Newt Gingrich

The person who drafted the outrageous homeland security memo smearing veterans and conservatives should be fired.”

Michelle Malkin

The piece of crap report issued on April 7 is a sweeping indictment of conservatives. And the intent is clear. As the two spokespeople I talked with on the phone today made clear: They both pinpointed the recent “economic downturn” and the “general state of the economy” for stoking “rightwing extremism.”

Rep. Michele Bachmann

Click here to view the embedded video.

James Dobson

There are no Timothy McVeighs out there right now. They’re making a big deal out of something that hasn’t happened and may not happen.”

Moe Lane from RedState.com

There’s the usual stuff about guns, illegal immigration, and disgruntled war veterans, plus the new wrinkle of our having elected an African-American President. The report concludes, unsurprisingly, that we have to worry more about “lone wolves and small terrorist cells” than anything else.”

The report compares the current climate to the 1990s, “when right-wing extremism experienced a resurgence fueled largely by an economic recession, criticism about the outsourcing of jobs, and the perceived threat to U.S. power and sovereignty by other foreign powers.” It specifically cites concerns about disgruntled war veterans, anti-government activists, anti-abortion activists, anti-Semites, and anti-immigration activists who work alone of in small groups.

The right-wing insists that there is no threat.

Saturday, April 4, 2009:
Richard Poplawski shoots and kills 3 police officers in Pittsburgh, PA during a 4 hour stand-off with SWAT officers. Poplawski was (via Salon.com)

A devotee of the white supremacist Web site Stormfront, Poplawski believed that the United States was controlled by a secret Jewish cabal that had a master plan to abrogate freedom of speech and use the U.S. military to police Americans… As his friend, Edward Perkovic, told the Associated Press, Poplawski feared “the Obama gun ban that’s on the way” and “didn’t like our rights being infringed upon.”

Sunday, May 30, 2009:
Scott Roeder shoots and kills Dr. George Tiller in his church in Wichita, KS. From McClatchy:

Those who know Roeder said he believed that killing abortion doctors was an act of justifiable homicide. “I know that he believed in justifiable homicide,” said Regina Dinwiddie, a Kansas City anti-abortion activist who made headlines in 1995 when she was ordered by a federal judge to stop using a bullhorn within 500 feet of any abortion clinic. “I know he very strongly believed that abortion was murder and that you ought to defend the little ones, both born and unborn.”

Wednesday, June 10, 2009:
James von Brunn, an 88-year-old gunman shoots and kills a security guard inside the crowded U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum before being shot by other officers on duty. From Think Progress:

Brunn has been approvingly cited on Stormfront, a national white supremacist website. He is apparently the author of a tract called, “Kill the Best Gentiles,” which his website describes as “a new, hard-hitting exposé of the JEW CONSPIRACY to destroy the White gene-pool.” Brunn, a WWII veteran, also wrote a screed on President Obama’s citizenship that was re-posted to popular right-wing blog Free Republic.

Disgruntled war veterans? Check (x2) Anti-government activists? Check. Anti-abortion activists? Check. Anti-Semites? Check (x2). The only box unchecked is anti-immigration activist. How long until we get one of those? Maybe someone from The Minuteman Project will make their fantasies a reality and kill some immigrants crossing the border?

Oddly, Shepard Smith from Fox News sums it up nicely:

Discussing the shooting, Fox News’ Shepard Smith reminded the audience that when the Department of Homeland Security released a report warning of violent, right-wing extremists earlier this year, “the right went absolutely bonkers!” He called the report a “warning to us all,” and said DHS was “warning us for a reason.”

And yet many other right-wingers out there are doubling down on their position and are insisting that the DHS report is a disgrace and simply picking on conservatives and that Shep and the left-wing are fools for suggesting otherwise. (via Think Progress)

Click here to view the embedded video.

You right-wingers are all crazy! I hope you enjoy the political wilderness, because I don’t see you coming out for a while.

                  

The differences could not be more clear.

Vice President Dick Cheney, Thursday, May 21, 2009 from the American Enterprise Institute:

In the years after 9/11, our government also understood that the safety of the country required collecting information known only to the worst of the terrorists. And in a few cases, that information could be gained only through tough interrogations.

In top secret meetings about enhanced interrogations, I made my own beliefs clear. I was and remain a strong proponent of our enhanced interrogation program. The interrogations were used on hardened terrorists after other efforts failed. They were legal, essential, justified, successful, and the right thing to do. The intelligence officers who questioned the terrorists can be proud of their work and proud of the results, because they prevented the violent death of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of innocent people.

President Barack Obama, Thursday, May 21, 2009 at the National Archive:

I know some have argued that brutal methods like waterboarding were necessary to keep us safe. I could not disagree more. As Commander-in-Chief, I see the intelligence. I bear the responsibility for keeping this country safe. And I categorically reject the assertion that these are the most effective means of interrogation. What’s more, they undermine the rule of law. They alienate us in the world. They serve as a recruitment tool for terrorists, and increase the will of our enemies to fight us, while decreasing the will of others to work with America. They risk the lives of our troops by making it less likely that others will surrender to them in battle, and more likely that Americans will be mistreated if they are captured. In short, they did not advance our war and counterterrorism efforts — they undermined them, and that is why I ended them once and for all.

Dick Cheney:

The administration has found that it’s easy to receive applause in Europe for closing Guantanamo. But it’s tricky to come up with an alternative that will serve the interests of justice and America’s national security. Keep in mind that these are hardened terrorists picked up overseas since 9/11. The ones that were considered low-risk were released a long time ago…Another term out there that slipped into the discussion is the notion that American interrogation practices were a “recruitment tool” for the enemy. On this theory, by the tough questioning of killers, we have supposedly fallen short of our own values.

Barack Obama:

There is also no question that Guantanamo set back the moral authority that is America’s strongest currency in the world. Instead of building a durable framework for the struggle against al Qaeda that drew upon our deeply held values and traditions, our government was defending positions that undermined the rule of law. In fact, part of the rationale for establishing Guantanamo in the first place was the misplaced notion that a prison there would be beyond the law — a proposition that the Supreme Court soundly rejected. Meanwhile, instead of serving as a tool to counter terrorism, Guantanamo became a symbol that helped al Qaeda recruit terrorists to its cause. Indeed, the existence of Guantanamo likely created more terrorists around the world than it ever detained.

So the record is clear: Rather than keeping us safer, the prison at Guantanamo has weakened American national security. It is a rallying cry for our enemies. It sets back the willingness of our allies to work with us in fighting an enemy that operates in scores of countries. By any measure, the costs of keeping it open far exceed the complications involved in closing it. That’s why I argued that it should be closed throughout my campaign, and that is why I ordered it closed within one year.

Dick Cheney:

So we’re left to draw one of two conclusions – and here is the great dividing line in our current debate over national security. You can look at the facts and conclude that the comprehensive strategy has worked, and therefore needs to be continued as vigilantly as ever. Or you can look at the same set of facts and conclude that 9/11 was a one-off event – coordinated, devastating, but also unique and not sufficient to justify a sustained wartime effort. Whichever conclusion you arrive at, it will shape your entire view of the last seven years, and of the policies necessary to protect America for years to come.

Barack Obama:

But if we continue to make decisions within a climate of fear, we will make more mistakes. And if we refuse to deal with these issues today, then I guarantee you that they will be an albatross around our efforts to combat terrorism in the future.

I have confidence that the American people are more interested in doing what is right to protect this country than in political posturing. I am not the only person in this city who swore an oath to uphold the Constitution — so did each and every member of Congress. And together we have a responsibility to enlist our values in the effort to secure our people, and to leave behind the legacy that makes it easier for future Presidents to keep this country safe.

Cheney is right about one thing, we have reached the “great dividing line,” but it isn’t between continuing to fight or giving up, as he frames it. It is the line between the politics of fear and the politics of hope, between finding ways to justify torture to gain information and upholding the rule of law, between further alienation in the world and strengthening our moral authority. It is the line between the way Bush and Cheney skirted the law and shit on the constitution in the name of national security and the way Barack Obama has turned his back on those practices and embraced our countries values to secure our country.

Dick Cheney doesn’t seem to realize that the majority of the American people already made the decision when they elected Barack Obama as the 44th President of the United States. He can cling to the past all he wants and attempt to convince us that we didn’t just live through the last 8 years of Bush policy. He and the rest of the Republican party can continue to hold onto those stale ideas, but the rest of us are moving on.

                  

Now, the logic of this makes no sense to me. Forget the fact that Obama clearly has the support of the American people and obstructing what the American people want probably isn’t the best way to get back into power. The real problem I have with his logic is this: if you believe his policies are wrong and bad for the country and you are convinced that they won’t work, so convinced that you are hoping for his failure to prove it, wouldn’t it make more sense to help pass everything he wants to do so you can prove once and for all that the Democratic platform is wrong?

Do you Republicans out there really believe that liberal ideas wont work? Then why obstruct? If the policies are going to fail anyway, let them pass so that in 4 years when the country is completely in ruins like you think it will be, you can swoop in and take back power and save us all!! Then we can see if your ideas work…you know tax cuts for the wealthy or whatever.

Oh wait, we already know that those ideas don’t work since that is all we have had for the last 8 years and we have this huge recession, maybe small depression to show for it. Good job with that, by the way!

If you want Obama to fail, don’t obstruct, let him fail. I’m pretty confident he wont, are you?

                  

On November 4 the American people increased the Democratic majority in both houses of Congress and voted a Democrat into the White House. They did not do this because they thought the democrats were more likely to act in a non-partisan manor, ensuring that Republican ideas continued to lead the direction of the country. They did it because they realize that Republican ideas are bankrupt. The Republicans had 6 straight years of unfettered power, controlling both houses of Congress and the Presidency. And what did they give us in those 6 years? 2 wars, $10.6 trillion in debt, 7.2% unemployment, a housing crisis, a credit crisis, and the worst recession since the Great Depression.

Now, fellow Democrats, you have the opportunity to put good liberal policies to work to turn around the economic crisis. But instead, you are having extensive meeting with Republicans to get their support for your plans for economic recovery. You have bent over backward, taking out what they don’t like and adding the tax cuts that they want instead of the one’s the middle class need. And what is the result? Not one Republican in the House voted in support of the stimulus package. And all I have heard on the TV are Republican politicians and talking heads spouting off about how to fix the economy. Are you kidding me?!? Should we really be listening to them and taking their advice?? How much sense does it make to continue listening to their ideas, when it was them who got us into this mess!

So, Mr. President, House and Senate Democratic Leadership, stop encouraging these people. They do not have the right ideas to fix our nation. They have done nothing but cause the problems and then make them worse. You gave them a chance on this stimulus package. You gave them a seat at the table and took some of their ideas into account and they repay you with zero support. Enough is enough!

If the Republicans don’t want a part in this recovery effort, so be it. Take all of the changes out that you made for them and to hell with them all. They don’t have the power to stop you from passing the bill you were elected to pass. You have the majority in the House and Senate. If they try to filibuster, get out the sleeping bags and let them do it! Let them go before the American people and block a plan for economic recovery. The American people voted for a change in the direction we are headed. We will support you. Force a traditional filibuster. Make them stand up and speak indefinitely. Do not refer any further business for the Senate. Don’t drop it. Force their hand.

Seriously though, at this point, including them only validates their position. Let them cry about it on the TV, we know they will. If they aren’t going to vote for it, then their opinions need to be stripped from the bill. End of story.

Your Friend,

Dave Gillhespy

                  

This has been my favorite piece of scripture since I spent a summer in Los Angelos working for the Center for Student Missions. It encompassed everything I felt about the suffering that I would see day to day. This verse taught me that suffering leads inevitably to hope and it was hope that got me through that summer, and the rest of my life since.

When President (then candidate) Obama centered his candidacy, and now presidency around hope, I was instantly drawn in. When I think about the past eight years of fear, intolerance, war, and hate I am overjoyed that our nearly decade long suffering under Bush Co. is finally over. I find it very fitting that our suffering has ended in hope!

Under Bush our constitution was thrown into the gutter in the name of national security. This has happened before and has even been facilitated by great presidents, like FDR. Yet, at the end of our long national nightmare President Barack Obama completely rejected this ideology:

As for our common defense, we reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals. Our Founding Fathers, faced with perils we can scarcely imagine, drafted a charter to assure the rule of law and the rights of man, a charter expanded by the blood of generations. Those ideals still light the world, and we will not give them up for expedience’s sake. And so to all other peoples and governments who are watching today, from the grandest capitals to the small village where my father was born: know that America is a friend of each nation and every man, woman, and child who seeks a future of peace and dignity, and that we are ready to lead once more.

Recall that earlier generations faced down fascism and communism not just with missiles and tanks, but with sturdy alliances and enduring convictions. They understood that our power alone cannot protect us, nor does it entitle us to do as we please. Instead, they knew that our power grows through its prudent use; our security emanates from the justness of our cause, the force of our example, the tempering qualities of humility and restraint.

We are the keepers of this legacy. Guided by these principles once more, we can meet those new threats that demand even greater effort – even greater cooperation and understanding between nations. We will begin to responsibly leave Iraq to its people, and forge a hard-earned peace in Afghanistan. With old friends and former foes, we will work tirelessly to lessen the nuclear threat, and roll back the specter of a warming planet.

Instead of fear, Obama has decided to lead this nation forward with hope. Hope to end war, hope to stop torture, hope to fix the economy, hope to end nuclear proliferation, hope to heal our planet, hope to rebuild our standing in the world and renew old alliances, hope for a better tomorrow.

It is up to us now to join with Obama in the promise of hope. And that is powerful, because hope does not disappoint us!

“On this day, we gather because we have chosen hope over fear, unity of purpose over conflict and discord.” President Barack Obama!!!!!

                  

On the other hand I think it is a non-issue. Warren is a man who has invited Obama, someone he disagrees with on gay marriage, abortion, stem cell research, and other issues to speak at his church. He is a man who believes we can work together on the issues we agree on without getting hung up on those we don’t. He has done some really great work on poverty and AIDS and believes that Christianity is about more than just those divisive issues. Of all the crazy right wing pastors out there, Rick Warren is at least willing to listen and work with those who hold opposing views. I mean, it’s not like he asked Dobson to speak!

That being said, there are a number of far better pastors out there who hold progressive views and probably should have been asked to speak over Warren. I understand all of the inclusiveness mumbo jumbo, but symbolically, asking someone with views as strong as Warren’s to take the stage with you on inauguration day is kind of a kick in the gut for the gay community.