Attacking False Equivalencies, Part 1 - Why Don't They Protest In Their Own Neighborhoods?

The Ferguson grand jury no-billed an indictment on Officer Darren Wilson.  And immediately, the protests began.  As with anything race-related in this country, whenever something happens, someone always comes up with a false equivalency.

First, let's look at the definition.

False equivalence is a logical fallacy which describes a situation where there is a logical and apparent equivalence, but when in fact there is none.

The first false equivalency that I want to explore is "Why don't Black people protest when other Black people are killed?"  You also hear things like "Where's Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton?", and we'll get to those later.

Whenever there are nationwide protests over some sort of malfeasance (usually in the form of a civil rights violation), someone ALWAYS asks about protests in the Black neighborhoods.  And most on the Right usually, and smugly assume that there ARE no protests in the Black neighborhoods, because no one cares about Black neighborhoods unless there's a white person involved.

Let's dispel this myth right now.

First, let's look at the tragic death of Hadiya Pendleton.  When she was murdered, she wasn't killed by a rogue cop, or a racist.  She wasn't a victim of Chicago's Finest, or the Boys in blue.  She was a victim of gang violence.  There was community outrage, and this story received the attention of President Obama (Pendleton had just performed with her drum majorette corps as part of President Obama's second inauguration).  And yes, there was plenty of community outrage about it.

Then, there's the story of Blair Holt.  This young man was killed on a CTA bus, by a gang-banger.  Again, no cops took this young man's life, and the community was still outraged.  The killer is serving a 100-year sentence for cutting this man's life short.

These are just the prominent stories that make national headlines.  Whenever there is a shooting, the people in the community ARE angry.  They ARE outraged.  It's obscene to act as if the people in these neighborhoods are just twiddling their thumbs when young lives are snuffed out.  Just because it doesn't make the news, or just because the Right-wing bobbleheads aren't blabbing about it, doesn't mean that people aren't angry.

Because they are.

When it comes to local outrage that rarely makes national headlines, there is really one name that shuts the entire argument down.  That name is Father Michael Pfleger, of the Faith Community of St. Sabina.  This man is always on the front lines, making calls to action when violence rears his ugly head.  If I were Catholic, he'd be my priest.  If you peruse his Facebook page, you will see commentary after commentary about how violence is tearing this community apart.  You will see invitations to fellowship.  You will see him call the media out about flooding the cities with stories of ISIS and what have you, with little to no mention about shootings that take place on a given weekend.

Yes, local people are angry about violence in the community.  And yes, we don't need "permission" to march or protest, and we don't necessarily need the spotlight.  I know this because I participated in one such march, assembled by the Roseland Christian Reformed Church.  We marched around a few blocks in Roseland, and the march ended at a shooting victim's house.  Other churches were there, as well.  One of the things that I distinctly remember was how some of the Roseland residents (my community, by the way) giving us thumbs-up and cheering us on as we marched for community pride in an effort to take the streets back. 

These responses are not isolated incidents, and I'm quite sure that they are not limited to just the Chicago area.  People are angry, and people are looking for answers.  And yes, people are angry and looking for answers when the violence comes from within the community.

So, from this point forward, you can kindly shut'cher gobbige mowf if you think that police brutality or civil rights violations are the only times that people in our communities make their voices heard.

Throwback Thursday Presents: The Rebirth Of A Nation -- The RNC Propaganda Piece Disguised As A Tribute Video

Note:  This was written in September, 2008.  This was in response to the GOP snuff film disguised as a tribute to 9/11.

Propaganda. It's defined as "A concerted set of messages aimed at influencing the opinions or behavior of large numbers of people." To add a little bit to the context of what I will discuss, I will take it one step further.

Hate Propaganda. It's defined as "...the systematic dissemination of doctrine, rumour or selected information to promote or injure a particular race, color, ethnicity, religion or national origin."

The Republican Party just finished their National Convention, in which John S. McCain and Sarah Palin were officially nominated as the Republican candidates for President and Vice President of the United States. Now, there is much to be said about McCain, Palin, how she was picked, whether or not McCain is ready, whether or not Palin is qualified, etc. ad nauseum. But this isn't about those two, specifically. This is about a piece of propaganda that aired during the Convention. The piece was propaganda on the same level as D.W. Griffith's "The Birth of a Nation." If you're not aware of the film, it was basically a recruitment film for the Ku Klux Klan. Don't believe me?This is the poster.

So yes, "The Birth of a Nation" is not exactly progressive in it's approach to race relations. What does this film have to do with the Republican National Convention's "Tribute To 9/11 Video"? Absolutely everything. If you wish, you can click here to see it in its entirety. The link also has journalism's Prophet of Rage, Keith Olbermann apologizing on behalf of his network. Olbermann may have one of his patented Special Commentaries about this, but I decided that I couldn't wait for Olbermann to express what I was feeling. Let's begin.

The piece is supposed to be a "Tribute To 9/11."

See? It says it right there: "9/11 Video Tribute."

The house lights dim, and an ominous piano sets the stage for what we're about to see. So, how does this Tribute To 9/11 begin? Of course, it should begin with showing the courageous efforts of First Responders, the police, the military, and common everyday citizens showing remarkable courage in the face of an unforeseen catastrophe. That's what a tribute's supposed to be, right? Well, THIS piece of propaganda filth begins with...
A shot from the Iran Hostage Crisis. The ominous Narrator of Doom tells us "The first attack occurred in Iran... 444 days America held hostage."

Stop right there. My first reaction was that, as usual, the Republicans in this God-awful administration are tying together pieces that have nothing to do with each other. I first thought "What does the Iran Hostage Crisis have to do with 9/11?" If you said "nothing", then you get a silver star. However, if you dig a little deeper, you'll see that this video is designed to anger up the blood against Iran, who is on President Bush's "Axis of Evil." Pretty sneaky, sis. They are reminding us about how we were attacked by Al Qaeda by opening with images of Iranians holding Americans hostage. In other words, the Right is hammering the point home that Iranians are bad, too. The Republican Party sets the tone by tying an event from 1981 to the United States being attacked on 9/11. It's clever in its wickedness.

They move on from there to show all sorts of shots of terrorists rallying against the country, including this one:
...and the narrator reminds us that those big bad terrorists have been always pushing our buttons. The attack on the USS Cole is pictured, but the attack on U.S. troops in Beirut was oddly missing. My speculation is that since this attack happened under the watch of President and Patron Saint Ronald Reagan, it would undermine the current theme of this film. Even if it's not the case, it's strangely odd that an attack that killed 241 American servicemen was not featured as part of how "the terrorists" have been picking on poor ol' U.S.A. A shot of this terrorist is also featured in the video:
...you remember him, right? Osama bin Laden? The guy who actually ORCHESTRATED 9/11?!? The guy who is still making "Death To America" mixtapes in the caves of Afghanistan and/or Pakistan? Moving on...

Then, we get to the meat of this propaganda sammich.

Clips from the destruction of the World Trade Center and the Pentagon are shown over... and over... and over again.
Is it really a tribute to show horrific catastrophes over and over again? That's not a tribute, to me. That's like showing a tribute to police officers by airing footage of them being killed in action, or showing a tribute to firemen by watching a burning structure collapse on them and entomb them. What's next? A tribute to Hiroshima by showing mushroom clouds and the entire region being vaporized? A tribute to JFK by showing the assassin's bullet ripping his skull open? The Ominous Narrator chimes in on the attacks, and accompanies the footage by saying "...and kill us, they did. This time, on American soil. The date was September 11. 9/11." To bring the point home, the Evil Narrator of Doom also reminds the good citizens of the Republican Party of some more points, that need to be analyzed and dissected before it's swallowed whole like the poison it is.

Quote: "This enemy sworn to our destruction has been at war with us for decades. This we now know."
Analysis: For one, "decades" is a bit of a stretch, especially in the context of this video. The video opens with the Iran Hostage Crisis, which is about as far from 9/11 on every aspect as President Bush is from competence as a President. Remember, Al Qaeda is NOT based in Iran, and there wasn't even such a thing AS Al-Qaeda when the U.S. hostages were taken. Furthermore, it should be noted that the U.S. hostages were freed in the absolutely scandalous Iran-Contra Affair, in which "members of the Executive Branch (of the United States Government) sold weapons to Iran in exchange for hostages." It's not only disingenuous to paint Obama's ideas as appeasement, but it's downright hypocritical, seeing as how the Republicans TRADED WEAPONS WITH OUR "ENEMY."

The "decades" line is also a lie because the first public reference to Al Qaeda occurred in 1998, under an Executive Order from Bill Clinton, two weeks after the bombings of the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. Furthermore, the first attack involving Osama bin Laden occurred around 1992, when bin Laden attacked a hotel.

This "decades" line is a propaganda piece because it lumps any Islamic faction that has anything to do with enmity of the U.S. into one lump of "Islamofascist terrorism." This video fans the flames of xenophobia wrapped in the comfortable blanket of Old Glory. It fails to underscore the differences between the Iranians that held the U.S. hostage, Al Qaeda, and Iraq. It also misleads the average person into ignoring how Americans' own actions precluded the Iranian Hostage Crisis and the attack on 9/11.

"We know this now" is another problematic phrase, because it misleads the average person into believing that we were blindsided and 'poor old Uncle Sam' was minding its own business when the bad guys attacked. But the Iranian Hostage Crisis...

...was seen by many as a blow against U.S. influence in Iran and its support of the recently fallen Shah of Iran, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, who had been restored to power by a CIA-funded coup in 1953 and who had recently been allowed into the United States for cancer treatment.

Furthermore, a little research into Al Qaeda shows that its origin started as a result of the Soviet war in Afghanistan, that began in 1978. At the time, and leading into the 1980's, the Soviet Union was the big bully on the global block. And the U.S., wanting to stop the spread of Communism, did its part by funding the mujahedeen and the Taliban through Pakistan. So, once again, the U.S. sowed the seeds of terrorism by funding groups that would eventually turn on her. But the U.S. has yet to reap the whirlwind.

Trouble began to brew according to this account:

Following the Soviet Union's withdrawal from Afghanistan, Osama bin Laden returned to Saudi Arabia. The Iraqi invasion of Kuwait in 1990 had put the country of Saudi Arabia and its ruling House of Saud at risk as Saudi's most valuable oil fields (Hama) were within easy striking distance of Iraqi forces in Kuwait,^[60] and Saddam's call to pan-Arab/Islamism could potentially rally internal dissent. In the face of a seemingly massive Iraqi military presence, Saudi Arabia's own forces were well armed but far outnumbered. Bin Laden offered the services of his mujahedeen to King Fahd to protect Saudi Arabia from the Iraqi army. The Saudi monarch refused bin Laden's offer, opting instead to allow U.S. and allied forces to deploy on Saudi territory.^[61]
The deployment angered Bin Laden, as he believed the presence of foreign troops in the "land of the two mosques" (Mecca and Medina) profaned sacred soil. After speaking publicly against the Saudi government for harboring American troops, he was quickly forced into exile to Sudan and on April 9, 1994 his Saudi citizenship was revoked.^[62] His family publicly disowned him. There is controversy over whether and to what extent he continued to garner support from members of his family and/or the Saudi government.^[63]

There's no need to get into further detail about the events that led to the attack on the World Trade Centers, but bear in mind something else: The Bush Administration had an explicit warning from the Clinton Administration about bin Laden's plans. The Bush Administration did nothing. Absolutely NOTHING. Research will also prove that the line from the film where the Evil Narrator says "It is a war we never chose to fight ...for too long, we looked the other way" is equally misleading. We only looked the other way after we interfered in matters that were none of our concern. We kicked the kerosene lamp onto a bundle of hay and we looked the other way when the structure burned to the ground. We lit the short fuse on a catastrophic bomb, and looked the other way when the bomb exploded. We looked the other way, like a bully would after wreaking havoc. We then feign surprise when the people we bully decide to fight back. "We never chose to fight"? Hardly. We chose to interfere. We chose to sow poisonous seeds, and we can't take it when we reap cataclysmic fruit.

And lest you forget just how low the Republicans will go in order to tug at the heartstrings of the simple minded, the film includes graphic photos like this:
What better way to show just how horrific the events of 9/11 were, than to show blood-stained signs where people were looking for loved ones or paying tribute? To say that this is in bad taste only marks the tip of the iceberg at my disgust for the Republicans. Again, would they show a tribute to a cop by showing a bullet-riddled uniform of a cop killed in a hail of gunfire? Of course not. But there is no problem with them including blood-stained images as a reminder of just how horrific and terrible the attacks were.

The video ends with this image:...and Darth Narrator saying "...the enemy is wrong. This is a war America will win. And we'll have a president that knows how. And... we will never let it happen... again."

Yes, to make sure that you're completely sold on the War on Terror, the propaganda spinmeisters end with footage of the World Trade Center, pre-9/11. And the Darth Narrator's screed underscores the necessity to understand the concept of cause and effect, actions and consequences. "We'll have a president that knows how"... the thinly-veiled implication is that Barack Obama's Presidency will give rise to more attacks on U.S. soil, and that the U.S. will surrender in the War on Terror. First of all, a war on a "belief" or "action" can't be won. You can have victory against Al Qaeda or any other group that's an enemy, but to win a war on "terror", you have to make sure that "terror" is destroyed across the globe. It is utterly impossible to do this, especially with this hamfisted approach to foreign policy.

For example, this criminally negligent administration decided to fight the war on terror (tm) by first circumventing the Constitution of the United States. The congressmen and Senators abdicated their ability to keep the President in check, by giving him the authority to invade Iraq. And as we all know, Iraq has been a complete disaster, even while Republicans crow about the success of "the surge." But what has toppling Saddam Hussein done, but create a power vacuum filled by Al Qaeda insurgents - who HAD NO PRESENCE IN IRAQ PRIOR TO THE U.S. INVASION - who then continued in their civil war. And while we were busy declaring "Mission Accomplished", the Taliban and Al Qaeda in Afghanistan (remember them?) has been not-so-quietly regaining strength.

"We'll have a president that know how"? Oh, you mean the same future President that declared the following:

How would American troops be greeted? "I believe...that the Iraqi people will greet us as liberators." (March 20, 2003)
Did Saddam Hussein have a nuclear program that posed an imminent threat to the United States? "Saddam Hussein is on a crash course to construct a nuclear weapon." ( October 10, 2002)
Will a war with Iraq be long or short? "This conflict is... going to be relatively short." (March 23, 2003)
How is the war going? "I would argue that the next three to six months will be critical." (September 10, 2003)
How is it going (almost two months later, from the war's "greatest critic")? "I think the initial phases of [the war] were so spectacularly successful that it took us all by surprise." (October 31, 2003)
Is this war really necessary? "Only the most deluded of us could doubt the necessity of this war." (August 30, 2004)
How is it going? (Recurring question for the war's "greatest critic") "We will probably see significant progress in the next six months to a year." (December 4, 2005)
Will the President's "surge" of troops into Baghdad and surrounding areas that the senator had been calling for finally make the difference? "We can know fairly well [whether the surge is working] in a few months." (February 4, 2007)

The same future President that knows how to win a war will be the same future President that declared that Iraq was safe by walking the streets of Baghdad... without mentioning the soldiers, helicopters, and gunships that accompanied him on his leisurely stroll. THIS is the man that the Republicans say "knows how to win." And his second-in-command is a woman whose "foreign policy experience" includes living in Alaska, because it's so close to Russia.

This propaganda is "The Rebirth of a Nation", because it caters to the lowest common denominator of demonizing "radical Islam" by tying all Middle Eastern conflicts to the spectre of the Islamic boogeyman. Just as "The Birth of a Nation" demonstrated how the valiant knights in shining robes known as the Ku Klux Klan will save virtuous White women from the scourge of Black men, "The Rebirth of a Nation" will show how the valiant knights of the Conservative Republican Evangelical movement will save virtuous White Christian citizens from the scourge of Islam, and the scourge of a Black American man with a funny name running for President.

We know better, so we should do better. If we don't act to stop a Bush III Administration, we have to make sure that propaganda such as this is nipped in the bud. It's up to us to understand this video, as well as the election, for what it is... a chance to begin correcting the wrongs of this administration, and an opportunity to return us to credibility on the world stage. This is one Rebirth that we should not allow to happen.

Who Taught You To Hate The Poor?

With apologies to our Shining Black Prince, El Hajj Malik El Shabazz, also known as Malcolm X.

You're fine, my brother.

I have been thinking about this for a long, long time.  Finally, it hit me.  That's why I'm paraphrasing Malcolm X's brilliant speech about self-hatred in the Black community to discuss the absolute hatred that some people have for the poor in this country.  It is beyond ridiculous, and it is the antithesis of the Christianity that I profess about, embrace, and preach about.

Who taught you how to hate the poor?  Who taught you that the poor were somehow sub-human, and not worthy of basic things, such as food, shelter, human dignity, and common decency?  Every now and then, the topic of drug-testing people who receive public assistance comes up.  The supporters of this measure rail on and on about how they are sick and tired of their tax dollars are funding a poor person's Cadillac, X-Box, and cocaine habit.  They INSIST that people receiving public assistance MUST prove themselves worthy of the government's generosity, and one of the ways to prove this is by taking a random drug test.  In one discussion, someone actually said that in his "hood", up to 90% of the people on public assistance were drug users.  Now, unless he lived on the set of "The Wire", I'm calling shenanigans on that claim.  

With regards to drug testing people on public assistance, we already have a model on which to base our observations.  We have the state of Florida.  Yep, good ol' Florida, the home of George Zimmerman, "Stand Your Ground", and the place where LeBron James took his talents.  Florida Gov. Voldermort Rick Scott implemented drug testing for people needing assistance in his state.  And to the surprise of no one ever, the results were less than stellar.  A heaping 2.6% of those tested failed the drug test, costing the state an additional $46,000 over the initial $118,000 that it cost to reimburse the people that tested negative.  The state of Utah had similar results.  

Look at me!  I'm a fiscal conservative!  I'll prove it by spending MORE money on tests!  Muah hah hah hah!!!

Even if the results kicked every drug user of the rolls of public assistance (which it didn't), there is a key element that the conservatives always refuse to address. 

FOLLOW THE MONEY.  In the case of Florida, as it turned out, the facilities that conducted the drug tests were owned by Gov. Scott, who then transferred the shares to a trust controlled by his wife.  Conflict of interest, you say?  Pshaw.  There's no conflict of interest when the governor of a state institutes a state-wide drug-testing program, and those tests are to be done at facilities basically owned by his wife.  Why would ANYONE think that there's a conflict of interest?  And of COURSE, it's fiscally responsible to directly benefit from a measure that costs the taxpayers money.  And it really shows that you're compassionate when you require that the poor pay for these tests out of pocket, only to be reimbursed if and when they test negative.

It would be a crying shame if your children didn't eat because you acted like you had something to hide.  Yep, a darned crying shame.  Your children will thank you for your pee.

Drug tests are just one way that the poor are treated with disrespect.  Conservatives act as if the poor are just a bunch of lazy bums, sitting on street corners, demanding handouts.  This sentiment played out during the 2012 Presidential election, when robot Mormon Republican candidate Willardham Mittington Romneyhilliard IV stated that he would never get 47% of the vote, because they are nothing but takers.  Obviously, this didn't sit well with the poor, the middle class, and anyone who has an iota of common sense and decency.  But the rich continue to latch on to this idea that if you're not as rich as a Limbaugh, a Hannity, or a Koch, you are somehow a taker and a leech on society.  They also believe that if you don't think the way they do, you too are a moocher.  Corpulent Gasbag Rush Limbaugh actually stated that the reason why President Obama won was that Romney couldn't compete with "Santa Claus."

But who taught YOU to hate the poor?  Who taught YOU to believe this hyper-partisan, self-serving garbage that the poor are nothing but takers?  My guess is that if you believe this way, you believe that you are one Republican election cycle away from the mystical, mythical unicorn people known as "job creators" opening their offshore jobs war chest, and giving great jobs to everyone.  It's the darned Democratic Party that's forcing the benevolent JOB CREATORS to offshore jobs when they're needed at home.  This argument trickles into raising the minimum wage.  Ironically enough, the same people who condemn the poor for being poor, the same people who act as if poverty is a lifestyle choice, these are the same ones that rail AGAINST a living wage.  It doesn't matter if a person is working their tail off at a minimum wage job, at a company that won't give them full-time hours as a cost-cutting measure (Yay, job creators!).  To the disillusioned people that aren't rich, it's a poor person's own fault if they are poor.  They just haven't applied themselves or gotten the proper education.  That's all fine and good, but what do you tell a person with a master's degree that has taken an entry-level job to make ends meet?  What do you say to the person with years of experience and the education to back it up, but can't find a job?  Who taught you to treat them as if they are lazy bums, wasting away their lives?

I have said it before, and I will say it again.  The people who hate the poor so much and the people who worry about tax costs when it comes to helping the poor, are flat out hypocrites.  It is absolutely hypocritical to rail against the cost of public assistance when you are silent on the tax breaks that billion-dollar companies receive.  It is hypocritical of you to demand accountability for the poor receiving benefits when you are silent regarding jobs being sent offshore.  And it is egregiously and criminally hypocritical to be angry that people receive "your tax dollars" for their benefits, but you don't say one tiny thing about companies like Walmart.  Walmart encourages its entry-level workers to apply for public assistance for their health care needs, effectively shifting the cost of their workers' health care to the taxpayers.  And it's not as if Walmart can't afford to pay its employees a decent wage or provide solid health insurance.  They are a BILLION-DOLLAR company and a corporate monster, laying waste to everything that crosses their path.  But people say NOTHING about Walmart and other companies socializing their health care costs while privatizing their profits.

The High Cost of Low Savings, indeed.

Who taught you to hate the poor?  That hatred certainly isn't Biblical, despite the fact that right-wing Evangelicals treat hating the poor as if it's Scripture.  If it were up to them, Jesus would only heal people if they proved that they were worthy of being healed.  And instead of turning over the tables of the money-lenders in the temple, Jesus would be right along with them, selling "I Was Baptized At The River Jordan and all I got was this lousy t-shirt" merchandise.  Let's go to the scripture that the conservatives love to pull when addressing their disdain for the poor.  2 Thessalonians 3:10 says:

For even when we were with you, we gave you this rule: “The one who is unwilling to work shall not eat.”

Basically, you don't work, you don't eat.  Conservatives act as if everyone who receives public assistance is lazy, and they're just waiting around for their next gubmit handout.  And by quoting this Scripture, they attempt to justify their self-righteousness and their desire to keep the poor from receiving help.  When they quote this scripture, they automatically dismiss people who are working, and yet earn enough to still qualify for public assistance.  They are dismissing the people who CAN'T work, due to catastrophic illness or injury.  They dismiss people who are treating their job hunt as a full-time job, but just can't find work.  They would probably demand drug tests at soup kitchens, if they had their way.

"OK, your tests came back negative.  Enjoy your meal!"

Of course, this is the exact OPPOSITE of everything that Christ teaches.  First of all, it's incredibly condescending to assume that poor = lazy.  Second of all, this scripture does not condemn poverty, as the Apostle Paul is teaching against being idle.  He is teaching that believers should distance themselves from people who are idle and disruptive, and he is teaching that believers should distance themselves from busybodies.  It is bad hermeneutics to try to use this scripture as justification for looking down at the poor.  

But what DOES Jesus say about treating the poor?  I'm glad you asked.

For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, 43 I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.’44 “They also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?’45 “He will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.’46 “Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.”- Matthew 25:42-46

This is the Scripture that the conservatives and their ilk leave out when discussing the poor, legislation, things like unemployment benefits, care for the veterans, and so forth.  There's also another Scripture known as The Golden Rule, which teaches that we should do unto others as we would have them do unto us.  If Republicans followed the teachings of CHRIST, instead of the teachings of Republican Jesus, we wouldn't even be here.

Oh No! Michelle Obama Is At It Again!

First Lady Michelle Obama is at it again!  She is continuing in her socialistic, communistic, Marxististic goal of... gasp... getting children to eat healthy and be active!

Look at this despot... encouraging things like activity... health... fun... 

Well now, this socialist has partnered with that bastion of liberalism, SUBWAY FOODS!  She is attempting to combat every American's right to be a fat tub of goo by asking this corporation to join her in her fight against childhood obesity.  Why does she insist on taking away an American child's right to scarf down Taco Bell Grandes with 2 liter Pepsis like a normal American?  

Why doesn't Michelle advocate THIS for school lunch menus?  SOCIALISM, that's why!

What's next?  Is she going to put together a campaign to do something even more insidious, like DRINK WATER?  Perish the thought.  But at least Real Americans (tm) can rest assured that her husband, President Barack Obama, won't do something completely dictatorial about it.

We can rest assured that when it comes to physical fitness, President Obama won't do something that only a tyrant would, like issue an Executive Order advocating and promoting physical fitness... because that's only something that a terrorist, socialist, Muslim, Marxist person that HATES America would do.  Right?

...Riiiiiiight.

A Shut'cherGobbige Mowf Two-Fer... Self Congratulations And Ted Nugent (but not what you think)

"Do I detect a bit of the self-congratulatory in your tone?"

Very observant, Detective Pembleton.  And why am I patting myself on the back, and why am I updating this for the first time in months?

It's because a tweet of mine got quoted nationwide.  Everyone knows the story of Antoinette Huff, the bookkeeper who talked an armed gunman out of shooting up an entire school.  I tweeted that her unmistakable act of bravery forever rendered NRA Vice President Wayne LaPierre's argument null and void.  His argument was that the only way to stop a bad man with a gun is with a good man with a gun.  Ms. Huff, armed with only her faith in God (which is a powerful weapon in its own right), spoke to the assailant and got him to surrender to the police.

Recently, The Last Word with Lawrence O'Donnell did a segment where Antoinette Huff answered Twitter questions.  And at the 1:05 mark, Richard Wolff begins to introduce my tweet.  Here it is in all of its glory:

"See?  Toldja."

So, for this fleeting moment, something I wrote was featured on a global scale.  On the Last Word FB page, I was even mentioned by name (as a viewer of "The Last Word", which I am).  This teeny bit of recognition sparked me to get off my duff, metaphorically speaking, and do one of the things that I do well, which is telling people to SHUT THEY GOBBIGE MOWFS...

I Don't Want You... I Want Who Vouched For You...

...which brings me to today's point.

It is no secret that Ted Nugent is a reprehensible coward and a pseudo-patriotic gun nut.  It's also no secret that he crapped his pants and went through an elaborate scheme to avoid military service, and yet he acts as if he was on the front lines of every American conflict since the Revolutionary War.  The Right-wingers lap up every racist, sexist word as if it were candy.  He has made comments against Hillary Clinton, and President Obama continues to be a favorite target of his.  Nugent went beyond the pale for even Nugent when he called President Obama a mongrel and a chimpanzee, and commented that Hillary Clinton has testicles to spare.  As vile and as disgusting as Nugent's words are, he's not my primary target.  

My primary target is Congressman Steve Stockman.  Why?  Because last year, Congressman Stockman invited that racist coward Nugent to the 2013 State of the Union address.  When Congressman Stockman did that, he vouched for Nugent.  He basically co-signed every hateful, misogynistic, racist comment that Nugent ever uttered.  As an elected official, Stockman decided that Ted Nugent was just the kind of American to take America back from the hands of the Black man.  

This has me thinking:  How does Stockman feel about Ted Nugent's comments?  Is he going to repudiate them, distance himself from them?  Or is his silence a sign of approval for Nugent?  Imagine if a liberal pundit said something disgusting about former Secretary of State Condeleeza Rice.  And imagine if a gun nut talked about taking the White House (and the country) back from the hands of President Bush, by force, if necessary.  People like Stockman would have their undies in a bunch about "traitors" and disrespecting the office of the Presidency.  When Stockman invited Nugent to the White House, he showed that he does NOT respect the office of the Presidency.  He does not respect decorum, or adult conversation.  

By the way, I posted the following comments on Steve Stockman's Facebook page.  See it before it gets deleted.

It's a lot better than your last guest, Congressman. By the way, do you share that coward Ted Nugent's comments about President Obama being a chimpanzee and a subhuman mongrel? Do you believe that former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has extra testicles?

When you invited that racist scumbag to the State of the Union address, you vouched for him. You co-signed every hateful, racist, misogynistic word that was ever uttered by this draft-dodging pseudo patriotic coward. It's one thing to disagree with the President. But by inviting Nugent to the State of the Union Address, you have shown that you don't even respect the OFFICE of the Presidency, regardless of who the President is.

Do you feel the same way about women and minorities as Nugent? If not, then I haven't heard you condemn YOUR State of the Union Address' guest on his unmistakably vile and disrespectful comments. I don't expect much from a man who deliberately crapped his pants to avoid military service (and yet he's praised as some sort of patriotic hero... go figure). But I would expect at least a MODICUM of decency from an elected official.

Mr. Stockman, the ball's in your court.

 It will be interesting to see how long this comment lasts.  And for every one of the Right Wing that doesn't stand up against the putrid garbage that spews from Nugent, the same applies to them.  Nugent is low-hanging fruit.  Elected officials, you need to either stand up and condemn NRA BOARD MEMBER Ted Nugent once and for all...

...or shut'cher gobbige mowfs.  The whole lot of you.