Tag Archives: 14th Amendment

We still have no real national leader on stopping the use of killer drones

This video frame grab provided by Senate Television shows Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky. speaking on the floor of the Senate on Capitol Hill in Washington, Wednesday, March 6, 2013. Senate Democrats pushed Wednesday for speedy confirmation of John Brennan's nomination to be CIA director but ran into a snag after a Paul began a lengthy speech over the legality of potential drone strikes on U.S. soil. But Paul stalled the chamber to start what he called a filibuster of Brennan's nomination. Paul's remarks were centered on what he said was the Obama administration's refusal to rule out the possibility of drone strikes inside the United States against American citizens.  (AP Photo/Senate Television)

Associated Press image

U.S. Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky, who has aligned himself with the Repugnican Party, the “tea party” and the libertarians, filibustered on the topic of the use of killer drones from yesterday afternoon until early this morning. Unfortunately, Paul’s concerns about the use of killer drones apparently is limited only to their use on “non-combatant” American citizens on American soil, and it seems to me that the upstart Paul’s goal is to promote and position himself as a future president at least as much as it is to tackle the problem of killer drones.

It was a breath of fresh air to see Repugnican Tea Party U.S. Sen. Rand Paul filibuster on the topic of the use of killer drones, a topic that the spineless, useless Democrats in D.C. (who are only about protecting the brand name and who have no sense of right and wrong) have refused to touch, since Papa Obama wuvs his drones, and Papa Obama must not be crossed.

The first slaughter of a human being by a U.S. drone occurred in Afghanistan in November 2001, during the reign of the unelected Bush regime. Pretty much nothing but evil came from the unelected Bush regime, yet DINO President Barack Obama decided to continue with the use of drones as remote-controlled killing machines.*

Most of the the Repugnican Tea Party traitors in D.C. want to preserve the use of human-snuffing drones for use by future Repugnican Tea Party presidents, and while many if not most of the DINOs in D.C. probably have a problem with the use of drones to kill human beings, none of them has the balls to stand up to Obama in a public and meaningful way.

So it was great to see Rand Paul buck both party establishments and speak out against at least one of the obvious problems that the use of human-killing drones poses. (I might say that that problem is their “abuse,” but since I believe that they should not be used at all, I won’t say “abuse,” because that connotes that their use at all might be OK.)

Don’t get me wrong. I could never cast a vote for Rand Paul.

Among other things, he opposes a woman’s right to an abortion even in cases of rape and incest, but would leave it to each state to determine whether or not to allow legal abortion, Roe v. Wade be damned.

At least at one time he held the view that Title II of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which prohibits private businesses from engaging in race-based discrimination, is unconsitutional, because a private business should be allowed to discriminate by race if it so wishes.

Although Rand Paul claims to be a strict constitutionalist, he doesn’t like the fact that the 14th Amendment makes anyone who is born on American a soil a U.S. citizen, regardless of the child’s parents’ citizenship status, and so he wants so-called “birthright citizenship” to end (he supports a constitutional amendment to end “birthright citizenship” if it can’t be ended otherwise).

Rand Paul apparently wants to pick and choose among the constitutional amendments, because he vehemently supports the Second Amendment, opposing all gun control. (As I’ve noted before, no civilian needs an assault rifle, and when the so-called founding fathers crafted the Second Amendment, no such weapons 0f mass destruction existed, so to claim that of course the Second Amendment extends to them is quite a fucking stretch.)

Rand Paul personally opposes same-sex marriage but is OK with allowing each state to decide the matter. (I have a personal problem with his personal opposition to it, with his ignorance and his bigotry on the matter, his heterosexism and homophobia, and I also disagree vehemently that any state should be able to decide whether or not to honor any U.S. citizen’s constitutionally guaranteed equal human and civil rights.)

All in all, although the term “libertarian,” which Rand Paul uses to describe himself, implies a love of liberties and freedoms, with the libertarians (most of whom are right-wing white males), it is the same-old, same-old: These liberties and freedoms belong only to white, right-wing, “Christian,” heterosexual men (especially those who have power and money). They were the only ones who (regardless of what the U.S. Constitution, the Declaration of Independence and other founding documents proclaimed) had liberties and freedoms at the nation’s founding, and it should be that way forever, right? Just like the rich, white founding fathers intended!

