The Trump Campaign’s Lies and Use of a Nazi-Era Symbol

Far right extremists, not Antifa, are the number one threat per DHS.

While Donald Trump may be ignorant of many historical facts and what is common knowledge to a majority of Americans - per John Bolton, Trump did not know the United Kingdom is a nuclear power - his campaign is not.  Thus, the recent use of a Nazi symbol that caused Facebook to take down Trump ads cannot be written off as mere ignorance.  The use of the symbol - a badge worn by Nazi political prisoners in concentration camps was no doubt used to send a message to the Neo-Nazis and white supremacist who make up the core of the Trump base of support (along with white evangelicals who belong to historically racist denominations). The other troubling aspect of the use of the symbol was that it was used to attack Trump's mythical boogeyman, Antifa, when the Department of Homeland Security's own documentation shows that neo-fascists - the antithesis of Antifa - is what posed the largest threat to law and order.  In short, the Trump campaign sought to deflect blame from its own base and blame a different group when the facts simply do not support the claim.  A piece in the Washington Post looks at the use of the Nazi symbol and the active lying being advanced by the Trump campaign.   Here are excerpts:

President Trump’s campaign is under fire for employing a symbol once used by Nazis in a new batch of Facebook ads — a red inverted triangle that appeared alongside a warning about the dire threat posed by “antifa,” a loose motley group allied against neo-fascist activity.

An internal Department of Homeland Security document — which I obtained from a congressional source — makes the Trump campaign’s use of this symbol, and its justification for it, look a whole lot worse, by undercutting the claim that antifa represents any kind of threat in the first place.

After Facebook removed the ads amid an outcry, the Trump campaign continued to defend use of the image — which was used by Nazis to identify political prisoners — by claiming it’s a “common Antifa symbol.”

Meanwhile, Trump and his top officials have continued to blame unrest and violence at protests on antifa, to cast the violence more broadly as primarily left-wing in orientation.
But the DHS document I obtained undercuts this series of claims.

The [DHS] document — which is an assessment of ongoing “protest-related” threats to law enforcement dated June 17 — makes no mention at all of antifa in its cataloging of those threats.

The DHS document states that “anarchist and anti-government extremists pose the most significant threat of targeted low-level, protest-related assaults against law enforcement.” It bases this assessment on “the observed ideologies of recent attackers and the body of reporting of tactics noted by violent opportunists used over the last two weeks.” Thus, as of this week, “anarchist and anti-government extremists” pose the most serious ongoing threat, according to Trump’s own Homeland Security department.

The document defines “anarchist extremists” as:

groups or individuals who facilitate or engage in acts of unlawful violence as a means of changing the government and society in support of the belief that all forms of capitalism and corporate globalization should be opposed and that governing institutions are unnecessary and harmful to society.

Not only does this document not name antifa, this description of generic “anarchist extremists” does not remotely describe what we’ve come to understand “antifa” to be. While there might be some loose and occasional overlap between antifa and anarchists, antifa isn’t even a group, and adherents are characterized by specific resistance to perceived neo-fascist movements, which is wholly different from this definition of what motivates anarchist extremists.

This document shows that the government itself does not view antifa as a significant threat in the homeland,” Juliette Kayyem, a former DHS official who reviewed the document at my request, told me.

“The document shows how absurd the Trump campaign’s justification for using the symbol really is,” Kayyem added. “It undercuts their defense.”

The Anti-Defamation League has harshly criticized the Trump campaign for employing a symbol that “is practically identical to that used by the Nazi regime to classify political prisoners in concentration camps.”

The document also notes that “overall protest-related violence" has been "decreasing significantly during the last week,” which also undermines continued Trump fearmongering.

Notably, the continuing threat to law enforcement has been thrust to the forefront by the charging of Steven Carrillo for the alleged killing of one security officer and the wounding of another. Carrillo is an alleged adherent of the “boogaloo boys,” an extremist movement trying to exploit protests to incite race war.

The DHS document actually does cite the “Boogaloo movement” as a threat in this context. It notes that Carrillo is likely associated with it, defining it as “a term used by some violent extremists from a variety of movements who seek to incite a race war or the collapse of society.”

And yet, according to CNN reporter Marshall Cohen, Trump has yet to mention this as a threat, even though, as Craig Timberg demonstrates, it’s increasingly obvious this threat is becoming a serious one.

Similarly, another leaked intelligence document earlier this month assessed the greatest threat as coming from “lone offenders with racially or ethnically motivated violent extremist ideologies,” not from antifa.

The new DHS document shows that the non-assessment of the threat of antifa hasn’t changed — even as the claims about antifa continue.

The broader story here, as Isaac Stanley-Becker details, is that the continued fearmongering about antifa by Trump and many top officials seems designed to distort the true nature of these multiracial, largely peaceful and broadly representative national protests in a very fundamental way.

If Trump or his campaign says something, assume it is a lie until documented otherwise.

Far Right Groups, Trump and GOP Behind Social Distancing Backlash

What the far right is trying to pass of as a grassroots, organic uprising against social distancing and stay home orders is actually an orchestrated efforts with some of the organizers comprised of far right white supremacist groups.  Joining in their effort is Donald Trump who is tweeting against states with Democrat governors, including Virginia, and other Republicans who care more about "reopening" the economy than the possible death toll among their constituents.  The ultimate goal behind the actions is politically motivated: to save Trump's reelection effort, especially now that his polling numbers are dropping and some polls show a 60% disapproval rate for his handling of the pandemic.  In Michigan where some of the loudest protests - with armed protesters, of course, as The Guardian reports the organizers were anything but grassroots: 

While protesters in Michigan, Ohio, Kentucky and other states claim to speak for ordinary citizens, many are also supported by street-fighting rightwing groups like the Proud Boys, conservative armed militia groups, religious fundamentalists, anti-vaccination groups and other elements of the radical right.

