Tag Archives: World Trade Center

Dean for 2016!

Des Moines Register photo

Howard Dean, photographed at a speaking engagement in Iowa today, today reportedly refused to rule out a run for the 2016 Democratic presidential nomination.

Disclaimer: I did not support Howard Dean’s 2004 bid for the Democratic presidential nomination. And in 2003 and 2004 I found the “Deaniacs” to be, well, more creepily cult-like than to be inspiring.

When Dean imploded in the snows of Iowa in January 2004 — when he came in at No. 3, behind John Kerry and John Edwards, after the Deaniacs already had painted Dean as all but coronated as the 2004 Democratic presidential candidate — I was pleased, I must admit.

Dean had had his hordes of zombie-like followers converging upon and canvassing all over Iowa in their tacky orange knit hats (their no-doubt-annoying-to-Iowans ubiquity probably harmed Dean a lot more than it helped him, I surmised then and still surmise today), and Dean’s followers struck me as pretty fucking smug, and so it was great to see Team Dean knocked down some pegs.

The “Dean scream” thing, I can say at least in retrospect, was overblown and probably unfair, but at the time I didn’t care, truth be told; I just wanted Dean knocked out of the race, and if that was what it took, so be it.

But don’t get me wrong. I didn’t necessarily feel in 2004 that Howard Dean never should be the Democratic presidential candidate. I just didn’t believe — and still don’t believe — that he was the best Democratic presidential candidate for 2004, when the goal was to boot the unelected George W. Bush from the White House, and when the post-9/11 “war on terror” and militarism still were big (or big-enough, anyway) issues.

I couldn’t see the peacenik Dean (that was the perception of him, anyway) beating the chickenhawk Bush, who quite effectively had used the specter of “terrorism” for political gain, who had milked the fall of the World Trade Center like Adolf Hitler had milked the Reichstag fire.

I, along with millions of others, desperately wanted to deny Bush a second term, and in my eyes it was Vietnam vet John Kerry (contrasted to the Vietnam War-evading cowards Bush and Cheney) whose resume was best matched to accomplishing that.

I supported Kerry from early on, but I figured that his campaign was dead, or at least on life support, no later than in the late fall of 2003, when it sure looked like he was a goner. Then, like Lazarus, Kerry came back from the dead and kicked Dean’s ass in Iowa, the first contest of the presidential primary season. Kerry’s momentum from Iowa quickly made him the front-runner; Dean dropped out of the primary race after he again placed third, this time in Wisconsin, in February 2004.

That Kerry ultimately lost to Bush does not make me believe, in retrospect, that Dean would have been the better candidate. Bush had the incumbent’s advantage, and while I won’t claim that the Kerry campaign made no missteps, I posit that Kerry did significantly better against Bush than Dean would have.

With Dean, I saw an embarrassing, Walter Mondale- or Michael Dukakis-level loss, frankly. At least with Kerry it was close (251 electoral votes to 286 electoral votes, and 48.3 percent of the popular vote to 50.7 percent).

But the political environment of 2016 is shaping up to be quite different from that of 2004. 9/11 occurred almost 12 years ago, for starters.

Let’s face it: Barack Obama in 2008 fairly simply coasted to the White House on the wave that Howard Dean had created.* Obama, whose only “accomplishment” had been a nice, touchy-feely speech that he gave at the 2004 Democratic National Convention (before he had even been elected to the U.S. Senate), is an opportunist who saw his opportunity and took it.

Although I didn’t support Dean in 2004 primarily for strategic reasons, he’s the right candidate for 2016.

Billary Clinton does not deserve to be coronated (any more than Dean did in 2004), and if Obama gave her a run for her money in 2008 — and he did, obviously (while Dean flamed out after only a month in the presidential primary fight, recall that Obama and Billary duked it out for five looong months) — then I don’t see why Dean couldn’t do so in 2016, especially when Obama in 2008 pretty much had only pretended to be the second coming of Howard Dean.

I would support Dean over Billary for 2016, hands down. I’m more than ready for our first female president, but she would need to be one who is actually progressive, not one who rubber-stamped the unelected Bush regime’s Vietraq War, helped her husband pimp the Democratic Party out to corporate weasels and drag the Democratic Party to right, and who has coasted and capitalized on her husband’s name rather than having actually achieved anything on her own.