That’s where Rand Paul is coming from. Indeed, he is considered a member of the “tea party” also. (I suspect that he just jumped on to the “tea party” bandwagon because the “libertarian” bandwagon wasn’t going to get him into the U.S. Senate, but if he says that he’s a member of the so-called “tea party,” and he does, then I’m going to hold him to that.)

While there is nothing that the “tea party” traitors believe that I also believe — far from being “revolutionaries” who are fighting for “freedom,” the “tea-party” dipshits support our corporate oppressors, which makes them treasonous fascists, not revolutionaries, and their belief system, if fully implemented, would bring about the even further enslavement of the American people, not our further freedom — the so-called “libertarians” are right on a few issues.

Rand Paul’s libertarian daddy, Ron Paul, for instance, although a patriarchal, misogynist homophobe also, opposed the Bush regime’s illegal, immoral, unprovoked and unjust Vietraq War, a rarity for someone aligned with the Repugnican Party.

Of course, Ron Paul’s reasoning for his opposition to the Vietraq War wasn’t the same as mine. My main problem with the Vietraq War was the carnage — thousands and thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians as well as more than 4,000 U.S. military personnel died pointlessly in the bogus war — carnage that benefitted only Big Oil and Dick Cheney’s Halliburton and the other subsidiaries of BushCheneyCorp.

From what I can discern, Ron Paul’s biggest problem with the war was not the cost in human lives, but was that the war, he argued in October 2002, was unconstitutional**; the U.S. Congress just giving the U.S. president carte blanche approval to declare war was akin to monarchism, he declared. I agree with that, but it was the foreseeable death and destruction, not the constitutional arguments, that were my biggest concern during the Bush regime’s run-up to its Vietraq War in 2002 and early 2003.

It also has been the gargantuan fiscal cost of the Vietraq War to the American taxpayers that has concerned Ron Paul and other libertarians — and that has been a huge problem, too, as the cost of the Vietraq War is a nice chunk of our federal budget deficit — but it troubles me that Ron Paul and his fellow libertarians haven’t focused on the human costs of such bogus warfare.

Still, I suppose, although we did our calculations very differently, at least Ron Paul came to the same, correct answer: The United States never should go to war unless it absolutely, absolutely is necessary, and, as the U.S. Constitution mandates, the U.S. Congress must keep the U.S. president in check when it comes to waging war, and must never abdicate its sole constitutional authority to declare war to the president, under any circumstances.

And wars of choice for war profiteering — robbing the U.S. treasury via bogus warfare — are intolerable. And they are treasonous. Knowingly taking the nation to war with another nation based upon lies cannot be anything other than treason, except, of course, also war crimes and crimes against humanity.

On the topic of the use of drones to slaughter human beings, Rand Paul, much like his daddy, at least partially comes to the right answer, but with calculations that are too cold.

In his nearly 13-hour filibuster, Rand Paul’s main or even only concern about the use of drones, I understand from the media coverage of his filibuster, is that killer drones might one day be used on “non-combatant” American citizens on American soil, in blatant violation of the U.S. Constitution’s guarantee that no U.S. citizen shall be deprived of his or her life or liberty as punishment for an accused crime or crimes without first having been granted a fair trial.

That’s way too narrow a problem to have with the use of killer drones.

Why should only American citizens be granted such fairness, decency and justice? Is not every human being on the planet worthy of such fairness, decency and justice, or are Americans superior to other human beings? Are only American lives valuable?

Further: Drones are a cowardly, lazy and sloppy way to kill, and their use quite foreseeably could explode to the point that innocent people all over the world (including in the U.S., of course) are being maimed and slaughtered by drones, like something out of one of the “Terminator” movies.

Therefore, the use of drones to slaughter human beings should be prohibited worldwide. Their use should not be prohibited only against American citizens, whether on American soil or whether on foreign soil, whether they are deemed “combatant” or “non-combatant,” but should be prohibited against any human being. You can’t trust the average adult with the “proper” use of a killer drone any more than you can trust the average child with the proper use of a shotgun.