On Wednesday in Lansing, Michigan, a protest put together by two Republican-connected not-for-profits was explicitly devised to cause gridlock in the city, and for a time blocked the entrance to a local hospital.

It was organized by the Michigan Conservative Coalition, which Michigan state corporate filings show has also operated under the name of Michigan Trump Republicans. It was also heavily promoted by the Michigan Freedom Fund, a group linked to the Trump cabinet member Betsy DeVos.

Near the state house, local radio interviewed a man who identified himself as “Phil Odinson”.  In fact the man is Phil Robinson, the prime mover in a group called the Michigan Liberty Militia, whose Facebook page features pictures of firearms, warnings of civil war, celebrations of Norse paganism and memes ultimately sourced from white nationalist groups like Patriot Front.

These are NOT nice people and I have to ask my Republican "friends" if they'd invite these folks into their living rooms and private clubs.  If not, they need to distance themselves from them and the politicians who are working with such ugly groups. As for those being duped to jump on the protest bandwagon, it sad that they still can't see beyond their racism and anger to see that those who are manipulating them are the ones who are most responsible for their economic plight.  The willful ignorance of these people is stunning and sad.

As for the motivation of the organizers behind these efforts (which, no surprise include Fox News), a piece in the  Washington Post lays it all out nicely.  Here are highlights:

The social distancing backlash is here. Like many such eruptions of anger, it’s partly genuine and partly fed by political actors with their own preexisting agendas — in this case, mostly to rescue President Trump’s imperiled reelection campaign. And it will get ugly.

On Wednesday in Lansing, Mich., thousands of protesters came to the state capitol to demonstrate against the stay-at-home order issued by Gov. Gretchen Whitmer (D). Though Michigan now has the fourth-highest total of covid-19 cases of any state, with nearly 2,000 deaths, the protesters argued that Whitmer’s order is unnecessary and overly strict.

“It wasn’t really about the stay-at-home order at all,” Whitmer said later on MSNBC. “It was essentially a political rally.” . . . . some were wearing MAGA hats and carrying Trump signs, and Confederate flags appeared in the crowd (though I’m sure that was just about Michigan’s … um … heritage?). Similar though smaller protests have occurred in North Carolina and Ohio. After the Lansing protest, Fox News swung into action, praising the protest on multiple programs.  The unmistakable message being communicated is that stay-at-home orders are a leftist plot, and conservatives should be rejecting them. It’s all over right-wing media . . . . . The natural comparison to make with these efforts is the tea party eruption, and there are some points of similarity, including conservative media fanning the flames of anger and the overblown rhetoric about liberty . . . . But the more useful comparison is to Donald Trump’s election itself.

Specifically, the way Trump’s campaign was built on the anger of working-class white voters, especially men. . . . . grievances that were exploited by powerful forces on the right for their own political and economic ends. Those grievances were then channeled into an act — voting for Trump — that was primarily expressive in nature.

Liberals are quick to attribute the white working class’s support for Trump to racism and xenophobia, and there’s no doubt they played an absolutely critical role. But it’s impossible to ignore the fact that when Trump told voters in Rust Belt towns that the “the system” was rigged against them, they had reasons to think he was right.

Trump spoke directly to that dissatisfaction — then layered on top of it a heaping portion of hate directed at immigrants, minorities and liberals. Never mind that “draining the swamp” turned out to be more tax cuts for the wealthy and making it easier for corporations to exploit workers and befoul already-struggling communities.

The pain people are now feeling is even more acute. Twenty-two million Americans have filed for unemployment, wiping out a decade of job gains in weeks. In Michigan, roughly a quarter of the workforce is now unemployed, an absolutely stunning figure. None of us have seen anything like this in our lifetimes.

If you’re not sick and you don’t know anyone who has died, it’s natural to say, “Why are we doing this? Why can’t we go back to work?” Then along comes a bunch of Fox News hosts and conservative activists who tell you, “You’re absolutely right. You’re being forced to suffer needlessly. Those snooty liberals in their coastal cities who can comfortably work from home are just trying to screw you over.”

And once again, the solution being offered will only make things worse. Voting for Trump didn’t help people who live paycheck to paycheck, and defying stay-at-home orders will only give new life to the coronavirus, prolonging the pandemic and making it harder to recover economically.

But if Republicans can convince people that the only way to understand this crisis is through a partisan lens, they can tamp down difficult questions about Trump’s performance and minimize the political damage he’ll suffer, making it possible for him to win in the fall. That’s the goal, one they’re pursuing with all their usual cynicism — even as they fight against Democratic efforts to provide more support to those being hit hardest by the recession.

Could it work? Probably not, but it just might.

