Stop This Whole “Helping the Enemy” Crap!

Could we please cut the crap with this whole "helping the enemy" nonsense?

Apparently, every time you criticize something the Bushies do in Iraq, you’re "helping the enemy. The latest victim of these absurd allegations is that well-known troop-hater, Senator Hillary Clinton.

Link: Clinton Hits Back at Pentagon Official – The Huffington Post.

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton hit back Friday at a Pentagon aide who charged that her questions about Iraq withdrawal planning have the effect of helping the enemy _ calling the accusation a spurious dodge of a serious issue.

Clinton, the Democratic frontrunner for president, had asked the Pentagon to detail how it is planning for the eventual withdrawal of U.S. military forces from Iraq. She first raised the issue in May, pointing out that whenever troops leave, it will be no simple task to transport the people, equipment, and vehicles out of Iraq, possibly through hostile territory.

Eric Edelman, the Defense Department’s undersecretary for policy, offered a sharply-worded response, saying such discussions boost the enemy.

"Premature and public discussion of the withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq reinforces enemy propaganda that the United States will abandon its allies in Iraq, much as we are perceived to have done in Vietnam, Lebanon and Somalia," Edelman wrote. His tough language in a letter obtained Thursday was surprising in part because it came in correspondence with a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, which has oversight of the Pentagon.

Excuse me, Eric, but it’s actually impossible for ANYONE to help the enemy, or ‘reinforce enemy propaganda." Can you guess why, Eric? I’ll give you a bunch of reasons, but let’s start with one basic FACT. (I know you Bushies are allergic to them, but here goes, anyway.)


Yes, there are elements of al Qaeda in Iraq right now, but the fact of the matter is, we are not actually in Iraq, fighting a war against an actual enemy. we won the war four years ago, remember, Eric? Our goal was supposedly to oust Saddam, get rid of WMDs and install a democracy. We did that, right?

We are not fighting a war; we are an occupying force.

So, who’s the "enemy" in an occupation, exactly? Again, I acknowledge that there are a few scattered al Qaeda terrorists over there, but they are not the bulk of the problem. In fact, both Sunnis and Shiites have expressed a desire to get rid of al waeda, and they blame us for them being there in the first place.

But there are other reasons that Hillary Clinton’s speaking out against this occupation, and demanding a withdrawal probably isn’t emboldening anyone. First of all, most Iraqis don’t have access to electricity most of the day, so I’m gonna kind of doubt that they’re sitting there watching C-SPAN. Second, most Iraqis want us the hell out of there, so it’s actually more likely that Iraqis would leave us alone once they found out we were withdrawing. Third, they don’t see us as the "enemy;" we’re simply in the way of their civil war.

To give you an idea, what we’re doing in Iraq is the equivalent of standing on the street corner during a firefight between Crips and Bloods on a downtown street. If you’re hit by gunfire, is it because your enemies shot you, or because you’re standing in the middle of a firefight.

All of this anti-war talk is, however, emboldening someone. It’s emboldening the troops. Talking about ending this and going home actually reminds the troops that we do care about them. If you really care about our soldiers, then you have to be for bringing them home. There is no more for them to do over there; bring them home to protect this country against terrorists, for a change.

That’s right, folks; when we talk about ending this thing and bringing the troops home, the troops feel better. We’re fighting for them, not the wingnuts who want to leave them in harm’s way…


Valerie Plame Again Gets Hosed: This Time by a Bush/Starr Judge

The dismissal of
Valerie Plame’s lawsuit is an absolute travesty of justice, and it’s an example
of a new trend right wing have begun to use, which I’ll discuss later on in my


DC District Court
Judge John D Bates, first of all, is a Bush appointee, an obvious reward for
his work as pornographer Ken Starr’s deputy on the "Whitewater"
investigation for two years. He was also appointed by Chief Justice Roberts to
the FISA court — you know, the one Bush bypassed so that he could do his
spying in secret. But you know; I always live in hope that even a right wing
jurist can put aside his partisanship and rule based on the law.


I’m beginning to lose


This is the basic
reason Judge Bates
gave for granting the dismissal:


the reasons explained below, the Court finds that, under controlling Supreme
Court precedent,
special factors — particularly the remedial scheme established by Congress in
the Privacy
Act — counsel against the recognition of an implied damages remedy for
plaintiffs’ constitutional
claims. The Court also finds that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction over the
tort claim
because plaintiffs have not exhausted their administrative remedies under the
Federal Tort Claims
Act, which is the proper, and exclusive, avenue for relief on such a claim.


