two before in an interview the supposedly neutral moderator had with, say, Sam Seder or Rachel Maddow. Seeing as how former Clinton White House staffer George Stephanopolous apparently got some of his “debate” questions in his interviews with conservative pundits Sean Hannity and Steve Malzberg I’m sure Curry, Ruberry and Leary would be fine with a debate moderator using questions verbatim from Rachel Maddow.

Then again, as Mr. Ruberry’s excuse-making declares, those lines of questions also get to a more fundamental query, “Does he have good judgment?” … at least in a push-polling, rumor-mongering kind of way.

If the media is going to buy into these conservative partisans’ character-assassination-as-legit-campaign-tool efforts (and, indeed, further that cause by chewing up and regurgitating opponents’ tired and old attacks for half of a debate) then Sen. McCain ought to answer “tough questions” that have little or nothing to do with what the American people actually care about.

–

As an aside… I wonder how long it’ll be before we’re back to being told by these same con partisans that the media is too soft on Sen. Obama.

–

(adapted from a shorter DKos comment; h/t to smintheus and georgia10 for their ABC sideshow “debate” synopsis as reference)

Dave Smith of strident gay-hatin’ fame has a post over at Illinois Review whining about tax dollars that are given to Planned Parenthood for women’s health services… In his frothy zest to get his screed against women online, he spins himself into a pretzel:

While Planned Parenthood claims that these funds are not used for abortion, obviously having this constant supply of tax dollars coming in as part of your budget makes all other areas of operation much easier to sustain.

Yes, obviously having this “constant supply of tax dollars” coming to provide the women’s health services for which those tax dollars are being granted would make one’s operation easier to sustain… That’s the point, Mr. “anti-family” Smith.

Not every woman can afford health care for herself — thus as the compassionate society we are we “care for our neighbors as we do ourselves.”

Does Mr. Smith complain about other doctors that receive grants in order to perform routine medical care?

(Yes, some — not all — Planned Parenthood clinics provide abortion services. Such medical procedures, as Planned Parenthood has stated, are funded through a combination of donations and direct fees to medical patients. But as most rational folks know, Planned Parenthood provides many more medical services than just the one Mr. Smith finds offensive including counseling, regular exams, disease treatment and prevention, etc.)

And how about those trillions of Mr. Smith’s tax dollars being spent on “collateral damage” for our president’s lies? Is Mr. Smith just as forcefully seeking to cut off that spigot of money and bring our intrepid, loyal troops home? Or does Mr. Smith somehow excuse and apologize for all that?

The conservative Illinois Policy Institute apparently think keeping our fellow Illinoisans healthy is a waste of money. Their “2008 Piglet Book” complains of what they slam as “$686 million in pork.”

Yet the numbers they cite include things like research for juvenile diabetes and healthcare assistance in rural areas.

These crabby cons even complain about “$45,000 for the summer food inspection program”… After all the e. coli, salmonella and other contaminants that have been found in everything from salad to cereal, I’d think we’d want to spend more than just 45k on inspecting food but even that amount doesn’t sound unreasonable

Sure, in the $686 mil they cite there’s bound to be some fat that could stand to be trimmed. But to complain about things as fundamental as our health? Somebody’s clearly taking their job as a propagandist to an extreme.

Giving a crap about your fellow human beings? It’s what’s not for dinner for these heartless John Birch types.

The connection is obvious, even if it isn’t being aired on CNN every 4 1/2 minutes, 24 hours a day…

The Huffington Post has learned that Bill O’Reilly — who claims to love America — spent Sunday at a “church” run by a former Hitler Youth named Joseph Alois Ratzinger. Ratzinger has gone to elaborate ends to hide this connection, including taking on the absurd pseudonym “Pope Benedict XVI.” Which, even if it doesn’t prove anything, certainly makes you think.

This shocking revelation comes only a week after Barack Obama admitted he attends a church formerly run by Jeremiah Wright, who talks smack about America, although probably less than Goebbels did.

This would all be holy water under the bridge, except for one disturbing and undeniable fact: Bill O’Reilly is a Roman Catholic, and Benedict “Joey Ratz” XVI worked for Hitler, as did Unity Mitford, whose baby sister was Jessica Mitford, who knew Maya Angelou, who knew Betty Shabazz, who was married to Malcolm X, who knew Louis Farrakhan.