Thankfully, there is talk that Howard Dean might be considering a 2016 run. He was in Iowa today (visit Iowa while being a politician, and tongues will wag), and The Des Moines Register reports:

Another presidential campaign is not an immediate goal for Democrat Howard Dean, who came to Iowa today to rake Republicans as either radicals or cowards who are too afraid to stand up to the extreme right.

“At this point, I’m supporting Hillary Clinton,” Dean, a former Vermont governor and 2004 presidential candidate, told The Des Moines Register in a brief interview in Iowa today.

Asked if he’s definitively ruling out a White House bid, Dean climbed into a waiting car and said with a grin, “Ahhgh, we’re done here. Thank you.”

Dean, the founder of a political action committee called Democracy for America, was the keynote speaker at the 57th annual Iowa Federation of Labor Convention at a conference center at Prairie Meadows in Altoona this morning.

Earlier this year, Dean had said he wasn’t ruling out running for president in 2016. He came in third place in the Democratic Iowa caucuses a decade ago, after John Kerry and John Edwards. …

I could support Al Gore for 2016, too, but I haven’t heard that Gore has had any interesting in running for the White House again, and, truth be told, I surmise that Gore is widely viewed as already having lost a presidential election (even though, of course, he actually won it), whereas Dean does not, it seems to me, carry that level of baggage.

And, as I noted, Barack Obama would not be where he is had he not coasted along the path to the White House that Dean already had paved for him. Obama in 2008 undeservedly fairly automatically picked up the energy, the money and the support of the Deaniacs, which propelled him into the Oval Office.

It’s time, it seems to me, for Howard Dean to finally be sitting in the chair in the Oval Office, the chair that Obama fairly effortlessly slipped into but that Dean actually deserves.

*Wikipedia notes of Howard Dean, “Although his [2004] presidential campaign was unsuccessful, Dean is regarded as a pioneer in raising the profile of Internet-based fundraising and grassroots organizing” and: 

Dean formed the [progressive political action committee] Democracy for America [in 2004] and later was elected chairman of the Democratic National Committee in February 2005. As chairman of the [Democratic Party], Dean created and employed the “50-state strategy” that attempted to make Democrats competitive in normally conservative states often dismissed in the past as “solid red.”

The success of the strategy became apparent after the 2006 midterm elections, where Democrats took back the House and picked up seats in the Senate from normally Republican states such as Missouri and Montana. In the 2008 presidential election, Barack Obama used the “50-state strategy” as the backbone of his candidacy.

Wikipedia further notes that although Dean has not held elected office since he wrapped up his chairmanship of the Democratic Party in 2009, “In June 2013, Dean expressed interest in possibly running for the presidency in 2016.”

Advertisements

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

‘W’ still is for ‘Worst’

US Presidents George H.W. Bush and George W. Bush,shake hands at the dedication for the George W. Bush Presidential Center in Texas

Reuters photo

The two George Bushes yuk it up at the dedication of the George W. Bush Presidential Center, which contains a library and a museum, in Dallas today.

It’s interesting that we supposedly now are “re-evaluating” the unelected reign of George W. Bush in the White House on the occasion of the impending (May 1) public opening of his library and museum in Dallas — which, I’m guessing, consists of coloring books, connect-the-dot books, and, of course, many copies of The Pet Goat, and maybe such relics as aluminum tubes and that vial of white powder that were used to justify the Vietraq War, and maybe that dog leash that was on that Iraqi prisoner at Abu Ghraib. (The original plans for World Trade Center: The Ride and the Hurricane-Katrina-themed water park next door to the library and museum were nixed for maybe sending the wrong messages.)

Will any of Gee Dubya’s amateurish paintings be put on display at his museum? It’s funny — Adolf Hitler was a bad artist before he became a fascistic dictator, and Gee Dubya pulled a Reverse Adolf, first becoming a fascistic dictator and then becoming an awful artist.

Seriously — what to say about a presidency that began with a blatantly stolen presidential election (replete with George W. Bush’s brother Jeb in the role of the governor of the pivotal state of Florida and Florida’s chief elections officer, Katherine Harris, making damn sure that Gee Dubya “won” the state) and that ended with our national economic collapse (including a federal budget surplus turned into a record federal budget deficit)?