Be Afraid: Extremists Are Taking Control of the GOP

While in many ways the Republican Party has become and extremist sectarian party, things may be about to get much worse with the coming departure of feckless John Boehner as Speaker of the House of Representatives.  Now, swamp fever addled "movement conservatives" - read Christofascist religious fanatic extremists - backed members of the House are likely to push for even more extreme batshitery, including shutting down the government and force a debt default.  A piece in Salon looks at the frightening turn of events that may be in the near future if these lunatics get their way.  Here are excerpts:

Movement Conservatives just claimed the head of House Speaker John Boehner. His political death was the price of preventing a catastrophic government shutdown after Movement Conservatives in Congress tied the very survival of the United States government to their determination to defund Planned Parenthood. Movement Conservatives are gunning for Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell next. We should be very afraid. Boehner and McConnell are not wild-eyed lefties. They are on the very far right of the American political spectrum: fervently pro-business, antiabortion, opposed to social welfare legislation. But they are old-school politicians who still have faith in the idea of American democracy.

Movement Conservatives do not. They want to blow up the government and remake America according to their own radical ideology.

Eisenhower worried deeply about the rise of authoritarian governments. He worried about fascism, communism and religious extremism overseas, but he was also deeply concerned at the rise of Movement Conservatism in America.

Mass movements ultimately need a disaffected population, Hoffer said, people who are either economically or culturally dispossessed. Those isolated individuals need to feel part of something bigger than themselves. They need to believe they can regain their previous relevance. Properly primed, such followers will throw themselves behind a leader who promises to return them to power.

The easiest way to unify followers was with hate. Leaders of such a movement identified a villain. These villains were usually the weakest members of society, making them easy to attack. And each attack on these new “enemies” fed contempt for them. Followers of a movement made more and more outrageous claims about those they demonized. Eventually those villains became so dehumanized that movement members would kill them, believing such atrocities were vital to reclaiming a glorious future for their nation. At this stage, followers were immune to facts or logic. Indeed, arguing with them only entrenched them in their beliefs, because the sign of a true believer’s faith was that it stood firm in the face of overwhelming opposition.

In the 1960s, Movement Conservatives created a cast of villains. The Brown v. Board decision in 1954 and President Eisenhower’s use of troops to desegregate Little Rock Central High School in 1957 enabled Movement Conservatives to resurrect old white fears that government activism was simply a way to funnel white tax dollars to African-Americans. Black people threatened America by forcing the government to redistribute wealth, thus inserting communism into the very fabric of the country. In 1968, Nixon made this Movement Conservative argument part of the established Republican Party when he resorted to the Southern Strategy. 

By the time of the George W. Bush administration, Movement Conservatives controlled the Republican Party, and they abandoned reality in favor of their simple story line. A member of the Bush administration famously noted to journalist Ron Suskind that “the reality-based” view of the world was obsolete. “That’s not the way the world really works anymore,” this senior adviser to the president told Suskind. “When we act, we create our own reality.”

That is exactly what today’s Movement Conservatives are doing. After the last Republican debate, astonished observers noted that many of the candidates’ assertions were flat-out lies.

They tell followers that America has fallen apart because enemies— minorities, women and liberals– have poisoned the government. Only a Movement Conservative leader can purge the nation of that poison and return America to its former greatness. Donald Trump, who currently commands a significant lead, is the salesman who puts it most clearly. . . . He tells them a story in which Christianity is under siege, President Obama is a foreigner, and that immigrants—who actually commit crimes at lower rates than native-born Americans– are criminals.

But Trump is not an outlier. Jeb! says that black people vote for Democrats to get “free stuff.” Mike Huckabee insists that the United States is criminalizing Christianity. Bobby Jindal promises to “fire” Congress. Ted Cruz hints that President Obama is a Muslim and warns that no Muslim should be president. All of the candidates demonize undocumented immigrants.

The fantasy world of Movement Conservatives is no longer fringe talk. The leading candidates for the Republican presidential nomination embrace it. They are playing to a chorus of true believers, and they are preaching what that choir wants to hear. They are following the same pattern Eric Hoffer identified as the path to authoritarianism. Last week, 43 percent of Republicans polled said they could imagine a scenario in which they would back a military coup. This week, Movement Conservatives in Congress knocked off a conservative speaker because he refused to sacrifice the American government to their demands.

We should be very frightened indeed. If we are not careful, John Boehner’s will not be the only head on the block.

People need to wake up to the stark danger these fanatics pose.  For too long they have used racism, false patriotism, and hate to dupe people into supporting their toxic agenda.  They need to be unmasked and defeated.

Kim Davis is no Rosa Parks

As far right extremist and Christian Dominionists (e.g., Mike Huckabee) continue to engage in spittle flecked rants and even have gone so far as to compare four times married Kim Davis, the jailed Rowan County Clerk, to Rosa Parks.  Such batshitery is too much even for conservative columnist Michael Gerson who takes these extremists to task in a column in the Washington Post.  Here are column excerpts:

Rosa Parks is an American hero, but her case was not an accident. Other African Americans had shown similar defiance (ask Claudette Colvin, who refused to give up her seat nine months before Parks). Civil rights leaders had spent years looking for a favorable case to challenge the segregation of Montgomery buses. Parks’s trip on Bus 2857 was not premeditated, but it was opportune. She was already an activist — known, respected and impressive. Elevating her case was one of the best and most strategic things that the civil rights movement ever did. 

Kim Davis — the Kentucky clerk who was jailed for refusing to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples — has been compared by some conservatives to Parks. Presidential candidate Mike Huckabee, with typical understatement, has described her case as “the criminalization of Christianity in this country.” He compares Davis to Lincoln because “he disregarded [the] Dred Scott 1857 decision that said black people weren’t fully human.” 

Bluntly put: Whatever their intentions, these people are doing great harm to the cause of religious liberty and to the reputation of their faith. Davis’s defiance is the wrong test case for the protection of religious freedom.  