Is there any place in our public discourse for men like Bill O’Reilly, who won’t even repudiate their links to Louis Farrakhan? I’ll give you the last word, and then cut you off in the middle of it: No there isn’t.

But at least Mr. “typical white person” O’Reilly knows how to order an iced tea in a civilized manner.
(h/t S-CAM)

–

“I know you’re probably tired of seeing that video of Rev. Jeremiah Wright, but here it is again.” - Rick Sanchez, CNN anchor, as paraphrased from last night’s Newsroom

Kagro X warns us:

Killer terrorist vacuum cleaners. Fucking hell!

Good on Fox Propaganda for keeping the citizenry informed of the dangers of Roomba. We wouldn’t want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud… or a dust bunny.

No wunder cosnervative partysans have a problm with publik skools — they seeem to haf had truble lerning the “nashunal langwijj”. And apparently it’s been a problem for constives for a while… a long, long while — full of challanges. No, reallye.

(”pffft… Paging Mr. Racits. Mr. Racits to the front desk please. Mr. Morans would like to see you… pfft.”) 

There will be a spelling lesson for conservatives this Saturday, February 30th. First come, first served.

Why do these charletans, who are so clearly lying, continue to promote their baloney? (And yes, they must be lying because they can’t claim ignorance given how often the truth has been pointed out to them.)

Illinois Review editor Fran Eaton gives her mentor of mischief Phyllis Schlafly space at ye ol’ Ill Review to peddle those same tired lies about Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and the ERA.

Why is it that when conserv-o-partisans don’t have a leg to stand on they resort to lying instead of trying to promote alternatives? Simply having another person repeat the same lie doesn’t somehow magically make it a tiny bit more truthy. It’s just repeats the lie and makes liars out of not one, but now two conservatives.

PS: Is this what conservative-partisans usually refer to as “self-loathing” given that these lionesses of conservativedom are so ardently against equal rights for their own gender that they’d lie about the ERA? Hmmm…

The title of this post is a bit tongue-in-cheek. For most folks not out on the far-right partisan fringe, Illinois Review never had credibility to begin with (so how could it crater, right?).

Yet partisan infopimper and Illinois Review editor Fran Eaton is managing to drag the Review to new lows by approvingly linking to her friend Dan Zanoza (he doesn’t like corporate media) and his race-baiting and sectarian divisiveness regarding Presidential candidate Barack Obama. Curiously, Mr. Zanoza declares himself Executive Director for an outfit he calls “Republicans for Fair Media”. In reality, it’s clear he defines “fair” as actually being glowingly biased in favor of Republicans without an ounce of truth that might somehow ding Republicans. (He is also the fellow who most recently claimed Obama was the anti-Christ — and he was serious in his careless blasphemy.)

Arch points out Mr. Zanoza’s latest effort to rationalize his growing-less-subtle closet racism and xenophobia in which he pulls out the ol’ “shedding light” canard. Says Mr. Zanoza:

You see, during a McCain rally in Ohio, a popular radio talk show host, Bill Cunningham (“The Big Show” with Bill Cunningham) was warming up the audience for McCain.  While doing so, Cunningham used Obama’s full name, Barack Hussein Obama, three times and pointed to the fact the American mainstream media has given the junior Senator from Illinois a virtual pass on the issues.  Cunningham also said the national media needed to “peel the bark off Barack Hussein Obama.”

After the event, McCain held a scheduled press conference and issued an apology for Cunningham’s performance even though McCain had not heard Cunningham’s rally warm-up.  McCain went on to talk about what an honorable man Obama is and he praised Hillary Rodham Clinton in the process. [...]

I don’t think there’s any problem with using Obama’s middle name.  It’s part of his heritage.  It’s part of who he is.  And, if that heritage, combined with some of the recent comments made by Obama and his wife, Michelle, shed light on this man’s true world view, the American people have a right to know it or hear it.

Is there a problem with saying “Barack Hussein Obama”? No more of a problem that always using “Daniel Tiberius Zanoza” (or whatever the “T” stands for). Normally, it just sounds real stupid to use full names because it’s not common practice.

But in this case, the issue that Sen. McCain has with its use is the attempt to turn a middle name into a xenophobic, anti-Islamic smear. Mr. Zanoza has a problem with McCain being cordial — apparently he’d rather see a Disunited States of America because that is precisely where this continually devolving partisan divisiveness will lead (whether from Illinois Review, Mr. Zanoza, or talking head Mr. Cunningham).