Between those two lovely bookends were 9/11 (despite the August 6, 2001 presidential daily brief titled “Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S.” [which, in Bush’s defense, he might not even have skimmed, since he was on vacation at his ranch in Crawford, Texas, at the time]); the launch of the illegal, immoral, unjust and unprovoked Vietraq War in March 2003, using 9/11 as the pretext; all that came with the Vietraq War, such as the thousands upon thousands of Iraqi civilians and American military personnel slaughtered for nothing except for Dick Cheney’s Halliburton’s war profiteering, such as the Abu Ghraib House of Horrors, and such as the bogus war’s massive drain on the U.S. Treasury; and Hurricane Katrina, which struck Louisiana and other Gulf Coast states on August 29, 2005 (the same day that Bush was sharing birthday cake with John McCainosaurus in Arizona), and killed around 2,000 Americans, most of whom were black and so who were expendable.

(If you want a more exhaustive list of George W. Bush’s Greatest Hits, see AlterNet.org’s “50 Reasons You Despised George W. Bush’s Presidency: A Reminder on the Day of His Presidential Library Dedication.”)

The eight, very long George W. Bush years to me were like a series of national rapes. Never before had a president who had lost the popular vote nonetheless been coronated president by the right-wing U.S. Supreme Court that ruled that it was most expedient to stop recounting the ballots in Florida and just declare a “victor” already.

So raped did I feel over this, the largest blow to democracy in my lifetime, that I attended a “Not My President Day” protest rally on Presidents’ Day in early 2001 at the California State Capitol. Not long enough after that, I attended another protest rally at the state Capitol, this one over the impending launch of the obviously bogus Vietraq War in March 2003.

That is the only good/“good” thing that I can say about the George W. Bush years: That the unelected Bush regime’s stunning incompetence and its criminal and treasonous acts and failures to act made me more political than I’d ever been before — indeed, to the point that shortly before the Bush regime launched its Vietraq War, I started to blog in the fall of 2002, and I was more involved in the 2004 presidential election than I’d ever been involved in any presidential election before or since.

I get it that there are certain individuals out there who, because they identify so much with the Repugnican Tea Party, never will admit the colossal failure that was the George W. Bush presidency.

That’s fine. They can, and will, remain in their delusion and lies.

The rest of us, however, know and never will forget that there isn’t enough lipstick on the planet to put on the pig that was the unelected, treasonous reign of our own former mass-murdering dictator*, George W. Bush.

*A dictator, by my definition, is someone who did not receive the majority of the votes but who takes office through intimidation or even physical force anyway.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Obama spikes the football on day of first Repugnican debate

One of the reasons that I voted for Barack Obama in 2008 was that I was sick and fucking tired of being embarrassed to be an American. Americans’ assholism was a condition that long preceded the theft of the White House by George W. Bush & Co. in 2000, to be sure, but the eight, long, nightmarish years of rule by the unelected Bush regime exacerbated the condition immensely.

“That’s not who we are. We don’t trot out this stuff as trophies. We don’t need to spike the football,” Obama reportedly said of his recent decision not to release any supposed photographs of the freshly snuffed Osama bin Laden.

“We don’t need to spike the football.”

Ummmm, riiight.

This just might be the fastest that Obama, the Promise-Breaker in Chief, has gone against his word: After just having promised not to “spike the football,” The Associated Press reports that today Obama “has arrived in New York for a solemn [wink wink] visit to Ground Zero, where he will try to bury the memory of Osama bin Laden by honoring those who died in the Sept. 11 attacks on the World Trade Center.”

The fucktarded Obama apologists — and they are legion — claim that of course Obama isn’t milking the bin Laden assassination for all of the political gain that it’s worth.

I’m sure that it’s just a fucking coinky-dink that today also is the first Repugnican Tea Party presidential candidate debate for the 2012 presidential campaign season.

So we went from George W. Bush shamelessly exploiting 9/11 for crass political gain to Barack Obama exploiting 9/11 for crass political gain.

So much for that “change” that Obama incessantly promised us, unless he’d meant that everything would be the same but that the individual who holds the title of president of the United States would change.

It’s bad enough that videos of drunken white frat boys (who most likely will always lead comfortable, overprivileged lives and never will sacrifice themselves significantly for any cause greater than themselves or ever come in harm’s way) chanting “U-S-A!” in celebration of bin Laden’s assassination are all over the Internet.  

Now, we have to have an official, national drunken frat boy celebration.

The 10th anniversary of 9/11 is coming up in just about four months and one week. We couldn’t have just waited for a “solemn” (that is, a non-gloating, not unseemly — because that’s not who we are!) observance then?

