He who is without sin... Or something

Yesterday on Memeorandum, I saw this link to a Media Matters piece.

They link Erick Erickson, claiming he is trying top propose a link between atheism and Jared Loughner's actions. Or something. Now, I'm not a big fan of MMFA, but I read the post and followed the link back to Erick Erickson at Red State, thinking that (considering the source) it couldn't be as bad as it seemed.

Well, I've now read the Erickson piece half a dozen times between last night and today, and I gotta ask...

How is this not insulting?

Erickson writes:

Political rhetoric did not make Jared Loughner do what he did. His embrace of evil led him down a road down which we should be in constant prayer no others dare travel.

It's apparently part of a larger point he's trying to make. I guess his point is:

In all the discussions we’re having, let’s not forget that bad things have happened throughout history, but we are seeing more and more a pattern of violence from those who reject Christ and we are seeing the most extreme rhetoric from those who reject the only real truth while embracing every other historic fad and nonsense as variations of truth.

How is this helpful to the discussion? How on earth does a belief or disbelief in Jesus have anything whatsoever to do with the Giffords shooting?

I'm not a believer. Call me agnostic. Call me an atheist. Actually, if you want to be accurate, call me an apatheist. (Yes, I'm aware I just made that word up. If Sarah Palin can do it, so can I.) But apatheist would be closest to the truth. I don't know if there's a God, and - while I tend toward disbelief - I'm not much interested in debating the issue. I'm not looking for proof one way or the other. I'll find out one of these days, same as the rest of you.

But I have a great respect for the faith of others. I am tolerant and respectful. The times I've been told someone is praying for me, my response is "Thank you." I'm also the first to point out the ugliness that atheists can get up to when it comes to their intolerance of believers.

And I can't help but feel like I'm somehow being lumped in with a psychotic loner asshole murderer.

A lack of faith didn't cause Loughner to do what he did. He's insane. And for Erickson to decry the 'handwringing over the “tone” in the country and the “extremist rhetoric”' while happily setting up his own strawman strikes me as rank hypocrisy.

He went further, on Twitter:

Atheists are upset with me. But God is upset with them.

And how the hell do you know that, Erick? Got the direct line, do ya? Has God let you know whether he's pissed at me for my half-assed religious state of "meh"? Lemme know.

He tweeted again:

@fmaidment No clue. And yes, I did just compare Media Matters to the Westboro Baptist Church.

That's almost funny... Why? Because the first thing I thought of when I read Erick's piece is Fred Phelps and his band of hateful loonies. I can picture EE with a little sign that says "God Hates Atheists!"

I posted yesterday that clamping down on our freedom of speech isn't the answer. It wouldn't have prevented this shooting (which was motivated by teh crazy, not ideology), and it won't prevent the next.

Neither will proselytizing, or condemning someone who doesn't share your belief system.

So, Erick... while I respect your faith -- indeed, would defend it on your behalf -- please stuff your judgemental horseshit where the sun don't shine. It has nothing to do with the topic at hand, it will do nothing to stop the next (probably) schizophrenic whackjob, and it divides us in a way that's completely unnecessary. You are, in my own opinion, no better than the fools who would point their finger at Sarah Palin.

Is That A Horse... Or A Jackass?

Saw this at HuffPo, although it's everywhere...

John McCain's primary challenger was apparently channeling his inner-Santorum Sunday (Inner Santorum? Ew.) while discussing gay marriage:

"You see, the Massachusetts Supreme Court, when it started this move toward same-sex marriage, actually defined marriage -- now get this -- it defined marriage as simply, 'the establishment of intimacy,'" Hayworth said. "Now how dangerous is that?"

Dangerous? Seriously?

"I mean, I don't mean to be absurd about it -- "

And then he goes on to be... well... absurd. Emphasis mine.

"I guess that would mean if you really had affection for your horse, I guess you could marry your horse. It's just the wrong way to go, and the only way to protect the institution of marriage is with that federal marriage amendment that I support."

