Snoring Honor: Beck's Big Rally Just A Long-winded And Boring Sermon. And Boy, Was The Crowd White.

[Cross-posted at Crooks and Liars.]

Glenn Beck promised there wouldn't "be a dry eye in the house" after his big speech today at the Lincoln Memorial for his "Restoring Honor" rally -- because, you know, it was going to be "so stirring."

Riiiiight. Well, Glenn Beck's eyes certainly weren't dry. He started weeping while telling the crowd that somewhere out there was "the next George Washington".

Dunno about you, but when I saw pan shots of the crowd -- which was one of the whitest crowds in D.C. in recent memory -- I mostly thought I saw "the next Timothy McVeigh." But your mileage may vary.

As for the speech itself: Lunesta in verbal form. I'm having to pick my head up from my desk just to write something about it.

It was essentially Beck's call for a return to the religious life in America -- which was why he assembled 240 representatives of various churches in the crowd and dubbed them his "new Black Robe Regiment". This part was particularly creepy, since it came with an admonition that religious leaders needed to focus on "fundamental values" -- as defined by Glenn Beck, of course.

This means, naturally, that the "social justice" for which Martin Luther King fought -- and which Glenn Beck has vigorously condemned -- would not be part of those fundamental values.

As predicted, the whole show was a hoax -- a civil rights rally for easily frightened white people.
Oh, and what about those predictions of 100-200,000 people? This looked to me more in the 50-70,000 range for D.C. (We'll update when we get an official crowd estimate.)

Meanwhile, have fun recalling all the amazing things Beck predicted would come of this rally. Yeah, that was some historic turning point, all right.

Fox Sends Out Ambush Squad To Talk To NYC Mosque Investors -- But Doesn't Mention Key Fox Investor

[Cross-posted at Crooks and Liars.]

One of Fox News' affiliates, WNYW, sent out a reporter named Charles Leaf to conduct an "investigation" of the "money trail" in the patented Fox Ambush Squad style, and yesterday the results ran a couple of times on Fox itself: First Megyn Kelly carried it on her morning "news" show, then Laura Ingraham featured it on The O'Reilly Factor, including an interview with Leaf, who tried to pretend that what he was doing was real journalism.

What's peculiar about this report is that it zeroes in on a few minor functionaries in the financial chain behind the construction of the mosque -- loan guarantors and the like. Leaf invades their homes, follows them into foyers, and tries to run after them in parking lots. All this, ostensibly, to follow the "money trail" behind the mosque.

Of course, they somehow neglected to try talking to one of the imam's more generous backers -- Saudi Prince Al-Waleed bin Talal. Maybe that's because Talal is the No. 2 shareholder in Fox News.

Indeed, as none other than Rupert Murdoch's New York Post reported last May, the Kingdom Foundation, al-Waleed's personal charity, has donated a total of $305,000 to Muslim Leaders of Tomorrow, a leadership and networking project sponsored jointly by two of Rauf's organizations, the American Society for Muslim Advancement and the Cordoba Initiative. Al-Waleed owns a 7 percent, $2.3 billion stake in News Corporation.

Likewise, News Corporation owns a 9 percent, $70 million stake — purchased in February — in Rotana, Al-Waleed's Saudi media conglomerate. Put another way: Rupert Murdoch and Fox News are in business, to the tune of billions of dollars, with one of the "Terror Mosque Imam's" principal patrons.

It's bad enough that they sicced their camera crews on a bunch of unsuspecting bankers, accountants and real-estate developers who are, unsurprisingly, not willing to have their lives destroyed by a scandal-mongering bunch of fake journalists on a witch hunt. But the pernicious part of this kind of reportage is the way that it implies guilt -- for some unnamed misdeed -- simply in the refusal to go on-camera.

We have long said that this style of pseudo-journalism is a violation of a whole raft of basic ethic standards for real journalists. The Fox crews disgracefully badger people outside their homes, and choose targets not merely for some official misdeed but, in some cases, merely for writing or saying something the reporter didn't like.

And this kind of reportage is even more clearly unethical, because it victimizes a bunch of ordinary citizens whose only misdeed is being associated in business dealings with an unpopular project. That's deeply disturbing.

Just remember: Whenever a Fox crew gets near you, simply repeat the magical words, "Andrea Mackris". They'll go away, as do all plagues eventually.

Laura Ingraham Plays The Victim Card: Mosque Critics Are The Victims Of Mean Accusations Of Bigotry! Waaaaaah!

[Cross-posted at Crooks and Liars.]

This seems to have been Laura Ingraham Tries Out for Her Own Fox Show Week at The O'Reilly Factor, and it's been quite a bust -- largely because Ingraham has tried to use O'Reilly-style bullying of her guests, and has not just been outplayed, she's really come off as a nasty, mean-spirited whiner.

That was particularly the case yesterday, when she tried playing the Right-Wing Victimology Card in the "Ground Zero Mosque" controversy: It's not Muslims who are being victimized by the hateful scapegoating of Islamophobes who want to associate them with all things 9/11 and blame them for all the world's terrorism -- rather, it's those very Islamophobes who are being victimized by the people calling them out for their bigotry.

It was particularly striking how she reacted when her guest -- a conservative Republican Muslim named Muhammad Ali Hassan -- tried to explain patiently that the very accusation that these Muslims and this mosque are somehow associated with terrorists is simply prima facie bigotry: "When you tell a group of people they're not allowed to build something because they're Muslim, that's bigotry." It really is that simple.

Ingraham acted as though someone had just spilled coffee on her lap. She began shouting Hassan down, talking over him, attacking his conservative bona fides because he dared to speak this simple truth.

And I just love it whenever right-wingers play the victim card. It's a classic case of the waving-the-bloody-shirt strategy, which magically transforms vicious and violent right-wing thugs into the woebegone victims of the meanness of the people they target.

It has really been quite the demonstration of the intellectual bankruptcy of conservatives this week at O'Reilly's place. Ingraham has tried to pose as someone smarter than her guests. Consistently, she's being outsmarted and made to look like the shallow and vicious harridan we all suspect she really is.

Glenn Beck Does Remind Us Of The Civil Rights Era -- That Is, The People Who Hated Martin Luther King

[Cross-posted at Crooks and Liars.]

What no one has really pointed out about Glenn Beck's upcoming pep rally on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial is that, in claiming he's following the example of Martin Luther King, he's actually positioning this gig as a civil-rights event. But whose civil rights? Well, judging by what we've seen at the Tea Parties inspired by Beck, it's gonna be pretty damned white.

It is thus, in essence, a civil-rights march for white people. Or more particularly, for right-wing white people who feel threatened by the growing presence and power of the nonwhite population.

Of course, they don't put it that way. They know that race talk will just get them called out for what this is all really about. So they talk about "government oppression" and "taking away our freedoms" and "preserving the Constitution" and "what it means to be American". Strip these down to the bare bones -- especially when you peel away the layers of illogic required to support these claims -- and what's really at issue here is a black man leading nonwhite minorities to power, which is always perceived by authoritarians as a sign of their loss of power.