[T]here is no serious case to be made for the right of public officials to break laws they don’t agree with, even for religious reasons. This is, in essence, seizing power from our system of laws and courts. The proper manner to change the law, in this instance, is to work for the election of a president who will appoint Supreme Court justices with a different view and for the election of senators who will confirm such justices. Or to propose and pass a constitutional amendment. Davis may be impatient with this system, but it is the one we have. Personally assuming the role in Rowan County, Ky., of a Supreme Court majority is not an option.   The available alternatives are to implement the law (as public servants across red America have overwhelmingly done) or to resign in protest. . . . 

Huckabee will need to look elsewhere than Lincoln for inspiration on this issue. This is from Lincoln’s speech on the Dred Scott decision: 

"We think its decisions on constitutional questions, when fully settled, should control, not only the particular cases decided, but the general policy of the country, subject to be disturbed only by amendments of the Constitution as provided in that instrument itself. More than this would be revolution. But we think the Dred Scott decision is erroneous. We know the court that made it, has often overruled its own decisions, and we shall do what we can to have it to overrule this.” 

Whatever your view of Justice Anthony M. Kennedy’s ruling on marriage, granting a wedding license is not in the same category as participating in a legal system that supported chattel slavery. It is, rather, participation in a legal system supporting liberal notions of individual rights. Davis believes that one of those rights is misapplied and misused. That is not the moral or legal equivalent of turning over Dred Scott to the slave catchers.  

But it is worth remembering: Legal arguments are not won by elevating bad cases. And public arguments are not won with unhinged historical hyperbole. 

Right Wing Jumps on Sexual Orientation of Black, Gay Shooter in Virginia

By now I suspect almost anyone in America who is not living under a rock has heard of the horrific murder of two WDBJ-TV (Channel 7) employees - reporter Alison Parker, 24, and cameraman Adam Ward, 27 - during an on air broadcast by a disgruntled former WDBJ-TV employee.  The shooter, Vester Lee Flanagan II’s, a/k/a Bryce Williams, obviously had serious mental problems, yet under Virginia's ridiculous gun laws was able to easily purchase a gun.  Governor MsAuliffe (who I saw last evening) has rightly cited the murders as yet more proof that Virginia needs to change its lax gun control laws - Virginia is a major source of illegal guns in New York City.  The Christofascists and whores of the gun lobby have a different take.  According to them, the whole tragedy is the result of the evil of disaffected gays (and by inference, cry baby minorities) and the Democrat Party.   First, blogger friend Joe Jervis looks at the poison being disseminated by Christofascists and right wing extremists such as little twerp Ben Shapiro who seemingly has no credentials to make him a knowledgeable commentator on anything.  Here are highlights:

According to Ben Shapiro, the Virginia shooter was driven to murder by the left’s enabling of his gay black victimhood status.

Bryce Williams’ self-described victim status, even while murdering innocents, will merit no rethinking of the divisive politics in which he apparently bathed. We won’t have a conversation about whether pushing a perennial picture of victimhood for blacks and gays in the most black-friendly, gay-friendly country on the planet could drive supposed victims to violence.

It is true that statistical outliers should not be used to club entire movements into submission. But leftists protesting at the linkage between Williams and their favored political causes have no ground on which to stand – they consistently blame conservatives for outlier events with no statistical basis. Moreover, Williams’ violence is part of a larger trend, not of black men killing white people (that still happens disproportionately, but the numbers are down), but of black men using supposed American racism as a rationale for violence more generally, and of gay people using supposed American homophobia as a rationale for violation of others’ rights.

Sample Breitbart comment: “Who should I despise more? Sick queers or low IQ blacks?”

Not a word out of Shapiro on Virginia's lax gun laws which have seen little change since the Virginia Tech massacre.  Likewise, not a word out of Shapiro on the role racism and the murders in Charleston by white supremacist Dylann Root played in today's carnage.  As ABC News reported, a portion of the shooter's rambling manifesto stated as follows:

Flanagan "writes what triggered today’s carnage was his reaction to the racism of the Charleston church shooting:"

“Why did I do it? I put down a deposit for a gun on 6/19/15. The Church shooting in Charleston happened on 6/17/15…”

“What sent me over the top was the church shooting. And my hollow point bullets have the victims’ initials on them."

It is unclear whose initials he is referring to. He continues, “As for Dylann Roof? You (deleted)! You want a race war (deleted)? BRING IT THEN YOU WHITE …(deleted)!!!” He said Jehovah spoke to him, telling him to act.

I am in no way condoning today's murders, but in must be noted that those like Shapiro have consistently supported unlimited guns access to crazies under the guise of "protecting" the 2nd Amendment and have regularly fanned the flames of homophobia and white racism yet then complain about the consequences of their own handiwork and, as seems to be the norm, immediately play the role of the victim even thought they are the real aggressors.  

Could "Clinton Cash" Attacks End Up Helping Hillary?