So. Another "conservative" who is perfectly content, nay neigh happy, to expand the federal government's overreach when it comes to personal morality. It shows that this statement on his website is a bald-faced lie:

J.D. believes the United States Constitution is a document of limited and enumerated powers, and that the rights not explicitly granted to the federal government are reserved for the States and the people.

Hypocrite.

Congresswoman Donna Edwards Is Only The Latest Head of the Hydra

So the Democrats want to amend the Constitution...

Congresswoman Donna Edwards (D-Md) has introduced an amendment to attempt to overrule the Supreme Court's decision on Citizens United vs FEC. The proposed amendment will read:

‘‘ARTICLE—
‘‘SECTION 1. The sovereign right of the people to govern being essential to a free democracy, Congress and the States may regulate the expenditure of funds for political speech by any corporation, limited liability company, or other corporate entity.‘‘SECTION 2. Nothing contained in this Article shall be construed to abridge the freedom of the press.’’

Their reasoning?

The Court’s action dramatically dilutes the vote and the voice of every American who does not control a large corporate treasury. The decision unleashes billions of dollars in corporate money to dominate legislatures and elections.

Sounds reasonable, huh? We don't need huge conglomerations pumping zillions of dollars into politics to screw the little guy, right? But wait... Here's the most telling thing about this abomination amendment. From the Q&A, emphasis mine:

Will the Free Speech for People Amendment prevent people from joining together into political parties, citizens’ organizations, associations, unions or other groups to participate in elections and public debate?

No. The Free Speech for People Amendment applies to corporate entities and has no application to voluntary associations and does not change constitutionally protected freedom of association. People are always free to associate with others to promote their speech or engage in political activity.

That's right. They're going to level the playing field. By making sure the only enormous political donors will be unions.

This is no accident. This is a willful attempt to take over the political process entirely. This is a blatant power grab by the Democrats on behalf of the unions who put and keep them in office.

Think I'm exaggerating? I spent half an hour digging through the folks involved in freespeechforpeople.org, and what I turned up is infuriating. A list of their sponsoring organizations, and the people employed by those organizations, is very telling.

Starting with Voter Action:
--Their legal director, John Bonifaz, founded the National Voting Rights Institute (now DEMOS). Attorneys for NVRI have acted as legal representatives for ACORN. Additionally, DEMOS and NVRI have worked with ACORN on voter registration initiatives.
--Their administrative assistant, Oske Buckley, has worked for the ACLU and as an Americorps volunteer.
--Dolores Huerta, a member of the advisory board, is "a Labor leader, organizer and social activist" who is Secretary Treasurer of AFL-CIO's Agricultural Workers Organizing Committee and co-Founder and first Vice President of the United Farm Workers union.

Next, the Center for Corporate Policy:
--Ilyse Hogue is with MoveOn.org's Political Action Team.
--Charlie Cray worked for Greenpeace USA between 1988 and 1999.

Are you seeing a pattern here? Getting a glimpse of the bigger picture? Are you pissed off yet?

We can NOT allow this to happen. The Democrats, backed by their unions and their "community organizers and the Soros billions, are trying to take over American politics by nothing less than defiling the Constitution to tilt the game in their favor. This can not stand.

--------------
Linked By:

Russ at Thats-Right. He caught the story about the amendment before me, and has a good piece up. Go check it out.

The Other McCain. Smitty's got me in a post about "The Good, The Bad and The Ugly". While I'm not thrilled to be "The Bad", at least I'm not "The Ugly"!

Thanks for the links. Please help spread this around. This thing must die.

-------------
UPDATE: Dig more, find more...

-- Dolores Huerta, in addition to the affiliations I've linked above, is an Honorary Chair for the Democratic Socialists of America, and is a board member for the Fund For The Feminist Majority.

-- Ilyse Hogue (per Liberty Chick at Big Government) has been involved with SEIU in a joint campaign against the US Chamber of Commerce and sat on a Change For America's Future panel with Anna Burger (Change to Win/SEIU).