Sadly, however, even Rand Paul’s public stance on killer drones is to the left of the public stance taken by the DINOs (which mostly is an eery silence).

DINO Nancy Pelosi, for instance, on the subject of the use of drones to slaughter human beings, to my knowledge only has offered a reassurance that of course Barack Obama never would use a drone to kill a “non-combatant” American citizen on American soil.

That’s not nearly good enough, Nancy.

Maybe Obama would not, but what if another election-stealing would-be war criminal like George W. Bush got into the White House? That could happen in less than four full years.

It would be wonderful if our “representatives” in Washington would actually lead, which means having an eye on the future — fuck, even the near future.

As Rand Paul stated himself during his filibuster, it’s not about Barack Obama (whose handlers constantly are asking us if we have his back when it sure would be nice if he had ours). It’s about the principle of the use of drones to slaughter human beings becoming so widespread and so out of control that we Americans or we human beings anywhere on the planet can’t fucking leave our own homes without worrying about whether or not a fucking drone might maim or kill us that day, accidentally or intentionally.

Neither Rand Paul nor any other member of U.S. Congress, to my knowledge, has stated publicly that that is the issue here.

And I’m still very leery of Rand Paul. I have no idea how much his filibuster actually was about the use of killer drones against “non-combatant” Americans on American soil and how much it was showboating because he has presidential aspirations.

It fairly clearly was such showboating when he remarked during a hearing in January to then-Secretary of State Billary Clinton on the subject of the September attack on the U.S. embassy in Benghazi, Libya: “Had I been president and found you did not read the cables from Benghazi and from Ambassador Stevens, I  would have relieved you of your post.”

He came off as a major prick because, well, he apparently is a major prick.

Although he’s only in his third year in the U.S. Senate, Rand Paul already was talking about his being president one day while he was attacking a woman who has been in national politics far longer than he has been. Would he have talked like that to a white male secretary of state? I doubt it. It was a sickening, nauseating display of that stupid-white-male sense of entitlement again.

While I’m glad that someone finally spoke out against the use of killer drones in some meaningful way in D.C., the patriarchal, misogynist, homophobic, xenophobic and apparently racist/white-supremacist Rand Paul would make as awful a president as his daddy would have, and, because he limited his argument against killer drones to the protection of only “non-combatant” American citizens on American soil — and, of course, whether or not someone targeted for slaughter by drone is a “combatant” or a “non-combatant” in many cases could be up for interpretation, and thus is wide open to abuse — we still have no real leadership in Washington, D.C., on the subject of drones used to slaughter human beings.

*DINO Barack Obama’s having continued the use of drones to slaughter human beings is one of the many reasons that I could not cast a second vote for him in November 2012. Obama is an immoral man, perhaps not immoral as most of the Repugnican Tea Party traitors are, but still immoral. The lesser of two evils is still an evil.

**In his October 2002 speech in which he stated his opposition to the U.S. Congress giving then-“President” Bush the power to declare war on Iraq, Ron Paul also stated, “There is no convincing evidence that Iraq is capable of threatening the security of this country, and, therefore, very little reason, if any, to pursue a war.”

That is common knowledge now, and during the build-up to the Vietraq War it was clear to me, also, as just a consumer of the news, that Iraq posed no threat to the U.S. and that the treasonous members of the unelected Bush regime were lying through their teeth (“aluminum tubes,” “yellowcake from Niger,” “mushroom clouds,” “anthrax,” etc.) and were dead-set upon invading Iraq no matter what.

In his speech Ron Paul also interestingly stated that the impending Vietraq War did not pass the “Christian” litmus test for a “just war.” He said:

First, it [the “Christian” litmus test for a just war] says that there has to be an act of aggression; and there has not been an act of aggression against the United States. We are 6,000 miles from [Iraq’s] shores.

Also, it says that all efforts at negotiations must be exhausted. I do not believe that is the case. It seems to me like the opposition, the enemy, right now is begging for more negotiations.

