Friday night on MSNBC’s “The Rachel Maddow Show,” host Rachel Maddow discussed the elaborate money-making schemes dreamed up by the anti-government conspiracy theorists currently making a living off of conservative Americans’ fears about the Obama administration.
“If you like Info Wars which is a show hosted by Alex Jones,” Maddow said, “If you like Glenn Beck and Alex Jones who says we faked the moon landing and that 9/11 was an elaborate hoax and that it was secretly the White House that bombed the Boston Marathon, Michelle Obama was in on it and there was no massacre at Sandy Hook, they were hoaxes, if you are one of those folks, a conspiracy theorist who believes in the Glenn Beck-Alex Jones view of the world, well, that doesn’t mean you don’t need love.”
Hence the prank Twitter hash tag that appeared late this week, #InfoWarsPickupLines, which featured romantic opening salvos for conspiracy-minded singles on the make like “How about we get illuminaughty and you show me your nude world order?” and “I’d like to shoot all over your grassy knoll, if you know what I mean….” or “What’s your sign? Mine is ‘Trespassers shot on sight.’”
But it doesn’t stop with just dating services. Men like Alex Jones and Glenn Beck, said Maddow, are monetizing their fame in any way they can. If you’re already in a relationship and don’t need Info Wars dating, you can still buy some Glenn Beck pants or some Rush Limbaugh iced tea.
Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX), who Maddow “has always counted on the conspiracy theorists to be part of his base,” has now left Congress and decided to get back in bed with the right wing fringe. Friday, he appeared on Alex Jones’ radio show.
“Remember,” Maddow said, “the chief Alex Jones conspiracy theory right now is that the White House bombed the Boston Marathon. The government did it as a false flag attack as part of a New World Order conspiracy involving Marxism and fascism and helicopters and something about Mexico.”
“Honestly,” she confessed. “I got lost trying to figure it out.”
The whole business seems more and more like an elaborate scam, she said.
“These guys have a good racket going and they have all been in the racket for decades,” she continued. “You know, it’s always the end of the world but not quite yet. Subscribe for one more month, because then it will be the end of the world, only $19.95 and yes, you can pay in gold.”
It’s one thing for us to point and laugh at it on the internet, but what do you do when it’s “your personal sadness that your crazy uncle sends Glenn Beck part of his Social Security check each month because he’s terrified?”
Or when U.S. lawmakers start to attempt to legislate from the conspiracy-monger perspective?
The amendment to block funding to Planned Parenthood passed by a vote of 240-185, achieving a long-held goal of Religious Right groups that vehemently oppose the healthcare organization. During the debate, House Republicans frequently touted the hoax videos produced by the extreme group Live Actionand Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN) even pledged to go after Planned Parenthood’s non-profit status.
Taxpayer funding of abortion is already barred under federal law, and this new amendment would stop Planned Parenthood from receiving funds to provide the medical services which comprise the vast majority of the group’s work, like cancer screenings, tests for sexually transmitted infections, and family healthcare.
But an amendment devastating women’s healthcare is a reason to celebrate for anti-choice leaders and their allies in Congress:
This afternoon’s vote is a victory for taxpayers and a victory for life. By banning federal funding to Planned Parenthood, Congress has taken a stand for millions of Americans who believe their tax dollars should not be used to subsidize the largest abortion provider in America.
I commend my colleagues in both parties for taking a stand for taxpayers and a stand for life. I encourage my colleagues in the Senate to support this legislation and end federal funding of Planned Parenthood once and for all.
“Ending taxpayer funding of Planned Parenthood is a non-negotiable,” said SBA List President Marjorie Dannenfelser. “It must be a top priority in the Continuing Resolution battle. Taxpayers have strongly rejected their complicity with Planned Parenthood in the sex trafficking of underage girls. Pro-life America demands that our leaders in the Senate step up and take on this fight and that the House leadership holds its ground. Americans have spoken and the time to defund Planned Parenthood, a habitual and unapologetic ally of those who deal in the exploitation of minors, is now. This is a black and white issue and we will accept nothing less than the total defunding of Planned Parenthood in the Continuing Resolution.”
“We commend Mike Pence and the bipartisan majority of House Members who stood with the American people in saying that enough is enough. Planned Parenthood, a scandal-plagued abortion organization, must be held accountable for abusing innocent young victims while receiving hundreds of millions in federal dollars each year.
“The fact that Planned Parenthood not only left minor girls trapped in prostitution, but encouraged it, shows an incredible lack of humanity on their part. What goes on behind the windowless offices of Planned Parenthood, as Live Action's videos show, is both saddening and shocking, but the fact that it has often been done with taxpayer dollars is indefensible.”
“This landmark vote demonstrates that most House members now recognize Planned Parenthood is a hyper-political, under-regulated, out-of-control mega-marketer of abortion as a method of birth control,” said NRLC Legislative Director Douglas Johnson.
…
“Now senators, too, will go on record on whether to push the snout of this bloated abortion mega-marketer, Planned Parenthood, out of the U.S. Treasury feeding trough,” said NRLC's Johnson.
“There’s no better place to begin the budget cutting process, than putting a stop to funding Planned Parenthood,” said Jay Sekulow, Chief Counsel of the ACLJ. “It’s stunning that Planned Parenthood receives more than $360 million dollars a year in federal taxpayer funds. According to its own filings, Planned Parenthood reported more than 330,000 abortions in 2009 alone, a number that continues to climb. By receiving this windfall of federal funds, Planned Parenthood is able to free-up other resources enabling them to continue to promote and expand their pro-abortion agenda. The approval of the Pence Amendment in the House is long overdue and sends a strong message - American taxpayers are no longer willing to subsidize the nation's largest abortion provider.”
Planned Parenthood is not in the industry of health care, nor has it ever been. Just this year, Planned Parenthood demanded that all Planned Parenthood clinics will offer abortions -- no exceptions. The Pence Amendment will strip $170 million in Title X funding intended for health care services away from the national abortion provider from Planned Parenthood, and I couldn’t be happier.
As the Pence Amendment inevitably reaches the U.S. Senate, taxpayers need to strenuously remind their lawmakers that each taxpayer dollar spent on Planned Parenthood frees up one dollar for Planned Parenthood to spend on its abortion arm. Those who defend Planned Parenthood’s abortion business are on the wrong side of history and the American taxpayer.
As illustrated by the outcome of this afternoon’s vote, members of the newly-elected House of Representatives are moving forward with various bills to defund the abortion industry. The argument here is not simply that we should not be forced to pay for things with which we disagree. The argument is that we should not pay for the killing of children. Remember, many of the most ardent supporters of abortion admit that it kills a child. Our government, indeed our civilization, is built on the premise that life is to be protected, not destroyed.
Dozens of Religious Right leaders have come together to sign on to a letter [PDF] released under the Freedom Federation banner calling on the Senate to put off any vote on repealing Don't Ask, Don't Tell until the next session of Congress so that there can be investigations into whether the findings of the recent report showing DADT could be repealed with little to no risk was, in fact, the result of a "climate of not-so-subtle intimidation in the Pentagon" that lead to the
It is a serious risk to national security to repeal DADT without first investigating thoroughly – in public hearings – the effect of the proposed repeal. We are engaged in a war on many fronts. Our troops are in harm’s way in Afghanistan, Iraq and elsewhere. This is no time to experiment with social engineering of the military.
We are also gravely concerned about the effect that repealing DADT will have on religious freedom. One senior army general, Lt. Gen. Thomas Bostick, said that those who oppose repeal are guilty of unacceptable attitudes that he reportedly described as “bigotry.” Additionally, expert analysts have warned that a “non-discrimination” policy for sexual minorities will have broad-reaching effects on religious freedom. It is conceivable that chaplains will be forbidden to preach or speak about their denomination’s position on homosexuality.
The Defense Department report on the likely effects of repealing DADT was not released until November 30, 2010. There is simply not enough time between then and adjournment to investigate and deliberate about this very important issue. For that reason, any consideration of repeal should be put off until next year.
Moreover, we are deeply concerned about the methodology of the DOD report and survey. In view of General Bostick’s disturbing comments and Admiral Mullen’s and Secretary of Defense Gates’ unseemly cheerleading on this issue, we believe it behooves the next Congress to investigate whether proponents of repeal tried to create a climate of not-so-subtle intimidation in the Pentagon.
The rush to repeal DADT by January of 2011 is a slap in the face of the American people who are tired of bully politics. Moreover, the consequences of repealing DADT will no doubt result in service members leaving the military or refusing to join. We cannot afford attrition or demoralization of our military in light of the wars we are facing in the Middle East, not to mention the looming threat of North Korea.
Among the names listed on this are:
Sarah Palin
Mat and Anita Staver
Ken Blackwell
Tony Perkins
Penny Nance
Lou Sheldon
Elaine Donnelly
Andrea Lafferty
Samuel Rodriguez
Robert Knight
Harry Jackson
Janet Porter
Tim Wildmon
Cliff Kincaid
Jim Garlow
Tom Minnery
Gary Bauer
Richard Viguerie
Gary Kreep
Linda Harvey
Joseph Farah
Gary Cass
Rick Joyner
Paul Blair
Don Feder
Kelly Shackelford
James Klingenschmitt
E.W. Jackson
Star Parker
Matt Barber
Dave Welch
By John Byrne
The 45-year-old "highway shooter" who engaged in a 12-minute shootout with California Highway Patrol officers earlier this year now says Fox News host Glenn Beck has been an inspiration for his activity.
In a several thousand word expose for MediaMatters, Pacifica journalist John Hamilton interviewed the so-called highway shooter, Byron Williams, from prison.
In the interview, Williams details what he saw as an elaborate global conspiracy and tells the journalist -- whom he sees as his "media advocate" -- to look to specific broadcasts of Beck's show for information on the conspiracy he describes. (MediaMatters says Beck's show provided "information on the conspiracy theory that drove him over the edge: an intricate plot involving Barack Obama, philanthropist George Soros, a Brazilian oil company, and the BP disaster.")
The release on Hamilton's story explains that "Williams also points to other media figures -- right-wing propagandist David Horowitz, and Internet conspiracist and repeated Fox News guest Alex Jones -- as key sources of information to inspire his 'revolution.'"
Williams is quoted as saying that "Beck would never say anything about a conspiracy, would never advocate violence. He'll never do anything ... of this nature. But he'll give you every ounce of evidence that you could possibly need
I collect information on corruption," Williams says, "I've been at it for some time."
Beck, in particular, he says, is "like a schoolteacher on TV." Williams reportedly told Hamilton, "You need to go back to June -- June of this year, 2010 -- and look at all his programs from June, and you'll see he's been breaking open some of the most hideous corruption."
Hamilton notes that extremism linked to anti-progressive propaganda is nothing new:
Conspiracy theory-fueled extremism has long been a reaction to progressive government in the United States. Half a century ago, historian Richard Hofstadter wrote that right-wing thought had come to be dominated by the belief that Communist agents had infiltrated all levels of American government and society. The right, he explained, had identified a "sustained conspiracy, running over more than a generation, and reaching its climax in Roosevelt's New Deal, to undermine free capitalism, to bring the economy under the direction of the federal government, and to pave the way for socialism or communism."
In a 2009 report, the Southern Poverty Law Center found that the anti-government militia movement -- which had risen to prominence during the Clinton administration and faded away during the Bush years -- has returned. According to the SPLC, the anti-government resurgence has been buttressed by paranoid rhetoric from public officials like Republican Congresswoman Michele Bachmann and media figures like Fox News' Glenn Beck.
Just last month, Gregory Giusti pleaded guilty to repeatedly threatening House Speaker Nancy Pelosi -- including threatening to destroy her California home -- because he was "upset with her passing the health care law." His mother told a local news station that he "frequently gets in with a group of people that have really radical ideas," adding, "I'd say Fox News or all of those that are really radical, and he -- that's where he comes from."
After the 2008 election, Fox News personalities filled the airwaves with increasingly violent rhetoric and apocalyptic language. On his Fox News show, Beck talked about "put[ting] poison" in Pelosi's wine.
Observers of this most recent act were mystified by one of Byron Williams' reported targets: the Tides Foundation, a low-profile charitable organization known for funding environmentalists, community groups, and other organizations.
Beck, it turned out, had attacked Tides 29 times on his Fox News show in the year-and-a-half leading up to the shooting.
In their writeup, The Huffington Post provided a video that detailed Williams' attack, as posted on YouTube. It follows.
M.C.L Comment: If you wanna know what kind of people hours of right wing talk radio produce look no further to this nutty douche. This is the pattern Glenn Beck incite these loons, these loons act out in a violent matter and Beck rolls his fanboys under the bus to avoid responsibility.Could you image what would happen if Ed Schultz or Stephanie Miller used that type of rhetoric during the Bush years? One people like Rush and his countless of brainless clones will be going crazy over their comments, two stations would be dropping their shows and third they would be so toxic due to right wing rage they wouldn't be able to get another hosting gig.But if you're Glenn Beck you can call the president racist and incite violence against the government instead of getting the "how dare you talk that way about the president?" from Bush supporters who said that anytime you voice a tiny ounce of criticism about dubya, are now eating up attacks on President Obama.
Rep. Bob Inglis (R-SC) recently lost a GOP primary run-off to keep his seat in the House of Representatives, and since then, the South Carolina Republican has felt liberated to speak the truth about the state of his Party and the conservative movement. Last week, Inglis criticized Sarah Palin’s “death panel” claims, Glenn Beck’s “demagoguery,” and disparaged the right’s divisive rhetoric.
Today on C-Span, Inglis continued to rail against his Party, again calling out the right’s “misinformation about death panels” and chastising Sen. David Vitter’s (R-LA) recent claim that he supports challenging President Obama’s citizenship status in court:
INGLIS: As to the Birther matter, let me be clear. The president is obviously a citizen of the United States. … So, really we do lose credibility when we spend time talking about such things. Why do we do that? We do it because we want to vilify the other side. We want to make them into the big bad guys.
Inglis also didn’t have very supportive words for House GOP Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH) and Minority Whip Eric Cantor (R-VA). “I think that to some extent we’re getting what we deserve,” with Boehner and Cantor leading the Party, Inglis said, adding, “We have basically decided to stir up a base, and that’s a bad decision for the country.”
Later in the segment, Inglis criticized those on the right who blamed the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) for causing the 2008 financial crisis:
INGLIS: What I’m supposed to do as a Republican is just echo back to you Anne that yes, CRA was the cause of the financial meltdown in October of 2008. And if I said that to you I’d be clearly wrong because if you think about it, CRA had been around for decades. So how could it be that it caused the problem suddenly in October of 2008? … So therefore we can just establish it as a scapegoat. Democrats like it and we can of course put the racial hue on that and that makes it even more powerful. But if we do that, we go further away from the solution, the solution is to deal with those fundamental things, not pick up on scapegoats and run with it.
Watch it:
Sen. Bob Bennett (R-UT) also recently lost his primary in his bid for re-election and has been similarly critical of the GOP. “I find plenty of slogans on the Republican side, but not very many ideas.” he said.
Transcript:
CALLER: And a last thing here. One of our Senators, Republican Senator David Vitter, and I actually saw him on the news a couple of days ago talking about this Birther stuff, and that’s where Republicans lose a lot of credibility with me, not just on Tea Party coming out and blaming everything financially on Obama when they had eight years of Bush, and people before that, but that and also this Birther thing, where they persist upon saying that this man is illegitimate when I’m pretty sure if he was illegitimate somebody would have found out by now. Thank you. That’s all I had.
[…]
INGLIS: As to the Birther matter, let me clear. The president is obviously a citizen of the United States. You know, you can – you can see some kind of way of how you could have a conspiracy to change the official records in Hawaii, but it sure would be difficult to go back into two newspapers and change the announcement that was made that bouncing Barry, baby bouncing, bouncing baby Barry Obama was born in Honolulu, whatever, it would be hard to go back and change that in the public libraries across the country. When I was born, they announced the births in the papers back then, we didn’t have HIPA (sp). So, really we do lose credibility when we spend time talking about such things. Why do we do that? Why do – we do it because we want to vilify the other side. We want to make them into the big bad guys.
[…]
HOST: By that description, are you in fact criticizing your current house leaders, Mr. Boehner and Mr. Cantor, for being overly partisan?
INGLIS: I think that to some extent we’re getting what we deserve. We have basically decided to stir up a base, and that’s a bad decision for the country because the country needs people here serving in Washington to say, listen, let’s lead, and let’s help people to understand, it does not help to put out misinformation about death panels, for example. There were no death panels in that health care bill. And then you lose credibility when you say things like that, when you scare people. And then how are you going to get them to follow your lead as you say, listen, really, we need to make some changes here, and it’s for our collective good, our common good as a nation, we’re going to make some changes. And so that’s – that’s the kind of leadership that I think we need. It’s the kind that, like I say, people like Rob Portman, who I hope wins that Senate race, and later becomes president, could supply to the country.
HOST: So how do you work together if your views about government involvement are very very different?
INGLIS: They are very different. But let’s start with some clearing up some misinformation. I followed a senior recently in a car that had a sticker, “Socialism” on the back of their car. And I got close enough to read what it said. It said, “Socialism is that system that works fine until you run out of other people’s money.” Well, that’s a good understanding of how it is that conservatives don’t want to spend other people’s money, but the people driving were seniors. And therefore they’re receiving Social Security, and they’re on Medicare. And perhaps they were fairly young seniors. They might have an older relative in a Medicaid bed having run out of money, their own money, and maybe they’re now converted to a Medicaid bed in a nursing home. That’s pretty much the society keeping up those folks.
And so what we need to have is an honest conversation okay, if that’s the case, if we really want to have individual reliance, which is what I believe we should be doing, then let’s figure out a way to do that. But that means changing Medicare, Social Security, and Medicaid.
[…]
The other thing, just to pick up an example, what I’m supposed to do as a Republican is just echo back to you Anne that yes, CRA was the cause of the financial meltdown in October of 2008. And if I said that to you I’d be clearly wrong because if you think about it, CRA had been around for decades. So how could it be that it caused the problem suddenly in October of 2008? The problem was over borrowing in our individual lives, in our corporate lives and in our country. That’s what created the problem, along with interest rates being kept too low, too long by the Fed. Those kinds of things are what created the financial meltdown in October of 2008. It was not CRA. But I know that as a Republican, what I’m supposed to say is, “Yep, Anne, that’s exactly right. It’s CRA.” Because you see we conservatives don’t like that program. So therefore we can just establish it as a scapegoat. Democrats like it and we can of course put the racial hue on that and that makes it even more powerful. But if we do that, we go further away from the solution, the solution is to deal with those fundamental things, not pick up on scapegoats and run with it.
M.C.L Comment: Again it seems the only time the Republicans tell the truth about each other is when they lose something or they're retiring and don't have to worry about pandering to the nuts.
By Matt Corley
Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK) regularlyappears on Fox News. But at a recent town hall meeting, he accurately criticized the network for pushing misinformation about health care reform. When an audience member said that she believed the false claim that the new health care reform law meant that the IRS “can put us in prison” for not having health insurance, Coburn cut her off, saying that despite what they may have heard on Fox News, “the intention is not to put anybody in jail”:
COBURN: I want everybody else to get answer a question, ask a question, so let me. The intention is not to put anybody in jail. That makes for good TV news on Fox, but that isn’t the intention. There is the intention, though, to use the Internal Revenue Service to hold you accountable and you have to prove that you have bought health insurance.
Later in the town hall, when Coburn described his disagreement with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), whom he called “a nice lady,” over funding for extending unemployment benefits, the crowd booed Pelosi’s name. Coburn then lectured the audience to not be “biased by Fox News” into thinking that people they disagree with are bad people:
COBURN: Come on now. She is a nice. How many of y’all have met her? She is a nice person. She’s a nice person. You know, let me give you a little lesson here. I hope you will listen to me. Just because somebody disagrees with you doesn’t mean that they’re not a good person. And I want to tell ya, I’ve been in the Senate for five years and I’ve taken a lot of that because I’ve been on the small side, both in the Republican Party and the Democrat Party. Just because I don’t agree with them, it doesn’t mean I’m bad. It means I have a legitimate point of view that’s different than theirs. And what we have to have is make sure we have a debate in this country so that you can see what’s going on and make the determination yourself. So, don’t catch yourself being biased by Fox News that somebody’s no good. The people in Washington are good. They just don’t know what they don’t know.
At the end of the town hall, Coburn implored the audience to stay “informed on the issues.” “Don’t just watch Fox News or CNN. Watch them both,” said Coburn. He then seemed to refer back to the woman who asked about health care reform putting people in jail, saying that he was “disturbed that we get things like this lady said and others have said on other issues that are so disconnected to what” he knows “to be the facts.” “That comes from somebody who has an agenda that’s other than the best interest of our country,” said Coburn. “So, please balance and be careful as you take in. Make sure you get a balance.” Listen here:
Transcript:
CONSTITUENT: If there is a possibility of imprisonment, then that’s taking away our liberty. And so, to me, I don’t understand the people who are questioning the constitutionality of this, which I applaud them and I hope our Democrat attorney general will join that fight. But the next question I have is if they can put us in prison, take away our prison, take away our liberty, are they not trampling on our fifth amendment rights by putting it under the IRS?
COBURN: Well…
CONSTITUENT: Because the IRS thinks you’re guilty.
COBURN: Ok.
CONSTITUENT: Until proven innocent.
COBURN: I want everybody else to get answer a question, ask a question, so let me. The intention is not to put anybody in jail. That makes for good TV news on Fox, but that isn’t the intention. There is the intention, though, to use the Internal Revenue Service to hold you accountable and you have to prove that you have bought health insurance.
[...]
COBURN: We came to an agreement in the U.S. Senate with Harry Reid, myself, Mitch McConnell and Dick Durbin. And we agreed to pay for it for two weeks. We agreed to pay for it for one week or two weeks, but we found less important programs that they agreed to get rid of that would have done it. And when that was communicated to the House, the Speaker’s words back is they don’t want to set a precedent that they have to pay for new spending.
CROWD REACTS LOUDLY
COBURN: Now that’s the truth. That’s the words. So, I want to set that precedent. So I’m 180 degrees in opposition to the Speaker. She’s a nice lady. I don’t think we can wait.
CROWD REACTS LOUDLY
COBURN: Come on now. She is a nice. How many of y’all have met her? She is a nice person. She’s a nice person. You know, let me give you a little lesson here. I hope you will listen to me. Just because somebody disagrees with you doesn’t mean that they’re not a good person. And I want to tell ya, I’ve been in the Senate for five years and I’ve taken a lot of that because I’ve been on the small side, both in the Republican Party and the Democrat Party. Just because I don’t agree with them, it doesn’t mean I’m bad. It means I have a legitimate point of view that’s different than their’s. And what we have to have is make sure we have a debate in this country so that you can see what’s going on and make the determination yourself. So, don’t catch yourself being biased by Fox News that somebody’s no good. The people in Washington are good. They just don’t know what they don’t know.
[...]
COBURN: I want to leave you with one thought that Ronald Reagan had. He said, “freedom is a precious thing. It is never guaranteed. It is not ours by inheritance alone. It must be fought for and defended by each generation.” And he wasn’t talking to our military. He’s talking to you. And what we’re seeing happen in America is not a reaction to President Obama. It’s a culmination that would have happened had he be president anyway. Because we can’t afford the government that we have today. We need to make major changes and the only way that that’s going to happen is that you demand that it happens. And so the fact that you’re here is very pleasing. What you can do is make sure that everybody you know in this state and every other state, all of your family, stays informed on the issues. Don’t just watch Fox News or CNN. Watch them both. I read two newspapers a day, New York Times and Washington Post. And in between, the Wall Street Journal. I get a perspective. I need to know what other people’s thoughts are. Not just what I hear through a pipe channel. So I would tell you, you got to hear it both so that you have, you can take it and receive the information in context. And I want to tell ya. I do a lot of reading every day and I’m disturbed that we get things like this lady said and others have said on other issues that are so disconnected to what I know to be the facts. And that comes from somebody who has an agenda that’s other than the best interest of our country. So, please balance and be careful as you take in. Make sure you get a balance. And listen to the other side because what it does it makes you a better person because now you see things in context from how other people might see it that are different from you. God bless you and thank you for being here.
Update On CNN's Reliable Sources on Sunday, former Bush speechwriter David Frum said that Fox "has an interest in pushing the Republicans to the margins, making people angry."
At the very end of this video clip taken from a FOX News Channel broadcast on March 30, and uploaded by the website Mox News, conservative radio host and Fox anchor Hannity can be clearly heard telling his audience, "Can I add one thing. I think we won the debate."
"When you think of the vast majorities they have in Congress, and they had the bribe back room deals, corruption," Hannity continued, "that's because of the Tea Party movement, all these Tim McVeigh wannabes."
So far, at press time, the video has only gotten 1,475 views, but it was mentioned on Thom Hartmann's radio show this morning and the link is being emailed to news sites such as RAW STORY (A shorter clip with only 345 viewings can be viewed at this link).
Fox News Channel viewers, at the time of its broadcast, wondered why a crowd full of conservatives would cheer being compared to the white supremacist sympathizer who was executed for killing 168 people in the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing which destroyed the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building.
Hopefully some staffer has already seen this - or you guys tivo his show to catch this kinda stuff, but....
Just before his commercial break at about 9:10, Hannity praised the crowd for being "Tim McVeigh wannabes." I couldn't believe my ears - I still kinda hope I heard it wrong. Palin and her crosshairs are one thing, but this????
For the sake of context... Hannity's show is in the Reagan "Library" and they started out talking about getting rid of Obama, etc....
.....
Yeah, I heard it to. It knocked me back so far I had to sign up here to get the word out. Still find it hard to believe.
.....
I just heard the "Tim McVeigh Wannabes" comment myself on the Hannity replay here in the Midwest at about 11:15. Immediately "went to the Google" to check whether I heard what I thought I heard. I'm about as conservative as they come (I have Ronald Reagan's picture hanging nearby right now), but I hope that he wasn't urging on anyone who would even remotely try to emulate McVeigh.
....
Yes, as the conclusion to the host and two guests stroking up each others egos in a typical unilateral discussion anger orgy, they said that healthcare was actually a victory and then Hannity thanked the supporters of the victory including the tea party and the Tim McVeigh wannabes.
And it gets better.. There was applause and cheering.
Forum user Rusty Bucket speculated, "Well I could see how he might have been trying to use sarcasm - but the only thing is - alot of those people DO want to be Tim McVeigh wannabes. So he may have been sarcastic, but I dunno about some of the fruitbats in that audience."
The day after the Tea Party Express made a stop in Salt Lake City, a prominent voice of conservative talk radio was in town with a similar message.
Sean Hannity broadcast his national talk show from KSL studios Wednesday.
He told a small gathering before the show that the Tea Party movement is legitimate and will withstand mounting attacks from its opponents on the left.
"We've got veterans, we've got stay-at-home moms, people who really don't like the direction of the country. They're speaking out and they've been compared to terrorists, Tim McVeigh-wannabes. They've been called un-American. They've been called every name in the book. Now, the latest attack is that these people are violent," he said.
So, Hannity was almost definitely using sarcasm when he referred to his audience as "McVeigh-wannabes."
However, there doesn't seem to be any explanation for why Congressman Kevin McCarthy falsely said that no Republicans voted for the stimulus last year. Liberals can feel free to mock that with no fear, since the audience at the Reagan Presidential Library in Simi Valley, California cheered that, as well.
By Daniel Tencer
"Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing."
That famous line, attributed to Jesus in Luke 23:34, could well apply to the folks at Conservapedia -- the "conservative version" of Wikipedia -- who have embarked on a project to rewrite the Bible.
In an effort to rid the Good Book of "liberal bias," the group has set up the Conservative Bible Project, which aims to rewrite the Bible from a modern, conservative perspective.
"Liberal bias has become the single biggest distortion in modern Bible translations," the project's Web site asserts.
And the line quoted above is one of the group's targets for deletion in a truly "conservative" Bible. The "forgive them father" quote "is a favorite of liberals but should not appear in a conservative Bible," Conservapedia states.
And evidently many of Jesus' other teachings -- from the "turn the other cheek" lesson, to his disdain for profiteering -- will also no longer be acceptable in the conservative Bible.
"Socialistic terminology permeates English translations of the Bible, without justification," the Web site states -- a strange assertion, given that English versions of the Bible date back at least to the 16th century, while socialism as a concept was formed in the 18th century.
To combat the Bible's "socialism," the Conservative Bible Project wants to see Biblical use of the words "comrade," "labor" and "fellow" (as in "fellow worker") reduced.
Not surprisingly, the project has come under ridicule and derision from some corners.
"Jesus was obviously misquoted all over the place," blogger P.Z. Myers writes sarcastically. "So what to do? When your claim of godly authority rests on your interpretation of God's holy word, but God's holy words contradict your desired ends, you're in a bit of a pickle. There is a solution, though: rewrite the Bible and change the liberal bits!"
"The insane hubris of this really staggers the mind," writes Rod Dreher at Beliefnet. "These right-wing ideologues know better than the early church councils that canonized Scripture? They really think it's wise to force the word of God to conform to a 21st-century American idea of what constitutes conservatism? These jokers don't worship God. They worship ideology."
The Politico reports that House Republican Leader John Boehner (R-OH) and Whip Eric Cantor (R-VA) are worried about the potential damage to the party's reputation from a certain back-bencher: Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN).
This paragraph is buried deep within their latest piece on Boehner's efforts to keep up with the GOP base:
Sources say they [Boehner and Cantor] have been especially wary of the possible damage inflicted on the party's reputation by bomb-throwing Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.), who last fall called for an investigation into whether members of Congress are "pro-America or anti-America."
They certainly are in a bind when it comes to Bachmann. On the one hand, the base loves her and she's frequently invited on television. On the other hand, she calls for revolution and warns against the government using Census data to round people up into internment camps. What's a body to do?
Last Monday, John Henke at TheNextRight, a right-of-center blog, called for a conservative boycott of the far-right website WorldNetDaily (WND). Henke referred to WND as “the pamphlet” of the birther movement, which he has referred to as “fringe idiocy.” Following his call for the boycott, Henke discovered that the RNC had rented access to the WND e-mail list. Henke then e-mailed the RNC and ask them to stop supporting the far-right website. The RNC Press Secretary responded to Henke’s e-mail by dodging the issue and refusing to distance itself from WND:
Nice to meet you. Pls note that we have already weighed in on the birther issue — weeks ago. Thanks.
Henke e-mailed additional questions to the RNC but has yet to recieve a response. Reflecting on the Press Secretary’s comments, Henke writes, “In the 1960’s, Goldwater and a few Republicans had the integrity and guts to denounce the irresponsible fringe in the fevered swamps of the Right. Today, as far as I can tell, the Republican National Committee works with them.”
One of the newest right-wing memes is that federal government doesn’t have the constitutional authority to enact health care reform. At a town hall protest in San Diego on Saturday, one attendee tried to make one of these “tenther” arguments by holding up a copy of the “U.S.S. Constitution’:
Right here. I got a book here called the U.S.S. Constitution. I’m sure everybody’s seen this before. And you know what? I’ve this book three times now, and I’ve referenced it dozens of times and I can’t find one little paragraph in here that says the government has the right to take over our health care.
Watch it:
TP’s Ian Millhiser — who has also read and referenced the Constitution a few times — notes that the Constitution gives Congress the power “‘to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States,’ thus empowering the federal government to levy taxes and leverage these revenues to benefit the American people.” (HT: TP reader Kevin)
Today in a town hall forum in Arizona, an elderly woman asked Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) whether President Obama knows “that we still live under a Constitution.” To his credit, McCain distanced himself from the questioner’s claim, saying “I’m sure that he does.” He then added that Obama “respects the Constitution of the United States,” at which point the crowd broke out in loud boos. But McCain stood firm, explaining that there’s just a “fundamental difference in philosophy and about the role of government.” “I am convinced the president is absolutely sincere in his beliefs,” he said, again eliciting boos and jeers from the crowd. Watch it:
“He is the president of the United States and let’s be respectful,” McCain said in closing. That statement was met with light applause from the crowd.
M.C.L comment:
This what ticks me off about the right wing they spent eight years supporting and defending a president that said the constitution was just a piece of goddamn paper while at the same time that president and his puppet master Dick Cheney were taking white out to the same document they all of the sudden found support for.