-------------
UPDATE X2: Here's the thing... I'm not a conspiracy theorist, and I'm not having a panic attack. I don't think there's a chance in hell this thing would actually go through. What I'm endlessly astounded by is the extent of almost incestuous entanglements between these unions/community groups and the democrats. And I'm equally amazed by the unmitigated gall of these people. I know... I know... it was obvious long before now.

But it's like a bad movie. Rich, powerful entities who are all subtly but definitely connected into one "organized" force that insinuates itself into power and uses extreme measures in order to silence their opposition... Arrogant to the point of vandalizing the Constitution to better bend society to their views... Destroying quality of life for their people while living as royalty off the sweat of the working class...

Where's a band of scraggly rebel forces when you need them? Hell, for that matter, I'd settle for an alien invasion. Let the ships from Planet X blow Washington to holy hell. It'd be an improvement.

Joan Walsh, Meet Hillary Clinton

Saw this at AceOfSpadesHQ:

Newsbusters has a piece I found interesting... Seems Joan Walsh of Salon.com was showing off her liberal tolerance while appearing recently on Hardball. (Video at the link.) Here's the quote I wanted to address:

"The climate right now is that Republicans use everything they can to undermine and delegitimize this president. And it‘s actually un-American. It‘s traitorous, in my opinion. Do you want to give aid and comfort to our enemies? Continue to treat this president like he wasn‘t elected and he doesn‘t know what he‘s doing! He knows what he did. He knows what he‘s doing. I‘m proud of him. I believe that he has the stalwart, resolute nature to get this done."

Now what was that rebuttal I wanted to use again? Oh, yeah! Hey, Hillary - let 'em have it!

"I am sick and tired of people who say that if you debate and you disagree with this administration somehow you're not patriotic. We should stand up and say we are Americans and we have a right to debate and disagree with any administration."

That was in 2003. Yeah... Change we can believe in.

Andrew Sullivan Finally Has A President - Now What About The Rest Of Us?

I just read Andrew Sullivan's take how President Obama is handling his Afghanistan decision...

What we are seeing here, I suspect, is what we see everywhere with Obama: a
relentless empiricism in pursuit of a particular objective and a willingness to
let the process take its time. The very process itself can reveal - not just to
Obama, but to everyone - what exactly the precise options are. Instead of
engaging in adolescent tests of whether a president is "tough" or "weak", we
actually have an adult prepared to allow the various choices in front of us be
fully explored. He is, moreover, not taking the decision process outside the
public arena. He is allowing it to unfold within the public arena.

NOW he takes his time? We're to view his deer-in-headlights vaporlock on Afghanistan as wisdom and engaging the public? Damn shame this wasn't how he handled TARP... or the Stimuless... Or Healthcare Reform... With FOUR proposals available to him, he rejects each with no strategy of his own to put forth, and Sullivan seems to think he should be commended for his indecision?! Name ONE other time this President let any other "process take its time".

So the troop question is rather like the public option question.

Yeah. Exactly. Except the people without healthcare don't have BULLETS COMING AT THEM! Having a pre-existing condition doesn't make you more likely to be taken out by an IED!

Can you imagine Bush ever holding out like this on the military?

Not at all. But Sullivan thinks this is a PLUS, I take it? It's acceptable to screw our troops because Bush would not have screwed them? Is this the "change" Sullivan voted for? Sullivan's happy, he says we have a president. Sigh

George W. Bush had a LOT of faults... Leaving our troops in the lurch is not on the list.

Obama had better do SOMETHING. Pull 'em out, or give 'em what they need. Man up, Champ, your warriors are depending on you to do right. Andrew Sullivan might be impressed by your frozen indecision masquerading as thoughtful determination... The rest of us (and the troops in harm's way) are NOT. Everything else Obama has done since taking office has been an emergency! A crisis! A moral-for-GAWDS-sake imperative! But the troop decision can wait while it all gets sorted out in a public arena? Ludicrous.