The problem with Osama bin Laden is that he had no respect for human life; he killed casually. However, while bin Laden killed just under 3,000 American civilians on Sept. 11, 2001, the United States slaughtered tens of thousands of civilians in Iraq in revenge for 9/11 when Iraq had had nothing whatsofuckingever to do with 9/11. Not one of the 19 9/11 hijackers was an Iraqi (15 of them, however, were Saudi), and no link between bin Laden and Saddam Hussein ever was discovered.

The majority of Americans were wholly complicit in this mass murder, this crime against humanity, this war crime. Without their support, the illegal, immoral, unjust and unprovoked Vietraq War never could have been launched in March 2003.

Yet Americans denounce bin Laden, the textbook scapegoat, as the murderous monster when American mass murder far surpasses anything that bin Laden ever accomplished (well, in terms of body counts of innocents, anyway).

The American slaughter of civilians continues in Pakistan and Afghanistan with Americans’ complicity — even, perhaps even especially, with the support (or at least the acquiescence) of the self-identified left. After all, if the nation’s first black president is ordering the slaughter, it must be just! (And surely, using “Terminator”-like unmanned flying killing machines makes the slaughter clean and, dare I say, humane!)

I keep seeing all of these simple-minded, black-and-white, hypocritical, jingoistic, smug editorial cartoons of bin Laden meeting Satan in hell.

If we accept that hell is for those who hold human life to be cheap, easily disposed of, then Americans will overpopulate hell. Only in the hypocritical (but typical), assholy American mind could it be envisioned that mass murderer bin Laden and his followers are fit for hell, but American mass murderers like George W. Bush, Barack Obama, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Condoleezza Rice, et. al., and their followers are fit for heaven.

It’s not like hell can hold either “Islamofascists” or those who call themselves “Christians” but who have no problem with mass murder (supporting it or actually committing it) while pronouncing themselves God’s chosen and the world’s morally supreme people. There is, I am sure, plenty of room in hell for mass murderers of all religions.

The blood of bin Laden does not wash away the blood that already was on American hands. It only adds to it.

More killing, even the revenge killing of the unarmed Osama bin Laden (who should have been captured and put on trial, and would have been if the United States of America were a civilized nation), is nothing to celebrate, especially if you call yourself a Christian.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

I hate Muslims, but I don’t know any

Wrapping themselves in the American flag and in the Shroud of Turin, day by day the members of the radical right, most of them members of the Repugnican Tea Party, drag us closer and closer to “Christo”fascism.

Americans — thanks mostly to the tireless propaganda of “Christo”fascists and members of the Israel-first lobby (a.k.a. Zionists) — don’t like Muslims.

Forty-six percent of Americans believe that Muslims are more likely to encourage violence against non-believers than members of other religions are.

Forty-six percent of Americans believe that American Muslims aren’t patriotic or they’re not sure whether or not they’re patriotic.

Fuck freedom of religion — more than 60 percent of Americans believe that American Muslims should not be allowed to establish a Muslim center near the former site of the World Trade Center.

And more than 60 percent of Americans say that they don’t even know any Muslims. But that sure the fuck doesn’t stop them from having a negative opinion of Muslims.

It has been a long-standing American principle that there should be no religious test to hold public office, yet the White House apparently felt enough political pressure to announce today that President Barack Obama is a Christian who prays every day.

It’s a sad, sad day when the president of the United States of America has to assure the lynch mob for Jesus that he’s one of them.

But hey, how do we know that Obama is a Christian?

Maybe we should put him in a big vat of water. Only if he sinks will we know that he’s a Christian and not, say, a Muslim witch!

It’s true that the balls-less Obama administration is always caving in to the radical right, but it’s also a sign of how far the United States of America has fallen that Obama’s handlers should have felt the political pressure to announce that he indeed is a Christian. Who prays every day.

As I just wrote, it doesn’t matter whether he’s a Christian or not.

Speaking of public pronouncements of one’s Christianity, Jesus Christ Himself said (Matthew 6:56:6):

“And when you pray, you must not be like the hypocrites. For they love to stand and pray in the synagogues and at the street corners, so that they may be seen by others. Truly, I say to you, they have received their reward already.

“But when you pray, go into your room and shut the door and pray to your Father who is in secret. And your Father who sees in secret will reward you.”

To me, there is no other way to interpret this instruction other than that Jesus Christ Himself asserted that spirituality is a private, individual thing — not something to be paraded publicly so that others will think that one is such an upright, pious person.