It’s odd that Mr. Zanoza and other conserv-o-partisans would wax angrily about Sen. McCain being gracious to both leading Democratic contenders. Sen. Obama himself routinely pays his respects to Sen. McCain’s service to our nation, and rightly so. There don’t seem to be many (if an) partisan liberals running around squealing about that.

Yet Mr. Zanoza’s us-v-them mentality can brook no compromise whatsoever and that’s just plain sad.

It also belies his rationalization wherein he explains away his loathing for Obama with the stock answer,  “And, if that heritage, combined with some of the recent comments made by Obama and his wife, Michelle, shed light on this man’s true world view, the American people have a right to know it or hear it.”

The problem is there is absolutely nothing indicating Sen. Obama has been in any way influenced by his father Muslim faith (other than conservative partisans’ fear-mongering and baseless insinuation). Indeed, his dad walked out when Obama was 2. It was bad enough when Sen. Clinton dug up kindergarten theme papers but this ongoing xenophobic ranting from conservative partisans over something that ended when Obama was 2 is beyond pathetic.

Moreover, Michelle Obama already explained that her comments were about her pride in the current state of America’s political process — a point she has made over and over (and over) in a variety of speeches, albeit with more clear phrasing, and which is directly to related to the hundreds of thousands of voters who are showing a very high interest level in this election.

It’s telling that the cons have to resort to a half-quote anyway in order to make her sound like she’s somehow unpatriotic. (Clearly, this “patriotism” infopimping is the emerging plug-n-play meme of 2008… I’m sure the Republican National Committee has already placed an order for a url along those lines.)

The only reason for someone to use his full name and then to go a step further by trying to claim that his middle name somehow influences his “true world view” is out of pure hatred for someone who may be “other” — and that’s racist and xenophobic.

You can’t “shed light” on something that isn’t there — you can only make up baloney and pass it off as “having a right to know”. No matter how Mr. Zanoza tries to rationalize his closet racism, it’s still shining right through the slats on those closet doors.

–

PS: Did we mention Obama is black? That is also apparently bad according to conservative partisans and their corporate media “gotcha” enablers who promote pointless and weak-kneed guilt-by-association bs.

And shame on the Clinton camp for recently resorting to this same level of conserv-o-partisan xenophobic gutter politics.

Boo hoo.

Illinois Review editor Fran Eaton is rather upset that her bud John Bambenek is again being pilloried as a fool for his incredibly dense lack of reasoning when it comes to the application of electoral law. For some reason her dour mood has led her to pull a completely idiotic Potemkin argument out of her cracker jack box of irrational rants by suggesting that the American folks over at Daily Kos must be overly violent due to … video games.

What?!

Read the rest of this entry »

The other day I noted that conservative MarathonPundit John Ruberry had gotten in on the cons’ run of anti-Christian smears, tarring Sen. Obama’s faith and congregation as conservative blog editor Fran Eaton had also done so many times before. Mr. Ruberry was so smitten with this line of attack that he copied his original source, Pajamas Mafia writer Burt Prelutsky, wholesale by peddling the kindergarten epithet that Sen. Obama’s church is somehow “creepy” simply for engaging in Christian charity and witnessing their faith as they know it.

As folks who appreciate honesty are compelled to do in the wake of this onslaught of slime to explain the history of the African American Christian experience in this land of liberty a plethora of factual information has been made available online. Given that this context is there, ready to be explored and all set to quickly and effortlessly debunk the conservatives’ smears, it is abundantly clear that conservative partisans are choosing to ignore the truth in favor of deliberate misinformation about Sen. Obama’s Christianity, the tenets of Trinity United Church of Christ, and the UCC denomination itself.

So the question is why would conservatives even attempt this 2008 version of swiftboating, in which they use lies and half-baked malarkey to declare that Sen. Obama’s faith is in some way “controversial,” to put it very politely. (Swiftboating is generally regarded as the act of lying about an opponents’ perceived strong suit in order to denigrate and diminish the strength of that issue.)

A few possibilities present themselves…

Read the rest of this entry »

I wrote about another fib-filled “Obama’s a Muslim” chain email a few days ago. Conservative partisans appear bound and determined to make a drinking game out of these schlocky, moronic, pack-o-lies emails about Sen. Obama.