------------------
Thanks to CassyFiano.com for the link. Interesting thoughts there on "Indecision as Virtue". If you've found your way here through that site, please have a look at the rest of the blog. And thanks for coming!

Michael Moore's Action Plan

Michael Moore's Action DIET Plan. There... fixed that.

Yesterday Michael Moore wrote a piece that I saw on both HuffingtonPost and DemocraticUnderground. "My Action Plan: 15 Things Every American Can Do Right Now".

Now, I'm not going to even touch most of this piece. For one thing, it will be dissected and either mocked or applauded all over the blogosphere so there's no need for one more entry on his politics. Moore's pretty blatant about his socialist ideas, and none of that is new or news.

That said, there IS a bit in Moore's piece I have to address. When it comes to his politics, he's been called out for his hypocrisy before, and it doesn't phase him. But this time he's taken the "Do-as-I-say-not-as-I-do" elitist nonsense to a new level. You see, in his "Action Plan" he has graciously included his "Diet Plan". Ready?

Turn off the TV and the Blackberry and go for a 30-minute walk every day. Eat
fruits and vegetables and cut down on anything that has sugar, high fructose
corn syrup, white flour or too much sodium (salt) in it (and, as Michael Pollan
says, "Eat (real) food, not too much, mostly plants").

I'm sorry. Have you seen Michael Moore? Let's have another look, shall we?

Or how about this one?

THIS is the man who says the rest of us should "Eat (real) food, not too much, mostly plants"

Are you shitting me, Michael?

We've (unfortunately) become used to the class that considers itself our betters giving advice and orders for the peons to follow, but which never seem to apply to the inner circle. We have Rangel the tax cheat setting tax policy for the rest of us. We have a president who smokes cigarettes himself but who has not called out the higher rates for smokers in the proposed health bill. We have legislators who can't be bothered to read bills they'll be voting on telling the rest of us we don't need to read the bills for ourselves (because it would force them to read the bills in order to debate us later).

And now we have this tub of guts, this poster boy for the positive points of anorexia, this morbidly obese slob who often appears to be dirty as well as fat telling the rest of us how to eat?! I don't think so.

I don't believe for a minute Michael Moore follows this plan. Not for one bloody second do I buy it. Nobody who walks 30 minutes a day and eats "(real) food, not too much, mostly plants" looks like Michael Moore. If he can prove this is what he does every day of his life as he is advising the rest of us, I'll eat one of my sneakers.

And if he DOES follow that eating plan himself and STILL looks the way he does... well, isn't that all the argument we need to NOT follow his diet advice? Considering the rest of us are almost universally smaller than Moore, wouldn't it be a terrible mistake to begin a diet regimen that would turn us all into... well... disgusting blobs?

Nope. Sorry. Not falling for it. I think Michael Moore is a hypocrite and a liar, more now than ever before. And if the diet plan he advises every American to follow is how he maintains his own... um... figure... well, he can keep following it himself and provide shade for the rest of us.

Obama's Media Obsession Is A Symptom

The Obama White House stance on Fox News and the blogosphere is nothing new. It's just the most recent symptom of the biggest problem with liberalism. It's a reminder of how liberals operate in all things. Obama isn't the only one with a neverending campaign... it's the definition of liberalism.

Here's the problem, in a nutshell: They can't just get their way and be satisfied. Oh, no. They can't win, get their validation, and go on with grace about their business. They must transform. They must alter reality. It has to be an absolute metaphysical CONVERSION to the tenets of liberalism.

Many folks feel like, "We know, we know... you WON. Now could you please shut up about getting the job and DO the job?" But that isn't the way it works. They've never even pretended that's the way it works. There are countless examples.

Abortion. It isn't enough that abortion is legal... And let's be realistic, it's going to stay legal. They still feel the need to fight and march and press on, even though they are well aware it is going to remain legal. That's because legal isn't enough. It must be commonplace. We can't just accept it, we have to celebrate it. Liberals want women who've had an abortion to come out and be proud of their abortions. Legal isn't enough. Socially acceptable isn't enough. We need to raise abortion to a state that is nearly a status symbol.