Essentially, what
Judge Bates (no jokes about his name, now) is saying is that the Bushies who
leaked Valerie Plame’s name to the press, were acting within the scope of the
duties of their job. Yes, folks, you read that right; because national security
and intelligence is within the scope of the duties of the people working in the
White House, they are immune from liability, according to this twit. (Go ahead,
now you can call him "master"; you know you want to.)


The job of the people
in the White House is to protect national security, and to protect those men
and women working on national service matters for this country. That is their


Now, if a doctor
operates on the wrong arm, or a lawyer screws up a case, they can be sued into
the next life. But for some reason, a bunch of politicians can disclose
classified information at will, and according to this judge, there is nothing
anyone can do about it, because they have discretion, as part of their job, to
do what they want with regard to national security.


But we’re not talking
about acting within the scope of their job. We’re talking about working OUTSIDE
the scope of their job. We’re talking about undermining the very country whose
Constitution they swore to uphold and defend. That is the government equivalent
to a worker for a large corporation giving away corporate secrets to a rival.
If there was a case before Bates in which a worker for AT&T was handing
proprietary information over to Verizon, I wonder if Bates would then say it’s
"within the scope of their employment?" Bates tries to make that
stupid claim by citing the Federal Tort Claims Act, but this is a load of crap.
The purpose of the FCTA is to protect federal employees from liability for
discretionary functions. Specifically, the FCTA bars claims "based upon
the exercise or performance or the failure to exercise or perform a
discretionary function or duty on the part of a federal agency or an employee
of the Government, whether or not the discretion involved be abused." (28
U.S.C. S 2680(a).


The problem is, the
actions cited in the Wilsons’ complaint is not based upon either the exercise
or failure to exercise a discretionary function. What they did to the Wilsons
was a politically charged smear campaign, and they purposely outed a covert CIA
agent, and compromised an operation into finding WMDs in Iran. What did the
Bushies either do, or fail to do, in this case, that was part of their
"discretionary function"? Is outing covert agents part of their job
description? No, not really. So, what discretionary function did they fail to
do. Nothing, of course. By purposely outing the agent, it can’t be said that
they didn’t protect her. For Chrissakes, how far do you go with that avoidance
of responsibility? That’s a hell of a defense for a lot of criminals, isn’t it?
"Oh, well officer, you can’t arrest me, because I’m her husband, and by
shooting her, I simply failed to protect her…"


Face it; Judge Bates
is making stuff up, because he’s desperate to protect his buddies in the Bush
Administration. There’s no other explanation.


There’s another aspect
of this that bothers the hell out of me.


Have you noticed that
right wing judges, especially the Bush appointees, are increasingly choosing
not to rule in cases, but are instead denying standing to those who bring suit.
In this case, Bates’ opinion contains all sorts of clues about how he would
have ruled had the case gone forward; there is a significant bias in the way he
lays out the case. But he lacks the courage of his convictions, as well as the
courage to allow a jury to hear the case and decide for themselves. So, instead
of a ruling, he simply dismisses the case and claims a lack of standing.


This happened another
time, in the case recently before the Sixth Circuit, that made the absurd claim
that those who were likely being spied upon secretly by the federal government,
can’t have standing to sue, because they can’t prove
the government spied on them. Even though the government itself said it did.


This is the trend,
folks. These idiots don’t have the courage of their convictions, so instead of
ruling on difficult subjects (I mean, who wants to be the judge who ruled
against the CIA agent that was purposely outed by the Vice President, right?
And who in their right mind would want to be the judge who ruled that of course
the president has the power to conduct a secret domestic spying program. True
to form, Bush has chosen for the bench a bunch of cowards, just like him.


Tucker! Man’s Man! Spirit Fingers! Jazz Hands!

From the
July 17 edition
of MSNBC’s Tucker (from Media Matters):Tucker3

CARLSON: Speaking of
made up, Mitt Romney — 300 dollars for a make up company called Hidden Beauty.
I would mock him, but I wear makeup for a living, so that would be hypocritical,
so I’m not going to.

Can we please stop this bullshit with the double standards?