Take one swig for every con lie about Sen. Obama and you’ll be drunk by the fourth poorly-written sentence

Here’s another one — and this, friends, is the fallacy-based email which got the head of the entire United Church of Christ denomination to debunk it. Again I shall provide snarky retorts shining the bright light of truth [in brackets] for your drinking game enjoyment.

Make sure you designate a sober driver now…

–

FW: OBAMA’S CHURCH

Parts of this are true & can be documented on Truth or Fiction. ["Parts" of this are true...? More like almost none of this bullcrap is true. So why forward it?]

Obama’s middle name is not Mohammed it is Hussein. [Well, ok, his middle name actually is "Hussein". Parents are funny like that. Now that he's running as a Democrat for president, conservative ne'er-do-wells are left to ponder calling him "BO" which is funny in a Beavis and Butthead kinda way ... or calling him "Barack Hussein Obama" which is clearly pandering in a We Have Everything to Fear Including Middle Names Themselves ... The possibilities are endless, and pointless. Think of all the guys out there during WWII whose middle names, or even first names, were "Adolf". I bet that stunk.]

The following paragraphs are obviously slanted [oh really? I couldn't tell] - BUT - you do need to visit this church’s web site - EXTREMELY INTERESTNG! [Well, they do try to have a lively Sunday service for the folks who come to worship.]

OBAMA’S CHURCH

Obama mentioned his church during his appearance with Oprah. It’s the Trinity Church of Christ [try "Trinity United Church of Christ" -- a full-fledged congregation in good standing within the United Church of Christ denomination].

I found this interesting. Obama’s church: http://www.tucc.org/about.htm [Why, I bet that link is included to try and trick white people into thinking this church is an evil cult of black "separatist supremacist mojo maniacs", or something.]

Please read and go to this church’ s website and read what is written there. It is very alarming. [Yep, I was right about thinking this might be a ruse to trick people into thinking this normal, albeit African-American, church is an evil cult of mojo maniacs, or something. There's really nothing "alarming" about Trinity, if one cares to learn about the history of black churches and their good deeds in our fine country.]

Barack Obama is a member of this church and is running for President of the U. S. [You mean this isn't about Lichtenstein?]

If you look at the first page of their website, you will learn that this congregation has a non-negotiable commitment to Africa. [Let's see... Christians contribute offerings as an effort to help those less fortunate. The African continent is full of people suffering from poverty, disease, famine and war. Seems only natural that good Christians would indeed have a non-negotiable commitment to helping the destitute. ...Wait. This just in... Barack Obama might be ... wha? "Black"? You mean he's ... "black"?! And he's running for president?! Mercy me. What's this country coming to?!]

No where is AMERICA even mentioned. [...Except by the conservative partisans who lie about this church demanding quotas and affirmative action.] Notice too, what color you will need to be if you should want to join Obama’s church… B-L-A-C-K!!! [Wow! Somebody forgot to tell all the white people that attend services at this church. Oops. Or maybe this is another one of the not-true parts in this email described as "parts of this are true".]

Doesn’t look like his choice of religion has improved much over his (former?) Muslim upbringing. [OK, now we're all just confused. The other MUST READ Obama email said he still was Muslim, even though actual facts differ with that lie. Can't these anonymous email liars get their lies straight?!]

Are you aware that Obama’s middle name is Mohammed? [No. Because it's not, even though apparently conservative radio hosts wish it would be.]

Strip away his nice looks, the big smile and smooth talk and what do you get? [I dunno... A US Senator from Illinois?]

Certainly a racist [Darn, I was wrong again. Here I thought for sure he was a US Senator from Illinois], as plainly defined by the stated position of his church! [Wait, I read that webpage about the church just like this email asked me to. All I saw was a historically African-American church, as committed to its heritage, its community and its congregants as any fine church would be. There was that part about a "commitment" to Africa and African Americans... but then again even Missouri Synod Lutherans are committed to Europe. Go figure.]

And possibly a covert worshiper of the Muslim faith, even today. [I heard he actually worshipped the surf and sand. Hang Ten, Baby! What baseless rumors have you heard? Does he really secretly worship cheeseburgers?] This guy desires to rule over America while his loyalty is totally vested in a Black Africa! [Oh dear, my white friends, now they've gone and done it. We can't have "the blacks" taking over, now can we? It'd be mayhem, eh? Say, I thought kings and emperors "ruled" over their countries. Isn't a president supposed to "lead"?]