So that's what it's really about. If the rhetoric all seems terribly vague to you, that's why.

And what's really bizarre and Orwellian about this whole spectacle is that it's part of Beck's larger campaign to demonize progressives -- even though the civil-rights movement was always a progressive phenomenon, and indeed Martin Luther King Jr. often proclaimed some of the very themes, such as "social justice," that Beck loves to demonize as part of progressives' eeeeeevil plot to destroy America.

Moreover, as we've said previously and often, there's a reason conservatives like Beck should never, ever try to claim his mantle or his legacy: Because it was conservatives who attacked and demonized and opposed King at every turn in his career.

Indeed, having grown up in conservative Mormon Idaho in the 1960s, I recall the visceral hatred and fear with which King was widely regarded in those quarters. I remember seeing sheets like this:



This was a flier that was distributed nationally as part of a campaign to discredit King as a Communist. Among the foremost leaders in that campaign, especially among Mormons, was none other than the Church's future president, Ezra Taft Benson. And Benson, in fact, was close friends with Glenn Beck's guru, W. Cleon Skousen -- who was also known to smear King.

And when I watch Glenn Beck, I'm reminded of those days. Because just like the Bensons and Skousens, Beck is one of those guys who is always eager to point the finger and call someone a "communist" or a "marxist" or a "socialist".

Indeed, Media Matters put together a lovely compendium of the many ways Glenn Beck would have demonized King had they been contemporaries -- and were Beck not eager to try to claim some kind of cultural mantle from him.

Also, be sure and check out Glenn Beck Is Not Martin Luther King.

Meanwhile, Justin Elliott at Salon points out that Beck stands to make a pretty penny from this shindig.

Plus, this statement from People for the American Way:

“Forty-seven years later, Glenn Beck is trying to appropriate Dr. King’s legacy in order to push his agenda of intolerance, fear, and division. Beck says he’s ‘reclaiming civil rights.’ In fact, he’s insulting exactly what Dr. King and his movement stood for. Beck has made himself famous for his attacks on progressives, Muslim Americans, union members and even churches who preach the social justice values to which Dr. King dedicated his life. He claimed that President Obama has ‘a deep-seated hatred of white people.’ Beck is not ‘restoring honor’ to our country; he’s just fanning the flames of tired old prejudices amplified and enlarged for political gain.

“Beck’s histrionics and his deeply cynical appeals to bigotry are anathema to Dr. King’s legacy. In honoring the life work of Dr. King, Americans should stand for justice and equality for all people, and against hate and those who speak, teach and promote it.”

[H/t The Other 98% and Nicole.]

Laura Ingraham Flips Out When Guest Brings Up NYC Cabbie's Stabbing

[Cross-posted at Crooks and Liars.]

Wouldn't you know it: For the entire day yesterday, Fox News -- for all of its copious coverage of the NYC mosque controversy and Tiger Woods' divorce -- somehow couldn't see fit to run any kind of coverage at all about the stabbing of that Muslim New York cabbie.

Indeed, when Manhattan Borough President Scott Stringer brought it up as an example of the kind of viciousness being stirred up by Fox News on The O'Reilly Factor, fill-in host Laura Ingraham completely flipped out and began shouting over him, declaring that "we haven't confirmed that yet."

Well, Laura, here's your confirmation:

A college student who did volunteer work in Afghanistan was charged Wednesday with slashing a taxi driver's neck and face after the driver said he's Muslim.

A criminal complaint alleges Michael Enright uttered an Arabic greeting and told the driver, "Consider this a checkpoint," before the brutal bias attack occurred Tuesday night inside the yellow cab on Manhattan's East Side. Police say Enright was drunk at the time.

A judge ordered Enright, 21, held without bail on charges of attempted murder and assault as hate crimes and possession of a weapon. The handcuffed defendant, wearing a polo shirt and cargo shorts, did not enter a plea during the brief court appearance.

How long before we find out he was an avid Fox watcher and Pam Geller devotee, I wonder.

Incidentally, you'll notice that this video is actually quite delightful, because Stringer won't let Ingraham intimidate him or shut him up. At one point, she tries to do an O'Reilly and orders him: "Pipe down!" But he goes on to pin her ears back by pointing out her hypocrisy on the mosque, as Alan Colmes did the night before.

Ingraham obviously believes she can outsmart and outbully these liberals she's been bringing on. Instead, she's been getting her ass handed to her. Fun to watch.

OK, Glenn, Exactly What Is Wrong With Saying 'We Are A Nation Of Christians And Muslims, Jews And Hindus, And Unbelievers'?

[Cross-posted at Crooks and Liars.]

On two separate occasions this week -- first on Monday and again Wednesday -- Glenn Beck on his Fox News show has played up President Obama's line from his January 2009 inauguration address:

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus, and non-believers."

This in the middle of rants explaining why Americans suspect him of being a Muslim -- which is, of course, all Obama's fault. Fox News and Rush Limbaugh had nothing to do with it.

And it's a funny thing, watching Glenn Beck proclaim that the day of Obama's inauguration was a "great day" for America, because we all recall how he proclaimed back then that Obama was going to install Marxism.

Indeed, you may recall that at the time of the inauguration, Beck wasn't disturbed by this line in the least. What got his knickers in a bunch was a line from the Rev. Joseph Lowery suggesting that white people need "to do what's right." You may also recall that Rev. Lowery was one of the closest allies and friends of Martin Luther King -- whose legacy Beck now wants to claim for himself.

Funny, that.

But what's really funny is that Beck never explains what's wrong with Obama's observation, other than that "no president" had ever put it that way before. (Well, duh! If he had used someone else's formulation, Beck and Co. would have accused him of plagiarism.) It's really a pretty simple statement about how our nation is home to a broadly diverse set of religious beliefs. Does Beck disagree with that?

Apparently, Beck thinks Obama should only have recognized Jews and Christians. Muslims and Hindus have no business being on the list of Americans.

And what about Mormons like Glenn Beck? After all, they too practice a "Christianity that many Americans just don't recognize".

We wonder if maybe Glenn can explain just what is wrong with that remark a little better for us.

Memo To Fauxheads: Before You Get Worked Up Over Imam's Remarks, Check The Iraq Body Count. We Do Have Blood On Our Hands.

[Cross-posted at Crooks and Liars.]

The Foxheads -- with Megyn Kelly leading the torchlight parade on her (ahem) morning "news" show -- were all worked up over another quote pulled out of the files of Imam Fiesal Abdul Rauf, the man behind the so-called "Ground Zero mosque":

"We tend to forget, in the West, that the United States has more Muslim blood on its hands than Al Qaeda has on its hands of innocent non-Muslims," said Imam Fiesal Abdul Rauf, speaking at the Bob Hawke Prime Ministerial Center during a question and answer session dedicated to what sponsors say was a dialogue to improve relations between America and the Muslim world.