I mean, what is it with this idiot, anyway? He’s always referring to Obama with terms like "wuss," and he’s always insinuating crap about Edwards because of his $400 haircut. Could we, at some point, actually discuss the issues?

And may I say, I don’t think it’s all that credible for Tucker Carlson to be commenting onTucker2_2
another’s manhood.

Look at these pictures, will you? This guy doesn’t exactly strike you as someone who could play linebacker for the Broncos, you know?

And Tucker; you not only wear make up for a living, you also get your hair cut and groomed, and probably at a cost at least comparable to the $400 Edwards paid.

Just cut the crap, and start talking about politics if you’re going to pass yourself off as a pundit, will you?


A federal judge has dismissed a lawsuit by outed spy Valerie Plame Wilson and
her husband against Vice President Dick Cheney and other top Bush administration

A judge threw out the lawsuit by ex-spy
Valerie Plame Wilson and husband Joseph Wilson.

Plame had accused members of the Bush administration of leaking her

U.S. District Judge John Bates ruled that the lawsuit raises "important
questions relating to the propriety of actions undertaken by our highest
government officials" — but in a 41-page decision, Bates found the Wilsons
failed to show the case belongs in federal court.

Valerie Wilson’s identity as a CIA operative was exposed in July 2003 after
her husband, former U.S. ambassador Joseph Wilson, publicly challenged a key
argument in the Bush administration’s case for the invasion of Iraq.

The exposure led to a criminal probe that led to the conviction in March of
Cheney’s former chief of staff, Lewis "Scooter" Libby, on charges of perjury,
obstruction of justice and lying to federal agents investigating the leak.

Here’s the opinion, folks… this is outrageous…

This moronic judge actually opined that, apparently, the White House’s leak was part of their official duties….

NOW do you think it’s time to take back this country??

How Can Anyone NOT Impeach These People?

Executive Order: Blocking Property of Certain Persons Who Threaten Stabilization Efforts in Iraq

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and
the laws of the United States of America, including the International
Emergency Economic Powers Act, as amended (50 U.S.C. 1701 et
seq.)(IEEPA), the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1601 et
seq.)(NEA), and section 301 of title 3, United States Code,

I, GEORGE W. BUSH, President of the United States of America, find
that, due to the unusual and extraordinary threat to the national
security and foreign policy of the United States posed by acts of
violence threatening the peace and stability of Iraq and undermining
efforts to promote economic reconstruction and political reform in Iraq
and to provide humanitarian assistance to the Iraqi people, it is in the
interests of the United States to take additional steps with respect to
the national emergency declared in Executive Order 13303 of May 22,
2003, and expanded in Executive Order 13315 of August 28, 2003, and
relied upon for additional steps taken in Executive Order 13350 of July
29, 2004, and Executive Order 13364 of November 29, 2004.  I hereby

Section 1.  (a)  Except to the extent provided in section
203(b)(1), (3), and (4) of IEEPA (50 U.S.C. 1702(b)(1), (3), and (4)),
or in regulations, orders, directives, or licenses that may be issued
pursuant to this order, and notwithstanding any contract entered into or
any license or permit granted prior to the date of this order, all
property and interests in property of the following persons, that are in
the United States, that hereafter come within the United States, or that
are or hereafter come within the possession or control of United States
persons, are blocked and may not be transferred, paid, exported,

withdrawn, or otherwise dealt in:  any person determined by the
Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Secretary of State
and the Secretary of Defense,

(i)  to have committed, or to pose a significant risk of committing, an
act or acts of violence that have the purpose or effect of:

(A)  threatening the peace or stability of Iraq or the Government of
Iraq; or

(B)  undermining efforts to promote economic reconstruction and
political reform in Iraq or to provide humanitarian assistance to the
Iraqi people;

(ii)  to have materially assisted, sponsored, or provided financial,
material, logistical, or technical support for, or goods or services in
support of, such an act or acts of violence or any person whose property
and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this order; or

(iii)  to be owned or controlled by, or to have acted or purported to
act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, any person whose
property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this order.

(b)  The prohibitions in subsection (a) of this section include,
but are not limited to, (i) the making of any contribution or provision
of funds, goods, or services by, to, or for the benefit of any person
whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this
order, and (ii) the

receipt of any contribution or provision of funds, goods, or services
from any such person.

Sec. 2.  (a)  Any transaction by a United States person or within
the United States that evades or avoids, has the purpose

of evading or avoiding, or attempts to violate any of the prohibitions
set forth in this order is prohibited.