Also, the Christian doctrine says that the proper authority must be responsible for initiating the war. I do not believe that proper authority can be transferred to the president nor to the United Nations.

In his speech Ron Paul also, besides engaging in the usual libertarian United Nations-bashing (the U.S. should call the global shots, not the UN, you see), attacked the Bush regime’s neo-conservative concept of “pre-emptive war,” stating, “No matter what the arguments may be, this policy is new; and it will have ramifications for our future, and it will have ramifications for the future of the world because other countries will adopt this same philosophy.”

It’s too bad no one is that far-sighted when it comes to the use of human-slaughtering drones!

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Repugnican losers are trying to rig the game

Widespread talk of how the Repugnican Tea Party was going to “reform” itself after two national rejections in a row has been a fucking joke. We have our answer already: Of course the traitors have no interest whatsofuckingever in changing their ways.

Now, the Repugnican Tea Party traitors are trying to have the electoral votes in some purple states with Repugnican-Tea-Party-majority state governments changed from winner takes all (which is the case in 48 of the 50 states) to divvying them up (like only Maine and Nebraska do) — but only in those purple states in which this change of the rules would benefit the Repugnican Tea Party traitors, of course.

They’re not talking about divvying up the electoral votes of such deep-red, winner-takes-all states as Texas or Arizona or Georgia. They’re only talking about divvying up the electoral votes of such purple states as Virginia, Pennsylvania and Wisconsinstates that Barack Obama just won (and that he won in 2008).

It seems to me that this violates the equal protection clause of the U.S. Constitution’s Fourteenth Amendment — at least in spirit, if not in the letter — because it gives the voters in some states a right that voters in other states do not: Namely, to have their votes make a difference in the Electoral College.

I’ll even play devil’s advocate here: The Repugnican Tea Party traitors’ new scheme, if it had been in place in our last presidential election, would have meant that, for instance, someone who voted for Mittens Romney on November 6 in, say, Virginia or Wisconsin or Pennsylvania still would have had his or her vote count in the Electoral College as long as he or she lived in a congressional district that Mittens won, even though Barack Obama won the majority of all of the votes in those states — but someone who voted for Mittens in, say, deep-blue New York or California, would not have had his or her vote count in the Electoral College, because in those winner-takes-all states, Obama would have received all of the states’ electoral votes.

Is that fair — to give voters in some states more say in the Electoral College than the voters in other states? Shouldn’t every voter’s presidential vote count equally?

Of course, the Repugnican Tea Party traitors, being traitors, aren’t about fairness and equality and democracy. They’re about “winning” at all costs — fairness and equality and democracy be damned.

Of course, the best course of action would be to eliminate the Electoral College altogether, to amend the United States Constitution to abolish it and to replace it with a straight-up popular vote for the presidency.

In a so-called democracy, there is no good reason not to choose the president of the United States based on a popular vote. (“But that’s the way we’ve always done it!” is not a valid argument, since it replaces reasoned analysis with mental laziness [a.k.a. “tradition”].)

The winner-takes-all Electoral College method effectively means that those blue voters in red states and those red voters in blue states have no voice at all, but to have one of the two duopolistic political parties pick and choose which states are to be winner-takes-all and which states are to divvy up their electoral votes — only in order to benefit that party’s presidential candidates — is even worse.

It is unfair as it is that even Nebraska and Maine divvy up their electoral votes when the other 48 states do not, but this hasn’t been a huge unfairness problem thus far, since both states together have only nine electoral votes (at least 270 of the 538 electoral votes are necessary to win the White House).

If the Repugnican Tea Party traitors are successful in rigging the entire Electoral College to benefit themselves, however, millions of voters will be disenfranchised.

The good news in all of this is that if the Repugnican Tea Party were strong, it wouldn’t need to cheat in order to “win” presidential elections, as it did in 2000 (and probably in 2004 as well), and as it is trying to do now.

The bad news is that sluggish, complacent, lazy Americans have a way of just allowing the Repugnican Tea Party traitors to get away with their blatantly anti-democratic bullshit, such as stealing presidential elections and launching bogus wars.