"You may remember that the U.S.-led sanctions against Iraq led to the death of over half a million Iraqi children. This has been documented by the United Nations," said Rauf, who called himself a spokesman for Islam.

Now, one may or may not quibble with Rauf's example -- namely, the prewar sanctions against Iraq that Saddam indeed used as an excuse for letting his people starve.

But there's no doubt that we have innocent Iraqi blood on our hands. At last count, the toll stood between 97,000-106,000 civilians killed in Iraq because we visited war on their country. In 2009 alone -- a year in which the toll decreased -- there were 4,644 civilian deaths recorded. So much for comparisons to the 3,000 killed on 9/11.

I'm a little surprised there's any question about this at all. But then in Fox-land, America under Bush did nothing but good and kind things around the world.

Whose Fault Is It That So Many Republicans Think Obama Is A Muslim? According To Glenn Beck, It's Obama's

[Cross-posted at Crooks and Liars.]

Glenn Beck yesterday on Fox News was puzzling over those Time magazine and Pew Research polls showing that more Americans than ever -- and particularly conservative Republicans -- believe President Obama is a Muslim. As he put it:

Beck: Now that doesn't make sense, because as you learn more and more about the President of the United States, those numbers should be going down. Why are they going up?

He posits only three possibilities:

Beck: Maybe it's because, as so many on the left think, Americans are just stupid, ignorant or racist. I don't believe that.

Is it because, as CBS' Bob Schieffer said on Sunday, he believes the Internet, the Internet is just a breeding ground for freaks.

... Could it be something else, Bob? Could it be? Is it because the American people have observed Barack Obama for 18 months now? And they don't know what to believe!

... Let me be clear: President Obama is not a Muslim. I'm taking his word that he is a Christian.

But here's where it falls apart for many Americans: It's a Christianity that many Americans just don't recognize!

To which we say: See Answer #1. Because Obama's brand of Christianity is obviously, simply the same kind many millions of us practice: ordinary progressive protestantism. Of course, we know all too well that evangelical Christians don't consider us real Christians -- which no doubt is where Beck gets this idea.

Beck then -- somewhat dishonestly -- runs through some of the numbers from the Pew poll about where people are getting this misinformation. Take a look, if you will at the actual question and response:

Q.58a And how did you learn about Barack Obama’s religion?
Jul 21-Aug 5 2010
60 Media (NET)
36 Media or news (non-specific)
16 Television
6 Newspapers
3 Magazines
1 Radio
1 Book (non-specific)
1 Obama’s book(s)
11 Obama’s behaviors or his own words
7 Things heard or read (non-specific)
7 Internet
6 Things heard or read during presidential campaign
4 Views of family or friends
4 Obama’s ancestry – family background, name, appearance
1 My own opinion
1 Obama’s policies towards Muslim countries or religion in the U.S.

Funny that Beck manages to omit the 36 percent who simply say "the media", or the fact that 60 percent of them total named various media, isn't it? Instead, he fixates on the 11 percent who answered that they got that perception from "Obama's behavior or his own words." Nevermind, of course, that a portion of the people who answered thus also happened to believe he's a Christian.

And FWIW, Beck is right that Schieffer's insistence that this mass ignorance/delusion is product of the Internet is bogus, considering that only 7 percent named that as their chief source of this information.

The point that eludes Beck is very clear from these numbers: This wave of ignorant bigotry is largely fueled by "the media" generally, and far and away the largest component of that is TV news.

Moreover, far and away the TV network far most likely to suggest that Obama is a Muslim -- or at best, a radical foreigner who does not share our values -- is Fox News.

So let me suggest a fourth possibility to Glenn Beck: There are millions of conservatives who believe Obama is a Muslim because conservatives watch Fox News almost exclusively, and that propaganda channel -- with the help of right-wing radio talkers, including those with Fox shows -- constantly reinforces the view that he is a dark-skinned foreigner with secret allegiances.

There, that wasn't so hard, was it? And it certainly makes more sense than blaming Obama himself, who has made his Christian faith clear constantly throughout his presidency.

Though of course, it's not surprising that this possibility doesn't cross Beck's radar.

Alan Colmes Calls Out Laura Ingraham For Her Hypocrisy On NYC Mosque's Backers

[Cross-posted at Crooks and Liars.]

Filling in for Bill O'Reilly last night on Fox, Laura Ingraham led off with a "Talking Points Memo" segment castigating Daisy Khan and the backers of the "Ground Zero Mosque" for having the temerity to point out how the whole debate has served to stir up a real wave of anti-Islamic hatred.

Apparently, when minorities under siege in this country stand up for themselves, that's a real sign of "extremism" in Ingraham's book.

But then she brought on Alan Colmes, who promptly called her out for he naked hypocrisy -- having, after all, not so long hosted an interview with Daisy Khan in which Ingraham declared: "I like what you're doing."

COLMES: This is worth seeing who the intolerant people are in this country. It's interesting that the word "tolerance" was used with you and the love fest you had with Liz Cheney. But the real intolerance we're seeing are from those people who don't seem to believe in religious freedom in this country. And I'm interested that you were very much for this when you interviewed Daisy Khan or spoke with her.

INGRAHAM: Actually, you're not reading the transcript correctly, Alan.

COLMES: I did read the transcript.

INGRAHAM: I never said I was for building the mosque--

COLMES: You actually did.

INGRAHAM: --600 feet from Ground Zero.

COLMES: You actually said I don't have a problem--

INGRAHAM: I said I like what you're doing. No, I said--

COLMES: I like what you're doing, which is--

INGRAHAM: No, I said I can't find a lot of people who have a problem with it. I like what she said--

COLMES: Yes.

INGRAHAM: --about bringing Muslims into the American experience.

COLMES: Right and that--

INGRAHAM: And I repeated that last night. Absolutely.

COLMES: And that hasn't changed. That hasn't changed.

INGRAHAM: When she goes on television and calls people who question the positioning of the mosque, where it is, not the right to build it--

COLMES: Right.

INGRAHAM: --but the place of building as people who hate Muslims--

COLMES: You know--

INGRAHAM: --I reject that. That's intolerant.

Memo to Ingraham: There's an important -- and large -- difference between declaring that the opposition to the mosque is stirring up Islamohobia and claiming that everyone who's opposed to the mosque is a bigot. Khan says the former, not the latter.

In any event, Ingraham then immediately retreated to the day's favorite Fox talking point -- namely, the suggestion by the mosque's imam that America has Muslim "blood on its hands" in Iraq:

COLMES: What's happening here is a smear campaign against this imam and his wife. That's what's going on here.

INGRAHAM: Blood on their hands.

COLMES: See, you're extracting out of context something he said in 2005 without the full context of what he said. He has been very clear. In fact, in a book that he wrote published by the company that distributes this show by Harper San Francisco, he talked about how wrong it is to ever have terrorism or to kill anybody in the name of religion.

INGRAHAM: Well, he seems to say--

COLMES: That one doesn't do that.

INGRAHAM: Well, I think--

COLMES: One of his full comments said in full context, Laura--

INGRAHAM: I think, Alan -- I think what he says, and all of FOX News has been playing these comments, I think what he says to one audience oftentimes differs from what he says to another audience.

COLMES: Not true, not true because--

INGRAHAM: And it depends on what audience you're talking to.

COLMES: Not true.

Finally, Colmes lays the wood to Ingraham's filthy smear job:

INGRAHAM: The idea that a man who's supposed to be building bridges, whether you agree with him or not, makes statements about America having more blood on her hands than al Qaeda, that that is going to be an effective bridge builder?

COLMES: Laura, you are guilty of smearing a man by taking one sentence out of context and ignoring the number of things he has said that are indeed bridge building and that have -- the fact is if you look at the actual metrics, yes, we have to understand how our actions in other parts of the world affect our view of us. We have Americans dying right now in Afghanistan and Iraq--

INGRAHAM: Right.

COLMES: --in order to promote Islamic countries and work on behalf of Muslims. We have Muslims and the American military who have died.

INGRAHAM: Right, absolutely.

COLMES: And Muslims died on 9/11.

INGRAHAM: We applaud them, absolutely.

COLMES: It's about time we stop this divisive rhetoric and showed a little tolerance about religious freedom.

Ingraham responds by trying out the all-too-predictable Jonah Goldberg gambit: It's not mosque critics who are being bigoted and ugly, it's the mosque backers! (We say predictable because this is what Goldberg specializes in: Whatever ugliness right-winger indulge -- including bigotry and violence -- is always projected first onto "the Left", and thus excused or rendered moot.)

INGRAHAM: Oh, it's the tolerance only goes one way, Alan.

COLMES: And stop arguing over location.

INGRAHAM: The tolerance only goes one way.

COLMES: It goes all ways, Laura.

INGRAHAM: We're supposed to bend to the wishes of everybody else, but we can't even ask questions in our country anymore. Questions aren't allowed, I guess.

Call the waaaaahmbulance!

Sorry, Laura. Sorry, Jonah. That dog won't hunt. Just check today's news.

Cavuto Speculates That 'Ideological' Obama Might Not Run For Re-election

[Cross-posted at Crooks and Liars.]

Aren't Republicans getting a wee bit ahead of themselves here? Already they're speculating, as Neil Cavuto and right-wing historian Jane Hampton Cook did yesterday, that President Obama -- because he's had a downturn in the polls, and seems intent on passing his legislative agenda regardless of poll numbers (wow, what a concept) -- is actually planning just a one-term presidency and might even step aside for 2012.

Right. That's good for a low mordant chuckle or two, anyway.

Tell you what, folks -- let's check back on that in about three months, OK? Meantime, you all should get a napkin to wipe up the drool. It's unseemly.

The Right Seems Determined To Hand Al Qaeda A Propaganda Victory With Its Mosque Fetish

[Cross-posted at Crooks and Liars.]

Laura Ingraham is clearly miffed that Muslims are starting to fear that the Right's increasing obsession with the so-called "Ground Zero Mosque" is bringing to life a long-dormant hatred of all things Muslim in the USA. So last night, filling in for Bill O'Reilly on his Fox News show, she brought on Karl Rove to help dismiss the notion as ridiculous -- though you can judge for yourself how effective that was.

What irked Ingraham was this week's Time cover story, which stated a self-evident truth, namely, that "it is plain that many of Park51's opponents are motivated by deep-seated Islamophobia." (See, e.g., Pam Geller.)

Although the American strain of Islamophobia lacks some of the traditional elements of religious persecution — there's no sign that violence against Muslims is on the rise, for instance — there's plenty of anecdotal evidence that hate speech against Muslims and Islam is growing both more widespread and more heated. Meanwhile, a new TIME–Abt SRBI poll found that 46% of Americans believe Islam is more likely than other faiths to encourage violence against nonbelievers. Only 37% know a Muslim American. Overall, 61% oppose the Park51 project, while just 26% are in favor of it. Just 23% say it would be a symbol of religious tolerance, while 44% say it would be an insult to those who died on 9/11.

The problem isn't simply a concern for American Muslims, though -- it's a concern for all Americans. Because the controversy is giving America a black eye around the world:

But many Muslims tuning into the debate see a demonization of their religion by some Americans who have been painting the 1,400-year-old faith as a dangerous political ideology. They bristle at the ignorance of politicians who argue the structure should not be allowed because Muslims don't allow Christian churches in their countries. Saudi Arabia is the only country to specifically bar churches.

While some conservative American critics allege the building would serve as a "victory mosque" to the terrorists who destroyed the World Trade Center, Muslims contend the project could serve as a bridge not only to non-Muslims, but to those of their faith who may have lost their way.

And in the process, they're effectively handing Al Qaeda a propaganda victory:

Some counterterrorism experts say the anti-Muslim sentiment that has saturated the airwaves and blogs in the debate over plans for an Islamic center near ground zero in Lower Manhattan is playing into the hands of extremists by bolstering their claims that the United States is hostile to Islam.

Opposition to the center by prominent politicians and other public figures in the United States has been covered extensively by the news media in Muslim countries. At a time of concern about radicalization of young Muslims in the West, it risks adding new fuel to Al Qaeda’s claim that Islam is under attack by the West and must be defended with violence, some specialists on Islamic militancy say.

“I know people in this debate don’t intend it, but there are consequences for these kinds of remarks,” said Brian Fishman, who studies terrorism for the New America Foundation here.

He said that Anwar al-Awlaki, an American-born cleric hiding in Yemen who has been linked to several terrorist plots, has been arguing for months in Web speeches and in a new Qaeda magazine that American Muslims face a dark future of ever-worsening discrimination and vilification.

“When the rhetoric is so inflammatory that it serves the interests of a jihadi recruiter like Awlaki, politicians need to be called on it,” Mr. Fishman said.

So the question we need to be asking Laura Ingraham and her pals at Fox is: Why do you hate America? Are you an Al Qaeda operative?

Fox's Right-Wing Talkers Have A Favorite New Word For Obama: 'Incompetent'

[Cross-posted at Crooks and Liars.]

You can always tell when the folks in the right-wing talking-point war rooms come up with a favorite new meme, because in short order it's on the lips of every pundit on their shows. The newest way to slam President Obama, it seems, is to declare him "incompetent."

That's the word Karl Rove used to describe Obama's handling of the so-called "Ground Zero Mosque" controversy. And it's the word Dick Armey used to describe his handling of the economy and the nation generally.

Look for more of this soon from the like of Dick Morris and Bill O'Reilly.

Ironic, ain't it? The very folks who foisted upon the nation the Most Incompetent President in History now have the chutzpah to project that onto his liberal successor.

But have you noticed something? Look at the memes that have been trotted out by Fox's talkers during Obama's tenure:

-- That he's a black radical.

-- That he's a closet Muslim.

-- That he's not a "real American".

-- That he's "arrogant." [read: "uppity"]

-- That he's a slick talker.

All of these smears happen to coincide with the usual laundry list of undesirable characteristics of the racist stereotype of black men. Now that they've gotten to "incompetent," the only things missing are that he's "lazy" and that he eats fried chicken and watermelon.

Somehow, I suspect they'll eventually get around to those too.

Though I'm sure it will all just be a coincidence.

A Phrase For The Ages, Via Mark Sawyer: Republicans Basking In Their 'Summer Of Racial Resentment'

[Cross-posted at Crooks and Liars.]

It isn't often that truth gets spoken at Fox News, let alone a deep truth about the behavior of both movement conservatives and Fox itself. But UCLA poli-sci prof Mark Sawyer managed to slip one into the morning broadcast yesterday during a segment of America's Newsroom with Shannon Bream filling in for Megyn Kelly.

The topic was the so-called "Ground Zero mosque", and Sawyer was crossing swords with radio talker Ben Ferguson, who seems incapable of anything beyond basic talking-points regurgitation.

Bream pointed to the mosque organizers' message of healing the wounds of 9/11 and wondered how that message got lost in the uproar. Sawyer, of course, couldn't help but chortle:

Sawyer: It's been lost because after that Laura Ingraham interview, you guys decided in your summer of racial resentment in the Republican Party, that you were going to whip this up, along with the New Black Panther Party, along with Shirley Sherrod, along with a bunch of other phony stories to get people all stirred up. And that's the point. Nothing's wrong with her message. Exactly what she's saying is exactly the America that we should all want to live in.

Good on Sawyer. I love it when someone says what needs saying, because it doesn't happen enough on teevee. (Of course, Ferguson not only couldn't respond, he then displayed his usual sensitivity by dismissing concerns that the mosque organizers were now getting death threats -- because hey, it happens all the time, right?)

Mind you, he limited the observation to Republicans -- but let's face it, everything he said was equally true about Fox News' behavior. Indeed, as we increasingly see via the money trail, Fox and the GOP are joined at the hip these days.

'Sovereign Citizenship': Not Just For White Supremacists Anymore

[Cross-posted at Crooks and Liars.]

(Via The Alyona Show at YouTube)

What do you get when you mix the mushy-headedness of libertarianism with the nuttiness of right-wing extremism, all juiced up in the right-wing populism of the Tea Party movement?

Well, one of the outcomes is the rise in "sovereign citizens" -- those folks who believe in tinfoil-hat conspiracy theories about the government, including the notion that all you have to do is magically sign some documents an voila! You're no longer subject to the jurisdiction of the federal government and its laws!

Indeed, as you may recall, this even allows you to move into mansions that are in foreclosure and proclaim them your very own. And as we saw in the case of Jerry and Joe Kane, there is a dark, violent side to this as well.

This was why, last week, the Southern Poverty Law Center released a study on sovereign citizens reporting a sharp increase in the numbers of people who were claiming sovereign citizenship:

As many as 300,000 people identify as sovereign citizens, the Southern Poverty Law Center found in a study to be published Thursday that was obtained by The Associated Press. Hate group monitors say their numbers have increased thanks to the recession, the foreclosure crisis, the growth of the Internet and the election of Barack Obama in 2008.

Adherents expect the current American system of government to end one way or another.
"I'm the Patrick Henry of the 21st century. I'm here to regain our freedom," James McBride said in a jailhouse interview. "I'm going to, or die trying."

At the heart of their belief system: The government creates a secret identity for each citizen at birth, a "straw man," that controls an account at the U.S. Treasury used as collateral for foreign debt. File enough documents at the right offices and the money in those accounts can be used to pay off debt or make purchases worth thousands of dollars.

The movement is based on a form of "legal fundamentalism," said Michael Barkun, a retired Syracuse University political science professor who researches anti-government and hate groups.

"These people really seem to feel that filing certain kinds of legal papers that are connected to their theories will somehow also magically have the power to alter relationships and grant things that otherwise would be unobtainable," he said.

Experts say sovereign citizens are the latest manifestation of anti-government activists going back to the Posse Comitatus movement of the 1970s, which recognized only local governments and no law enforcement official with more jurisdiction than a sheriff. In the 1980s, government protesters exploited the farm crisis by selling fraudulent debt relief programs.

You can read the full SPLC report here.

The ADL issued a similar report last week full version in PDF here:

In the summer of 2010, Americans have witnessed a wave of anti-government sentiment sweeping the country. In the mainstream, this has manifested itself in ways ranging from the spread of anti-incumbent electoral trends to the growth of anti-government movements such as the Tea Party movement.

On the fringes of American society, the growth of anti-government sentiment has helped spawn the proliferation of extreme anti-government conspiracy theories and the resurgence of anti-government extremist groups and movements, most noticeably the militia movement, which has grown from 50 groups or so in 2008 to nearly 200 in 2010.

However, there is another anti-government extremist movement that has also grown considerably in size and activity, though this growth—and, indeed, even the existence of the movement—has largely escaped public attention. This is the anti-government “sovereign citizen” movement, which has exhibited a marked increase in activity in the past several years. The sovereign citizen movement is actually larger than its cousin militia movement, and has also engaged in more violent or confrontational incidents in recent years than militia groups have, yet it has attracted at best a fraction of the attention.

Part of the reason for this lack of attention is that the ideology of the movement is complicated, its tactics and activities are unusual, and adherents of the movement typically do not form organized groups that can draw more attention. Usually, the movement operates “under the radar” of public attention; even when attention is drawn to the activities, often criminal, of adherents, the media often does not understand their connection to an organized movement.

Of special note is this point -- namely, that while "sovereign citizenship" started out as a way for white supremacists to undermine the federal government, its clientele has broadened as it has spread.

From the SPLC report:

In recent years, however, most new recruits are people who have found themselves in a desperate situation and are searching for a quick fix. Others are intrigued by the notions of easy money and living a lawless life, free from any unpleasant consequences (Moreover, many self-identified sovereigns today are black and apparently completely unaware of the racist origins of their ideology.) When they experience some small success at using redemption techniques to battle minor traffic offenses or local licensing issues, they're hooked. For many, it's a political issue. They don't like taxes, traffic laws, child support obligations or making banks rich, but they are too impatient to try to change what they dislike by traditional, political means.

In times of economic prosperity, sovereigns typically rely on absurd and convoluted schemes to evade state and federal income taxes and hide their assets from the IRS. In times of financial hardship, they turn to debt- and mortgage-elimination scams, techniques to avoid child support payments, and even attempts to use their redemption techniques to get out of serious criminal charges. Jerry Kane, who'd suffered a series of personal defeats in life, specialized in teaching a mortgage-elimination technique that had no basis in the actual law.

Once in the movement, it's an immersive and heady experience. In the last three decades, the redemptionist subculture has grown from small groups of like-minded individuals in localized pockets around the nation to a richly layered society. Redemptionists attend specialized seminars and national conferences, enjoy a large assortment of alternative newspapers and radio networks, and subscribe to sovereign-oriented magazines and websites. They home school their children so that a new generation will not have to go through the same learning curve that they did to see past the government's curtain to the common-law utopia beyond.

While the techniques sold by promoters never perform as promised, most followers are nonetheless content to be fighting the battle, and they blame only the judges, lawyers, prosecutors and police when their gurus' methods fail. While most have never achieved financial success in life, they take pride in engaging the government in battle, comparing themselves to the founding fathers during the American Revolution.

In recent months, their movement has grown to the point where a group called the Guardians of the Free Republics is attempting to assemble its own common-law-based, alternative government on a national scale. Already, the group, which earlier this year demanded that the governors of all 50 states step down, claims to have set up a common-law court in every state. At least 1,350 people have signed up to serve as jurors on these pseudo-legal judicial bodies.

This is why you'll find folks like the scary black dude in Georgia who was using sovereign citizenship to scam his way into homes. Likewise, another black couple in Georgia were arrested by police for engaging in a similar scam.

And it attracts believers like this hapless Canadian fellow, Curtis Nixon, who as you can see in the video atop the post was having trouble answering the reporter's questions through the post-bong haze.

Of course, most of them are harmless. Jerry Kane was too. Until a cop pulled him over. And then all bets are off.

Unfortunately, no one has taken this phenomenon very seriously as long as it only involved white people. Maybe now that will start changing.

Fair And Balanced: O'Reilly Guest Rips Justice Probe Of Arpaio -- But Her Background As Andy Thomas Operative Goes Unmentioned

[Cross-posted at Crooks and Liars.]

Ah, there's nothing like watching Bill O'Reilly bloviate on Fox News to get daily lessons in journalistic ethics -- lessons, that is, in how to rather nakedly discard ethics altogether.

On Wednesday, O'Reilly featured a segment on the Justice Department's threat to sue Sheriff Joe Arpaio over his refusal to cooperate with its investigation of his racial-profiling practices. (Naturally, the feds have so far punked out.)

To do this, he brought on a guest named Rachel Alexander, identified as a "former deputy attorney for Maricopa County, AZ" -- and that was it. Alexander then proceeded to assure O'Reilly that the DOJ's threats, as well as its investigation, were purely "political" -- though all she could point to was some coincidental timing around the SB1070 matter, which in fact only arose well after the DOJ began investigating Arpaio.

But what is unmentioned is that Alexander, when she worked for Maricopa County, was a well-known operative and shill for the DA, Andrew Thomas -- one of Arpaio's most prominent allies. (When Thomas stepped down to run for Arizona Attorney General, he left Arpaio exposed to potential investigation, but Alexander departed with him shortly. Nowadays she identifies herself as the "Director of Social Media" for the J.D. Hayworth campaign.)1

What is also unmentioned is that Alexander is under investigation, along with Thomas, for ethical violations while working for Maricopa County:

In March, Berch ordered an inquiry into Thomas' behavior after a Superior Court judge ruled that Thomas acted unethically in his prosecution of Maricopa County Supervisor Mary Rose Wilcox. The inquiry was prompted in part by the State Bar of Arizona, the semi-governmental agency that licenses and polices lawyers in the state.

The Bar asked that an outside investigator be appointed, and the court appointed Colorado attorney John Gleason.

The Arizona Supreme Court also appointed former Supreme Court Chief Justice Charles Jones as the "probable cause panelist," a judge of sorts.

Since then, several other complaints have been lodged against Thomas with the state Bar, including one by an association of defense attorneys.

Two of Thomas' former top prosecutors, Rachel Alexander and Lisa Aubuchon, also are under investigation. Alexander has since left the office, and Aubuchon is suspended with pay pending an internal investigation at the County Attorney's Office.

Thomas, Alexander and Aubuchon asked Jones to dismiss the complaints. Jones refused. On July 1, they filed their petitions for special action.

Some of this may have to do with Alexander's penchant for political cheerleading on the taxpayers' dime:

Rachel Alexander, the deputy county attorney now handling the Maricopa County Attorney's racketeering lawsuit against a host of county officials, was working out of Thomas' executive office as recently as mid-December, county records show.
Indeed, Alexander -- a conservative blogger and longtime Thomas supporter -- wasn't transferred to the MCAO's Major Crimes Unit until December 14. That's just one week before she became the attorney of record on the extremely complicated racketeering suit, in which Thomas accuses the county supervisors, some judges, and other elected officials, of being part of an elaborate criminal conspiracy.

The timing on that transfer is interesting because it confirms our theory -- posited on this blog yesterday -- that Alexander is an odd choice to be handling the RICO litigation. Thomas has basically staked his reputation on the idea that the county officials who oppose him are engaged in a massive (and bizarre) coverup so they can build their pet project. (According to the suit, the elected officials allegedly conspired to build a new county courthouse and thwart the county attorney from investigating it.)

But the lawsuit itself is a bizarre melange of unsubstantiated allegations and details that don't quite add up to anything. A veteran prosecutor would have a hell of a time advancing this case; a prosecutor with one week's experience in major crime is likely doomed.

We also learned another interesting thing about Alexander: She's supposed to be nonpolitical.

As we pointed out in our previous post, the blogger/neophyte crime fighter recently tweeted on behalf of her boss, county attorney Thomas, saying that he needed volunteers for his campaign for attorney general.

Interestingly, Alexander's most important role while working for Thomas was handling the aborted prosecutions of various county officials that eventually led the FBI's investigation of Arpaio for abuse of power -- a matter, as Alexander notes, entirely separate from the racial-profiling probe. Since she probably plays a significant role in the FBI investigation, it's pretty remarkable that she would even dare to publicly comment on it -- let alone castigate the Justice Department. But, considering that she's probably involved, it is entirely unsurprising.

Coulter Claims 14th Amendment Doesn't Guarantee Citizenship As A Birthright. A Little Later, Ken Starr Corrects Her.

[Cross-posted at Crooks and Liars.]

It seems that back in 1993, Sen. Harry Reid attacked birthright citizenship for children of illegal immigrants, a position he later renounced and now stands thoroughly opposed to.

But the change in position gave Ann Coulter and Bill O'Reilly a chance not just to whack Reid last night on Fox, but for Coulter -- that self-described "constitutional attorney" -- to claim that the 14th Amendment doesn't really create birthright citizenship:

COULTER: And by the way, it is being lied about every place, but this is what the 14th Amendment required. I mean, Americans -- what Harry Reid was saying was utter common sense. Americans must be sitting back thinking, "What were they thinking back in 1860? Were Americans really worried? What is it? We haven't guaranteed citizenship."

O'REILLY: No, it was a totally different things. It was African-Americans being liberated from slavery.

COULTER: Right.

O'REILLY: It was Native Americans being tossed off their land.

COULTER: It was not Native Americans. Native Americans were excluded from the 14th Amendment. It was all about Reconstruction. It was about free slaves, this multi-culti rainbow coalition is a brand-new invention.

It wasn't like Americans were upset that the deadbeats couldn't slip into the country and have babies and start collecting welfare. We didn't have welfare then. It was amazing they even thought about it.

It was all part of Reconstruction to get an amendment added to the Constitution.

O'REILLY: OK.

COULTER: It was a big step. This whole baby anchor thing comes from a footnote that was not related to the opinion, in an opinion by Justice Brennan in 1982.

O'REILLY: But it would be very hard. It would be very hard and, I think, impossible.

COULTER: It's not in the Constitution.

O'REILLY: I think it's impossible now to get that anchor baby thing to be illegal, because you would have to get -- they would tie it to the 14th. Then it would have to go to the Supreme Court. Is it part of the amendment or not?

COULTER: Look, whether this is done by -- legislatively or by passing an amendment, I don't care about. I do care about being lied to about what the 14th Amendment says.

O'REILLY: OK, but let's be...

COULTER: That is a lie.

But then, a little over an hour later, former Whitewater special prosecutor Kenneth Starr -- the conservative attorney whose work pursuing Bill Clinton in the 1990s gave Ann Coulter her original raison d'etre as a media figure -- came on Greta Van Susteren's show and explained exactly why Coulter is full of crap:

STARR: Well, Greta, I think it would take a constitutional amendment to change that. You know, this is an ancient part of law, that we then made absolutely clear in the 14th Amendment, which was ratified after our Civil War. And the 14th Amendment guarantees every person certain rights to due process, to the protection of life, liberty and property, to the equal protection of the laws. And that is such an important set of protections for all of us as Americans.

But it also begins -- that is, the 14th Amendment, this post-Civil War amendment begins with a specific definition that a person born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction of the United States is a citizen of the United States. That's pretty clear to me.
So I think it would take a constitutional amendment to change it. But it's not as if the ratifiers and the architects of the 14th Amendment just made it up. They were really restoring a very venerable tradition in English law and frankly United States law -- until the infamous tradition of the Supreme Court in Dred Scott that held African Americans, those who were in a condition of servitude, who were slaves, were not citizens of the United States. That was profoundly wrong, and it took a constitutional amendment to overrule that decision of the United States Supreme Court.

Coulter might also want to check with Michael Gerson:

The authors of the Fourteenth Amendment guaranteed citizenship to all people "born or naturalized in the United States" for a reason. They wished to directly repudiate the Dred Scott decision, which said that citizenship could be granted or denied by political caprice.

They purposely chose an objective standard of citizenship -- birth -- that was not subject to politics. Reconstruction leaders established a firm, sound principle: To be an American citizen, you don't have to please a majority, you just have to be born here.

Ah, but Coulter and O'Reilly are obviously species of that 21st-century political creature: the Dred Scott Republican.

PolitiFact has a balanced and thorough rundown of the facts about "anchor babies".

Ho Hum. Just Another Domestic-Terror Attack Gone Wrong. Nothing To See Here, Move Along.

[Cross-posted at Crooks and Liars.]

Hm. Wonder how long before this planned domestic-terrorism attack on a police headquarters in McKinney, Texas, is labeled "just another isolated incident":

A man apparently bent on destroying the police headquarters in McKinney was shot and killed this morning after spraying the building with bullets.

Police say 29-year-old Patrick Gray Sharp drove a Ford F150 pickup pulling a trailer to the station and set it on fire in an apparent attempt to draw people out of the building. Inside the trailer, police said, were wood chips, roadside flares, gasoline, and ammonium nitrate fertilizer, the type used in the bombing of the federal building in Oklahoma City.

"He had a plan. He was executing his plan," McKinney Police Chief Doug Kowalski said at an afternoon news conference at which he confirmed Sharp's identity and talked about the unusual nature of the attack.

Kowalski said more than 100 shell casings were found in the area, and 23 windows were broken in the building. Officers returned fire, and Sharp was killed 50 to 200 yards south of the police station. It was unclear whether he was shot by police or died from a self-inflicted wound.

No one else was injured in the incident, which began about 9 a.m. and according to Kowalski lasted less than five minutes.

"We know the who, what, when, where. "We don't know the why," Kowalski said.
He said Sharp, who lived in Anna, did not have a criminal record.

"We're delving more into his background," the chief said.

CBS-11 has more details:

Police say Sharp may have been trying to draw people out of the building and blow up a trailer loaded with explosives. Kowalski says Sharp fired more than 100 rounds before he died.

During a morning news conference McKinney Police Deputy Chief Scott Brewer confirmed that around 9 a.m. a man driving a Ford F-150 truck drove up on south side of the Public Safety Building, pulling a trailer. The building houses both the McKinney Police and Fire Departments.

Immediately after Sharp exited the vehicle it became engulfed in flames. Police believed there was ammunition inside the pickup. "Subsequently the fire itself set off that ammunition, causing rounds to be dispersed in immediate area," explained Brewer.

Sharp began yelling something toward the building and opened fire. Officers in and outside the building began searching for the shooter. The suspect was located and there was an exchange of gunfire.

The Dallas Morning News went out and talked to his neighbors. Apparently Sharp had a roomie named Eric McClellan who was nowhere near the scene:

McClellan was vacationing in Philadelphia when the shooting occurred, according to his mother. Police said Tuesday afternoon that they had reached him, and he was surprised by the news.

McClellan and Sharp, 29, "were cool guys," Mullins said. "They stuck to themselves."
Both neighbors said they had no idea what could have been behind Sharp's actions Tuesday.

Police say Sharp had no criminal record, but had been a witness in court cases.
He had been working at Encore Wire Corp. in McKinney, according to the company, which said he resigned a few days ago.

Cheryl Cox, McClellan's mother, said Sharp and her son both worked in security at Encore.

Eventually we'll find out more about why Sharp targeted his local police station, though it's worth noting that his strategy was not entirely different from the Hutaree Militia's. Moreover, certain other aspects -- particularly the presence of an ammonium-nitrate bomb -- indicate a well-established modus operandi.

But of course, it will all be written off as just another "lone wolf" indulging in an "isolated incident."

Funny how we keep having all these "isolated incidents", isn't it?

O'Reilly Launches Whinefest When NYC Mosque Bashers Get Called Out For Their Bigotry. Then Rove Compares Muslims To Neo-Nazis.

[Cross-posted at Crooks and Liars.]

"How it infuriates a bigot, when he is forced to drag out his dark convictions." -- Logan Pearsall Smith.

Bill O'Reilly was all a-squawk yesterday at the prospect that someone might point out what's obvious to everyone who's watched the growing fake "controversy" over the NYC "Ground Zero" mosque -- namely, that the predicate of people's objections to it revolve around their irrational and bigoted eagerness to lump peaceful American Muslims in with a tiny handful of violent radicals.

O'Reilly: Here's the question. How does the far left survive in this country? How? That crew is so hateful, so harmful to the nation, it's amazing they have any platform at all. If you oppose gay marriage, you're a homophobe. If you want a secure southern border, you are anti-Hispanic. And now, if you think building a mosque two blocks away from Ground Zero is inappropriate, you are intolerant, an anti-Muslim bigot.

... Do you see what's happening here, ladies and gentlemen? The far left will never debate the merits of the issue. They simply attack and begin branding their opponents as racists, bigots, and un-American. Let's get down to it. There are thousands of Americans who lost loved ones on 9/11. Many of these people feel a Muslim display so near the attack zone is hurtful because fanatical Muslims killed their family and friends. So, where is the tolerance toward the 9/11 families? Where is the understanding and respect for their feelings?

President Obama well understands the emotions in play, which is why he will not comment on the so-called wisdom of building a mosque so close to Ground Zero. But the far left doesn't care about the wisdom of the project because they are promoting the fiction that America is mean to Muslims. Anything that makes U.S. policy seem oppressive is embraced by these loons.

Every poll says the majority of Americans believe the proposed mosque is simply not a good idea. Nobody I know wants to violate religious freedom. Nobody wants to persecute Muslims. Nobody wants to cause trouble. What we do want is a sane country. Again, I don't know how the far left continues to survive in the USA. And that's the Memo.

A little while later, he brought on Karl Rove to affix his seal of approval -- and he only confirmed that Republicans are sinking to the lowest kind of bigotry in this affair:

Rove: They're demonstrating that they're way out of touch with the American people. This is an issue in which the vast majority of American people believe there is a freedom of religion that is ingrained in our Constitution, and that right of freedom, of free expression of religion is best exercised by not building it here.

Look, we've got a free -- in that same First Amendment, there is a right of freedom of speech. Who believes that, say, skinheads should show up at a black sorority convention and scream bigoted remarks? Who believes that there is a right of freedom of assembly? Who believes, you know, that neo-Nazis should show up at the B'nai B'rith hotel and have their meeting in the same, you know, the next meeting room?

There are rights that everyone has that it would be prudent not to exercise them at certain times, and this right that they have to build a religious building where they want should be prudently exercised elsewhere.

It does seem that Rove doesn't actually believe there is freedom of assembly. In point of fact, we do allow neo-Nazis to hold rallies in racially inflamed communities, just as we allow the Fred Phelpses of the world to show up at the funerals of soldiers.

But it tells us everything we need to know about the right-wing perspective on this that he would blithely compare Muslims practicing their religion peacefully to neo-Nazis and skinheads -- as though they're moral equivalents.

Pretty much proves Bill Press's point -- the one that had O'Reilly squawking:

There is only one reason to oppose this mosque -- and that is to paint Islam as an evil religion.

Palin Says NYC Mosque Would Be A 'Stab In The Heart' To The Nation's Bedwetters. And We Should Care ... Why?

[Cross-posted at Crooks and Liars.]

Sarah Palin went all Pam Geller on us the other night with Greta Van Susteren on Fox:

Palin: Ya know, it sounds cliched to say the president is disconnected from the American people on this issue, but how else do you describe it? He just doesn't get it -- that this is an insensitive move on the part of those Muslims who want to build that mosque in this location, that feels like a stab in the heart of, collectively, Americans who still have that lingering pain from 9/11.

Oh please. These drama queens on the right need to explain to us just who among the survivors of the 9/11 attacks -- let alone those right-wing bedwetters traumatized by repeated viewing of the attacks -- sees someone expressing their religion freely as an attack on them.

We know, they're out there (right, Pam?), but then someone needs to explain why we need to pay any attention to -- let alone make important decisions based on their input -- these fundamentally irrational hysteria-mongers.

Well, Maybe A Black 'Sovereign Citizen' Will Get People's Attention

[Cross-posted at Crooks and Liars.]

We've discussed so-called "sovereign citizens" -- those newly revivified remnants of the militia/Patriot movement of the 1990s who believe you can declare yourself free of the federal government by filing a bunch of pseudo-legal documents saying so -- quite a bit here, particularly the threat of extreme violence they represent, embodied most recently in the case of Jerry and Joe Kane, the traveling Patriot-scam salesmen who gunned down two police officers in Arkansas.

But it's kinda strange: Even though these cases would attract huge amounts of media attention had they been committed by, say, someone of the Muslim persuasion (you know there would be nonstop coverage on Fox), scarcely anyone has paid attention to these violent crimes, at least in the media.

And there's an important thread here: Not only were Jerry and Joe Kane "sovereign citizens," so were Scott Roeder, the assassin of George Tiller, and James Von Brunn, the Holocaust Museum shooter.

So I was keenly interested when WSB-TV in Atlanta reported on a "sovereign citizen" in Georgia who has been apparently playing with the same Patriot scam that Jerry and Joe Kane were selling: moving into foreclosed homes and claiming them as your own.

If you watch the video, and the others Kane left behind, you'll see that the scheme he was selling entailed creating "strawman" companies that would enable a "sovereign citizen" to then claim ownership, by virtue of their sovereignty (often defined in divine terms), of whatever properties they set their sights upon. As one account noted:

Seminars of this type usually teach that each person has a real self and a “corporate self” that is a fabrication of the government, and that banks cannot legitimately lend money that belongs to their depositors.

“It’s mumbo jumbo; it’s magic words; it’s abracadabra,” Ms. MacNab said.

We're seeing, as I mentioned, this scam showing up in places like Seattle and Montana and California, too.

But what's remarkable about this "sovereign citizen" is that he's African-American. This is at first remarkable because "sovereign citizenship" is typically a product of racist-right organizations that preach racial separation -- 99 percent of the sovereign citizens in America are white.

But there are in fact some black-supremacist organizations such as the Black Nuwaubians who similarly truck in these kinds of conspiracy theories (which, like the white supremacists', ultimately blame Jews for all their ills). And all you have to do is listen to this fellow ramble on for a little while to realize that he's very much of this vein.

Now, if anything will get the attention of mainstream media -- and particularly the folks at Fox (Megyn Kelly, I'm looking at you) -- it's a black man indulging in this kind of rhetoric and behavior.

One can only imagine the horrified faces of the Fox anchors as they describe how this fellow has been moving into foreclosed homes and claiming they're all his! Why, hasn't he heard about white people's work ethic?

And you know the names of any of the white extremists who created and sold this Bizarro World belief system will never cross their lips.