(b)  Any conspiracy formed to violate any of the prohibitions set
forth in this order is prohibited.

Sec. 3.  For purposes of this order:

(a)  the term "person" means an individual or entity;

(b)  the term "entity" means a partnership, association, trust,
joint venture, corporation, group, subgroup, or other organization; and

(c)  the term "United States person" means any United States
citizen, permanent resident alien, entity organized under the laws of
the United States or any jurisdiction within the United States
(including foreign branches), or any person in the United States.

Sec. 4.  I hereby determine that the making of donations of the
type specified in section 203(b)(2) of IEEPA (50 U.S.C. 1702(b)(2)) by,
to, or for the benefit of, any person whose property and interests in
property are blocked pursuant to this order would seriously impair my
ability to deal with the national emergency declared in Executive Order
13303 and expanded in Executive Order 13315, and I hereby prohibit such
donations as provided by section 1 of this order.

Sec. 5.  For those persons whose property and interests in property
are blocked pursuant to this order who might have a constitutional
presence in the United States, I find that, because of the ability to
transfer funds or other assets

instantaneously, prior notice to such persons of measures to be taken
pursuant to this order would render these measures ineffectual.  I
therefore determine that for these measures to be effective in
addressing the national emergency declared in Executive Order 13303 and
expanded in Executive Order 13315, there need be no prior notice of a
listing or determination made pursuant to section 1(a) of this order.

Sec. 6.  The Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the
Secretary of State and the Secretary of Defense, is hereby authorized to
take such actions, including the promulgation of rules and regulations,
and to employ all powers granted to the President by IEEPA as may be
necessary to carry out the purposes of this order.  The Secretary of the
Treasury may redelegate any of these functions to other officers and
agencies of the United States Government, consistent with applicable
law.  All agencies of the United States Government are hereby directed
to take all appropriate measures within their authority to carry out the
provisions of this order and, where appropriate, to advise the Secretary
of the Treasury in a timely manner of the measures taken.

Sec. 7.  Nothing in this order is intended to affect the continued
effectiveness of any rules, regulations, orders, licenses, or other
forms of administrative action issued, taken, or continued in effect
heretofore or hereafter under 31 C.F.R. chapter V, except as expressly
terminated, modified, or suspended by or pursuant to this order.

Sec. 8.  This order is not intended to, and does not, create any
right, benefit, or privilege, substantive or procedural, enforceable at
law or in equity by any party against the United States, its
departments, agencies, instrumentalities, or entities, its officers or
employees, or any other person.



July 17, 2007.

Folks, what this means, in a nutshell, is that George W. Bush has decided that he can suspend the Constitution at will, and that there is some sort of "emergency" happening inside this country as a result of the Iraq War. Apparently, this "emergency"  is so severe, that Bush feels the need to bypass the court system, and let the Treasury Secretary, and he and Condi decide, unilaterally, who should be targeted, and who should have everything they own taken away.

No one in his or her right mind could possibly not see anything impeachable in this thing.

No Haircuts, No Makeup… How About Iraq, Health Care and the Environment?

Okay, can we all agree that rich people running for president spending a lot for grooming is kind of a non-issue?

From CBS News:

Republican Mitt Romney’s surge to the top of the polls in Iowa and New Hampshire is unquestionably good for his presidential hopes, but by rising to the top so early, it’s also left him with a big target on his back — and it looks like his opponents are now taking aim.

Taking a page from Karl Rove’s playbook, two charges waged against Romney this week target two of his supposed strengths: His anchorman-like looks and his squeaky-clean family values. When the Romney campaign released its full second-quarter spending report a few days ago, it included a $300 charge for makeup applied at a California beauty salon — echoing the story of John Edwards’ $400 haircuts. And like Edwards, Romney might soon see the "pretty boy" label start to stick.

Seriously, folks, this doesn’t matter a bit, whether it’s Edwards’ $400 haircuts, or Mitt’s $300 make up job. I don’t give a rat’s ass if they get manicures and pedicures every other day. I want to know if they can fix the goddamn mess Bush is going to leave. I’m sure Romney can’t, but it’s not because he’s a wusswho needs $300 in makeup to look good.

Please, news media… let’s concentrate on issues and substance. Leave the bullshit to Fox Noise Channel.