I cannot believe this has not been all over the TV and newspapers. [Well... it is complete and utter BS... Though by now if you've been drinking along half the bottle's probably gone, so at least it's turned into fun BS.]

This is why it is so important to pass this message along to all of our family & friends. [Is this anonymous email promoting drunken stupors?!] To think that Obama has even the slightest chance in the run for the presidency, is really scary. [Might be scary for racist jerks, but not for most rational and honest Americans.]

Click on the link below: This is the web page for the church Barack Obama belongs to:

www.tucc.org/about.htm [Dude, we already went through this... Wouldn't it be funny if Trinity United Church of Christ changed that webpage around to show a picture of Jesus helping the poor? Wait, then the cons would just squeal that that's too "Afro-centric" a picture or something equally inane.]

–

UPDATE: Newsweek debunks the baloney

Now white conservatives are yelping that Christians are “creepy”? Blech.

MarathonPundit John Ruberry gets in on the conservatives’ streak of anti-Christian smears by quoting heavily from a short-sighted Pajamas Mafia rant by Burt Prelutsky and then diving further off the deep end with his own riff opposing Sen. Obama’s Christian church (Trinity United Church of Christ) and twisting the church’s tenets into an anti-Christian meme only a partisan con could dream up.

The only thing “creepy” and “race-based” here is the conservatives’ clearly deliberate misinformation campaign against this Christian church, one of its congregants (Sen. Obama) and its pastor. (Given how much accurate information about Trinity United Church of Christ is now available online as honest Americans explain the church and its tenets to ignorant conservative partisans over and over one can only presume that any such continued misinformation campaign — such as with Mr. Ruberry’s post — is, in fact, deliberate.)

As part of his screed about black Christians Mr. Ruberry, not known for being the sharpest crayon in the box, also quoted from a sermon by Trinity’s pastor, Rev. Jeremiah Wright, in which the good reverend concluded his sermon with a four-letter word. Mr. Ruberry apparently thinks that Rev. Wright’s cussing is, well, naughty.

So?

Not so surprisingly, after I pointed out that Mr. Prelutsky’s myopic retching was unfounded in light of the facts and actual context and that everything in the sermon by Rev. Wright (which Mr. Ruberry questioned) was accurate and true, Mr. Ruberry’s only remaining defense for his complaints was that this church’s magazine gave an award to Louis Farrakhan.

Again… So?

Mr. Farrakhan has received other awards from other organizations. This particular award was given in honor of Mr. Farrakhan’s work at improving the lot of peoples in Africa. For all his many, many faults, one cannot deny that Mr. Farrakhan has actually done work to improve the plight of folks in Africa.

Had Mr. Ruberry perhaps dedicated a portion of his life’s work to the same endeavor he too might’ve earned the award. There’s still time for him since he’s a relatively young guy.

Then again, what on earth does this oddball tangent have to do with Barack Obama? As I noted for Mr. Ruberry, Sen. Obama had nothing to do with giving out this award. Nothing.

It would be as if people went around blaming John Ruberry for the many sad cases of priest sex abuse rocking the Catholic Church in America. He did tell us in this post that he was baptized Catholic, after all. He obviously had nothing to do with it, but he was baptized Catholic and this is an issue in the Catholic Church so, if someone was prone to dishonest smear campaigns, it’s ripe for the plucking, nay?

Wait a sec. Mr. Ruberry has made it clear he despises Sen. Obama through his years of blogposts. Oh, silly me. Clearly, Mr. Ruberry must be infected with Blame Obama syndrome (obviously an evolved form of Blame Clinton syndrome, which seems to have infected many a conservative for well over a decade and a half now).

That explains why Mr. Ruberry would, in the same post no less, both criticize Sen. Obama for “disinviting” Rev. Wright from speaking on stage during his campaign kick-off last year and demand that Sen. Obama distance himself from Rev. Wright. Mighty convenient being able to set up a little Catch-22 for partisan gain, isn’t it?

It also helps Mr. Ruberry and his fellow conservatives avoid having to debate the real issues affecting our country, seeing as how it has been conservative slash-and-burn policies which got our great nation into the “wrong track” state it finds itself nowadays. Imagine that.