Homosexuality. Again, it isn't good enough to tolerate homosexuality. It must be embraced. It must be mainstreamed. And worse... We can't just accept the openly gay businessman. We can't just befriend the lesbian couple next door. We can't base our involvement with the gay community on our shared values and our similarities. Not at all. We're also to embrace... uck... the weirdo in the violet chaps and tiara, with his tattooed arse in the breeze as he prances in the pride parade. Never mind that we would not be accepting of a straight person acting like a perverted loon in public. When it comes to homosexuals, the only way to convey equality is to accept the farthest fringe freakshow right along with gay people who are completely normal.

Separation of Church and State. Another link in the pattern. The first amendment protects us from the government proclaiming an official religion while preserving the right of each person to believe and practice pretty much what they like as long as it doesn't infringe on others. But this won't satisfy liberals. They read freedom of religion as freedom FROM religion. Instead of peacefully tolerating all faiths, we must repress ALL faiths... or at the very least, subject them to mockery. (Except, of course, for the one that would react with violence and terror. Them we'll cave in to -- I mean, accept and tolerate.)

Race relations. (Yes, I'm going there.) Liberalism is the worst thing that has ever happened to race relations in America. The civil rights movement was a success. But the rightful end of discrimination did not go far enough. We must go beyond equality to preferential treatment in order to balance the scales. We must assume that anyone not white requires extra points on tests, quotas to ensure employment, crippling social programs to "help" them... We must also accept that to be white is to be inherently racist. And by denying our racist tendencies, we only prove they exist.

This same liberal mindset now applies to President Obama's popularity index. It's not enough that he WON. The President (and his people) can not just ignore his name and image in the media long enough to get their job done. Each bit of unflattering mention must be tracked down and addressed directly. Because we need to love him. We must never doubt his wisdom and good intentions for us. Or if we do, we'd better not express it for fear it may spread. They've narrowed down the dissension to the racists, the ignorant, and those being misled by the news programming they watch. They're denouncing the racists, calling on their community organizations to educate the ignorant, and now they have gone on the offensive against any news outlet not echoing the liberal agenda.

So we need to accept it. They WON. That's right, don't you forget it. They WON, and it isn't enough to accept him. You must deny your own ideas, switch teams and put on the damn purple jersey. We must all join in post-racial bipartisan bliss. The media must report only the glorious Hope&Changery in properly reverent terms while the masses engage in goodthink.

And still... it will never be enough for them.

Feeling Insulted

Sigh....

I'm feeling insulted on a regular basis, and it's really beginning to piss me off.

I am against the current health care proposals. I agree completely that there are problems that need to be fixed. I think every American knows that the system needs to be improved, and most of us think ideally that all Americans should have access to medical care when we need it. But there isn't one proposal that I support completely, and at least one that I am vehemently opposed to. I figure, you don't fix a broken mirror with a hammer.

So... Now we must ask why, right? Why, oh why, can't I see that I am wrong? Don't I realize that these people know what is best for me and are going to do this for my own good? Clearly, there is something wrong with my mind-upbringing-character-soul-intelligence-

Do you see where I'm going with this?

Every day of my life, I get to be insulted. I read in the paper that I'm a racist. I see on the news that I'm an "evilmonger" (whatever the hell that means). Certain blogs have diagnosed me as clinically insane, borderline retarded or both. I learn on the radio that I am a corporate shill, and a zombie spellbound by right-wing commentators. I also have been made aware that I wasn't raised right, I'm not raising my own kids right, and the part of the country where I have always lived only matters to the elected muckety-mucks when they need some poor folks to parade around as evidence they need to do even more good deeds!

Of course, none of this is directed at me personally. And if I were to call any one of these Congress MEMBERS on it, I'm sure that would be their explanation. Why, they don't actually mean ME. Just those other people who - you know - think the exact same way I do.