Hey… wonder if this will cause Hannity to stop bringing the $400 haircut up every single night?

Nahh… he’s not very bright.

Don’t Blame the Democrats

See, this is the problem, folks. Democrats simply do not have the votes to get anything Senate Republicans don’t want to go to the floor.Congress

Link: ABC News: Senate Scuttles Troop Withdrawal Bill.

Senate Republicans on Wednesday scuttled a Democratic proposal ordering troop withdrawals from Iraq in a showdown that capped an all-night debate on the war.

The 52-47 vote fell short of the 60 votes needed to cut off debate under Senate rules. It was a sound defeat for Democrats who say the U.S. military campaign, in its fifth year and requiring 158,000 troops, cannot tame the sectarian violence in Iraq.

This does not mean we can’t do anything, or that we are helpless. What it means is that we have to work harder and harder to create a climate in which at least eight more Republicans have no choice but to stop blocking these bills. We have to get out there and write and write and write people in Congress, post on every web site you can think of, write letters to the editor, and march if you can.

The only chance we have to end this war is by breaking the GOP’s political will, and the only way to do that is to make it crystal clear that they have no choice but to end this thing. Get out, get active…

And libs, stop whining… it’s our fault the Democrats are in this position in the first place…


Michael Vick Reflects Us

If you want to see where we have come after 40 years of Republican rule, the Michael Vick case is more emblematic than you might think. Vick and his buddies apparently were able to do this sort of thing for many years before they were caught. For so many years, no one saw a thing…

Before my rant, here are some little snippets from ABC News: NFL Star Sacked in Dogfight Probe.

Atlanta Falcons star quarterback Michael Vick has been indicted by a federal grand jury for allegedly participating in a dog fighting ring.


Dog owners reportedly brought their animals from the Carolinas,
Maryland, New York, Texas, Alabama and other states to compete in the
illegal matches. The owner of the winning dog would receive a cash
prize. Those purses ranged from hundreds to thousands of dollars.
Spectators and other dog owners were also allowed to bet on the fights.

But the dogs involved did not receive prize fighter treatment.
Prosecutors alleged that the losing dogs were sometimes executed —
drowned, hanged, shot or electrocuted.

One female pit bull was entered into a match around March 2003.
"The purse for the dog fight was established at approximately 13,000
[dollars] per side, for a total of approximately 26,000," the
indictment stated.

The Bad Newz Kennels dog, however, lost the fight. "Peace, after
consulting with Vick about the losing female pit bull’s condition,
executed the losing dog by wetting the dog down with water and
electrocuting the animal," the indictment stated.

Dogs that were found during training sessions to be poor fighters were sometimes put to death as well.

One of those training sessions took place in April 2007,
according to officials. Eight dogs that didn’t make the cut following
that meeting were allegedly "executed" by Peace, Phillips and Vick "by
various methods, including hanging, drowning , and slamming at least
one dog’s body to the ground."

You know, there is nothing more disgusting to me than when the powerful abuse and terrorize the helpless, and this includes animals, not just humans.

I know this will sound odd, but I think this is what’s wrong with our country, honestly. We don’t think about the sick, so we don’t have universal health care. We don’t think about the poor, so we have homeless families, and families sharing their dangerous homes with rats and broken wires. We don’t think about those who can’t help themselves, so we have addled people walking the streets pushing shopping carts full of junk and talking to people who aren’t there. We don’t think about the rights of the average person, so we sit by, as Bush and his buddies take apart the Constitution. We don’t think the government will ever do us any harm, so we don’t really care about the Patriot Act, or spying programs. We don’t think about the cruelty that surrounds us every day, so Bush gets away with endorsing torture and false imprisonment of humans, and people like Michael Vick (allegedly) get to torture and kill poor, defenseless animals for years, before someone finally stepped in and said something.

Get your head out of your own life for a moment, and look around you, and see what this country is becoming, as you sit there in your little world, pondering only those things that you feel affect you in your life, like Paris Hilton and Plasma televisions;

We have become a nation that starts wars with countries that are no threat.

We have become a nation that seems to prefer war over peace.

We have become a nation in which the majority of people has ceded its power to a small cabal of rich.

We have become a nation that no longer looks at the lesser of us as humans who need a hand, but rather as a "drain on the economy" that needs to be plugged up.

We have become a nation in which our leadership can do anything it wants, be as corrupt as it wants, and can disregard the law whenever they like, simply by scaring us into believing Bogeymen want to kill us.

We have become a nation that fosters bigotry, rather than fights it. We no longer look at intolerance as a cause to be faught. Instead, we look at tolerance as an irritant, that makes it more difficult to make money.

We have become a nation in which entertainment has become more important  than information, and we have become  incurious as a result.

We need a movement, folks. Not an anti-war movement, or a pro-health care movement, but a "thought revolution." It’s not that we don’t care; it’s that we don’t think about things.

It’s time we started…

Michael Weiner-Savage Viciously Attacks Congressman Based on Religion

One more time; I will never excuse Don Imus’ remarks Savage
with regard to a group of young ladies playing basketball. But come on, folks!

Why is Imus singled out for his racist outburst, when Weiner-Savage engages in this kind of crap damned near every night; at least a few times a week.

His latest, courtesy of  Media Matters, manages to combine racism with religious bigotry that certainly wouldn’t be allowed when aimed at a Christian.

At issue was a recent speech
given by Rep. Keith Ellison, who just happens to be Muslim, to Atheists for
Human Rights (I can see wingnut heads spinning over the mere existence of such a group. How could an atheist possibly be in favor of human rights?)  The speech drew controversy, when he compared the Bush Administration’s response to the September 11 terrorist attacks (after Bush shit himself and ran away for a while, that is) with Hitler’s power grab after the Reichstag fires.  "After the Reichstag was burned, they blamed the Communists for it,
and it put the leader of that country in a position where he could basically
have authority to do whatever he wanted," Ellison said.

Now, I can see where uneducated wingnuts would see that comparison and be up in arms. Compare their hero to Hitler? How could anyone do that? Well, start with the Patriot Act, then the signing statements, the unauthorized spying on Americans, the secret prison network, the secret torture, holding prisoners indefinitely, without charges or counsel… yeah, I see there point; how could anyone call that a power grab, right?

So, Weiner-Savage responded with the following.

    How about the former member of the Nation of Islam who pretended he was reformed, Keith Ellison, Democrat in Minnesota, who ran for office, and he was elected by all the good liberals, including Jewish liberals, in Minnesota who thought he was going to be, "Right on! All power to the people. Bring it down, Keith. Right on, all power to the people. We’re behind you, man. Right on!"

So now Keith Ellison now calls Bush Hitler, thereby degrading what was done to the people by Hitler and diminishing what was done to the people by Hitler, and of course the "All-power-to-the-people-right-on" people don’t even know who Keith Ellison is. But he spoke at the Atheists for Human Rights organization. Now here’s a devout Muslim convert who’s speaking to Atheists for Human Rights. Now what would a devout Muslim radical have in common with atheists? Answer: hatred of Christianity and hatred of Jews. I’ll be right back.

Okay, let’s skip the part where he claims Ellison "call(ed) Bush Hitler," which is completely untrue, and Ellison "diminishing what was done to the people," which is also a complete fabrication. He discussed how Hitler consolidated as much power as possible after the Reichstags fires, which was true! See my above examples, and add to that the fact that Bush refuses to answer to the rule of law on anything. Sound familiar? Heil Dubya, perhaps? He’s not talking about the later Hitler, where he started using that power to exterminate people; he’s talking about the time when the German people sat back and let Hitler take all of the power for himself, and not have to answer to anyone.

So Weiner-Savage has proven he’s profoundly stupid. That’s not good enough for right wing radio listeners, apparently; he has to throw them some other bigoted red meat.

So, look at the religious bigotry in the above. First, he doubts Ellison’s conversion. This, from a guy who was once a flaming liberal, and about whom rumors fly with regard to his, um, possible "friendship" with Allen Ginsberg. Seriously; what is it about radical leftists who later become radical rightists, that they can change 180 degrees, but if someone else changes 20 degrees, they’re somehow suspect?

But the worst aspect of this, Weiner-Savage, who is apparently a Jew headed for Hell, if I were guessing, actually assumes that all Muslims and all atheists hate Christians and Jews. Just assumes that their religion makes them anti-Semitic.

Keith Ellison is not a radical Muslim, he’s Muslim. He’s speaking about history, not preaching hatred. The only radical here, speaking against religion in a bigoted way, is Weiner-Savage. Muslims and atheists don’t automatically hate anyone because of their religion.

So, what’s the Weiner’s excuse?