Ya know what? It was cloudy and chilly today. Obviously that too was a result of the fact that Sen. Obama’s church held services this Sunday. Obviously.

–

UPDATE: Mr. Ruberry has chosen to defend his indefensible anti-Christian rhetoric with this here reply.

Note my response in kind:

Wow, John. Open your mouth and prove my points…

First, I didn’t attack you. I attacked your lack of reason and rationality. If you consider that to be one and the same then so be it. I notice you decided not to link to the evidence I provided regarding my claim that you’re not known for being the sharpest crayon.

Second, I already answered your hollow complaint (mirroring Mr. Prelutsky’s) wondering why Mitt Romney’s Mormon faith is “fair game” while you seem to think Barack Obama is not being held to the same standard.

…There’s that “sharpest crayon” thing again, so I’ll try to simplify it for you.

It is the social conservatives (aka, Evangelical conservatives, Religious Right, etc.) which are questioning Gov. Romney’s faith. Those same folks (you know of Fran Eaton, don’t you?) are doing the same with Sen. Obama.

These folks are, unfortunately enough, twisting information about both men and both faiths. At least with Gov. Romney, Ms. Eaton had the decency to admit the Evangelicals’ infopimping was misleading and erroneous. Unfortunately for those of us interested in honesty, she has yet to do that with regards to her incessant misinformation campaign regarding the Christians at Trinity UCC.

You yourself chose to continue that disinformation campaign with your own anti-Christian screed opposing charity and compassion simply because black people would be the recipients of such Christian generosity. So be it: your choice.

Third, I’m glad you at least grasped my point that even though you were baptized Catholic you have nothing to do with the pedophilia scandal. Too bad you missed the point that even though Sen. Obama attends Trinity United Church of Christ he has nothing to do with Louis Farrakhan. Mr. Farrakhan, a Muslim, is himself not even a member of that church since he doesn’t share the same faith as Sen. Obama, a Christian. Another point you apparently fail to grasp.

Fourth, clearly you’re duplicitous yourself. I know you are, but what am I? So there. Just kidding… sorta.

My point was that you were condemning Sen. Obama for both somehow not distancing himself from Rev. Wright and then for actually distancing himself from the Reverend. You can’t have it both ways (even if you do try to move the goalposts after the fact and change your story ever so slightly). Either you don’t want him to distance himself from the Reverend or you do.

Finally, if you wish to compare yourself to a “White Nationalist Rock” teen girl band be my guest. I gave you the benefit of the doubt — wasn’t going to go there, and certainly nowhere near as far as you did with your soliloquy — but apparently I offered too much benefit and not enough doubt about your motives. (For the record, note the date of this linked post and then skip to the 13th paragraph — I know as well as you who/what “Prussian Blue” is).

But since you apparently wish to accept that crown, maybe you can learn to dance like those two home-schooled twins were taught to do by their mother… that is before your next post pooh-poohing black, Christian Americans apparently just because they’re, well, black and Christian.

–

UPDATE 2: Newsweek debunks the baloney

I don’t take kindly to partisan attacks, least of all partisan attacks on people’s faith (or even their atheism should that be their choice in our free society). I’ve written a number of times about crass, hypocritical smears coming from the ill-informed editor of the conservative blog Illinois Review, Fran Eaton, a long-time and well-documented Obama hater and former Alan Keyes campaigner.

Ms. Eaton is hardly alone in her partisan, anti-Christian zeal.

As Ms. Eaton’s quest to tar and feather Sen. Obama’s fellow Christians at his home congregation, Trinity United Church of Christ, has progressed and, indeed, mushroomed in recent days I’ve been compelled to respond multiple times (here and here) in the past week. Earlier posts criticizing Ms. Eaton’s anti-Christian screeds have also appeared here, here, here, here, and even here. (She’s been at it a while and seems quite proud of the fact she’s been able to pull the wool over so many reporters’ and interviewers’ eyes. Go figure.)

Ms. Eaton, unfortunately for us honest Americans, is far from the only partisan conservative to have engaged in this bizarrely anti-Christian, twisted malice against Sen. Obama’s faith and church. There have been TV and radio segments by conservative talking heads; countless deceptive postings at conservative blogs and websites; “mainstream” reports questioning Trinity United Church of Christ in legacy media such as CNN, the Chicago Tribune and USA Today; and, increasingly, chain emails peddling lie after lie about Sen. Obama’s faith circulated nationwide.