Well, I'm sick of it.

I am not a racist. It's disgusting that we live in a time when a person feels they have to make such a statement. I am deeply offended every time I hear or read that my views are based on race. Skin color is, by definition, superficial. I don't judge people based on their melanin level, and it infuriates me that anyone would imply that because my own skin is fair my thoughts are not.

I am not an evilmonger. I'm still not even certain what that word means - or if it IS a word.

I am not stupid. I don't need those with a priviledged education to think for me. I'm tired of smarmy, condescending elitists talking down to ordinary people as if we were half-witted toddlers in need of competent care. And I'm at least relatively sure that I'm not insane.

I am not getting paid (unfortunately) by any corporations or insurance insiders.

I am not a ditto-head. Something else I'm not certain is a real word. I don't buy into conspiracy theories. I am not brainwashed by talk radio. Unless I've been so thoroughly programmed that I've forgotten I was programmed.

I am not a card-carrying member of The Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy. Independent, so I am.

So that means I am being insulted on a regular basis even though I'm more likely to be persuaded by a reasonable argument. Since I don't give a rip about party loyalty, my decisions will be made based on what seems most rational and logical to me in any given issue.

I'll tell you this: I am opposed to the health care reform as currently proposed based on the merits and flaws I see. Alienating me and pissing me off right now is NOT the way to convince me that this nightmare is in my best interests, and I've just about had it with those who seem to think they can verbally bully me into submission. I'm sick to death of being insulted EVERY SINGLE DAY. I will remember this complete lack of civility, manners and mature dialogue for many elections to come. We pay these people to insult us? No more. Not only will I personally vote against anyone I can who talks to their employers so disrespectfully, I will work hard to bring others to my way of thinking.

And I won't do it by insulting anyone.

Backfire!

You know, I'm not a Glenn Beck fan.

I listen occasionally, take in a sample, because I try to catch as much news and opinion from both the right and left as I can. And Beck is more than a little crazy. Oh, he's entertaining. But he's crazy.

That said, I have to admit I found myself cheering for him this morning. In an unbridled attempt to silence dissent and drown out his opinions (which I may not agree with, but feel he's entitled to...) the far left has been promoting boycotts, writing his advertisers and generally trying to hound one of their fellow Americans into unemployment.

Well, it worked! Another American is out of work this morning. Only, OOPS, wrong guy! Instead of Glenn Beck resigning his position, it's Van Jones.

Frankly, I find this colossal backfire hilarious!

This morning, I surfed the news sites. You have one side gleefully declaring victory. You can almost hear the stadium chant of :"Nananana heyheyhey... Goodbye!" On the OTHER side, you have the hand-wringing declarations of victimhood.

Now, for the record, it's not necessarily Van Jones' resignation that has me grinning this morning. It's the glaring hypocrisy. It's the sense (once again) of "Well, when WE do it, it's DIFFERENT because we're the good guys!" It's the annoying, and frankly offensive, mindset that says a particular action from one side is patriotic, and the same action from the other side is unfair.

And it's also this: Glenn Beck (and Rush Limbaugh, Michelle Malkin, Sean Hannity, and everyone else the far left would like to silence permanently) are political commentators. Much as some like to say these folks set policy, they do NOT. They are observers and reporters, and are entitled to say things other people find objectionable.

Van Jones was a member of the administration, albeit in a roundabout "Czar" position. That makes Jones' statements and history relevant in a different way - he DID have a voice in shaping policy. And that makes him answerable to all of us. If he wants to write a blog, get on the radio, or become a talking head on TV, I support his right to believe and say whatever he likes.

See, that's how it's SUPPOSED to work. If someone says something you disagree with you can debate, try to convince, or even outright argue -- all while respecting their right to believe what they said. The minute you begin a witch hunt to silence opposition, you are IN THE WRONG.

I'd rather we could all remember that rights are for all, and return a sense of civility to national debate. Short of that, I'll just keep enjoying it when one side or the other tries to force the issue, and it blow up in their face.