While Bill Clinton was president, a virtual cottage industry existed on the far right manufacturing supposed conspiracies, supposed murders and all kinds of attacks on Bill and Hillary Clinton.  None, of course, ever proved true, but those writing the attack books and articles in  many cases walked away with a nice profits as anti-Clinton fanatics happily shelled out money to buy the supposed expose' of moral and financial wrongdoing.  Now, with Hillary officially a presidential candidate we seem headed back to a reprise of the far right effort to attack Hillary and Bill Clinton.  The first book out of the box is “Clinton Cash: The Untold Story of How and Why Foreign Governments and Businesses Helped Make Bill and Hillary Rich” by Peter Schweizer, a long time right wing operative who is now seemingly financed indirectly by the Koch brothers.  As a piece in The New Yorker notes, the book fails to deliver any real details and may ultimately work to help Hillary as opposed to damaging her politically as planned by the author.  Here are article excerpts:

On Monday night, Sean Hannity opened his show on Fox News by claiming that new developments had emerged that could derail Hillary Clinton’s Presidential campaign. He was referring to the revelation, in the Times, that an upcoming book, “Clinton Cash,” by Peter Schweizer, a conservative speechwriter and author, reportedly alleges that overseas donors to the Clinton Foundation, as well as foreign entities that paid Bill Clinton for speeches, received favors from the State Department while Hillary was in charge.

Many viewers of Hannity and other Fox programs will probably seize on the new book in order to confirm their view that Hillary Clinton is unworthy of the Presidency. But none of these people were going to vote for her anyway. Politically, the important question is what impact, if any, the book’s allegations will have on independent voters, who may or may not vote for Clinton, and also on liberal Democrats who are inclined to vote for her, and maybe even to campaign for her, but who still have some reservations.

On this front, my guess is that “Clinton Cash” (whose full title is “Clinton Cash: The Untold Story of How and Why Foreign Governments and Businesses Helped Make Bill and Hillary Rich”) could end up benefitting Hillary. With Hannity and other conservative media figures piling on, the Clinton campaign will be able to portray questions about the Clinton Foundation and the family’s finances as a political witch-hunt rather than a legitimate exercise in vetting Presidential candidates. And if that happens, many Americans may end up dismissing the whole thing as a partisan squabble.

[R]elying on accounts from journalists . . . . . Schweizer doesn’t back up his suggestions of wrongdoing with much in the way concrete evidence, which would allow the Clintons’ defenders to go on the offensive.

[M]ost of Schweizer’s writing appears to have been directed at Democrats, and he is clearly a man of the right. In 2011, the Times reported that he was advising Sarah Palin on foreign policy. Brock, during his appearance on MSNBC, claimed that the Government Accountability Institute has received funding from entities affiliated with the Koch brothers, adding, “It’s subsidized by Hillary Clinton’s enemies.” On Tuesday night, according to Politico’s Gabriel Debenedetti, Brian Fallon, Clinton’s press secretary, circulated a memo to the campaign’s surrogates and allies, echoing Brock’s charges. “The book was backed by a Koch Brothers–linked organization and a billionaire family that is bankrolling Ted Cruz’s presidential campaign,” Fallon wrote.

It will be one thing if Schweizer has the goods on the Clintons—i.e., detailed evidence supporting his claim that policy decisions were influenced by financial donations and speaking fees. But, despite Rand Paul’s claims, it doesn’t sound as though the book will supply that level of detail.  

Aviva Shen, a senior editor at Think Progress—which is published by the Center for American Progress, a Democratic think tank with ties to the Clintons—writes, “Schweizer makes clear that he does not intend to present a smoking gun, despite the media speculation. . . . Schweizer explains he cannot prove the allegations, leaving that up to investigative journalists and possibly law enforcement.

[T]hings could get tricky for journalists covering the Clinton donations. Every word they write will be doubly scrutinized for evidence of political bias, and Hillary Clinton’s campaign operatives will be on hand to dismiss as part of a G.O.P.-inspired vendetta anything that is critical of the candidate. Until this week, it was easy to label such tactics as political spin, and few fair-minded people questioned the credibility of the Clinton money stories or the motivations of those writing and publishing them. Now that Schweizer has entered the fray, with the likes of Hannity and Paul to ballyhoo what appear to be largely unsubstantiated allegations, partisan politics is likely to color the views of the broader public. If and when Hillary Clinton falls back on the old argument that it’s all a right-wing conspiracy against her and her family, many people might well be prepared to take her at her word.

As I said, it looks like we can expect a reprise of breathless and hysterical stories about Clinton misdeeds.  Like the, I suspect little will actually be documented and the far right will go into a frenzy with authors such as Schweizer laughing all the way to the bank.

Republicans Have Been Treasonous Before

The infamous letter signed by 47 Senate Republicans is but one of the many ways in which the increasingly insane and dangerous GOP base seeks to destroy American democracy and replace it with a mix of theocracy and oligarchy and a never ending war regime.  One needs to look beyond the recent letter to see that it is only part of a trend to undermine the civil laws and grant special rights to religious extremists and vulture capitalists.  A piece in Salon looks at the worrisome trend and what it could portend.  Here are excerpts:

The Republican senators who warned Iranian officials that any agreement they made with President Obama would not outlive the present administration appear to have been blindsided by the backlash against their letter. . . . .  Sen. John McCain downplayed the extraordinary letter as business as usual: “I sign lots of letters,” he told Politico.

But the firestorm continues to rage. Newspaper editorials slam the senators who signed the bill; more than a quarter of a million people have signed a petition calling for the senators to be tried for treason; #47Traitors has been trending on Twitter.  Why has this letter garnered such a visceral reaction when attacks on the president and his policies are the everyday currency of the modern Republican Party?

It has created a backlash because it shows, with crystal clarity, that the ideology of Movement Conservatives is not simply partisanship. It is an attack on American democracy itself.

Whenever adherents of an ideological faction recognize that they do not have the popular support to control the president, they try to game the system. This happens on a grand scale, as when Southern whites so hated the outcome of the 1860 election that made Abraham Lincoln president, they picked up guns to get their way. It happens on smaller scales, as when Republicans in Congress today threaten to shut down the government to make President Obama do what they want.

[W]hen a faction tries to gain the upper hand at home by interfering with our international relations, Americans are able to see their attack on our fundamental system for what it is.

The precedent established by the Logan Act held firm from 1799 until the 1950s, when members of a radical faction within the Republican Party tried to take control of foreign policy away from their own president in order to impose their ideology on the country. Movement Conservatives within the Republican Party were horrified by President Eisenhower’s domestic initiatives. These men hated the New Deal consensus, believing that regulation of business, protection of labor, and establishment of a social safety net had imported communism into America.

They launched a public brawl with Eisenhower, arguing that his support for the United Nations opened the way for communism to conquer America. It was only a question of time until the UN dictated all U.S. laws (it would start, they warned white Southerners, by ending racial segregation). 

Eisenhower was shocked that his opponents were willing to weaken the nation internationally to score domestic points. He pointed out that Americans had let Congress control foreign affairs under the Articles of Confederation, and the resulting disaster had inspired the authors of the Constitution to centralize international negotiations in the president. But Movement Conservatives ignored the historical record and continued to whip up opposition to Eisenhower’s foreign policy in order to weaken his support and kill his domestic Middle Way.

Their efforts backfired. Determined to prevent the passage of the measure, Eisenhower had to build a coalition with Senate Minority Leader Lyndon Johnson. . . . . and for the rest of his presidency Eisenhower would work with Democrats, rather than Movement Conservatives, to make policy.

Sixty years after the Bricker Amendment failed, 47 senators have tried, once again, to undercut a president they abhor by attacking his foreign policy. The letter was addressed to Iranian officials, but it was aimed at strengthening Movement Conservatives at home.

The letter put into stark relief that Movement Conservatives value their ideology more than the nation’s founding principles. If members of a faction can override the president so long as they are willing to sacrifice the country to their cause, elections don’t matter. Only ideology and commitment do.

In 1799 and 1954, this was not what most Americans understood to be American democracy. In 2015, while sending a letter to the leaders of Iran was probably not illegal, Americans across the political spectrum are echoing their predecessors when they condemn the senators who signed it as #47Traitors.

RedState Editor Erick Erickson Compares Gays to Paris Terrorists

Want proof of the delusional insanity of the Christofascists and their GOP political whores?  Look no farther than Erick Erickson (pictured at left), editor of the far right sir, RedState, who in a bout of verbal diarrhea compared gays to the murderers who killed 12 and wounded many others in Paris.  The offense committed by gays?  The firing of Kelvin Cochran, the Chief of the Atlanta Fire Department, who refused to cease forcing his self-published anti-gay book on subordinates despite orders that he stop doing so.  The irony is that Erickson fails to see that it is he, and his fellow Christofacists, who share the same mindset of the shooters in Paris who are the real terrorists in this country.  Here are excerpts from Erickson's rant:

A publisher published something that offended. It mocked, it offended, and it showed the fallacy of a religion. It angered.

So the terrorists decided they needed to publicly destroy and ruin the publisher in a way that would not only make that destruction a public spectacle, but do it so spectacularly that others would think twice before publishing or saying anything similar.

The terrorist wants to sow fear. The destruction of an individual is not just meant to be a tool of vengeance, but a tool of instruction. It shows others what will happen to them if they dare do the same. It is generates self-regulating peer pressure. Others, fearing the fall out, will being to self-police and self-regulate. They will silence others on behalf of the terrorists. Out of fear, they will drive the ideas from the public square and society will make them off limits.

It is not because the ideas are bad, but because the ideas offend a group that can destroy and tear down.

So when a publisher published something that mocked and offended a group prone to offense at such things, something had to happen.

The terrorists did what had to be done to publicly destroy and ruin the offender.

So they demanded the Mayor of Atlanta fire the Chief of the Fire Department for daring to write that his first duty was to “glory God” and that any sex outside of heterosexual marriage was a sin.

And the terrorists won in Atlanta.

I continue to ponder how someone gets this deranged/mentally ill.

The Hillary Clinton Haters Can’t Quit the Crazy

As noted in a recent blog post, some in the GOP base - and, of course some in the conservative pundit class - simply cannot let go of their hatred for the Clintons, and in some instances Hillary in particular (to far right extremists, nothing is worse than an uppity woman unless its the brain dead Sarah Palin or a black man in the White House).  It is part and parcel with the GOP's run away train swing to crazy land.  A piece in The Daily Beast looks at the Hillary hater's inability to let go of their lunacy.  Here are highlights:

They were called “The Clinton Crazies.” It was the 1990s and while the rest of the nation seemed to bask in an era of nearly unprecedented peace and prosperity, they saw all manner of dark deeds emanating from the White House. To them, Bill Clinton, enabled by his wife, was a serial rapist, a drug-runner, a closet racist, a cocaine addict, someone who ordered the murder of close friends and aides.

When Hillary Clinton referred to the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy, she meant them. They wore the epithet like a badge of pride.

It has now been two decades since American politics seemed overrun with a cadre of conservative journalists, opposition researchers, and Republican lawmakers committed to bringing down the president, despite what they saw as the mainstream media’s efforts to protect him. In those intervening years, Clinton’s approval ratings have sky-rocketed as he matures into the role of globe-trotting elder statesman. His wife frequently tops the list of most admired women in the world.

Over the last several weeks, The Daily Beast tracked down more than a dozen Clinton accusers, conspiracy mongers and dirty tricksters. Almost to a person, they look back on the Clinton years as one of the most exciting times of their lives, a time when Washington was crawling with all manner of rumor and allegation (most of which originated in Arkansas, a state largely mysterious to most Beltway types) and the presidency seemed likely to topple at any moment.

Farah [Joseph Farah, the editor of WND.com, a/k/a Wing Nut Daily on this blog] remains largely unrepentant, convinced as ever that “with Bill and Hillary there are some fundamental character problems, and I haven’t seen any improvement. They have always been very power hungry, wealth hungry, and motivated only by what is good for them.”As for the notion of a vast right-wing conspiracy, Farah and other reputed members say that it never existed.

Farah is not alone among Clinton conspirators with his lack of self-doubt about his work back in the ’90’s.  But there are some soldiers of the Clinton Wars, comrades in arms with Farah and his ilk, who look back on those days and cringe. Richard Mellon Scaife, who helped fund the so-called “The Arkansas Project”—which sent opposition researchers to Clinton’s home state to find out where the bodies (or bimbos) were buried—was once described in the New York Times as a “charter member of the vast right wing conspiracy,” but now counts himself a Clinton admirer. David Brock, a conservative journalist whose investigations helped spur the “Troopergate” investigations, today runs a liberal media watchdog site.

“Scaife and Ruddy have run from what they did,” said Farah. “Without any real explanation that makes any sense. You won’t see them talking about Vince Foster any more. They think Clinton has grown up since leaving the presidency, that he is somehow a changed man. Well, maybe they are the ones that changed.”

The fervor in right-wing circles over the Clinton presidency made media heroes out a few figures still around, like Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, and Matt Drudge.

[O]thers remain in them, still battling, but with little to show for a cause they have committed so much of their life to. Kathleen Willey was a White House volunteer who said she was groped by Bill Clinton in the Oval Office in 1993. Her claims were largely discredited, and now widowed and divorced, she has dedicated her life to proving that Clinton is “a serial predator.”

She wrote a book: Target: Caught in The Crosshairs of Bill and Hillary Clinton, but aside from the occasional Fox News appearance, has found few venues willing to give her an airing and fewer employment prospects.

In 1994, Patrick Matrisciana produced a film called The Clinton Chronicles that was, according to its subtitle, “An Investigation Into The Alleged Criminal Activities Of Bill Clinton.” Over 500,000 copies found their way into circulation, but the distribution company that Matrisciana founded, Jeremiah Films, was since shut down (his son operates a rebooted version of it), and he has no plans to do another film on the Clintons.

If, as expected, Hillary Clinton runs for president, it remains to be seen how much the vast right-wing conspiracy will reconstitute itself.  Those who regret their role in the Clinton Wars think that it is a mistake to rehash Benghazi, never mind Vince Foster or Katherine Willey.

But those who think that Clinton was one of history’s great scoundrels are gearing up for a sequel. Even if they failed to much derail the first President Clinton, who is to say a further airing of the allegations won’t slow the potential second?

I'm sorry, but as much as I was not always a Clinton fan, these people are simply crazy and have never heard of the concept of letting go and moving on with life.  Sadly, it is a trait all too common among the spittle flecked base of today's Republican Party.

Climate Scientist Versus Ken Cuccinelli

One of Ken Cuccinelli's most high profile misuse of taxpayer funds was his effort to persecute University of Virginia climate scientist Michael Mann.  Mann's offense?  Researching global warming and proving the lie of Cuccinelli's Christofascist backed crusade against science - and, I would argue, modernity as a whole.  Anything that challenges the Bible thumpers' belief system needs to be crushed in Cuccinelli's view.   A piece in Mother Jones looks at the saga of Cuccinelli's efforts against Mann which played a role in Cuccinelli's defeat on November 5, 2013.  Here are some article excerpts:

Mann's situation traces back to the world famous "hockey stick" graph, originally published by Mann and his colleagues in a 1998 scientific paper, and then prominently displayed by the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in its 2001 Third Assessment Report. Because of its stark depiction of just how dramatically humans have altered the climate in a relatively short time period, the figure may well be the most controversial chart in history. Not scientifically controversial, mind you: politically controversial.

"This curve became an icon in the climate change debate because it told a simple story," says Mann of the hockey stick. "You didn't need to understand a lot of physics and math to see what that curve was telling you: That there were unprecedented changes taking place in our climate today, and by inference, they probably have something to do with us."

Multiple investigations have cleared Mann and the other scientists involved in Climate Gate. In 2010, however, Cuccinelli issued a "Civil Investigative Demand" to the University of Virginia, where Mann used to work, seeking Mann's emails and other documents related to a number of his research grants. The demand cited the "hide the decline" email as well as other leaked emails from Climate Gate. The University resisted and, in a case that drew dramatic media attention and widespread denunciations of Cuccinelli's "witch hunt," was ultimately victorious at the Virginia Supreme Court.

Emerging from this broad story, in retrospect, are at least two large ironies:

1) There are lots of hockey stick studies, not just Mann's. So even as the issue was personalized and made all about Mann's research and its validity, other scientists just kept on producing hockey sticks. Mann likes to joke that there is now a veritable "hockey team." For other hockey stick studies see here and here.

2) By attacking Mann in such a prominent way, climate skeptics have made him vastly more influential, politically and otherwise, than he might otherwise have been. For instance, Mann was just named one of the "50 Most Influential" people by Bloomberg Markets. Cuccinelli's demands of the University of Virginia gave Mann a new stature that, in turn, empowered Mann to directly campaign against him.

Granted, the climate issue, and the issue of Cuccinelli's pursuit of Mann's files, did not tip the Virginia gubernatorial race all on their own. Overall, the most powerful electoral strike against Cuccinelli seems to have been his association with the government shutdown brought on by House Republicans. Still, Mann says, "the issue of ideologically driven anti-science, which was symbolized by Ken Cuccinelli, I think that did fit into a larger narrative of a dangerous candidate who was driven by ideology over logic and science, and substance. And I think in the end, that was the difference."

Mann counters, though, that he's no political operative: It's just that this particular race, and this particular candidate, affected him so directly that he got involved.

"I felt like I had to fight back not just for myself, but to make it clear to other scientists that we do need to defend our science, not just because it's the right thing to do scientifically, but because the implications are so profound in this case," he says. How profound? "We are engaged in an unprecedented and uncontrolled experiment with the one planet that we have," says Mann. Politicians who seek to undermine this reality now have something new to worry about: That scientists, inspired by Mann, may not simply sit by and watch it happen any longer.

Cuccinelli Ally Rick Santorum: Satan Controls The Film Industry

With his campaign plagued by the perception - which is being successfully cultivated by the Terry MAuliffe team - that he is too extreme for Virginia (I'd add for sane people anywhere) what does Ken Cuccinelli do?  He brings in Rick Santorum to "mobilize voters."   It's as if Cuccinelli is striving hard to confirm every accusation of extremism made against him.  When you are losing moderates and independents, is it really smart to bring in someone who says Satan controls the film industry?  Right Wing Watch looks at Cuccinelli surrogate Santorum's latest batshitery:

Rick Santorum is asking you to do your part to free movie theatres from the Devil’s clutches by purchasing tickets to his upcoming movie, The Christmas Candle.

While speaking on a network where televangelists on a daily basis tell viewers that God will reward them financially if they send in contributions, the former senator and presidential candidate spent most of the time criticizing movies for being too materialistic.

Santorum, who has previously said that Satan has control over mainline Protestantism and universities, thanked viewers in advance for seeing the movie.

“This is a tough business, this is something that we’re stepping out,” Santorum said, “and the Devil for a long, long time has had this, these screens, for his playground and he isn’t going to give it up easily.”

To my view, Cuccinelli and Santorum are clones of each other: likely closeted gay men suffering from an extreme Catholic upbringing and with a resulting obsession with gay sex.  Both foolishly thought that fathering lots of children - each of them has 7 children - would magically make them straight.  They both need to do the world a favor and come out and get over their efforts to control everyone else's sex lives.

 

Cuccinelli Continues to Bring In Lunatic Extremists for Campaign Events

One of Ken Cuccinelli's big problem is that his extreme record both in the Virginia Senate and as Attorney General has been viewed increasingly negative by Virginia voters.  The Terry McAuliffe campaign has, in my view, properly done all they can to educate the public about the real Ken Cuccinelli.  The result?  56% of likely voters view Cuccinelli negatively.  So what does Cuccinelli do?  He brings in far right lunatics and theocrats to campaign for him, thus confirming everything the McAuliffe campaign has disseminated to voters.  Cuccinelli's list of imported nutcases which ranges from the baby factory Duggar family to Ted Cruz to now, Mike Huckabee.  That's right, the same Mike Huckabee who stated on Morning Joe back in 2008 that he wanted the Bible to replace the United States Constitution as the governing template for the American government.  That's right, he advocated for the overthrow of the Constitution.  And this is who Cuccinelli imports to prove he's "mainstream."  Blue Virginia looks at this delusional effort by Cuccinelli.  Here are highlights:

Just when you think there aren't any more extremist freaks left to campaign for Ken Cuccinelli - Mark Levin, Ted Cruz, Nikki Haley, the Duggars, etc. - another one pops up. Now, it's Mike Huckabee. Why do I call Mike Huckabee an extremist freak? Let us count the ways.

*"Mike Huckabee is strongly opposed to abortion, including in cases of rape or incest. 

*"Huckabee stated in 1992, 'I feel homosexuality is an aberrant, unnatural, and sinful lifestyle, and we now know it can pose a dangerous public health risk'...Huckabee said that legalizing same-sex marriage would 'be like saying, well, there are a lot of people who like to use drugs so let's go ahead and accommodate those who want to use drugs. There are some people who believe in incest, so we should accommodate them. There are people who believe in polygamy, should we accommodate them?'"
 

*"Huckabee has voiced his support of intelligent design and he has stated that he does not accept the validity of Darwin's theory of evolution." 

*Last but not least, Huckabee is climate science denier, for instance falsely (and bizarrely) claiming that "[t]he volcano that erupted over in Northern Europe actually poured more CO2 into the air in that single act of nature than all of humans have in something like the past 100 years." 

 In sum, Mike Huckabee is a right-wing extremist and stark-raving mad. Which, come to think of it, means he will get along superbly well with Ken Cuccinelli, E.W. Jackson and Mark Obenshain. 

My late mother used to tell me as a child that I needed to be judicious about who I had as friends because I would be judged by the company you keep.  In Cuccinelli's case, the company he keeps underscores that he's both batshit crazy and a religious fanatic. He is, in fact, everything negative that the McAuliffe campaign says he is.  My advice to Cuccinelli (besides coming out of the closet) is that he needs to step outside of the Fox News/Christofasict bubble and touch base with objective reality.