I considered the blatantly stolen presidential election of 2000 to be the biggest blow to American democracy during my lifetime, but what the Repugnican Tea Party traitors are cooking up now, if realized, would make even that seem like child’s play by comparison.

P.S. (Friday, January 25, 2013): My bad: Add Ohio and Michigan to the list of purple states that Obama won in 2008 and in 2012 but that now are controlled by Repugnican Tea Party traitors who have at least talked about divvying up their states’ electoral votes in order to rig future presidential elections for the Repugnican Tea Party.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Lynchings begin before Labor Day

File:TheMeltingpot1.jpg

The concept of the “melting pot” and the motto E Pluribus Unum (Latin for “out of many, one”) on the seal of the United States of America (and also on the seals of the U.S. president, of both houses of Congress and of the U.S. Supreme Court — and on most of our money, as well) mean absofuckinglutely nothing to the “tea-party” dipshits who claim to hold a monopoly on American patriotism and define a “patriot” as only a conservative, white, “Christian,” capitalist heterosexual.

There must be an election day approaching, because the wingnutty politicians — most of them stupid white Repugnican males — are working overtime trying to divide and conquer the American people for their own personal political gain at the expense of the nation as a whole.

So much for the fucking “melting pot.”

The members of the Repugnican Tea Party aren’t waiting to campaign until after Labor Day, however; their assault on those who are different from them already is in full force.

There is Repugnican has-been Newt Gingrich calling the planned Muslim complex near the former site of the World Trade Center part of “an Islamist cultural-political offensive designed to undermine and destroy our civilization.” (Repugnican Tea Party star Sarah Palin-Quayle had already pleaded with Muslims — via Twitter [if Palin-Quayle runs in 2012, maybe Lindsey Lohan can be her running mate] — to “refudiate” the establishment of the Muslim center.)*

Come on, Newt. The unelected BushCheneyCorp (and other Repugnicans, like Rudy Giuliani) got to shamelessly milk 9/11 for political gain for at least five years (at least from September 2001 through November 2006, when the Repugs lost the U.S. House of Representatives and bogeywoman Nancy Pelosi became speaker).

The 9/11 cow is  bone dry.

Estimates of the number of Muslims in the United States vary widely, from around 1.3 million on the low end to 7 million on the high end, with 7 million being the estimate of the Council on American-Islamic Relations, which I surmise is inflated for political purposes, and from the estimates available, I surmise that there probably are around 5 million Muslim Americans at most.

So I hardly think that we Americans need to worry about the “Islamo”fascists taking over and destroying the nation.

Ironically, it’s the “Christo”fascists we need to worry about. While I can’t think of one right that the Muslims have taken from me, here in California, the Mormon cult, working with the Catholick church and other wingnutty haters, stripped me of my right to marry anyone of my choosing — a right that the California Supreme Court had ruled was mine under the California Constitution.

This Mormon website states: “In the United States the [Mormon cult] is the fourth largest individual [“Christian”] denomination, with over 5.5 million members, a population about equal to the number of Muslims.” [Emphasis mine.]

Ironic, eh?

Yeah, ya know, I’m not worried about the Muslims, but the fucking Mormons already have pushed their theocratic “Christo”fascism on me — and succeeded, at least with Proposition H8.

And one of the Mormon cult’s zombies, Mitt Romney, wants to be president. (Over this dead faggot’s body will an operative for the “Christo”fascist cabal in Salt Lake City become president of the United States of America. [And the wingnuts called Barack Hussein Obama a “Manchurian candidate”…])

The “Christo”fascists won’t stop trying to shove their fucking bullshit beliefs down the entire nation’s throat.

This title from amazon.com demonstrates what I’m talking about:

This book is No. 10 on amazon.com’s best-seller list as I type this sentence. (My guess is that it was hyped up on Faux “News” and other right-wing “media” outlets, and thus its success on amazon.com right now.)

Would a book linking Islam and American patriotism be acceptable? No? Why not? Why would a book linking what passes for Christianity in the United States and American patriotism be OK, then?