But Jesus’ actual teachings never stop those who claim to be His followers.

You know, I would love a Christian. I just don’t know any Christians, if we define a Christian as one who actually follows Jesus’ teachings.

Here we have the members of the Repugnican Tea Party and other assorted wingnuts claiming to be Christian when they in fact are anti-Christian, and they are beating up on Muslims for political gain (even though most of them don’t even know a single Muslim). Yeah, that’s exactly what Jesus stood for.

Even Disneyland is in on the Muslim-bashing, not allowing a Muslim employee to wear her hijab (head scarf) while in view of customers.

DisneyCorp told the woman she could wear only a hijab designed by Disney, but has yet to produce this special hijab. (Presumably, it’s not just a hijab with mouse ears attached to it…) 

Horrors should good little lily-white American “Christian” spawn learn tolerance of appreciation for other cultures! We can’t have that!

(I, for one, won’t set foot in the “magic kingdom” until and unless it embraces diversity. Fuck DisneyCorp.)

As it sank into fascism, Germany persecuted Jews.

As the United States of America sinks into fascism, it persecutes Muslims. And “anchor babies.” And non-heterosexuals. And…

God bless America.

It sure fucking needs it.

P.S. Interestingly, respondents to the nationwide poll taken this week by TIME magazine that I referenced above also were asked, “What if the following religious groups proposed building a community center and place of worship two blocks from your home — would you favor or oppose it?”

Seventy-eight percent said they’d be OK with a Catholic establishment, 73 percent said they’d be OK with a Jewish establishment, 65 percent said they’d be OK with a Mormon establishment, and only 55 percent said they’d be OK with a Muslim establishment.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Facts never get in the haters’ way

I have a new slogan for the Repugnican Tea Party: “The Repugnican Tea Party: We Hate Everyone YOU Hate!”

Seriously, though, that’s what I imagine wingnuts saying about wingnutty political candidates: “I’m going to vote for him/her — he/she hates everyone I hate!”

Just when everyone was learning the definition of an “anchor baby,” the Repugnican Tea Party decided that the hatees de la semaine would be Muslims again. (I read in some news article that 9/11 is still “fresh” to some. If something that happened nearly nine fucking years ago is still “fresh” to you, unless an immediate family member or very close loved one of yours died in the 9/11 attacks, you really need to get a fucking life.)

Lots of articles are now pouring in about the facts of the proposed mosque near the former site of the World Trade Center.

Such as this one stating, correctly, that it’s actually incorrect to call the proposed new building a “mosque.” It’s much more accurate to call it a Muslim center that would include a mosque. But which is more dramatic? “Mosque” or “Muslim center”?

Um, yeah.

And there’s this news story about how Muslims have been praying inside of the Pentagon, not far from where the Pentagon was hit on 9/11, for years now.

This news story, titled “Fact check,” notes that the proposed Muslim center actually is more like six blocks (not two blocks) away from the nearest of the two towers that were destroyed on Sept. 11, 2001, that law enforcement officials have found no link between the individuals behind the proposed Muslim center and any suspected terrorist-related activity, that the old building that would be replaced with the Muslim center already is used by Muslims for prayer, and that an established mosque, the Manhattan Mosque, already is only five blocks away from the site of the former World Trade Center.

And then there is this Politico article, which posits that the proposed Muslim center is unlikely ever to be established anyway, not only because of the bigoted political attacks against it, but because fundraising for the $100 million Muslim center has been sluggish, to put it mildly.

So, all in all, the proposed mosque Muslim center at Ground Zero that’s two six blocks away from the site of the former World Trade Center is no big fucking deal. There already are plenty of Muslims in New York City — and even a pre-existing mosque in Manhattan. Who knew?

But when did the members of the Repugnican Tea Party ever pass up an opportunity to exploit 9/11 yet once again? And when did the facts ever stop them?

This is what the Repugnican Tea Party is reduced to: which minority group it’s hating this week.

Last week it was the “anchor babies.” This week, it’s the Muslims who want to build a mosque as a big ol’ “Fuck you!” to the victims of 9/11.

Who will it be next week?

Maybe the leaders of the Repugnican Tea Party can make it interesting and exciting and let their members vote, like they would vote for a contestant on “American Idol.”

P.S. I have to share this Tweet: “In fairness, we’ve been building ‘ground zeros’ near Iraqi mosques since March 2003.”

And this Associated Press news story notes:

Republican candidates around the country seized on President Barack Obama’s support for the right of Muslims to build a mosque [sic] near ground zero, assailing him as an elitist who is insensitive to the families of the Sept. 11 victims.

From statehouses to state fairs on Tuesday, Republican incumbents and challengers unleashed an almost unified line of criticism against the president days after he forcefully defended the construction of a $100 million Islamic center two [sic] blocks from the site of the 2001 terror attacks.

Recalling the emotion of that deadly day, Republicans said that while they respect religious freedom, the president’s position was cold and academic, lacking compassion and empathy for the victims’ families.

“He is thinking like a lawyer and not like an American, making declarations without America’s best interest in mind,” said Andrew Harris, a Republican running for Congress in Maryland against first-term Democratic Rep. Frank Kratovil.

So respecting the U.S. Constitution, and demanding that it — and not the demands of the lynch mob — be followed, is “elitist,” is “cold and academic,” is “thinking like a lawyer and not like an American.” (Because true Americans sure the fuck don’t think!)

Yes, when it comes to the U.S. Constitution and the rights it guarantees, clearly we should go by our gut. We should let passion, not intelligence, reign! (No wonder these right-wing fucktards loved George W. “Go By Your Gut” Bush so fucking much.)

Finally, the same AP news story notes:

In Ohio, where the president was headed [today] as part of a three-state political swing, Republican congressional candidate Jim Renacci took issue with Obama’s position and challenged his opponent, first-term Democrat John Boccieri, to do likewise.

“Just because we may have the right to do something, doesn’t necessarily make it right to do it,” Renacci said.

I like Jon Stewart’s comeback to that Repugnican Tea Party “argument”: “You can build a Catholic church next to a playground — but should you?”

3 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized

DINO Reid joins anti-Muslim crusade

Top US senator opposes mosque near Ground Zero

AFP photo

As a religious minority — a Mormon — you’d think that U.S. Sen. Harry Reid, the top Democrat in the U.S. Senate, would know something about religious discrimination. But hey, it’s an election year, and dog-piling upon Muslims is all the rage right now — and seems to be that long-sought “bipartisanship.”

“The First Amendment protects freedom of religion. [Politician X] respects that, but thinks that the mosque [that is proposed to be established near the former World Trade Center] should be built someplace else.”

You’d think that of course Politician X would be a Repugnican, but nope — in this case, Politician X is Democrat in name only U.S. Sen. Harry Reid of Nevada, whose spokesweasel today declared: “The First Amendment protects freedom of religion. Senator Reid respects that, but thinks that the mosque should be built someplace else.”

Someone please, please explain to me how in one breath one can claim to respect freedom of religion but in the very next breath proclaim that a religious group should not establish a place of worship.

I understand that Harry Reid is trying to keep his U.S. Senate seat against wingnut dingbat Sharron “Second Amendment Remedies” Angle, who as a “Christo”fascist of course opposes the establishment of the mosque in lockstep with the rest of her tea-baggin’ ilk, but he should have kept his fucking mouth shut.

To shit and piss upon a minority group is a despicable way to try to win election or re-election. It’s what the fucking Repugnicans do, for fuck’s sake.

And on the same day that Reid announces, for political gain, that he opposes the establishment of a Muslim center near the former World Trade Center, a scandal breaks in which it is revealed that a former Israeli soldier posted humiliating images of Palestinian prisoners on her Facebook page. It’s a bit of Abu Ghraib deja vu for me.

Where do these young people, like the female Israeli soldier and the American personnel of Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq learn their anti-Arab and anti-Muslim sentiment?

From their “leaders.”

Harry Reid has just contributed to anti-Arab and anti-Muslim sentiment that might have real-world consequences, such as acts of discrimination and perhaps even abuse (or worse) against Arabs and/or Muslims — treatment that makes some members of this fairly universally mistreated group commit acts of revenge that we Americans call “terrorism” (because it’s never called “terrorism” when an American or an Israeli does it to an Arab or a Muslim) and then scratch our heads and ponder, “But why, why do they hate us so much?”

Words have consequences, Harry. You’re supposed to be a fucking national leader. You fucking suck ass.

Harry Reid is a fucking Mormon. I fucking hate the Mormon cult. While no Muslim to my knowledge ever has infringed upon my rights, my right to marry my boyfriend is now tied up in the federal courts because of the Mormon cult’s multi-million-dollar promotion of anti-same-sex-marriage Proposition H8.

But does Harry Reid want to be discriminated against because of his fucked-up religion? No, I’m sure he fucking doesn’t. I’m sure that he wants the full protection under law of the Mormon cult, which, speaking of law, should have had its tax-exempt status revoked already for its illegal, immoral and unethical political activity.

Why, then, as a member of a lunatic fringe that itself has been the victim of religious persecution in the past, does Reid feel that it’s perfectly OK for him to shit and piss upon Muslims?

Again, Reid could have and should have kept his mouth shut on the issue of the establishment of the Muslim center in Manhattan, which is quite far removed from his home state of Nevada, and which, under the First Amendment, isn’t even for the people of Manhattan to decide; religious freedom is not subject to a popular fucking vote. I agree wholeheartedly with the Huffington Post blogger who declared, “I can’t believe we are even discussing this.”

Oh, but we are. It’s election season, and therefore it’s wide open season on the relatively defenseless minority groups. Even babies. Babies.

Again, I expect this kind of evil from the Repugnican Tea Party, but Harry Reid has crossed the line.

I can’t see that it much matters who wins in Nevada in November: Reid or Angle.

They’re both haters, both members of the duopolistic parties that increasingly are looking more and more alike in their mad dash to the rock bottom.*

*The Associated Press reports:

A spokesman for Republican Sharron Angle, Reid’s opponent, said Muslims have the right to worship anywhere, but Obama’s support for construction of the mosque at ground zero “ignored the wishes of the American people, this time at the expense of victims of 9/11 and their families.”

Please tell me how Reid’s public position on the subject is substantially any different from Angle’s.

Again, freedom of religion is a constitutional guarantee not a matter to be put up for a fucking vote.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

9/11 is back — just in time for 11/2/10!

Mosque near ground zero becoming political football

AFP photo

“Intellectually the president may be right” on the freedom-of-religion issue regarding the establishment of a Muslim complex near the former site of the World Trade Center (which would replace the building on Park Place in Manhattan shown above), one Repugnican Tea Party strategist concedes, but adds: “But this is an emotional issue … and it’s going to be a big, big issue for Democrats across this country” for the upcoming mid-term elections. Because emotion always should trump the rights guaranteed to all by the U.S. Constitution.

President Barack Obama actually seems to have resisted, for once, the urge to sell out those of us of the “professional left.” On Friday he stated, correctly, that to block the opening of the planned Muslim center near the former World Trade Center would be a violation of the freedom of religion, guaranteed to all by the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America.

This is the freedom that the “Christo”fascists want for themselves, like free speech — but, also like it is with free speech, they want freedom of religion only for themselves.

As I have noted before, I believe that Islam, Judaism and Christianity — at least as they are practiced by the bloodthirsty zealots who claim to follow these patriarchal, backasswards religions — all are bullshit religions, but if we’re going to let the members of one bullshit, psychopathic religion establish a place of worship, fairness (as well as the freedom of religion) dictates that we allow all of them to do so.

But Repugnican U.S. Sen. John Cornyn of Texas, that bastion of equal human and civil rights, has declared that the establishment of the Muslim center near the former WTC site is not an issue of freedom of religion. Reuters reports:

“This is not about freedom of religion because we all respect the right of anyone to worship according to the dictates of their conscience … but I do think it’s unwise to build a mosque at the site where 3,000 Americans lost their lives as the result of a terrorist attack,” Texas Republican John Cornyn said on the “Fox News Sunday” program.*

Cornyn’s “logic” apparently is that “freedom of religion” is “the right of anyone to worship according to the dictates of their conscience” — but that the majority religion (in this case, what passes for Christianity) may dictate to a minority religion (in this case, Islam) where it may and may not establish centers of worship.

It seems to me that the establishment of places of worship is central to freedom of religion, but Cornyn tries to weasel out of this somehow.

Cornyn, because he cannot win on the matter of the Muslims’ constitutional right to establish a place of worship, then appeals to the tyranny of the majority, to the mob mentality: “To me it demonstrates that Washington, the White House, the administration, the president himself seems to be disconnected from the mainstream of America,” Cornyn said.

So Cornyn’s “argument” becomes that if the majority of Americans — the majority of whom call themselves “Christians” — don’t want Muslims to establish a place of worship at a certain site, then the Muslims should not be allowed to do so.**

The Muslims’ constitutional rights, therefore, in effect, are to be put up for a vote.

Just like my equal human and civil rights — my constitutional rights — were put up for a vote when the Mormon-cult-backed anti-same-sex-marriage Proposition H8 narrowly passed here in California in November 2008 (with 52 percent of the vote).

A federal judge earlier this month ruled that Prop H8 violates the rights guaranteed to California’s citizens by the U.S. Constitution — and he ruled that same-sex marriages must be allowed again in the state of California as of 5 p.m. this Wednesday.

The right wing’s insane response to this is to claim that the haters who voted for Prop H8 are the victims.

The Sacramento Bee actually published a guest editorial on the matter that actually began:

The true victims of prejudice in the decision of federal Judge Vaughn Walker to overturn Proposition 8 are the 7 million Californians who voted for the measure.

So I suppose that the slave owners were the true victims when the slaves were freed. Or, if that’s too far out there for you, we at least can argue that the “rights” of those who believed that mixed-race marriage is wrong were absolutely trampled upon by the tyrannical U.S. Supreme Court when the court ruled in 1967 that no state may outlaw mixed-race marriage.

The “argument” of the right wing here very apparently is that to be a hateful bigot who wishes to curtail the equal human and civil rights of others itself is an inviolable constitutional right.

Uh, I don’t see that right enumerated anywhere in the U.S. Constitution.

As insane as the members of the right wing want to be, calling themselves the victims when they are not allowed to victimize others, those of us Americans who are sane and who truly believe in freedom and liberty and in the U.S. Constitution cannot let stand this new wave of right-wing attacks against the constitutional rights of our fellows — be they brown-skinned immigrants (or brown-skinned citizens mistaken for immigrants), Muslims, or non-heterosexuals. Or even, for fuck’s sake, babies.

The checkered-at-best history of the United States of America demonstrates that during economic downturns, the majority of (or at least a huge chunk of) frustrated (mostly white) Americans, instead of going after the plutocrats and the corporatocrats who are the actual cause of their financial pain and suffering, go after relatively weak minority groups that have little to nothing to do with the nation’s economic downturn — but who, for the most part, can’t fight back.

This dysfunctional, insane dynamic will continue until enough of us real Americans stand up and stop it.

It’s time to stand up.

First they come for the non-heterosexuals who wish to marry, then for the brown-skinned immigrants who want to make a better life for themselves, then for the Muslims who want to establish a place of worship.

Then, they come for you.

*I also believe that it is unwise for the Muslim center to be established, but for a very different reason than do Cornyn, Sarah Palin-Quayle and their ilk. As I noted last month:

I agree with Palin-Quayle that the Muslim complex should not be opened, but for entirely different reasons.

Palin-Quayle wants to milk the whole 9/11 thing and appeal to her Muslim-hating, “Christo”fascist base, but I think that the Muslim complex is a bad idea because the safety of everyone who ever enters the building would be in jeopardy at all times.

I mean, think about it: a Muslim complex opens just two blocks away from where the WTC once stood, and all of the Cooters and Skeeters and Zekes of the backasswards parts of the nation are going to get ideas in their tea-baggin’ heads about gettin’ revenge on them Mooslems for 9/11. If the Muslim complex opens, I envision shootings and/or bombings and/or other violent attacks upon it.

However, as bad of an idea as I believe the Muslim center is (for safety reasons), I never would posit that the center should not be allowed to open merely because its existence would — gasp! — offend the tyrannical majority.

You believe in freedom or you don’t. I believe in freedom. The wingnuts do not — or rather, they want freedom only for themselves.

**Indeed, apparently a majority of Americans, blinded by their identification with their brand of “Christianity” and their ignorance of constitutional rights, oppose the establishment of the Muslim center. Notes Reuters:

A CNN/Opinion Research Corporation Poll showed a majority of Americans across the political spectrum opposed the project being built near the site of the attacks.

The survey, released on Wednesday, showed nearly 70 percent of Americans opposed it, including 54 percent of Democrats, 82 percent of Republicans and 70 percent of independents.

Of course, we don’t know how many of those Democrats oppose the establishment of the Muslim center also for safety reasons, but it’s a pretty sure bet that the majority of the Repugnicans and the “independents” (I use the quotation marks because the majority of the “independents” and “swing voters” always lean to the right) are just Muslim-haters.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized