Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘Terrorism’ Category

The junior Senator from Arkansas is at it again.  The other day, he claimed that we don’t have to go to war with Iran, we simply have to drop a few bombs on Iran.  He seems to think that if the U.S. decides to bomb another country, that isn’t war.  That is a remarkably stupid thing to say.

According to Cotton:

Even if military action were required – and we certainly should have kept the credible threat of military force on the table, it always improves diplomacy – the president is trying to make you think it would be 150,000 heavy mechanized troops on the ground in the Middle East again as we saw in Iraq. That’s simply not the case.

It would be something more along the lines of what President Clinton did in December 1998 during Operation Desert Fox. Several days of air and naval bombing against Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction facilities for exactly the same kind of behavior, for interfering with weapons inspectors and for disobeying Security Council resolutions. All we’re asking is that the president simply be as tough in the protection of America’s national security interests as Bill Clinton was.

There is a major difference between what Bill Clinton did and what we are talking about right now.  Bill Clinton had military forces in the area because the Kuwaiti War made sure we kept troops in the area.  Then there is the fact that we told the Iraqis that they would face more military involvement if they did not comply with the treaty signed.  It included a “no fly” zone in southern Iraq.

But, in Iran, we have no real reason to bomb them.  We have not fought a way with Iran.  We have no legal standing to “drop a few bombs” on Iran.  And, as we already know from Bill Clinton’s bombings, they didn’t achieve anything.

The right-wing isn’t interested in bombing Iran’s nuclear facilities.  They are interested in a “regime change” in Iran.  They want to overthrow the current government.  We did that once in Iran back in the 1950s.  The CIA masterminded a plot to overthrow the democratically elected government of Iran because the right-wing thought it was leaning too much towards the Soviet Union than to us.

After the government was overthrown, the Shah was placed back on the throne by Eisenhower’s administration.  That set up a right-wing dictatorship that terrorized its own people.  As all dictatorships do.  The result was the eventual overthrow of the Shah of Iran.  How well did that work out?  Why not ask one of the couple of hundred embassy workers who were taken hostage for over a year.

We already know that at least some of Iran’s nuclear program is underground.  It would be very hard to destroy those facilities.  Additionally, if we begin to bomb Iran, it will only result in Iran being more stealthy in their pursuit for a nuclear weapon.  If what they are currently saying is true that they are only interested in peaceful nuclear energy, bombing them will certainly make them want a bomb.

Once that happens, how do we know what activities they are involved in, and how do we stop it?  We have to invade just like we did in Iraq.  I guess then Cotton will say we will really be at war.  It doesn’t take ground troops to be at war.  When you start bombing a sovereign nation, you are committing an act of war.

The other real danger in Cotton’s use of bombing is where does it end?  If America bombs Iran, what will their response be?  Will they bomb Israel?  Will they bomb Saudi Arabia?  Iran’s military is quite formidable.  They are within reach of many countries in the Mideast.  If they are bombed, what is stopping them from doing the same thing to someone else?

If they do bomb another country, like Israel, that would mean war across the board.  What will stop Russia and China from backing Iran?  If they do, would Russia invade the Ukraine?  Would Russia invade western Europe?  Would China invade Japan?  What about North Korea?  We know they have nuclear weapons, will they turn them on South Korea once we are engaged elsewhere?

The “Letter to Iran” that Tom Cotton authored and was signed by 47 Republican senators was bad enough.  But his comment about bombing Iran has rightly taken him out of the right to take part in any discussion on the Iran deal or anything else for that mater.  Being so reckless as to not consider the reactions of others in this matter, which could lead to another global war, is so irresponsible that he needs to be censored.

The deal being worked on may still fall apart.  It may become necessary for other drastic measures.  But, unfortunately, there are too many other idiots in Congress who think the same way as Cotton.  They are actively trying to sabotage the deal before it is even struck.  That says more about their willingness to go to war than their claim to be defending our national security.

Sorry, but these are very dangerous times, and too many of our elected officials are actually fanning the flames of war.  For the sake of our children, and the world, let us hope that calmer heads prevail.

Read Full Post »

As soon as the framework for a nuclear deal with Iran was announced, the right-wing went to war against the President.  What else is new?  As you remember, they started firing volleys before any deal was even announced.  Remember their letter to Iran?

But, things have gotten a lost worse since the deal was announced.  According to the right-wing, we are “giving away the house” with the deal and getting nothing in return.  It will surely mean that Iran will be nuking Israel within two months of signing any deal.

Of course, Netanyahu hit the talk shows yesterday complaining that this was a bad deal.  He claims that Iran is going to be able to have a free hand in making nuclear bombs if the deal is finalized.  But, he let loose with a few quotes that somehow makes his argument sound hollow, at least concerning the actual deal.  According to Netanyahu, the deal is bad because it does not force Iran out of the terrorism support game.

On ABC’s “This Week” he said:  “They’re not going to use it for schools or hospitals or roads,” Netanyahu said of the potential economic boost from sanctions relief. “Martha, they’re going to use it to pump up their terror machine worldwide and their military machine that is busy conquering the Middle East now.”

That would make the real concern for Israel’s Prime Minister not a nuclear bomb being achieved by Iran, but rather their support of terrorism.  That is a fair concern.  Israel does face many dangers and has many haters in the region.  But, one thing Netanyahu could do to help calm down a lot of this hatred is to sit at the negotiating table with the Palestinians and work out a peace deal recognizing the Palestinian State.

Of course that would mean he would have to stop the settlement program on the West Bank and that would piss off his own right-wing.  Since Netanyahu has publicly stated that there will be no “Palestinian State as long as I am Prime Minister,” the prospects of calming down the Mideast problems are slim to none.

Which brings us back to the deal’s framework that was announced.  I will be honest, as Republicans say, “I am not a scientist,” and most of this deal requires some scientific knowledge about nuclear material to fully understand it.  But, from what I understand of the deal, the so-called experts say it will hold back Iran from gaining any nuclear weapons for at least 10 years.  Some on our side of the Atlantic think that is too short and that we should just bomb the facilities.

Well, John Bolton – who places more faith than anyone in the power of bombs to solve problems – says that an enthusiastic application of explosives to Iranian nuclear sites could set the program back a whopping three to five years.  Call me silly, but 10 years seems longer than three to five years.  Besides, who knows what the two sides will look like after those ten years?  Things could be good enough to go back to the negotiating table.

Of course the whole deal is going to be dependent on whether or not Iran agrees to the verification process that will be necessary.  The one thing Ronald Reagan said that I do agree with is “trust but verify.”  Somehow, I think that if that policy was good enough to negotiate with the Soviet Union who was far more powerful, it should be good enough to negotiate with Iran.

There is nothing in the framework that would preclude sanctions to be imposed again if Iran breaks the deal.  That is the hammer that the world can use against them to ensure their compliance.  Besides, the sanctions do not immediately come off.  Iran needs to comply with the deal first.  What was announced was a “framework” not an actual finalized deal.  That still needs to be hammered out.  This can still fall apart.

Yet, the Republican Presidential Candidates all hate the deal.  Most have even gone so far as to say they would scrap it on the first day in office if elected.  One of their biggest claims against the President is that our “allies don’t trust us” anymore.  What better way to gain their trust than to break our word on you first day in office?

Remember, this deal is not just with the U.S.  It is with the 5 plus one nations.  These nations include France, Germany, Britain, Russia, and China.  Their support is critical in making any deal with Iran stick.  If the U.S. decides not to go along with it and everyone else does, Iran will still have the vast majority of sanctions lifted by these other nations.  We will not be able force to Iran to the table again because acting alone won’t be enough to affect their politics or economy.  As a result, Iran would become even more dangerous than it already is.  And, it would be our fault.

Finally, what other options are there?  This question has been raised to these candidates and they don’t want to answer the question.  When asked what they would do if there was no deal or if they scrapped it, they don’t offer up anything.  The reason they don’t offer up anything is because the only other alternative is war.

Yes, there are basically two ways to keep Iran from getting a nuclear weapon.  One is through diplomacy, which is always tricky, and the other is through an invasion.  After almost 14 years of war, Americans are not ready for another one in the Mideast.  If you think Iran’s military is a pushover, you better think again.

The real reason the Republicans are so against this deal is not because it is so bad, it is because they don’t want a deal with Iran.  Their puppet-master in Israel is telling them that the only answer is war with Iran.  And, they are willing to fight the war for him.

As a result, we are getting more of the same fear-mongering about Iran that we got about the old Soviet Union.  It appears that our conservatives aren’t happy unless there is some kind of cold or hot war going on somewhere.  And, in order to keep their fear-mongering alive, they are even willing to break our word with our allies.

What a wonderful way to conduct foreign policy.  Break your word to you allies, and bomb your enemies.

Read Full Post »

Actually, that question can be asked of all of the media.  You may or may not have heard about this incident.  It occurred at the New Orleans Airport over the weekend.  We all know that if a Muslim had done the attacking, it would be headlined around the country as an “act of terrorism.”  But, the attacker wasn’t a Muslim, so we haven’t heard the term used even once.

Last Friday night, Richard White, a 63-year-old former Army serviceman carried a duffel bag holding six homemade explosives, a machete, and poison spray into the airport. He approached the TSA security checkpoint, and then sprayed two TSA officers with the poison. He then grabbed his machete and chased another TSA officer with it.

He was then shot and killed by the police. After the incident, a search of Mr. White’s car by the police revealed it contained acetylene and oxygen tanks, two substances that, when mixed together, will yield a powerful explosive.

I have read several pieces on this attack, and no one ever mentioned it as an “act of terror.”  It certainly looks on the surface as an act of terrorism.  But, no one ever called it that.  As a matter of fact, within hours of the attack law enforcement was quick to chalk this incident up to the attacker’s alleged “mental health issues.”

Mr. White has been retired for some time and living on social security and disability checks.  Further, he was reportedly a devout Jehovah’s Witness.  Interviews with his neighbors, however, don’t even give a hint that he had mental problems. They described White as a “meek” and “kind” man who a few had spoken to just days before the incident and everything seemed fine.

Now, maybe Mr. White does suffer from some “mental issues.”  But, I still find it funny that no Muslim involved in something like this can possibly suffer from “mental issues.”  If Mr. White was a Muslim, you would be certain Fox News would have plastered their headlines with “Terrorism” for weeks on end.  But, since it wasn’t committed by a Muslin, Fox News is somewhat quiet about the incident.

Furthermore, the police never even looked into whether or not Mr. White had some sort of grudge against the government.  Nor, did they investigate whether or not he expressed any anti-government sentiments prior to the attack.  After all, he did only attack TSA officers.  He did not attack any of the passengers waiting in line with him.

We have seen conservatives attack the TSA in the past.  They have argued that the TSA is only interested in taking away our liberties.  For example, Alex Jones’ Infowars website is filled with anti-TSA articles claiming that the TSA’s goal is not to prevent terrorism but to “harass” travelers and get into “our pants.”  Glen Beck warned in the past  that the TSA was potentially becoming President Obama’s “private army” with the goal being to take away our liberties.

Then, in 2012, Senator Rand Paul lashed out against the TSA for what he viewed as the agency’s improper treatment of him. In fact after the incident, Paul penned an op-ed denouncing the TSA, writing that “it is infuriating that this agency feels entitled to revoke our civil liberties while doing little to keep us safe.”

Ted Cruz who announced his candidacy for president yesterday is famous for saying that the President can’t make himself to say the phrase “radical Islamic terrorism.”  Well here is an example of what some would call “radical Christian terrorism,” and Mr. Cruz is silent on the issue.

Conservatives, trying to show some concern for Muslims often say that “every Muslim is not a terrorist,” but “every terrorist is a Muslim.”  Considering that this story received no coverage about it being even possibly an “act of terrorism,” makes it easy to understand why the average person may believe that nonsense.

Mr. White’s attack is not the first attack on TSA either.  In October 2012, Paul Ciancia traveled to LAX, where he took out a rifle from his bag and shot two TSA officers, killing one. Ciancia had written anti-government tracts in the past and was—to little media fanfare, and none from the right-wing media—actually charged months later with an “act of terrorism.

Because of this twisted mindset, we are more unsafe today than we were ten years ago.  The fact that we will only use the word “terrorism” if a Muslim commits an attack, and refuse to recognize “terrorism” committed by Christians who are U.S. citizens makes homegrown terrorists even more dangerous.

As I wrote before, terrorism is terrorism.  It doesn’t matter who the terrorist is.  We need to recognize that fact and stop apologizing for the non-Muslims who commit “acts of terrorism.”  But, that will take away the right-wing’s us against them narrative.  Maybe that is why none of them covered this incident as an “act of terrorism.”

Read Full Post »

Well it is official, sort of.  Ted Cruz has announced that he is running for President in 2016.  At least he tweeted that he is running in 2016.  It is probably appropriate that he is the first to officially announce his candidacy.  I just wonder how many “birthers” are going to come out of the closet about his citizenship.  If one truly believes that you must be born inside the U.S. to run for President, they now have someone who was definitely not born inside the U.S. or even one of its territories.

But, that is not what this article is all about.  I said it is appropriate that he be the first to announce because he is the one who shouts the most about “liberty.”  Especially about “religious liberty.”  But of course, when he talks about “liberty” he doesn’t really mean personal liberty to be enjoyed by everyone.  He means only those “liberties” that fall into his definition of what “liberty” is all about.

Unfortunately, “religious liberty” has become the rallying cry for bigots of all shapes and sizes.  I am even going to go so far as to say the terrorists have picked up the rallying cry of “religious liberty.”  People like Ted Cruz who constantly cry about “religious liberty” continuously prove my point.  They are not interested in real liberty.  They are interested only in the parts of “liberty” that allow them to hate, disrespect, and discriminate against anyone who doesn’t agree with their twisted view of society.

Last week this came more to light when Jeb Bush said that we should “respect” those who wish to be involved in a lifetime same-sex marriage, but we should also have to the right to discriminate against them if we “hold religious beliefs” that do not agree with same-sex marriage.  That is the real issue here.

I would love for someone to logically explain to me how we can “respect” others all the while we are allowed to discriminate against them.  You won’t hear a logical explanation because there isn’t one.  Oh, people will talk about how if you own a business it is your right to not serve anyone based on your “religious beliefs.”  However, that is a fallacy, too.  Once you open your doors to the “public” you must serve all of the “public.”  You cannot pick-and-choose who you are going to serve.  The Supreme Court has already ruled many times that is discrimination, and that is illegal!

This “religious liberty” fantasy that Cruz and his followers are trying to inflict on society is all based on a lie.  The right to believe what you wish does not allow you to discriminate against a fellow citizen in the conduct of normal daily business or life.  This lie has grown out of the absolute hatred of the Cult towards same-sex marriage.

Since recognizing same-sex marriage is becoming more mainstream, the Cult is trying to make it legal to discriminate against same-sex couples in the name of “religious liberty.”  If this is allowed to continue, who will be the next group that “religious liberty” will go after.

Will we return to the days when it was illegal for a black to marry a white because someone’s “religious belief” doesn’t recognize it?  Are we going to base our immigration laws on what religion is allowed to immigrate into the country?  Will County Clerks be allowed to discriminate against people of different faiths getting a marriage license because that clerk doesn’t believe in inter-faith marriage?

The right and the cult want you to believe that religious beliefs trump the constitution.  They want you to believe that if their beliefs say you can discriminate against someone, you have that right.  They want to impose their “religious beliefs” on you as the law of the land.

But, I remember when Catholics were discriminated against in this country.  I remember the outcry that the right and the cult had when John F. Kennedy first ran for office.  I remember his speech about religion and politics.  I remember how he had to assure the country that his religion would not interfere with his responsibility to “defend the constitution.”

Now, the same things that the right and the cult were so worried about when JFK ran for office is their rallying cry.  Religion trumps the Constitution as long as it is “their” religion.  The same people, and groups of people who were so worried about JFK instituting Catholicism on the country, now want to institute “evangelicalism” on the country.

“Religious liberty” can be very dangerous buzz words.  Just for the sake of argument.  Let us assume that someone from ISIS is a citizen in this country.  That person kidnaps a “Christian” and kills him because he won’t convert to Islam.  That same person says he is acting under the banner of “religious liberty” to justify his killing.

I don’t think that anyone would try to argue that this killing falls under the guise of “religious liberty.”  Some of you will argue that this is an absurd comparison.  But is it?  Where do you draw the line when you talk about “religious liberty” being the basis for discrimination.  Murder is one of the most horrific examples of discrimination and intolerance.  Our history is rife with murder for the sake of discrimination.  Religious murder is just as horrific.

Yet, under the banner of “religious liberty” it may be considered by some to be justifiable.  If a person truly believes that they are acting in accordance with deep religious beliefs when they murder another person then say is was legal under the banner of  “religious liberty,” how can Cruz or anyone else who discriminates under the same banner argue against it?

Some will argue that this analogy is ridiculous because there are laws against murder.  There are laws against discrimination, too.  Yet under the banner of “religious liberty” you are willing to break those laws.  Even worse, make breaking those laws legal.

It really doesn’t matter how you slice it.  The common thread is that “religious liberty” has become nothing more than a rallying cry for bigoted people to express their hatred for anyone who is different from them.  They have forgotten, and/or want to erase, or at least change the words on the Statue of Liberty.

Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses, yearning to breath free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore,
Send these, the homeless, tempest tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door.

With the announcement of Ted Cruz as a presidential candidate, we are going to hear a lot more about “religious liberty” in the coming months.  That will definitely be one of the major planks in his platform. But when you hear him, and others, talking about how it is “religious liberty” that allows you to discriminate, ask them a couple of questions.

How is it possible that people who profess a belief in the teachings of Jesus Christ who tells us to “love your neighbor as yourself” can convince themselves that he really didn’t mean “every neighbor?”  How can they justify that the person they claim to be their “savior” said “judge not lest you be judged by the same standard” didn’t mean “don’t judge everyone?”

I am positive that you won’t get a logical response to these questions.  That is because these people who claim “religious liberty” in the name of discrimination aren’t Christians.  They are bigots who have hijacked religion for their own nefarious reasons.  Listener beware!

 

Read Full Post »

It looks to be official.  Bibi will hold on to his power.  The latest from Israel says that the Likud party will have 25-29 seats.  With other right-wing parties in Israel, Bibi will be able to form his government.  Conservatives in this country are gloating over the apparent victory.  I guess they want to take at least some credit for Bibi’s win.

But there remains a question with the outcome of the election.  What does this mean for Israel and the world?  Is this something that should be celebrated, or is it something that should be dreaded?  I guess the answer to that will depend on your views of Netanyahu and his right-wing policies.

Just before the elections, Netanyahu said that there “would be no Palestinian State” as long as he was Prime Minister.  That does not sound good for the prospects of peace.  The Israeli government has been saying for years that they agree to a two-state setup.  One for Israel, and one for the Palestinians.

Netanyahu has made it very clear through his negotiation practices that he did not want a Palestinian State.  That coupled with the fact that almost all of the “settlements” on the West Bank have been completed under his watch, is proof he isn’t interested in allowing the Palestinians to have their own state.

He is against any negotiations with Iran over their nuclear program because he says you “cannot trust your enemy.”  He thinks that the only way to make sure Iran doesn’t get nuclear weapons is to invade the country and replace their “regime” with one more favorable to the west.

Of course, he refuses to say whether or not Israel has nuclear weapons.  It has been firmly believed for years that Israel does have nuclear weapons.  To tell you the truth, I am not sure whether Iran or Netanyahu is the more crazy of the two.  I am not convinced that if Netanyahu thinks Iran is close to getting a nuclear weapon that he wouldn’t use nuclear weapons against Iran to stop them.

Even with that in mind, I rather believe that Netanyahu wants the U.S. to invade Iran rather than Israel.  Why risk killing Israelis if the Republicans are willing to kill Americans instead?  He would rather use his army to wipe out the Gaza Strip, which is supposed to be part of a Palestinian State.

But since Hamas runs the Gaza Strip, that is all of the justification Netanyahu needs to keep a Palestinian State from happening.  Not to mention all those settlements he might have to remove if the West Bank became an independent state.  That, of course would be political suicide for him.

Since Netanyahu won his election, we can assume that “peace in the Middle-East” is not going to happen anytime soon.  Netanyahu is not interested in peace.  He is interested in creating an “Israeli Zone of Influence” so he can justify his actions.  If that means using the U.S. to do his killing for him, all the better.

That was the real reason he was so eager to give his speech to a joint session of Congress.  To make sure the neo-cons here are in support of his war plans.  It will be our young men and women who will face the dangers of a war with Iran.  All Bibi needs to do is muck up any negotiations with Iran and let the American neo-cons start another war in the Middle-East.

The problem is that our neo-cons are falling for his gimmick.  They are all too anxious to get into another fight with the “dreaded Muslims.”  As a result, I am afraid that all we will see in the next few years is another war we don’t want.  More of our service people killed and injured.  And more patriotic speak from the right-wing to justify their insanity.

I am afraid that the world is much more dangerous with Bibi’s victory.  I hope I am wrong, but since we have so many hotheads in this country willing to follow Netanyahu’s lead, the future doesn’t look good.

Read Full Post »

For the first time in recent years, the Republicans have actually dumfounded me today.  I know that I have talked a lot here about their insane ideas before, but what they did today was totally out-of-the-blue and it dumfounded me.  I am talking about that great “open letter” that 47 Senate Republicans, including all of the Republican leadership singed to the Iranian Government.

Apparently, the freshman Senator Tom Cotton decided that the Iranians were too stupid to understand how the American Government works.  Seemingly, Mitch McConnell and the rest of these high thinkers believe the same thing.  So, they decided to give Iran a little American Civics lesson.  I say that in complete sarcasm.

In the letter they said:

“The next president could revoke such an executive agreement with the stroke of a pen,” they wrote, “and future Congresses could modify the terms of the agreement at any time.”

They went further stating “We hope this letter enriches your knowledge of our constitutional system and promotes mutual understanding and clarity as nuclear negotiations progress.”

By deliberately undermining the negotiations going with Iran over their nuclear program, the Republicans are really bringing us one step closer to war with Iran.   Senator Cotton has announced that he isn’t interested in a nuclear deal with Iran.  What he really wants is a “regime change.”  That is the only thing that will satisfy him.

The only real way to ensure a “regime change” is with a war against Iran to topple the government like the one President Bush conducted against Iraq.  Is that what the Republican Party really wants?  Do they really want another shooting war with another foreign government just because they don’t like it?

What other reason could there be for these Senators to side with the Iranian hardliners in helping to trash the talks?  Think about for a minute.  These 47 Republican Senators just took the side of the very people they hate the most.  The Iranian hardliners.  Do they hate America that much that they are willing to become allies with their hated enemy?

Ever since the President announced the talks, which the U.S. is not engaged with alone, the Republicans have tried their best to derail them.  Why?  They claim that the President is so willing to make a deal, that he will agree to anything.  But, the President has said time and again that if there is no structure for strong verification he would walk away from the deal.

We have seen this movie before.  President Bush assured us that if we didn’t invade Iraq, the proof of their work on weapons of mass destruction would be a mushroom cloud over Manhattan.  The Republicans are trying the same tactic with Iran.  I know that Iran is far more dangerous than Iraq was to world peace.  But since when does the “opposition” party in this country deliberately try to torpedo negotiations with another government?

I cannot think of a single instance when that has happened before.  What happened to the Republican Slogan created by Ronald Reagan of “trust but verify?”  They loved it when their side was doing the negotiating.  They seem to hate it when the President does the negotiating.

This open letter has nothing to do with “teaching” Iran about how our government works.  It has everything to do with starting another foreign war.  Even with negotiations going on and no interference by the Republicans, there has always been the threat of a war with Iran.

However, these 47 Republican Senators just gave Iran the talking points they need to claim that any forthcoming war between the west and Iran is America’s fault.  More importantly, they will brag about how “American Hardliners” forced the war by forcing the collapse of negotiations that Iran was in favor of completing.

We needn’t worry about whether Russia or China would have supported a war with Iran under any circumstances.  But this action could make our European allies think twice about supporting one.

On top of all of this, if you think that terrorists have enough to recruit new terrorists, wait until they start trumpeting the collapse of these talks if it happens.  These Senators just gave the terrorists new ammunition to increase their numbers as well.

Yes, these Republican Senators dumfounded me until I realized that they are trying to start another war.  Either that or they are a lot more stupid than I gave them credit for being.  There can be no other answer to the obvious question of “What the f**k were you thinking?”

Read Full Post »

I just don’t know what the right-wing is thinking.  Or, if they are thinking at all.  We have seen the right-wing go completely off the rails.  This isn’t really anything new, the right-wing goes off the rails quite a lot.  But, things seem to be getting worse rather than better.

The other day at CPAC Gov. Scott Walker said he is ready to take on ISIS as President because he “took on 100,000 union protesters” in Wisconsin.  He also said that Ronald Reagan firing the air traffic controllers who went on strike in the 1980s was “the greatest foreign policy decision in my lifetime.”

I am sure that all workers out there who belong to the dwindling unions are very happy to hear how they are the same as ISIS or that fighting them has something to do with foreign policy.  How could we have ever let unions form in this country since, as Gov. Walker seems to think, they are foreigners trying to damage America?

We also heard all of the so-called “front-runners” for the Republican nomination compare themselves to St. Ronald Reagan.  However, if Ronald Reagan gave a speech at CPAC today, he would be booed out of the place.  All of these wackos seem to forget that Ronald Reagan was not interested in a balanced budget.  He ran very high deficits.

They all seem to forget that Ronald Reagan did not fight against abortion as these radicals have.  Yes, he professed his belief in god, but he was willing to let the Roe v. Wade decision stand.  In many ways, Ronald Reagan was a lot more of a “social liberal” than they seem to remember.  Even some of his past policy advisors agree Ronald Reagan would not stand a chance at CPAC.

Everyone at CPAC railed against ISIS and Sharia Law.  The all espoused how ISIS must be eliminated, and they all seem to think it will be easy, and outlaw Sharia Law everywhere.  Hell, last November, Georgia even had an anti-Sharia law initiative on the ballot.

Yes, the right-wing has gone off the rails again.  The Tea Party and their allies in the Conservative Christian Cult are trying to start another “crusades” against Islam throughout the world.  All the while they are quietly trying to set up their own version of a “theocracy” right here in America.  According to their “agenda” if you are not Christian, you should not have any rights.

In California, this has been taken to one of the most extreme measures you can think of.  See, in 1911, California changed their constitution to allow ballot initiatives.  All you need to do is pay $200 to file your initiative, then get signatures from 5% of the total votes in the last gubernatorial election.

Well, one lawyer in California ponied up his $200 and submitted a really dangerous initiative.  He calls it “The Sodomite Suppression Act.”  Yes, it is exactly what you think it is.  He wants to outlaw all forms of same-sex sex.  But, outlawing it is not enough for this wacko.  His bill says “that any person who willingly touches another person of the same gender for purposes of sexual gratification be put to death by bullets to the head or by any other convenient method.”

It also says:

No person shall distribute, perform, or transmit sodomistic propaganda directly or indirectly by any means to any person under the age of majority. Sodomistic propaganda is defined as anything aimed at creating an interest in or an acceptance of human sexual relations other than between a man and a woman. Every offender shall be fined $1 million per occurrence, and/or imprisoned up to 10 years, and/or expelled from the boundaries of the state of California for up to life.

His “law” makes it illegal for a “sodomite” to hold public office or even work for a government agency.  There is a lot of other stupid stuff in it, but one that really stands out, if you aren’t sick enough already, says:

The state has an affirmative duty to defend and enforce this law as written, and every member of the public has standing to seek its enforcement and obtain reimbursement for all costs and attorney’s fees in so doing, and further, should the state persist in inaction over 1 year after due notice, the general public is empowered and deputized to execute all the provisions hereunder extra-judicially, immune from any charge and indemnified by the state against any and all liability.

And why does he think this is so important?  Because he believes that if this law is not passed, we are all doomed to follow in the fate of Sodom and Gomorrah.  His justification for this idiocy says:

Seeing that it is better that offenders should die rather than that all of us should be killed by God’s just wrath against us for the folly of tolerating-wickedness in our midst, the People of California wisely command, in the fear of God…..

He even stipulates that this law must be posted in “all public schools.”

ISIS is a barbaric and cruel group of wackos trying to establish their personal beliefs on a region of the world.  We all know that.  They are dangerous and most people think something needs to be done about them.  The debate is over what and how this “something” should be.

Okay, even if I agree with that, can someone please explain to me how this “initiative” is any different from ISIS and their policies?  Can someone please explain to me how “executing” gays in this country is any different from ISIS killing non-Muslims in Iraq?  The simple answer is you cannot explain the differences because there are none.  Both groups are “terrorists,” as far as I am concerned.

This initiative is just another step in the “theocracy” that the Conservative Christian Cult wants to unleash on America.  The only difference it this goofball isn’t trying to sugar-coat it.  If this type of hate continues, the word “sodomite” will be replaced with “Muslim” or “non-White” or “non-Christian.

I wonder which speaker at CPAC will be the first to say anything against this “initiative.”  I am rather wondering which one will be the first to endorse it.

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 325 other followers