Now, as these attacks have grown ever wider and ever more false and deceptive (a pattern having all the appearances of being deliberate and well-calibrated), the general minister and president of Sen. Obama’s very denomination, the United Church of Christ, has spoken out against the smear campaign.

According to an article on the UCC’s own website, the Rev. John H. Thomas (General Minister and President of the United Church of Christ) denounced the cons’ fallacies as “absurd, mean-spirited and politically motivated.”

Here is more from that 1/11/08 article by J. Bennett Guess on UCC.org:

Thomas denounces smear campaign against UCC’s largest congregation

Written by J. Bennett Guess
January 11, 2008
A ramped-up smear campaign against the UCC’s largest congregation and U.S. Sen. Barack Obama’s home church — Trinity UCC in Chicago — has raised the ire of the Rev. John H. Thomas, the UCC’s general minister and president, who called the e-mail-driven claims “absurd, mean-spirited and politically motivated.”

“Our national offices in Cleveland, as well as other settings of the UCC, have been forwarded countless e-mails that obviously derive from a similar source,” Thomas said. “They contain misleading statements obviously meant to undermine the integrity of one of our most vibrant, mission-driven congregations.”

Thomas said, while it’s not his intent to come to the aid of Obama or any presidential candidate, he does feel it’s imperative that “absurd, mean-spirited and politically-motivated attacks against one of our UCC churches be challenged forthrightly.”

Obama, who is seeking the Democratic nomination for president, has been a member of Trinity UCC for 20 years.

Since Obama won the Iowa caucuses on Jan. 3, a flurry of e-mail messages with identical language and sentiment began circulating across the internet, claiming that Trinity UCC was a “racist” congregation because of its long-stated church motto: “Unashamedly Black, Unapologetically Christian.”

“Trinity UCC is rooted in and proud of its Afrocentric heritage,” Thomas said. “This is no different than the hundreds of UCC churches from the German Evangelical and Reformed stream that continue to own and celebrate their German heritage, insisting on annual sausage and sauerkraut dinners and singing Stille Nacht on Christmas Eve. Recognizing and celebrating our distinctive racial-ethnic heritages, cultures, languages and customs are what make us unique as a united and uniting denomination.”

While Trinity UCC is predominately African American, it does include and welcome non-Black members. The Rev. Jane Fisler-Hoffman, Illinois Conference Minister, who is white, has been a member of the congregation for years.

“Trinity is a destination church for many members of the UCC, a multi-racial, multi-cultural denomination that is largely Caucasian,” Thomas pointed out. “When in Chicago, many UCC members flock to Trinity to share in and learn from its vibrant ministries, dynamic worship and justice-minded membership. Contrary to the claims made in these hateful emails, UCC members know Trinity to be one of the most welcoming, hospitable and generous congregations in our denomination.” [...]

While the circulating emails are written to appear as if they are coming from a groundswell of persons, with different names and email addresses, each uses nearly identical language, makes similar claims and even manages to make the same mistakes. For example, each makes introductory reference to “Trinity Church of Christ” instead of “Trinity United Church of Christ.”

“It’s clear that someone is using the internet to give the appearance of widespread concern and, thus, to hopefully create traction for this absurd story,” Thomas said.

About the UCC

Formed by name in 1957 by the union of the Congregational Christian Churches in America and the [German] Evangelical and Reformed Church, the UCC’s roots in American history are deep. Eleven signers of the Declaration of Independence were from UCC traditions, and a full 10 percent of present-day UCC congregations were formed prior to 1776.

Many UCC churches trace their founding to the early 1600s, when the Pilgrims and Puritans first came to America. These Congregationalists, as they became known, sought religious independence from persecuting political authorities in Europe. They believed firmly in local church autonomy, covenantal church life, personal piety and the priesthood of all believers.

Today, the UCC holds firmly to these early religious tenets. Often recognized for its historical and contemporary social justice commitments, its present-day approach to worship, however, might be considered traditional by most standards. [...]

Known for arriving early on social justice issues, the church’s history includes being the first to practice democracy in church governance (1630), the first to ordain an African-American pastor (1785), the first to ordain a woman (1853), the first to ordain an open