Why is it that the “Christo”fascist wingnuts don’t oppose theocracy — but that they just want to make sure that it’s their bullshit religion that runs the show, and not Islam or another bullshit religion?

As an American citizen — born and raised here — I resent the assertion that any one religion has a monopoly on patriotism in the United States of America, and I find the conflation of “Christianity” and patriotism to be nauseating as well as unconstitutional, un-American and “Christo”fascist.

To me, a theocratic fascist is a theocratic fascist — whether he or she is an “Islamo”fascist or a “Christo”fascist (or, for that matter, a “Judeo”fascist).

Yet the Newt Gingriches of the world talk about such things as “an Islamist cultural-political offensive designed to undermine and destroy our civilization” while they fucking orchestrate their own cultural-political offensive, based upon their hatefully twisted-beyond-recognition teachings of Jesus Christ, to undermine and destroy our civilization. That’s why I think of them as the “American Taliban.”

Mine is a secular nation, not a “Christian” or “Judeo-Christian” nation, no matter what the wingnutty fucktards claim. Memo to the wingnuts: Keep your fucking stupid, backasswards beliefs off of my constitutional rights, fuck you very much!

It’s not just the stupid white men — it’s the stupid white women, too, such as Palin-Quayle, the grand dragoness of the “tea party” crowd, and the racist, white supremacist Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer, the Wicked Witch of the Southwest, who has tried to use the persecution of the brown-skinned peoples in Arizona for her November election but who has been foiled by the federal courts, which refuse to decide on Arizona’s anti-browned-skinned-person law, now on hold, until after the November elections.

And then there’s John McCainosaurus, also trying to win election in Arizona on the backs of the wetbacks, proclaiming that the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constititution should be changed so that children born on U.S. soil to parents who aren’t citizens aren’t automatically U.S. citizens by birth.

On board with McCainosaurus is Alabama’s Jeff (short for Jefferson, but Jeff sure sounds a lot folksier to your Joe the Plumber set) Sessions, the top Repugnican on the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee. Reports Politico:

Sessions … said a re-examination of the 14th Amendment “deserves serious discussion” and that he supports hearings [on changing the amendment].

“People do not believe you should be able to break into America, have a baby and then the baby becomes a citizen, and the whole family says, ‘We can’t go home. My child is a citizen,’” Sessions told reporters on Capitol Hill. “It’s an unfair way to gain priority in the application for legal immigration into America.”

Fortunately, on the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee it’s Democratic Sen. Patrick Leahy of Vermont who calls the shots, not assbite Sessions, and Leahy wisely says that no such hearing will happen before the November elections.

Of course, after the November elections, it won’t be so much of an issue for the race-baiting Repugnicans and their “tea-partying” ilk anymore.

A person could, I suppose, make at least a semi-legitimate argument that at least one parent should have U.S. citizenship before a newborn squeezed out here or in U.S. territory could be a citizen, but tampering with the U.S. Constitution (or a state’s constitution), especially in order to strip individuals of their rights, is walking upon perilously thin ice. And tampering with the U.S. Constitution (or a state’s constitution) should not be used primarily as a political ploy to win the hater vote.

And it’s funny how the right wing thinks that the purpose of amending our federal and state constitutions is to roll back, rather than to expand, human rights. I had thought that the wingnuts were all about freedom, liberty, freedom, liberty, freedom, liberty, freedom, liberty, freedom, liberty, blah blah blah — and against tyranny. But they sure love their tyranny by the (shrinking white) majority, don’t they?

And very apparently, only conservative, white, “Christian,” heterosexual, capitalist Americans (especially those possessing the XY chromosomes) are to have any fucking freedom at all.

So this is the Repugnican Tea Party’s obvious strategy for November 2010: to pit groups of people against other groups of people in order to take the voters’ attention away from the Repugnican Tea Party’s stark record of failure and its allegiance to the super-rich instead of to the common American. (Palin-Quayle, for instance, opposes allowing the Bush tax cuts for the filthy rich to expire, but at the same time she fucking claims that she’s a populist — just one of us. You betcha!)

Yes, the Repugnican Tea Partiers are uniters, not dividers. And they’re such great “Christians.” And, being the uber-patriots that they are, upholding the national ideal of E Pluribus Unum, they just love to stir that red, white and blue American melting pot, because they’re all about diversity.

*As I have noted, my only problem with the planned Muslim complex near the former site of the World Trade Center is that I don’t think that anyone visiting it would be safe from violence from the unhinged, self-righteous Muslim-haters.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Racist Repugnican (that’s redundant…) roundup!

Russell Pearce

Associated Press photo

Blue-eyed devils Repugnican Arizona state Sen. Russell Pearce, above, and Repugnican U.S. Rep. Steve King of Iowa, below, are shown wildly exaggerating the length of their penises. Pearce wants to end automatic U.S. citizenship for children born in the United States, although the U.S. Constitution guarantees it, and King claims that President Barack Obama shows black Americans preferential treatment.

Steve King

Associated Press photo

The Repugnican Party still denies rank racism within its ranks, yet there are news stories like these:

Phoenix [from The Associated Press] – Emboldened by passage of the nation’s toughest law against illegal immigration, the Arizona politician who sponsored the measure now wants to deny U.S. citizenship to children born in this country to undocumented parents.

Legal scholars laugh out loud at Republican state Sen. Russell Pearce’s proposal and warn that it would be blatantly unconstitutional, since the 14th Amendment guarantees citizenship to anyone born in the U.S….

and

Washington [also from The Associated Press] – Democrats [today] denounced an Iowa Republican congressman who says President Barack Obama favors blacks over whites, and a GOP candidate from Colorado canceled a fundraiser the Iowan was to keynote.

Rep. Steve King, known for sometimes incendiary remarks about immigration, Abu Ghraib and other issues, criticized Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder, who also is black, in an interview [yesterday] on [wingnut criminal] G. Gordon Liddy’s nationally syndicated radio talk show….

and

[From Politico] Alabama Republican congressional candidate Rick Barber is encouraging his fellow tea party activists to “gather your armies” against President Barack Obama — with a campaign ad that twice shows a hand fidgeting next to a Revolutionary War-era pistol. 

In the new ad, Barber is seen sitting around the table with actors playing George Washington, Benjamin Franklin and Sam Adams.

The ad opens with a shot of the pistol sitting on a table and Barber saying he would “impeach” Obama.

“Today we have an Internal Revenue Service that enforces what they call a ‘progressive’ income tax,” Barber tells the assembled Revolutionary heroes in what appears to be an empty bar.

As the camera pans toward the gun again, Barber says: “Now this same IRS is going to force us to buy health insurance, cram it down our throats or else.”

Pointing to a copy of the Constitution, Barber says, “Now, I took an oath to defend that with my life, and I can’t stand by while these evils are perpetrated.” …

Um, which “founding father” does Barber portray? Benedict Fucking Arnold?

Because that’s what his ad is advocating — treason.

And the Secret Service should investigate him for his thinly veiled threat against the democratically elected president of the United States. I mean it. (The Repugnicans would have demanded such an investigation had anyone run such an ad about “President” George W. Bush.)

Fifty-three percent of Americans voted for Barack Obama — more than who ever voted for Bush in 2000 or 2004.

For Barber and his Benedict-Arnold ilk to be advocating a violent overthrow of the democratically elected Obama is treason, and the motherfucking traitors should be treated like the traitors that they are.

As far as King is concerned, I’ve seen no evidence whatsofuckingever that President Obama, who is whiter than I am, and I’m fully white, has shown black Americans favoritism over white Americans.

In fact, it’s my distinct impression that in order not to be accused of such favoritism, Obama pays less attention to black Americans than he should.

And Pearce — what another piece of shit. The AP story notes that he has yet to write any legislation, so I have to wonder if he would deny U.S. citizenship to all babies born to undocumented parents in Arizona — or just the brown babies. It would be interesting to see how his unconstitutional and un-Christian proposal actually would work.

Pearce, King, Barber — they should donate their organs now so that others can make better use of them.

They make me embarrassed to be a blue-eyed white man.

3 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized