Fox Talker Cal Thomas: Pelosi Walking Past Tea Partiers Was Like Neo-Nazis Marching In Skokie

[Cross-posted at Crooks and Liars.]

The right-wing media -- particularly Fox -- are stumbling all over themselves to castigate anyone who dares suggest that the ugly rhetoric that's been unleashed in the wake of the passage of health-care reform is anything but a bipartisan affair. Indeed, this has been the standard talking point on Fox for the better part of the past several days.

It continued Saturday on Fox News Watch, when Jon Scott's assembled panel -- Judith Miller, James Pinkerton, Ellis Henican and Cal Thomas -- chewed over why the librul media are so intent on making the threats out to be a right-wing affair. Miller, to her credit, tried to inject some sanity into the discussion, but she was knocked down by a lying (par for the course) Pinkerton:

Scott: Back to the issue of those threats, though, Judy, the broadcast networks led with the stories of threats against, you know, Democrat supporters of the health-care bill. It seemed like it was very much driven, you know, from the Democratic side of the equation.

Miller: Well, because most of the threats seemed to come the Right. I mean, the bullet through the window, which now turns out to be somehow unrelated to any anger, an accident, that was a --

Pinkerton: Now, Judy, you're a skilled reporter. Just think of the two things you said, that the threat -- the bullet through Eric Cantor, a Republican's window, seems to be unrelated. But most of the threats seem to come against -- to be made by Republicans, neither of which you can prove, and your saying them is helping to feed the narrative, which is that Republicans are the bad guys again.

Bzzzzt!!!! Sorry, Jim, but just like you did when you tried to claim you had nothing to do with the Willie Horton ads, you're lying. Because Miller's claims are both easily proven, and you know it:

A: Local police have declared that the shot that hit Cantor's window was "random gunfire" -- it was, in fact, a spent round falling to earth, which means it could not have been intentionally fired through Cantor's window.

B: Any kind of tally will demonstrate that the overwhelming majority of threat and actual violence are being directed at Democrats by angry right-wingers. Besides the well-reported threats against Bart Stupak and Louise Slaughter, probably the most prominent instance of this involved Alabama ex-militiaman Mike Vanderboegh's call for angry Tea Partiers to smash Democratic Party office windows -- after which there was a spate of such smashings.

But that story, in fact, has never been reported on Fox.

Cal Thomas, however, came up with the most novel attack on Democrats for having let themselves be the subject of such violent rhetoric and behavior -- essentially a variation on Glenn Beck's theory that Obama and the Democrats are intentionally trying to provoke a violent response from the extremist right:

Thomas: Look, when Nancy Pelosi walked through those Tea Partiers, it was like -- what should analogize this to? Ah, the march through Skokie, Illinois, by the Nazis? It was deliberately provocative! They wanted a reaction!

Lessee ... Pelosi and the Democrats were making what was a normal, everyday trek from the floor of the House to their offices, and were confronted by angry Tea Party protesters. Imagine if they had turned back and found another route to their offices; then Cal Thomas would be declaring that they were "running and hiding" from the protesters, wouldn't he?

Instead, they're just like nasty neo-Nazis trying to provoke a crowd.

Sigh. These people simply occupy a Bizarro Universe full-time now.

Chatting With Laura Flanders: Why Violent Eliminationist Rhetoric Is Becoming A Real Concern

[Cross-posted at Crooks and Liars.]

I've been a popular guy this week; been doing a lot of radio interviews. I also was on GritTV earlier this week, chatting with Laura Flanders about the wellsprings of the extremist rhetoric that is unleashing all this unhinged behavior from sore-loser Tea Partiers.

I'm still recovering from my jet lag and I look like crap, but I think I was at least reasonably coherent.

If not, let's talk about it here.

Eric Cantor Blames Democrats' Concerns About Violence For Shot Fired At His Office. Except There Wasn't.

[Cross-posted at Crooks and Liars.]

All of Fox News was atwitter yesterday morning with the big break news that someone had taken a shot at the office of Republican Rep. Eric Cantor, the House Minority whip. Cantor himself went on TV and pronounced:

Just recently I have been directly threatened. A bullet was shot through the window of my campaign office in Richmond this week.

Moreover, he blamed all of this violent behavior breaking out everywhere on the Democratic congressmen who are standing up and calling it out:

It's reckless to use these incidents as media vehicles for political gain. That is why I have deep concerns that some - DCCC Chairman Chris Van Hollen and DNC Chairman Tim Cain, in particular - are dangerously fanning the flames by suggesting that these incidents be used as a political weapon.

But then the whole story came out:

In a news release Thursday, police said the bullet struck at about 1 a.m. on Tuesday. The preliminary investigation showed that "a bullet was fired into the air and struck the window in a downward direction, landing on the floor about a foot from the window. The round struck with enough force to break the windowpane but did not penetrate the window blinds. There was no other damage to the room, which is used occasionally for meetings by the congressman."

The building, which has several tenants including an office used by Cantor, was unoccupied at the time, the news release said.

Richmond police spokesman Gene Lepley told CNN Friday that it was the result of "random gunfire."

Gee, sounds awfully familiar. This is just like Lou Dobbs' attempts to gain martyrdom.

Meanwhile, none of the right-wing bloggers who raced to get this story up -- folks like RedState, Gateway Pundit, Schmuck of Spades, and Daily Caller -- have bothered to update their posts and correct the record for their readers.

Which means, of course, that you have a broad swath of wingnuts who really believe Eric Cantor's office was shot at too.

Yet another addition to the already ridiculously long list of provably untrue things right-wingers believe.

Beck Clarifies His Theory: If Violence Breaks Out From The Right, It Will Have Been Intentionally Provoked By Obama

[Cross-posted at Crooks and Liars.]

Just in case there was any doubt about what he was implying the day before, Glenn Beck yesterday cleared things up and removed all doubt about the meaning of his garbled rant about administration radicals who advocated violence:

Beck: You see, what they've done is they've radicalized The Man. These people are in the center, but who's down here? They know that these people always lose -- because they experienced it. The crazy teabaggers in the streets.

Why would a government continue to poke you, and poke you, and poke you, and poke you? Why would they say these things? Why have these people said these things about good Americans? Because they need to separate these people from these people.

They know exactly how you feel when the president of the United States says that. ... These guys remember. When these guys said, 'These crazy dope-smoking hippies,' they knew how it felt. They knew and it drove them nuts, and it drove some of them -- it drove this guy and this guy -- to start throwing bombs!

They're counting on it. The Man made them do it. And they learned that once they threw a bomb, they were done. Martin Luther King changed the world without a single act of violence. Gandhi was right in many ways.

This might be the most dangerous monologue I've ever done, because I am telling you now: They need you to be violent. They are begging for it! You are being set up! Do not give them what they want.

The rest of the rant is an ass-covering plea for non-violence -- a lame attempt to cover the fact that he's spent the past year using violent rhetoric to whip people into a state of hysterical paranoia.

And best of all, what Beck's doing here is providing right-wingers with a ready-made excuse for the violence when it does break out: Why, this was what the liberals were planning all along! It's their fault! Even if they are the victims of it.

Beck Goes Nuts Over HCR, Concludes Evil Progressives Are Trying To Provoke An Armed Revolution

[Cross-posted at Crooks and Liars.]

Glenn Beck long ago went around the bend and over the cliff rhetorically. Indeed, he has gone around several bends in the past year. So it was no big surprise that his big defeat with the passage of health-care reform sent him at warp speed round yet another.

This time, it seems he went around the penultimate bend: At the end of two days' worth of ranting, he evidently concluded that the Obama administration and the cadre of evil "progressives" in government are intentionally taking up immigration reform in the wake of the health-care vote because they hope to provoke an armed insurrection.

That's not quite justifying armed revolution, but it sure is nuzzling right up next to it by giving it an excuse.

This conclusion was one he built up over two days, beginning Monday with the usual deprecations about the motives of the people who supported health-care reform:

"You always thought the bad guys always lost in the end."

"All of the pressure and the bribes went to the dirty congressmen on the left, on the Democrats."

"They [Democrats] have finally been toppled, forced to submit."

"They sold their souls for this vote."

"Well, what they've become is ruthless, amoral, ends-justify-the-means, Saul Alinskyites who will do anything, including eat their own to get what they want."

Oh, and lest anyone forget: Michael Moore is fat.

"Because the average Democrat is not the California hippie Marxist Socialist Communist Progressive, sticking flowers in the barrel, sitting around smokin' dope all day during college and talkin' about how they can destroy the evil American empire."

"America changed for me this weekend. I don't see it anymore as this television set used to show me. I mean, I never thought I would see the kind of corruption, the backroom deals, the bribes, the out and out ... scumminess ... that got us to this health-care vote."

Beck again compared it to Pearl Harbor -- and then added the St. Valentine's Day Massacre "when the Mob came in and cleaned things up"), Chamberlain meeting with Hitler, and tossed in Jimmy Carter's election (huh?) and the burning of the Hindenburg (which he said is a picture of Medicare and Medicaid). He finished:

It will be remembered as a black spot in our nation's history, it will be. It will be -- ah well, depending on who wins the war. Because those are the people that will write the history books.

What's that? War? What war would that be? We're not sure at first, but he drops a few hints later, after disparaging his opposition as Marxists, professors, dupes, and leeches:

I got news for you, gang: The game is on. We're going to win. They might win a few battles. We'll win the war. Because we'll never give in. Never.

This part you can believe. Because that's been obvious since the day Barack Obama was elected -- Beck and his fellow conservatives would never concede the results of the election, would never respect the outcome politically, and would never stop fighting by whatever means necessary to stop any progressive agenda.

The next day, he began by calling upon his audience to respond to the passage of health-care reform the same way an earlier generation responded to the attack on Pearl Harbor:

"This is the biggest thing we have ever faced. This is our Pearl Harbor, our Normandy, our Custer's Last Stand."

(Eh? Not sure what the most one-sided and foolishly led massacre in American military history has to do with Normandy, but whatever.) But what is the real cause for alarm?

Beck: Just after winning the contentious, unpopular, rip-us-apart health-care-bill battle by jamming it down the throats of the American people, by hook or by crook, they're now talking about comprehensive immigration reform. This week!

Yeah, who could have imagined they'd be talking about it after a crowd at least twice as large as your much-hyped "9/12 March on Washingonton turned out at the National Mall to demand it? Of course, Beck's audience wouldn't know about that, since Fox did almost no reportage on it whatsoever -- in stark contrast to the wall-to-wall coverage for the 9/12 event.

At this point, Beck indulged in some really bizarre paranoia:

Holy cow! You've broken three commandments, three of them! Three of them, all in one principle. That's amazing. And for those of you in the administration who are coming after me on this one, I mean, remember, you've broken three, let's not make it four: 'Thou shalt not kill.'

Yes, Beck must keep an eye on his back at all times to watch for the evil Obama administration evildoers who are plotting to kill him. Oy.

But all this leads to his final conclusions:

Beck: Why would the president take up immigration right away, after he's just punched you in the face with health care?

Beck then compared health-care reform to spanking, saying that loving parents hug their kids after they spank them, and that's not what the Obama administration did:

Beck: So what happened, what happened this week? Haven't we just been spanked? Hasn't most the country -- doesn't most the country feel like they've been spanked?

[Um, actually, Glenn, no. Most of the country is glad it passed.]

Beck: If you loved us, what would you do? You would hug us. But they're not. They're going for illegal immigration, which almost tore us apart just a few years ago. Why would you do that?

Hmmm. That's a really hard one to figure out. Why exactly would the people who have been demonized as "cancer" out to "destroy America" on a daily basis by people like Glenn Beck and his adoring followers want to lift a single finger on their behalf? Why would anyone love people who make careers out of sliming and smearing them? Eh? Simple answer: Nobody loves you.

Why are the Tea Parties always being labeled as terrorist? Why is it? "They're extremists, they're terrorists, they're hatemongers, they're dangerous!"

What is it that these revolutionaries want? You'd pick up a gun? You ever thought of that? These people have. Because possibly, maybe the question should be asked: Maybe they're tired of evolution, and they are waiting for revolution.

Beck's clearly implying that the administration is deliberately trying to anger the Tea Partiers so much that they take up arms and start a "revolution."

In other words, if violence breaks out, it'll be because the Obama administration deliberately provoked it.

Which means the black helicopters are about to come take Glenn Beck away.

Yes, The Health-Care Reform Bill Is Now Law. Read It And Weep, Republicans

[Cross-posted at Crooks and Liars.]

President Obama wasted no time this morning signing the health-care reform bill into law:

WASHINGTON - President Barack Obama capped a yearlong political drama Tuesday, signing into law a landmark health care reform bill that had been seen as impossible just two months ago.

The president said the law "will set into motion what a generation of Americans have fought for."

He said he was confident the Senate would make fixes to the legislation "swiftly."

The president praised those House members who had "taken their lumps" during the overhaul debate. Shouted one lawmaker in the audience to laughter, "Yes we did!"

This wasn't just a major victory for Obama. This was a resounding defeat for the increasingly marginalized Republican Party and its controlling and now thoroughly repudiated conservative movement.

Make no mistake: Conservatives opposed this bill tooth and nail not because of its contents, but because they knew that success breeds success, and that the field is now much clearer for progressives to advance their agenda and heal the damage wrought by eight years of conservative rule. And the voters will continue to reward that success.

They fought this because they feared their own inconsequence. And in the process, they only made themselves even more so.

Just ask Russell King at TPM.

And if you needed any better evidence, check out the scene from today's pre-signing press conference by the GOP:



Talk about irrelevant.

The Ominous Side Of The Tea Partiers' Defeat: They Really Believe Their Own Outlandish Rhetoric

[Cross-posted at Crooks and Liars.]

I got to witness a little bit of history Sunday night in Washington, sitting in the gallery of the House of Representatives as the vote was tallied for final confirmation of the health-care reconciliation package. It was a pleasure seeing the beaming faces of Democrats (and there was no small bit of schadenfreude in seeing Republicans' scowls), especially people like House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who looked fresh and energized despite probably having had no sleep for 72 hours or more, and my own representative, Jim McDermott, who has fought consistently for health-care reform for several decades now.

Of course, I only sort of witnessed the final vote. You see, security was rotating groups of about 18 people in and out of the seats every 15 minutes, because demand was so high; and my group's time ran out just as the count reached 200. I returned quickly to the item-return room (you had to leave behind your cell phones), where a big screen ran the tallies on C-SPAN; when the vote hit 216, a loud cheer erupted among the 30 or so of us gathered to watch.

Not all of us cheered, of course. A sizable portion of the crowd forming those long lines, in fact, comprised Tea Partiers who had spent the day outside the Capitol protesting, "Kill the Bill!" And they scowled and booed while the rest of us cheered.

I had, in fact, spent a portion of my day among these Tea Party protesters, wandering among them with a video camera in the hours before that afternoon's massive March For America. (And it has to be mentioned that this crowd, of several hundred at best, was utterly dwarfed by the crowd of immigration-reform activists behind them, estimated to be 200,000 strong, a contrast that must -- or should -- have struck some of them as a wee bit ominous for their Beckian claim that "We Surround Them".)

As you can see, some of the leaders of the chants were not above some ugliness in the process. A woman reporter from the local ABC affiliate was mercilessly harassed by one of the bullhorn holders, as you can see. And there was no shortage of kooky signs, including:

I DID NOT SERVE SO THAT DICTATORS COULD RULE
Obama
Take Your Flight
Now And Don't Ever
Come Back
We'll Manage!

A brief exchange of insults occurred when a middle-aged man in a blue soccer shirt made clear he adamantly supported health care, and a man in Michigan Militia T-shirt said, "F--k you," to which the older man responded in kind. Someone in the crowd (the guy holding the "Take Your Flight Now" sign, in fact) called out, "Commie!"

(And yes, the incessant chant of "Kill the Bill!" did start to remind one, after awhile, of the crowd of zombies chanting "Im-ho-tep!" in The Mummy.)

Media Matters spent all day among them and produced some even more disturbing clips.

Dave Weigel at the Windy also found some prime violent wingnuttery:

As a Democratic victory looked more and more likely, Tea Partiers got more ornery about the liberals who’d showed up to cheer for reform and take commemorative photos of what, to them, looked like the end of a year of agenda-slowing right-wing activism.
“Look at that idiot!” said Linda Cocsy, a New Yorker who’d spent the weekend in Washington for the protests, pointing at one of the young Democrats who’d infiltrated the protest, holding up a pro-reform sign provided by a pro-choice Catholic group. “This one, here with the stupid grin on his face! He looks likes he’s brainless. You look at these people and, they really look like jerks. You look at the other people, with the Don’t Tread on Me [flags], and they look like real people!” Cocsy stared off at another protester, waving a sign he’d picked up from a pro-immigration reform protest that had broken up around the time that Stupak announced his flip. “I just wanna kill them!” said Cocsy.

Meanwhile, the NY Daily News reports that one right-wing blogger called for Obama to be shot:

Solomon "Solly" Forell tweeted: "ASSASSINATION! America, we survived the assassinations of Lincoln and Kennedy. We'll surely get over a bullet 2 Barack Obama's head."

The crazy talk isn't just coming from the rank and file. Some of the Tea Partiers' favorite congressmen are saying similarly nutty things, such as Rep. Steve King's call for secession (via Amanda Terkel) as a response to HCR, following up on his earlier call for an armed revolution.

So it was very interesting listening and observing their responses that evening as we all crowded together into a line to watch the House vote -- Tea Partiers and reform supporters together, required to remain quiet and civil with each other, upon pain of being immediately removed by security.

For the longest time, it seemed, there were about a hundred of us lined up along the long corridors leading to the House gallery, where we had to run a gauntlet of security checks. I was right behind as group of middle-aged Tea Partiers who were dead set against reform and talked among themselves with the usual talking points: "It's just too much government control," "We're talking about one-sixth of the economy", etc. etc., all straight out of Fox News.

But directly behind me was a boisterous young man from Tulsa who was an ardent supporter of health-care reform, and he made his feelings known as well, talking loudly about the vote count as it trickled in on the preliminary vote to advance the measure -- which, had it failed, would have ended the counting for the night. When it passed, he and others in the line cheered loudly.

One of the Tea Partiers ahead of me said to his fellows: "I can't believe all these people want health care."

Because I was being quiet and civil, I refrained from saying: "Yeah, who'da thunk?"

About the same time, a group of people who had been watching in the gallery and whose time had expired began filing past us, some of them beaming. The young Oklahoman began high-fiving them and cheering. But one middle-aged woman refused:

"It's the night America died!" she said.

Finally, we made our way through the last security gate and took our seats, just as the votes came in on Republicans' last-gasp delaying attempt came in, and then we watched as the counting began on final confirmation. Just as the vote count in favor reached 200, the security men came and escorted us out, leading to our final hurrah at the item-return station.

I caught the last Metro back to the condo where I was staying (thanks again, Darcy!) and sat alone near the door. There were only about six of us in the entire car, but right behind me was as glum-faced middle-aged couple. Their expressions alone made clear they had been among the Tea Partiers, as did their conversation on the way back.

"I have to wonder, when we wake up in the morning, whether this will still be a free country or not," said the husband.

"I know," said his wife. "It's so sad."

Again, self-restraint (and fatigue) were all that kept me from standing up and saying to them:

"Good God, people, get a grip! Do you still have freedom of speech? Freedom of association? The right to vote? To choose your religion? To live where you want, choose your own occupation, decide what kind of family you want to have? Because those are real freedoms. You haven't lost any of that! It's still the freest country on earth, you loons! If you think that paying taxes means a loss of freedom, you're wrong -- it just means you're living up to your end of the social contract. Are you part of that, or not?"

Well, those were the words in my head, anyway. And I realized then that, for all these people who have been watching Glenn Beck and Fox News and listening to Limbaugh and Palin and Hannity lo these many moons, that really is their stark reality now: Sunday night was "the night America died."

And that's really a dangerous prospect. Because it means the American Right has come completely unhinged. And unhinged people begin not just saying unhinged things, but doing them.

There's a reason John Amato and I have just finished up work on our new book, Over the Cliff: How Obama's Election Drove the American Right Insane (which you can pre-order at Amazon, though it won't be out till June 1, and no, that's not our final cover, and the foreword is by Digby, not Rick Perlstein).

It's becoming more timely by the day.

My Chat With Numbers USA's Roy Beck: Those 200,000 Immigration Marchers Are All 'Thieves'

[Cross-posted at Crooks and Liars.]

Here, as promised, is my interview with Roy Beck of NumbersUSA, at yesterday's March For America in D.C. Judge for yourself how the exchange went.

A couple of the more interesting exchanges:

Beck: But the fact is, is that the amnesty that's being promoted here allows the people to steal the thing they came to steal. People come here illegally --

Me: So you're calling them thieves.

Beck: They are thieves.

Me: [Laughter]

Beck: Of course they're thieves. No look. What is a thief? A thief is somebody who takes something that does not belong to them. They come here and take jobs that do not belong to them. They take wages from the most vulnerable members of the society.
So the thing is -- I'm not saying -- I think most of them are probably good people. I think most of them don't even think of themselves as thieves. They've been taught since they've been young that that border isn't really that important. I don't blame them, I blame our government. But the fact is, those are people who came to steal a job, and what everybody's lobbying for today is to keep the job that they stole.

This, from a guy who leads off the "About Us" section of the NumbersUSA website proclaiming: "No to Immigrant Bashing."

Dunno about you, but calling 200,000 people -- no, make that 12 million -- "thieves" sure sounds like immigrant-bashing to me.

Also, I got a kick out of this exchange:

Me: Do you guys think you could get 100,000 people out here to rally against amnesty?

Beck: No. See, the trouble is, there's no amassed money to be made from bringing immigration back down to traditional levels. The uh -- I mean, the kind of money it takes to put on one of these things is just gigantic.

There's so many people making money off of high immigration, they can afford to do that. Our people are just unemployed people all up and down the line. And they would have to pay for it all themselves. Now they could get here, but they couldn't do this kind of -- this kind of expensive thing.

Yeah, because those 100,000 and more are drawn from all over the country just because their costs get covered.

March For America: Over 100,000 Gather In D.C. To Demand Immigration Reform

[Cross-posted at Crooks and Liars.]

It's been an insanely busy day here in Washington today. All the news folks have been focused on health care reform, and there are Tea Partiers up at the Capitol chanting, "Kill the Bill!" I'll have video from them tomorrow -- hell of a day for my laptop to up and die on me, isn't it? And I'll be trying to cover the vote from the House floor tonight too.

But all this was a tiny scene compared to what was really happening on the National Mall today: the massive crowd of over 100,000 people who showed up today to demand comprehensive immigration reform.

Let there be no doubt about this: Once health-care reform is accomplished, immigration reform is going to be the next big issue on the national plate. The huge crowd -- one estimate placed it at 500,000 -- sent a powerful signal that they will not be content to let Congress shuffle off this massive responsibility for yet another year, as we're already hearing that many of them want to do.

There was an impressive array of speakers -- I managed to catch snippets from Jesse Jackson and Geraldo Rivera here, and you can go to America's Voice for a fuller lineup (I spent a lot of time observing some of the nutcases who showed up; I'll have that video tomorrow too). You can see for yourself just how massive it was.

Indeed, this crowd was significantly larger than the much-promoted "9/12 March on Washington" last September, even though that event was endlessly promoted for over a month by Fox News (I know, I know; they like to claim they had 1.2 million people there, but the reality was that it was actually about 70,000).

Yet, strangely enough, there was only ONE Fox News crew on hand to cover the immigration march today. I spoke with the reporter for this crew, and he told me Fox News had several other crews on hand today -- but they were all up covering the Tea Partiers and the health-care vote.

And in case you're wondering, there were exactly ZERO stories on Fox News reporting on this march in advance. ZERO. I couldn't find any at CNN or MSNBC either.

But then, when people genuinely care about real issues that affect real lives, instead of imaginary descents into "socialism," they don't have to be ginned up by right-wing propaganda organs.

WorldNetDaily's Peterson Unleashes Nutty Rant: Obama Is 'Destroying America Based On Lies'

[Cross-posted at Crooks and Liars.]

We've known for some time that the Rev. Jesse Lee Peterson -- the WorldNetDaily's favorite black columnist -- is a Real Piece of Work. On Sean Hannity's Fox News show last night, he demonstrated it once again with this rant about health-care reform:

Peterson: But to be honest with you, this whole thing is -- I remember, George Washington built America based on truth. Barack Obama is destroying America based on lies.

This thing is about the redistribution of wealth, it's about Black Liberation Theology. Obama lied on the primaries, he's been lying ever since. And the sad thing about it, some Americans -- most Americans are starting to see it, but they don't realize that they've been seduced by this man, and he doesn't care about what is right.

We see what he's doing, bowing down to everybody around the country --

Hannity: Around the world.

Peterson: And around the world. Look what's happening in Israel right now, he's never really supported Israel. This guy is not on our side.

He's -- Obama, in all honesty, is the Congressional Black Caucus, he is Louis Farrakhan, he is Rev. Wright, his minister, he is all of them wrapped up in one -- and he's gonna take -- if we allow this health-care thing to happen, he's gonna turn America into Detroit.

And we cannot let this happen.

Gee, this has a familiar ring to it. Maybe because it's just a recycled version of an earlier Peterson rant:

Barack Obama hates white people -- especially white men. Sorry folks, but the truth will set you free!

Why else would Obama falsely accuse Sgt. James Crowley and other Cambridge Police officers of "racial profiling" and claim they "acted stupidly" -- creating a national racial controversy?

For months, I have said that Barack Obama was elected as a result of white fear (guilt) and black racism. Whites voted for him because of guilt and the fear of being called "racist." And the 96 percent of blacks who voted for the "Messiah" did so because of his race and his "spread the wealth" notions.

[...]

Barack Obama is Jeremiah Wright Jr. He is the NAACP and the Congressional Black Caucus! He embodies the aspirations of every left-wing black group that wants to tear down this country and take power away from the "oppressive" white man. He's not an obvious race hustler like Al Sharpton or Jesse Jackson; but Obama is a smooth pathological liar -- with a wicked heart.

That was published in WorldNetDaily -- you know, the folks who brought you the Birther Conspiracy Factory. The same magazine that speculated that Obama was the anti-Christ. The same fine rag that published Jerome Corsi's theory that Obama was building concentration camps for rounding up conservatives -- along with a whole menu of similar far-right anti-Obama fever dreams.

The only question is: Why are we getting this far-right extremism broadcast into our living rooms by a supposedly "mainstream" cable-news operation?

The Stoopid It Burns: Palin Says Obama's 'Lack Of Experience' Leaves Him 'A Bit Over His Head' On HCR

[Cross-posted at Crooks and Liars.]

Really, it doesn't get more sublimely idiotic than it did last night on Greta Van Susteren's Fox News show, when she brought on Sarah Palin to attack the imminent passage of health-care reform.

Why oh why wasn't this a bipartisan bill? Van Susteren wondered. In a rational world, the simple answer would be obvious: Because Republicans have found it more politically expedient to simply oppose every step taken by President Obama. But of course in Palintopia, it's all President Obama's fault:

Palin: It really reflects a lack of experience of President Obama's, which -- it was warned about during the campaign that Candidate Obama didn't have executive experience, he hasn't been an administrator or a manager of anything. So to jump into this huge -- hugely important responsible position as President of the United States without the experience to know how to work across party lines, and to know how to administer and to manage a team to get policy through that makes sense, that's supported by the people -- it's a bit, um, it's a bit over his head, if you will. And, uh, things aren't going well, and the public is really voicing their frustration.

Of course, hearing Palin talk up her "executive experience" as somehow superior to Obama's is always occasion for low mordant chuckles, if not outright guffaws.

In the course of carefully examining Palin's public record as an administrator -- particularly her stint as Mayor of Wasilla -- for the investigative piece Max Blumenthal and I co-wrote for Salon in October 2008, I happen to be intimately familiar with just what kind of issues and decisions Sarah Palin dealt with on a daily basis.

Primarily, Palin was involved with such vital issues as which streets to pave in town, whether to put a levy for a sewer bond, and issuing proclamations of support for the Iditarod. Probably her most difficult issue involved construction of a new sports-activity center -- a project that turned into a gigantic financial headache for her former constituents.

So when she talks about cramming bad ideas down people's throats with deceptive tactics, she knows whereof she speaks.

But the notion that Palin's "experience" compares to Obama's background crafting legislation that affects the health and well-being of millions of Americans -- well, let's just say the guffaws are well earned.

Laura Ingraham Badgers Rep. Luis Guitierrez About His Catholic Faith Because He Backs HCR

[Cross-posted at Crooks and Liars.]

So, I have a question:

Since when was it any damn news anchor's business how good of a Catholic their guests are?

Last night, filling in for Bill O'Reilly on his Fox program, Laura Ingraham invited on Rep. Luis Gutierrez of Illinois to talk about health-care reform and comprehensive immigration reform, Ingraham took a wild tack to go after Gutierrez: She questioned him on how good of a Catholic he was, because he had announced he was voting in favor of President Obama's health-care package.

Her reasoning was that the national Catholic Bishops' conference had announced that anyone voting in favor of the bill would not be a good Catholic. As Gutierrez tried to politely point out, this really is a church-state separation matter. Or has Ingraham forgotten the bad old days when it was pro forma for anti-Catholic bigots to accuse Catholic politicians of doing the bidding of the Vatican?

Maybe Ingraham should ask those nuns who defied the bishops just how good of Catholics they are. Hold out your wrists, young lady!

Beck: Health-Care Reform Will Affect America Like The Bombing Of Pearl Harbor

[Cross-posted at Crooks and Liars.]

Glenn Beck continued his eliminationist attacks on progressives yesterday with a novel and absurd comparison:

Beck: History will equate this as, as big as the New Deal or Pearl Harbor. And if you think that's overstating the importance, remember we are talking about one-sixth of the U.S. economy.

As he was talking, the screen behind him showed the bombs falling on ships at Pearl Harbor and smoke billowing up in their aftermath.

Of course, Beck has also compared HCR to the 9/11 attacks.

Yeah, providing health-care insurance for millions of uninsured Americans is just like horrific and violent attacks that leave thousands of Americans dead.

The point, of course, is that the "progressives" pushing health-care reform are the "enemy within" intent on destroying America.

The rest of the rant was dedicated to exploring this in detail. He dismissed the CBO report that the health-care reform bill would result in a $130 billion deficit reduction in its first ten years by sniffing: "Well, that's a party in my pants!" -- because, according to Beck, it's just a "transition" to making health care a right, "just like FDR" intended. This notion is now being promoted, he said, by Cass Sunstein, who he pronounced "the most evil man, the most dangerous man in America."

You see, it's not deficit reduction that matters -- it's the loss freeeeedom! that HCR represents. HCR, according to Beck, is "slavery" and "oppression":

Beck: I promise you America -- oppression is one promise our government will keep.

Because, of course, decent health care is just so oppressive. Not to mention that it's like bombing thousands of Americans to death.

Obviously, there's no one left among the brass at Fox capable of keeping some kind of rational perspective in their broadcasts at all.

Palin And Hannity Agree: 'Procedural Tricks' On Health Care Are 'Unconstitutional' And 'Un-American'

[Cross-posted at Crooks and Liars.]

Sean Hannity interviewed Sarah Palin on his show last night, and it sounded like she was talking in a tin can, despite the pretty Alaskan backdrop. It sounded, in fact, like one of Sarah's old performances as an Alaska sports reporter; evidently a professional studio was not available.

But who cares about such niceties when you're busy accusing Democrats of violating the Constitution? Considering that the charge is not just loony but grotesquely hypocritical, standing on a soap box on a street corner might have been the most appropriate setting; a tin-can studio is a step up.

Palin claimed that the health-care reform effort was "about government control," and that the process in the House for passing it is "an unconstitutional process" being "crammed down our throats":

Palin: It's against the will of the people, it's undemocratic, it's un-American, this process. And, uh, if we don't stand up and become very enthused about calling our politicians on this, then more of this is gonna take place.

Later, Palin asks: "Is the Constitution not worth the paper it is written on, then?" Hannity natters on in agreement, claiming that the "Slaughter rule" would be challenged in court by his buddy Mark Levin.

Palin then added:

I think, Sean, that in our lifetime, this is the most undemocratic, unAmerican step that we'll have ever seen our Congress take. It's appalling, it's -- it takes my breath away that they would think that this is OK to do.

But again, we can't feign surprise. Remember, this is what Barack Obama had promised in the campaign, he said as a candidate that he was just days away from beginning the transformation of America.

Now, a lot of us love America, and we don't want to see this transformation into something that is unrecognizable, this European style of health care, in this case that we're talking about. But no, so many of us that love America and believe in what our Founding Fathers providentially had crafted for us, you know, our documents including our Constitution -- we don't agree with this fundamental transformation of America that Obama promised us. We voted for him anyway, he was elected anyway. And now Americans are kind of realizing that's what he meant by a fundamental transformation of our great country.

Yes, it's too bad for Palin and Hannity that a large majority of Americans greeted Obama's promise of a "transformation". That's what elections are about, you know.

And the notion that this transformation entails abrogation of the Constitution is just laughable -- because the procedures they're wailing and gnashing their teeth about have been part of standard House procedures for years.

You sure didn't hear Palin or Hannity complaining when Republicans used these same rules willy-nilly during their tenure of complete control of Congress earlier this decade. Indeed, Republicans "set new records" in their use of the so-called self-executing rules that are now in play for health-care reform:

When Republicans took power in 1995, they soon lost their aversion to self-executing rules and proceeded to set new records under Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.). There were 38 and 52 self-executing rules in the 104th and 105th Congresses (1995-1998), making up 25 percent and 35 percent of all rules, respectively. Under Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) there were 40, 42 and 30 self-executing rules in the 106th, 107th and 108th Congresses (22 percent, 37 percent and 22 percent, respectively). Thus far in the 109th Congress, self-executing rules make up about 16 percent of all rules.
On April 26 [2006], the Rules Committee served up the mother of all self-executing rules for the lobby/ethics reform bill. The committee hit the trifecta with not one, not two, but three self-executing provisions in the same special rule.

These rules are long established procedural rules. A 2006 House report observed:

Self-executing rules are still employed on matters involving House-Senate relations. They have also been used in recent years to enact significant substantive and sometimes controversial propositions.

Among these:

On February 20, 2005, the House adopted H.Res. 75, which provided that a manager’s amendment dealing with immigration issues shall be considered as adopted in the House and in the Committee of the Whole and the bill (H.R. 418), as amended, shall be considered as the original bill for purposes of amendment.

Meanwhile, none of these people -- and particularly neither Hannity nor Palin -- objected when George W. Bush wiped his butt with the Constitution by wiretapping American citizens and instituting "enemy combatant" procedures for captured terrorists.

Because, you know, it's always OK if you're a Republican.

Beck Steps Up The Eliminationist Attacks On Progressives As Health-Care Reform Effort Comes To A Head

[Cross-posted at Crooks and Liars.]

Well, I just got to spend ten blissfully Glenn-Beck-free days in China, which is probably the only place one can safely escape his wingnuttery these days. It's quite a different world there, and certainly nothing like what Beck himself frequently depicts it as (more on that later).

And what better way to reacclimate myself to the USA than to turn on Fox the afternoon of my return and watch yet another of Beck's patented eliminationist attacks on progressives -- followed the next night by yet another?

Ah, some things never change, do they?

On Monday, Beck continued his current theme that "progressives are a disease" by ripping into the effort to push health-care reform through Congress. He again warned that America was being destroyed from within by progressives:

Beck: I was, way back then, I said that America could never be destroyed from the outside. I remember the day that I said it because it was September 11th, and people were freaking out, and I was on my radio program and I said, militarily there is no equal, don't worry, if the world tries to attack us, and we've decided we're not going to bother with smart bombs, we'd control the world in a heartbeat, but that's not who we are.

Don't worry. The only way to destroy America is to rot it from the inside -- collapse our system from the inside. It's got to be one of us that brings us to our knees.

When I said that, I was trying to give hope to people. But I didn't have the full truth, because little did I know that there were people, our own countrymen, who are already here who are on the inside who actually want to do that -- bring our country to its knees. That's insanity.

... Progressives -- progressives are the ones that say you've got to rot America from the inside. You have to be inside in order to bring her down. It has been the plan the whole time. Make progress -- baby steps. Well, progress from where to what? From the Constitution to a democracy. We're not a democracy.

So now that it's happening, why is America surprised? They've been clear for a hundred years. Radical progressives are infecting America! By deceiving unsuspecting people on their true intentions!

A little later, he used the disease metaphor again to describe health-care reform:

Beck: What they're about to pass is not a tumor. Because the doctor can come over here and say, 'Yeah, there's a tumor here, and we've got to go in and cut this out.' I don't know if you can cut this tumor out. Maybe not. But you can try. But what they're about to pass is a bloodstream disease. It will be injected into our system and it will be incurable.

Then on yesterday's show, he continued (h/t Media Matters) to attack the health-care reform effort:

Beck: I think they're gonna pass this thing. They are gonna do whatever it takes to pass this, and they're not going to go the traditional way, they are gonna go the way of snakes and cockroaches. They're gonna crawl out in the cover of darkness, and they're going to pass this, make it happen one way or another.

In case anyone needs reminding, here's how I explained the nature of eliminationism in my last book, The Eliminationists: How Hate Talk Radicalized the American Right:

What motivates this kind of talk and behavior is called eliminationism: a politics and a culture that shuns dialogue and the democratic exchange of ideas in favor of the pursuit of outright elimination of the opposing side, either through suppression, exile, and ejection, or extermination.

Rhetorically, eliminationism takes on certain distinctive shapes. It always depicts its opposition as beyond the pale, the embodiment of evil itself, unfit for participation in their vision of society, and thus worthy of elimination. It often further depicts its designated Enemy as vermin (especially rats and cockroaches) or diseases, and disease-like cancers on the body politic. A close corollary—but not as nakedly eliminationist—are claims that opponents are traitors or criminals and that they pose a threat to our national security.

Eliminationism is often voiced as crude "jokes," a sense of humor inevitably predicated on venomous hatred. And such rhetoric—we know as surely as we know that night follows day—eventually begets action, with inevitably tragic results.

Beck, of course, has a long history of using such rhetoric to attack progressives:



It's almost enough to make you want to go live in China, isn't it?

Oath Keepers: Potentially The Most Lethal And Dangerous Of All The New 'Patriot' Groups

[Cross-posted at Crooks and Liars.]

One of the things that happens major political parties and major media figures indulge in naked fearmongering is that -- surprise! -- a lot of people get fearful. Really fearful. Some of them become downright paranoid, and start believing in all kinds of looming conspiracies against them.

Which means you wind up with outfits like the Oath Keepers, who clearly are one of the major "Patriot" groups leading the recent surge in Patriot movement activity.

You can watch Stewart Rhodes, the Oath Keepers' leader, at the recent CPAC conference being interviewed by the ever-friendly Bill Whittle and come away with the impression that, gosh, these are just folks who want to uphold the Constitution and apple pie. Paranoid, us?

As with all Patriot groups and their leaders, that's the schtick when the cameras are on. When the mask comes off, it becomes quite a different picture.

That's clear from reading Justine Sharrock's in-depth piece on the Oath Keepers for Mother Jones, a must-read. [Full disclosure: I am quoted in several places in this article.] As Sharrock makes clear, one of the more disturbing aspects of this group is that it has the effect of radicalizing the very people who are supposed to be upholding the law and protecting us from violent extremists:

There are scores of patriot groups, but what makes Oath Keepers unique is that its core membership consists of men and women in uniform, including soldiers, police, and veterans. At regular ceremonies in every state, members reaffirm their official oaths of service, pledging to protect the Constitution—but then they go a step further, vowing to disobey "unconstitutional" orders from what they view as an increasingly tyrannical government.

Moreover, recruiting from military and police veterans increases exponentially the lethal competence of these extremists. As we observed back in our first post on the Oath Keepers:

This is an example of why I've called the Iraq War "the Timothy McVeigh Finishing School": Inevitably, there are going to be competent killers either joining the far right from our military ranks -- especially if they've been recruited into those beliefs either before or during their service -- or enacting far-right "lone wolf scenarios," and they are going to have the ability to wreak a great deal of havoc.

... Remember, too, that there have already been concerns raised about concerns raised then by the FBI hold true in this situation as well:

Military experience—ranging from failure at basic training to success in special operations forces—is found throughout the white supremacist extremist movement. FBI reporting indicates extremist leaders have historically favored recruiting active and former military personnel for their knowledge of firearms, explosives, and tactical skills and their access to weapons and intelligence in preparation for an anticipated war against the federal government, Jews, and people of color.

... The prestige which the extremist movement bestows upon members with military experience grants them the potential for influence beyond their numbers. Most extremist groups have some members with military experience, and those with military experience often hold positions of authority within the groups to which they belong.

... Military experience—often regardless of its length or type—distinguishes one within the extremist movement. While those with military backgrounds constitute a small percentage of white supremacist extremists, FBI investigations indicate they frequently have higher profiles within the movement, including recruitment and leadership roles.

Rhodes and Whittle are eager to portray the core of the Oath Keepers' creeds -- the "ten orders" they "will not obey" -- as involving merely ordinary rights that everyone naturally would stand up for, and in a way, that's true. But only deeply paranoid people would believe there is any reason to be concerned that these rights violations might be looming.

Here they are:

• 1. We will NOT obey any order to disarm the American people.
• 2. We will NOT obey orders to conduct warrantless searches of the American people.
• 3. We will NOT obey orders to detain American citizens as “unlawful enemy combatants” or to subject them to military tribunal.
• 4. We will NOT obey orders to impose martial law or a “state of emergency” on a state.
• 5. We will NOT obey orders to invade and subjugate any state that asserts its sovereignty.
• 6. We will NOT obey any order to blockade American cities, thus turning them into giant concentration camps.
• 7. We will NOT obey any order to force American citizens into any form of detention camps under any pretext.
• 8. We will NOT obey orders to assist or support the use of any foreign troops on U.S. soil against the American people to “keep the peace” or to “maintain control."
• 9. We will NOT obey any orders to confiscate the property of the American people, including food and other essential supplies.
• 10. We will NOT obey any orders which infringe on the right of the people to free speech, to peaceably assemble, and to petition their government for a redress of grievances.

It seems not to occur to Whittle to ask how many people believe the government is about to cordon off our cities and turn them into concentration camps. Evidently, because he too shares that fear.

It's widespread among the Oath Keepers, as Sharrock makes clear -- and highly selective. That is, it's relegated largely to liberal Democratic presidents, because Republicans are people they can trust:

Pray (who asked me to use his middle name rather than his first) and five fellow soldiers based at Fort Drum take this directive very seriously. In the belief that the government is already turning on its citizens, they are recruiting military buddies, stashing weapons, running drills, and outlining a plan of action. For years, they say, police and military have trained side by side in local anti-terrorism exercises around the nation. In September 2008, the Army began training the 3rd Infantry's 1st Brigade Combat Team to provide humanitarian aid following a domestic disaster or terror attack—and to help with crowd control and civil unrest if need be. (The ACLU has expressed concern about this deployment.) And some of Pray's comrades were guinea pigs for military-grade sonic weapons, only to see them used by Pittsburgh police against protesters last fall.

Most of the men's gripes revolve around policies that began under President Bush but didn't scare them so much at the time. "Too many conservatives relied on Bush's character and didn't pay attention," founder Rhodes told me. "Only now, with Obama, do they worry and see what has been done. I trusted Bush to only go after the terrorists. But what do you think can happen down the road when they say, 'I think you are a threat to the nation?'"

In Pray's estimate, it might not be long (months, perhaps a year) before President Obama finds some pretext—a pandemic, a natural disaster, a terror attack—to impose martial law, ban interstate travel, and begin detaining citizens en masse. One of his fellow Oath Keepers, a former infantryman, advised me to prepare a "bug out" bag with 39 items including gas masks, ammo, and water purification tablets, so that I'd be ready to go "when the shit hits the fan."

And yes, they're closely enmeshed with the Tea Party movement now:

Oath Keepers collaborates regularly with like-minded citizens groups; last Fourth of July, Rhodes dispatched speakers to administer the oath at more than 30 Tea Party rallies across America. At last fall's 9/12 march on Washington, he led a contingent of Oath Keepers from the Capitol steps down to the Vietnam Veterans Memorial. Afterward, Oath Keepers cohosted a banquet with the hawkish Gathering of Eagles. This February, a member of the group organized a Florida Freedom Rally featuring Joe the Plumber and conservative singer Lloyd Marcus. (Sample lyrics: Mr. President! Your stimulus is sure to bust / it's just a socialistic scheme / The only thing it will do / is kill the American Dream.)

And the paranoia knows few limits, as all kinds of conspiracy theories are encouraged:

Oath Keepers is officially nonpartisan, in part to make it easier for active-duty soldiers to participate, but its rightward bent is undeniable, and liberals are viewed with suspicion. At lunch, when I questioned my tablemates about the Obama-Hitler comparisons I'd heard at the conference, I got a step-by-step tutorial on how the president's socialized medicine agenda would beget a Nazi-style regime.

I learned that bringing guns to Tea Party protests was a reminder of our constitutional rights, was introduced to the notion that the founding fathers modeled their governing documents on the Bible, and debated whether being Muslim meant an inability to believe in and abide by—and thus be protected by—the Constitution. I was schooled on the treachery of the Federal Reserve and why America needs a gold standard, and at dinner one night, Nighta Davis, national organizer for the National 912 Project, explained how abortion-rights advocates are part of a eugenics program targeting Christians.

It's a long piece, but essential reading.

'Lone Wolf' Anti-government Extremist Opens Fire At The Pentagon. But Let's Not Call It Terrorism.

[Cross-posted at Crooks and Liars.]

Yesterday we had another act of violence by a right-wing extremist intent on attacking and harming the government, inflamed by far-right conspiracy theories about 9/11 and other supposed instances of government "tyranny":

Internet postings linked to the suspected gunman in a Pentagon subway shooting suggest long-held frustration with the government's reach into the private life of Americans.
The suspect, John Patrick Bedell, 36, died after exchanging gunfire with two police officers. He spent weeks driving to the Capital area from the West Coast, authorities said Friday.

A blog connected to him via the social networking site LinkedIn outlines a growing distrust of the federal government. The blog suggests a criminal enterprise run out of the government could have staged the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks.

It was the latest batch of conspiracy-laden Internet postings to surface since Thursday night's shooting.

Bedell died Thursday night from head wounds received in a volley of fire with police. Richard Keevill, chief of Pentagon police, said the two injured officers and another officer who came to their assistance fired upon Bedell at the subway entrance into the Pentagon building in Arlington, Va.

"He came here from California," Keevill said. "We were able to identify certain locations that he spent that last several weeks making his way from the West coast to the East coast."

Keevill described Bedell as "very well educated" and well-dressed, saying Bedell was wearing a suit, armed with two 9 millimeter semiautomatic weapons and carried "many magazines" of ammunition. There was more ammunition in Bedell's car, which authorities found in a local parking garage, Keevill said.

[UPDATE: Think Progress has more on Bedell's background as a right-wing extremist.]

NBC's Jim Miklaszewski assured us this morning that there was no indication this was "terrorism." Likewise, the Associated Press report had a similar assurance:

Investigators have found no immediate connection to terrorism. The attack that superficially wounded two officers guarding the massive Defense Department headquarters appears to be a case of "a single individual who had issues," Richard Keevill, chief of Pentagon police, said Friday.

Excuse me, but WTF?

It seems to be the new standard among journalists that terrorism is now defined only as conspiracy-based international terrorism. Lone-wolf domestic terrorism? That's now just "a single individual who had issues."

You remember when an anti-tax radical flew his plane into IRS offices in Austin a couple of weeks ago in an attempt to blow those offices up, the Foxite media were eager to proclaim that it was not an act of terrorism, too.

As we explained then:

This too is nonsense: There are different kinds terrorism, to be certain. There's international terrorism. Then there's domestic terrorism, sometimes conducted by a larger conspiracy, and sometimes conducted by small cells like McVeigh and Terry Nichols, and lone wolves like Eric Rudolph, Scott Roeder and James Von Brunn.

All of these acts fit the FBI's twin definition of terrorism:

Domestic terrorism refers to activities that involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any state; appear to be intended to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; to influence the policy of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States. [18 U.S.C. § 2331(5)]

International terrorism involves violent acts or acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or any state, or that would be a criminal violation if committed within the jurisdiction of the United States or any state. These acts appear to be intended to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination or kidnapping and occur primarily outside the territorial jurisdiction of the United States or transcend national boundaries in terms of the means by which they are accomplished, the persons they appear intended to intimidate or coerce, or the locale in which their perpetrators operate or seek asylum.

Remember that DHS bulletin warning of a potential outbreak of right-wing domestic terrorism that so freaked out conservatives because they claimed it "smeared" conservatives? Let's recall what it actually said:

DHS/I&A assesses that lone wolves and small terrorist cells embracing violent rightwing extremist ideology are the most dangerous domestic terrorism threat in the United States.

[..] Similarly, recent state and municipal law enforcement reporting has warned of the dangers of rightwing extremists embracing the tactics of “leaderless resistance” and of lone wolves carrying out acts of violence.

As we explained after James Von Brunn engaged in a similar act in D.C.:

Now, here's the odd thing about "lone wolves": Right-wingers like to use the solitary nature of this kind of terrorist act to dismiss them as "isolated incidents." But in reality, the continuing existence of acts of this nature demonstrates primarily that the radical right in America is alive, well, and functioning better than it should. And the continuing -- and as we've seen this week, ultimately futile -- attempts by the right to whitewash their existence from the public consciousness have played no small part in helping that trend continue.

... A 2003 piece by Jessica Stern in Foreign Affairs described how even Al Qaeda was finding the concept useful. And she explains its origins:

The idea was popularized by Louis Beam, the self-described ambassador-at-large, staff propagandist, and "computer terrorist to the Chosen" for Aryan Nations, an American neo-Nazi group. Beam writes that hierarchical organization is extremely dangerous for insurgents, especially in "technologically advanced societies where electronic surveillance can often penetrate the structure, revealing its chain of command." In leaderless organizations, however, "individuals and groups operate independently of each other, and never report to a central headquarters or single leader for direction or instruction, as would those who belong to a typical pyramid organization." Leaders do not issue orders or pay operatives; instead, they inspire small cells or individuals to take action on their own initiative.

The strategy was also inspired by at least one "lone wolf" shooter: Joseph Paul Franklin, a racist sniper who in the late 1970s and early 1980s killed as many as 20 people -- mostly mixed-race couples -- on a serial-murder spree, and attempted to assassinate both Vernon Jordan and Larry Flynt. (Franklin was also the inspiration for William Pierce's Hunter, the follow-up novel to The Turner Diaries.)

There has been no dearth of lone wolves in the years since Beam set the strategy for the radical right: Eric Rudolph. Buford Furrow. Benjamin Smith. James Kopp. Jim David Adkisson. In 20099, we added Scott Roeder and James von Brunn to the list.

That's quite a trail of "isolated incidents," isn't it?

As we saw in Austin, far-right extremist rhetoric plays no small role in inspiring these acts. And inevitably, it is ordinary Americans who pay the price.

All I know is that if this had been a Muslim man who had walked into the Pentagon and opened fire, all the talk this morning would be about an "act of terrorism". Instead, it's just another "isolated incident." Funny how that works, isn't it?

Outrageous Revisionism: Breitbart's Big Government Compares ACORN To Ku Klux Klan

[Cross-posted at Crooks and Liars.]

As Eric Boehlert notes, Andrew Breitbart has a real credibility problem, and it extends well beyond his journalistic malfeasance in the ACORN video hoax.

His website, Big Government, is similarly developing a reputation for running blatantly dishonest commentary, often in the cause of defending the videos and their makers or likewise attacking ACORN. The latest example was pointed out by Matt Tatum at AmSpec and Dave Weigel, who both called out this atrocity from "historian" Michael Zak at Andrew Breitbart's "Big Government" blog:

Democrats used the Klan to suppress their political opposition, with vote fraud and intimidation and violence. Klansmen aimed at African-Americans, nearly all Republicans in those days, and at white Republicans who tried to help them. Once threatened by the KKK, Republicans could in many cases save their lives only by publicly swearing allegiance to the Democratic Party. According to a southern governor, "Few Republicans dare sleep in their houses at night."

"The suppression of enough GOP votes could ensure a Democratic victory," wrote one historian. "There's no question that Klansmen closely watched the polls" - easy to do before the secret ballot was introduced in the United States in the 1880s. All too often, Republican ballots were not even counted.

Like ACORN, the Ku Klux Klan operated with impunity until Republican politicians and journalists sounded an alarm. In 1869, Nathan Bedford Forrest, the KKK's Grand Dragon, ordered the Klan disbanded. Why? The national organization was getting too much attention, so Klansmen would have to soldier on in state-level organizations, such as the Red Shirts in South Carolina and the Men of Justice in Alabama. Nonetheless, most members of these spin-off groups considered themselves to be Klansmen.

Good God. It's hard to know where to begin. Let's try with Weigel's observation:

The fact that the KKK suppressed and terrorized black voters while ACORN, well, doesn’t — sort of left out here.

More to the point, the entire raison d'etre of the Klan was to disenfranchise black voters, to terrorize them into submission and to ensure that they could not participate as full citizens. According to historians, they killed an estimated 20,000 people in the years 1866-1870 alone (see Philip Dray, At the Hands of Persons Unknown: The Lynching of Black America, p. 49). Indeed, the Klansmen of the postwar period essentially negated the war's outcome by destroying Reconstruction through a campaign of terrorist violence that encompassed massacres, white citizen militias destroying black townships, and the complete destruction of the voting franchise for black people, thereby ensuring white rule for the next century and beyond. (For more on this, be sure to read Stephen Budiansky's riveting account, The Bloody Shirt: Terror After the Civil War, which was excerpted in the New York Times.)

ACORN's very raison d'etre, in blazing contradistinction from the KKK, is to enfranchise minority voters and bring them into the American democratic system. That is to say, its very existence is about repairing the damage created by the Klan and its legacy of Jim Crow and segregation -- damage that remains with us to this day. Moreover, its established means of doing so are peaceful and democratic: voter-enrollment drives and education work, empowering minority communities to achieve economic and politic equity. That was what the Klan was devoted to preventing.

Let's also be clear about the "voter fraud" ACORN is accused of and its utter difference from the Klan's disenfranchisement of blacks. What has happened is that a handful of ACORN registrars have defrauded ACORN by turning in fake names on their voter-registration rolls; this is known as voter-registration fraud, which is completely different than vote fraud, which involves ballot stuffing, manipulation of votes or ballot boxes, and similar acts. That is, none of the fake voters on the registration forms were ever going to vote in the election (the fraud was detected by ACORN), which meant no one else's votes could be "negated" by fraudulent ballots, and so no voters were ever disenfranchised by ACORN's activities.

Compare that to the KKK method of vote fraud: outright stuffing of ballot boxes, a refusal to count Republican votes, and threatening the life and limb of any person, black or white, who showed up to vote Republican.

Oh, and one other thing: Zak makes a big show of pointing out that these were Democratic white supremacists engaged in "voter fraud" then, just as (supposedly) now, and it was Republican voters who were under attack and Republicans who stood up to the fraud.

Well, yes, that's true. But it's also true that these were progressive Republicans who were upholding democracy, and conservative Democrats who were attacking it. Zak, like so many conservative Republicans today, wants to pretend that whole "Southern Strategy" thing never happened.

As a commenter named NTS points out at Big Government:

Can we at least try to keep our criticisms within the realm of believability? Conservatives just come off as desperate and dishonest by constantly trying to compare far-left groups like ACORN and Planned Parenthood to far-right groups like the Klan and the Nazis.

And can we also stop with this nonsense about pointing out how the Democratic Party used to be associated with segregationists and the Klan? For those of you with no understanding of history -- the parties pretty much flipped during the 1960s. This is why the "solid South" used to be solidly Democratic and is now solidly Republican.

Let's put it this way: Just as Michael Zak has pretty much demolished his claims to being a "historian" in any serious sense, so has Breitbart's Big Government demolished its claim to offering any kind of serious contribution to the discourse from the conservative side.

SPLC's Annual Report Sees Explosive 244% Growth In 'Patriot' Extremism -- Thanks To Tea Parties

[Cross-posted at Crooks and Liars.]

It's now a fact: Whatever else the Tea Party movement may or may not have achieved, it can claim credit for at least one real phenomenon -- it has revived the far-right Patriot movement of the '90s.

We've been reporting it for the better part of a year now, and the New York Times recently confirmed it.

Now the annual report on "The Year in Hate" from the Southern Poverty Law Center has the numbers to back it up:

Hate groups stayed at record levels — almost 1,000 — despite the total collapse of the second largest neo-Nazi group in America. Furious anti-immigrant vigilante groups soared by nearly 80%, adding some 136 new groups during 2009. And, most remarkably of all, so-called "Patriot" groups — militias and other organizations that see the federal government as part of a plot to impose “one-world government” on liberty-loving Americans — came roaring back after years out of the limelight.
The anger seething across the American political landscape — over racial changes in the population, soaring public debt and the terrible economy, the bailouts of bankers and other elites, and an array of initiatives by the relatively liberal Obama Administration that are seen as "socialist" or even "fascist" — goes beyond the radical right. The "tea parties" and similar groups that have sprung up in recent months cannot fairly be considered extremist groups, but they are shot through with rich veins of radical ideas, conspiracy theories and racism.

“We are in the midst of one of the most significant right-wing populist rebellions in United States history,” Chip Berlet, a veteran analyst of the American radical right, wrote earlier this year. "We see around us a series of overlapping social and political movements populated by people [who are] angry, resentful, and full of anxiety. They are raging against the machinery of the federal bureaucracy and liberal government programs and policies including health care, reform of immigration and labor laws, abortion, and gay marriage."

Mark Potok, the author of the report, went on the Dylan Ratigan show yesterday on MSNBC to discuss it:

Ratigan: Mark, have you ever seen numbers like this?

Potok: Not in my tenure doing this work. I've been doing this close to 15 years, and I haven't seen anything like this.

I mean, the comparison, of course, is to the '90s, when we saw so much activity from militias and other anti-government 'Patriot' groups. And of course that's the sector of the radical right that we're really saying has exploded over the last year.

Uh, a minor correction to what you said -- the growth in hate groups, real race-based groups, 55 percent, has been over the last decade or so. That's slowed a bit. But when you look at the whole grouping of the various kinds of groups on the radical right -- extremist nativist groups, Patriot groups and hate groups -- it's astounding. We've seen an overall growth of something like 40 percent. All together, those three strands of the radical right are really the most volatile elements out there, and they amount to something like 1500 groups. It's quite amazing.

It's also worth noting what the report itself says about how this explosion has occurred:

As the movement has exploded, so has the reach of its ideas, aided and abetted by commentators and politicians in the ostensible mainstream. While in the 1990s, the movement got good reviews from a few lawmakers and talk-radio hosts, some of its central ideas today are being plugged by people with far larger audiences like FOX News’ Glenn Beck and U.S. Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn). Beck, for instance, re-popularized a key Patriot conspiracy theory — the charge that FEMA is secretly running concentration camps — before finally “debunking” it.

Yep. As we've been saying ...

Here's Potok discussing the report in more detail:

Utah Legislator Who Wants To Criminalize Miscarriages Is A Glenn Beck '912er' And Tea Party Fan

[Cross-posted at Crooks and Liars.]

Nicole already weighed in on that mind-blowing piece of legislation about to become law in Utah that would make pregnant women criminally liable for "reckless behavior" that results in a miscarriage.

The man behind the law, Utah Republican legislator Carl Wimmer, appeared on CNN yesterday to defend his bill, which he claims will only be usable in the worst of circumstances.

Right. He never does explain why it treats women as presumptive criminals, and expands the definition of "illegal abortion" to include miscarriages. Nor does he explain why 93 percent of the women in Utah don't have legal abortions available within their home counties.

But that's par for the course. You see, Carl Wimmer isn't just your run-of-the-mill Utah Republican (see, e.g., Orrin Hatch). He's a flaming Tea Party fan (as his Facebook testimonial makes clear: "I am involved in the Tea Party and 912 movements."

He's not just involved in Glenn Beck's "912" teabagging movement -- he made an appearance on Beck's special "town hall" show last May promoting not just the "912ers," but Beck's wholesale embrace of the "Tenther" theories from the militia movement of the '90s.

Ironically, here's what Wimmer ranted about back then:

Wimmer: The Patrick Henry Caucus, we formed it in Utah, and the way I look at it is, it brings teeth to what the 912ers are doing. I'm a 912er. And the citizens are frustrated. The citizens are sick and tired of liberties and freedoms being destroyed, all the time. And the government doing it.

So what I decided to do, I'm sick of it, I know some of my fellow legislators were sick of it, and I know there's other legislators around the country who are sick of it. So I decided to form the Patrick Henry Caucus, which is state legislators from throughout the country who are going to unify and join together to push forward the agenda that the 912 group supports, and we're gonna do this together. The citizens can't do it together -- they can write letters, and they can organize. But they need the lawmakers, who can help repeal some of these laws, and fight back against a tyrannical federal government.

I dunno about you, but "freedoms being destroyed" and "tyrannical" seem to me like pretty apt descriptions for laws that invade women's wombs. Just sayin'.

None of this is particularly surprising. But it's interesting to see how Glenn Beck's version of "freedom" plays out on the ground when his minions put into action, isn't it?