Run, Liz, run!

Associated Press photo

U.S. Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachussetts speaks during a news conference in Washington, D.C., last month. Warren has the support for the 2016 Democratic Party presidential nomination of Democracy for America and MoveOn.org, the latter of which has just created Run Warren Run, a campaign to draft Warren to run for the White House. Below is a bumper sticker produced by the Progressive Change Campaign Committee, an apparent take-off from Howard Dean’s proclamation that he represented “the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party.” (Which, apparently, Dean borrowed from the late U.S. Sen. Paul Wellstone.)

Progressive political activist groups MoveOn.org and Democracy for America (the latter of which grew from Howard Dean’s campaign for the 2004 Democratic Party presidential nomination) have thrown their political weight behind U.S. Sen. Elizabeth Warren to run for the 2016 Democratic Party presidential nomination.

In online voting last month, Warren was the choice of 42 percent of Democracy for America’s membership (myself included), with U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders at No. 2 (with 24 percent) and Billary Clinton at No. 3 (with 23 percent). After 81 percent of MoveOn.org’s membership (myself included) recently voted that MoveOn should encourage Warren to run for president, MoveOn launched the Run Warren Run campaign, which is at runwarrenrun.org.

In response to MoveOn’s move, Democracy for America today began another online survey of its membership, simply asking, “Should DFA draft Elizabeth Warren to run for president?” The survey closes on Tuesday. (DFA’s website indicates that if enough DFA members vote yes on drafting Warren, DFA would have its own draft-Warren effort, but it seems to me that DFA and MoveOn [and other progressive groups] could and probably should work together instead of in parallel, duplicating efforts.)

The Progressive Change Campaign Committee’s home page right now prominently features an article on and an image of Elizabeth Warren and offers for sale in its store (via its home page) a T-shirt that reads “I’m from the Elizabeth Warren wing of the Democratic Party.” (When you click through to buy the T-shirt, however, you see an image of the T-shirt that reads “I’m from the Elizabeth Warren wing of American politics.” I’ve sent the PCCC an e-mail to find out, I hope, which of those two not-so-subtly different messages the T-shirt [and the bumper sticker that you also can buy] actually convey.) I see no Billary gear (or gear for any other politician) offered up on the PCCC’s website.

The Clintonistas and other assorted unimaginative and dismissive types blow this stuff off, no doubt, but remind yourself that your Democratic Party primary voters and caucus goers are significantly further to the left — that is, progressive — than are your general election voters among whom Billary might not do too terribly (should she get that far).

And recall that Billary “Crown Me Already” Clinton came in at third place in the 2008 first-in-the-nation Iowa caucuses, behind the No. 1 Barack Obama and the No. 2 John Edwards, a stunning blow from which she never recovered, eventually losing, of course, to Obama.

Given that Billary is not the choice of the majority of MoveOn’s and Democracy for America ’s membership of progressives (nor, of course, is she the choice of the PCCC), how well can she do in Iowa in 2016 (and in the following 2016 primary-season contests) if she has a viable, more progressive (well, just an actually progressive) challenger?

But Elizabeth Warren won’t run, you protest.

It’s true that in the end she might not run – it remains, after all, her choice – but it sure would be easier for Warren to run with these outside progressive groups clamoring for her to run, wouldn’t it?

Warren truthfully could point to popular demand as having compelled her to jump into the race.

Such popular demand would give her at least some degree of political cover from the anti-democratic “Democrats” who believe that anyone who dares to challenge Queen Billary’s Claim to the Throne in the Oval Office should be excommunicated from the Democratic Party (if not executed altogether; yes, Billary would make a great decapitation-happy Red Queen).

If Warren does indeed run after all and the Clintonistas are too shrill in their anti-democratic attacks that no one should oppose Billary the Great for the party’s presidential nomination, they will look like the anti-democratic fascists that they are.

Even if Warren ran for the 2016 nomination but lost, surely she’d come in no lower than at second place, positioning her well for future presidential contests.

I can’t see Warren politically losing, really, from running for the White House right now.

If Billary Clinton wins the 2016 Democratic Party presidential nomination, however, we all lose — whether she wins the general presidential election in November 2016 or not.

Prick Warren speaks with forked tongue

I noticed this yesterday but didn’t comment on it at the time. I should have.

In his little “news and views” (nice euphemism for “propaganda”) video for his congregants, Prick Warren tells his congregants that he absolutely never compared same-sex marriage to incestual marriage or pedophilic marriage. He stated that his comments during his interview with Beliefnet had been taken out of context, distorted.

I had thought that maybe he was telling the truth.

But then I saw the actual video clip of his interview with Beliefnet, and yeah, it’s pretty fucking inarguable that the motherfucking liar indeed compared same-sex marriage to pedophilic and incestual marriage (and to polygamy, too; for some reason he left bestiality out…).

It’s a long video on Prick Warren — almost 15 minutes long — with MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow, but it’s worth watching in its entirety. Maddow rocks to the extent that Prick Warren sucks ass to the point that he should just donate his organs now so that someone else can make better use of them.

Oh, and you have to see San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom, a Democrat, in his interview with Maddow, tap dance around the fact that in San Francisco he has to be pro-gay and lesbian in order to survive politically, but President-elect Barack Obama, like Prick Warren, publicly opposes same-sex marriage and has thrown gay men and lesbians under the bus, yet Newsom has to cozy up to the president-elect, too.

In his interview Newsom doesn’t quite make it work with Maddow, who lets him off way too easily (I guess that she wanted to be able to interview him again…), and if you have a pulse you will see that Newsom has sold his soul to the Democratic Party machine — which is why when he ran for mayor in 2003 I gave his opponent, Matt Gonzalez of the Green Party, a campaign donation even though I live in Sacramento. (Despite the fact that Newsom brought in the Democratic Party machine’s biggest guns, including Billary Clinton and Al Gore, to campaign for him, despite the fact that he outspent Gonzalez by at least 4 to 1, and despite the fact that the number of San Francisco residents registered under the Green Party was less than 5 percent, Gonzalez lost to Democratic Party hack Newsom by only single digits.)

But back to Prick Warren:

That he feels the need to bold-facedly lie to his own congregants about his hateful, ignorant, bigoted comments on same-sex marriage demonstrates that increasingly, open homophobia, just like open racism, is becoming less and less socially acceptable among polite/”polite” company.

Not that someone isn’t a homophobe because he or she doesn’t make overtly homophobic remarks.* But when the haters are in an environment that is not conducive to their hate, it’s harder for their hate to thrive.

And you know what? Lying is a sin, even if you’re a stupid white male baby-boomer pastor who has made millions of dollars from “The Secret”-like bullshit books and spin-offs. (I love how baby boomers — who have nearly destroyed the nation — write self-help and advice books, because clearly they know what they’re doing and thus we should follow them. I mean, the proof is in the pudding, no?)

And if Prick Warren will lie through his fangs to his congregants about what he said on camera, what does that say about his character?

Prick Warren is one of the false prophets that the Bible warns you about.

P.S. OK, another video clip of Rachel Maddow on Prick Warren. If you don’t want to watch the full almost-15-minute video clip that I referenced above, you can watch this shorter one (it’s under three minutes) that captures Warren’s bold-faced lie using the two clips of him side by side.

And also in this clip of Maddow’s show, Warren pretty much asserts that when his opponents voice their opposition to him, it’s “hate speech,” but that everything that he and his supporters can only be construed as wuv. Fucking hypocrite.

And it’s funny (in a deeply unsettling sort of way) when wingnuts like Prick Warren talk about how much they just wuv free speech when you know that if they could silence their detractors, they wouldn’t hesitate to do so.

In the video clips of Warren that I’ve watched, it’s pretty apparent that he claims that he “loves” gay men and lesbians only because the Bible instructs that we all must love one another, and that he advocates free speech only because it’s enshrined in the U.S. Constitution. Warren very apparently does not feel the spirit of love or the spirit of free speech within his being, and it’s only written codes, apparently, that stop him from expressing what’s truly in his heart, which is hatred and violence (silencing your opponents falls under violence, in my book).

I mean, if the wingnuts could alter the U.S. Constitution to strip their opponents of free-speech rights, do you think that they’d hesitate for a fucking heartbeart to do so? With Proposition 8, the wingnuts tried to strip gay men and lesbians of their equal human and civil rights guaranteed to them by the California Constitution. (The Repugnican-dominated California Supreme Court, which in May ruled that the California Constitution guarantees the right to same-sex marriage, will, I surmise, strike down Proposition 8 as California’s attorney general, among others, has asked the court to do.)

Last but certainly not list, in this second video clip of Maddow’s show, Warren also uses the term “Christophobia” to describe his opponents. Let me set the lying, motherfucking false prophet straight (so to speak…) on that:

If “Christians” of Warren’s ilk actually followed the teachings of Jesus Christ, I’d love them to death. See, I’ve actually read the New Testament, and Jesus Christ says not a single fucking word on the topic of homosexuality. The “Christo”fascists pull all of their homophobic rhetoric from the Old Testament, because the Old Testament is full of ignorance and fear, and thus the “Christo”fascists gravitate to the Old Testament. (About the only thing they like about the New Testament is the Book of Revelations, which, like the Old Testament, is chock full o’ ignorance and fear, and which has nothing to do with Jesus Christ, but which was fabricated long after his death.)

Now, to me, if you are a Christian, that means that you actually follow the teachings of Jesus Christ, who taught things like love and acceptance — true love and acceptance, not the kind of “love and acceptance” in which you try to strip gay men and lesbians of their constitutionally guaranteed equal civil and human rights and/or assert that they’re (probably) going to hell — but still claim that you wuv them nonetheless.

Jesus Christ was not like a red-state fucktard (boy, that’s redundant). Jesus Christ was a flaming liberal, a progressive radical:

from Wikipedia.org

Jesus Christ rocked.

I’m not a “Christophobe.” I’m a pseudoprophetophobe.

I don’t hate Jesus Christ or true Christians, who are exceedingly rare. I hate false prophets like Prick Warren, who claim that when you attack them for their evil you are attacking Jesus Christ — because the Prick Warrens of the world, in their arrogance and in their blasphemy, compare themselves to God and to Jesus Christ, when, in fact, they paradoxically are about as anti-Christian as you can get.

*My maternal grandmother, who waited far too long to die, was a huge fucking racist who knew that it was politically incorrect to make overtly racist comments in “polite”/polite company. But her racist views were glaringly apparent nonetheless from her “nice” racist statements.