Yet Another Conservative Opines on Judicial Assassination

From The Washington Post:

Lawyer-author Edwin Vieira told the gathering that [Supreme Court Justice Anthony M.] Kennedy should be impeached because his philosophy, evidenced in his opinion striking down an anti-sodomy statute, "upholds Marxist, Leninist, satanic principles drawn from foreign law."

Ominously, Vieira continued by saying his "bottom line" for dealing with the Supreme Court comes from Joseph Stalin. "He had a slogan, and it worked very well for him, whenever he ran into difficulty: 'no man, no problem,' " Vieira said.

[...] The conference was organized during the height of the Schiavo controversy by a new group, the Judeo-Christian Council for Constitutional Restoration. This was no collection of fringe characters. The two-day program listed two House members; aides to two senators; representatives from the Family Research Council and Concerned Women for America; conservative activists Alan Keyes and Morton C. Blackwell; the lawyer for Terri Schiavo's parents; Alabama's "Ten Commandments" judge, Roy Moore; and DeLay, who canceled to attend the pope's funeral.

As Milbank brightly points out, the full Stalin quote is "Death solves all problems: no man, no problem."

Edwin Vieira has made a name for himself decrying the unconstitutionality of paper money, among other things. So ya know he's not f---ing nuts or anything.

At this point, it seems prominent batshit-crazy conservatives are running to outdo themselves in just how suggestively they can muse over the murder of federal judges they don't like. Seriously, WTF? Is this a contest I don't know about? Reading up on the guest list for this conference, I am for no apparent reason reminded of a particular South Park episode depicting hooded members of a Klan rally playing "what's the funniest thing you've got on under your robe?"

Does the conservative who can get closest to openly endorsing judicial assassinations without getting dragged off in handcuffs get to take home a pie or something?

(Via Atrios)

Update [2005-4-9 22:42:53 by Hunter]: Point of note, I am sorry if the 'pie' reference detracted from the seriousness of this post, but piteous humor is the only thing keeping me from throwing furniture through my front window. Here's a guy who stood up in the middle of a conference and approvingly cited Stalin's executions as a good "bottom line" for dealing with troublesome Supreme Court judges. Spare me the sanctimonious, prissy crap, conservative apologists. These guys know what they're saying. And God help you if one of these murders actually takes place.

•  video

  Can someone please put together a 30 sec and a 60 sec clip show of these losers that can be turned into a nice ad?

  by captainebo on Sat Apr 09, 2005 at 07:04:25 PM PDT

  •  Videos are good

    But after F9/11 I realized it is the Democratic Party's complicity that is our biggest obstacle.

    If our opposition leaders asked us to take to the streets the world would stand still.

    But so would the US economy so they remain silent.

    Nobody wants to riot. They just want the Democrats to help create a critical mass opposing this administration.

    I truly believe that the Democrats are afraid to let the genie out of the bottle because they know that once we start to clean house we might just get rid of them as well.

    I also think elite Dem's believe in American Hegemony and exercising power to continue the economic oppression worldwide necessary to continue the 'American way of Life'.

    by AnonymousArmy on Sat Apr 09, 2005 at 07:17:14 PM PDT

    •  Well actually...

      ... the economic oppression worldwide [is] necessary to continue the 'American way of Life'.

      Isn't it?  The USA uses a pretty hefty chunk of the worlds resources with a fraction of its population.   The current iteration of the "American Way of Life" is dependant on massive consumption of resources.  Without finding another method of maintaining the availability of those resources, they have little choice but to continue on their current path.

      Unless, of course, the 'American Way of Life' gets modified to reduce consumption, but of course we know that's plain silly.  After 9/11, Beloved Leader said the best thing we could do to fight terrorism was go shopping, and who are we to question a divinely appointed President?

      Ow my head hurts now...
      

      by Ugluks Flea on Sat Apr 09, 2005 at 08:42:46 PM PDT

      •  Although I'm obviously no expert

        I think I should have put a bracket around (worldwide).

        I thought two commas, worldwide, might work.

        I even considered -worldwide-.

        But I hit post after pasting it from the speel cheecker forgetting to make a decision ;)
        

        by AnonymousArmy on Sat Apr 09, 2005 at 11:29:48 PM PDT

    •  Oh for Christ's sake

      I am so SICK of this.  The Senate Democrats have threatened to shut the Senate down if the Republicans pass the nuclear option.  They speak out against this every damn day.  They have press conferences.  They had a demonstration out in front of the Supreme Court.  But none of that is every good enough for those who continually claim that the Dems do NOTHING.  What the fuck do you want them to do?

      As for Supreme Court decisions being worth nothing, here's a legal clue:  If the Government is not complying with the Court's order, then the LAWYER is supposed to go back to Court and move for contempt. If she's not getting access to her client, her remedy is to go to Court and YELL LOUDLY by making a motion for contempt.

      by Mary Julia on Sat Apr 09, 2005 at 09:21:42 PM PDT

      •  Well Mary Julia

        She has been back to Court dozens of time.So far 155 of the over 550 "detainees" as young as 9 FUCKING YRS OLD have a lawyer.The administation holds all prisoner incognito andonly through traveling around the world,talking to fakilies with relitives "disappeared" and GUESSING the names of the detainees can they get access to them.NO LIST HAS YET BEEN PROVIDED EVVEN AFTER THE SUPREME COURT RULING.

        by ctkeith on Sat Apr 09, 2005 at 09:37:02 PM PDT

        •  What the Supreme Court

          decided was that certain habeas corpus petitions should not be dismissed. THAT IS ALL they decided.  They do not order lists of detainees to be produced.  You really don't understand the law here.

          Her habeas corpus petition on behalf of her client was allowed to continue in the Federal District COurt, rather than being dismissed. But don't complain about the Supreme Court not doing its job:  The Supreme Court doesn't HOLD pewople in contempt, for God's sake.  They are an APPEALS court.  Trial courts do that.

          All I ask is that you KNOW what you are talking about before you give an opinion.  And you don't.

          by Mary Julia on Sat Apr 09, 2005 at 10:26:13 PM PDT

          •  and shouldn't that be taken to mean that All

            the "detainees"in guantanomo have a right to be represented by a lawyer and access to the courts(even If that means military tribunals).As of today 155 of them do but when visited by a lawyer(only when the military agrees) the lawyers are given only 24 hrs.to convince the detainee to trust them enough to allw them to represent them.
            If you were held and tortured for 2 yrs after being kidnapped would trust anyone.

            by ctkeith on Sun Apr 10, 2005 at 07:00:53 AM PDT

      •  Irrelevant and a distraction

        from the real issue: that it's not 1945 anymore and that we no longer "earn" our shakily-dominant economic position and that all our elites benefit enormously from the Moral Clarity of American control by force of vital resources and priveleges that it doesn't actually own. Why the hell do you think so many Washington pundits signed on to the Iraq War, explicitly or not? It wasn't spreading democracy or any other crap like that. It was about maintaining a luxurious lifestyle - particularly for them! - and calling it Good and Moral. Israel certainly influenced the Liebermans and other neo-liberal Likudniks, and WWII nostalgia seems to have affected a lot of people who see too much TV and movies, but the Democrats have been nearly as involved in this bullshit as the money men Republicans. And, no, Nader has nothing to do with saying this - he's been a public menace since 1980 when he helped Reagan get in and he did an enormous amount to reduce our view of ourselves to consumers instead of citizens. You could call this Chomskyism but then we'd just be back to being ordered not to notice reality.

        by jlb on Sun Apr 10, 2005 at 05:17:55 AM PDT

        •  The Iraq War

          This isn't discussed much, especially by the pundit class, but I think the Iraq War and GWB's other policies have made America incredibly weak.

          We know that China and India are in ascendancy.  What happens if China tries to take Taiwan?  What would we be able to do?  China can look at Iraq and see how incredibly bogged down our military is in a guerilla war.  China also holds a substantial number of Treasury bonds.  What if they call in the debt, or worse stop buying and convince a substantial portion of the world to stop financing our debt?  We'll be in big trouble.

          Unlike WWII, we have outsourced a lot of our manufacturing.  If the time comes that we have to produce our own goods, it will be very difficult because we won't have the factories ready to go.  I wish Democrats would talk about how Bush's policies are making us weak, and not strong.

          by Unstable Isotope on Sun Apr 10, 2005 at 06:06:24 AM PDT

          •  Thank you!

            This is a point I have been absolutely hammering away at over the past couple years.  Far from showing strength, what I am seeing is that our nation's armed forces are much, much weaker than I had thought.  Two of our last military interventions (Gulf War I and the Kosovo air campaign: both done under international agreement and with the world's blessing...hmm, interesting, no?) were considerable successes so I thought that although this invasion was an evil idea at its core, at least it would not take too long (there no logical parallels to the campaigns I mentioned before, of course, since in Iraq 2003 we had to know how to govern the country in peacetime as well as blow it apart..).  If I were China (who have specifically built up their force structure to target American weaknesses in its naval forces) I would definitely think twice about being bullied by American militarism.

            by salsa0000 on Sun Apr 10, 2005 at 07:51:41 AM PDT

      •  Except of course when the lawyer yells loudly

        then the lawyer is charged as being in a conspiracy with whatever client that lawyer is representing.   Right now that only happens to lawyers for "drug dealers" and "terrorists".  Soon it will be the class action lawyers who have the nerve to fight product liability suits for all of the schlock that the corporations put out in the stream of commerce.  How long do you think that the lawyers will continue to work for the people if they are going to go to jail?  

        When they kill all the lawyers, then the people will suffer (although getting rid of the corporate lawyers will benefit all the people of the world)

        by TheLupo on Sun Apr 10, 2005 at 09:50:46 PM PDT

    •  I think you're right about the fear...

      ...Democrats in power have. You can see a bit of that in the way they closed ranks against Dean when he was running for president.

      by expatjourno on Sun Apr 10, 2005 at 03:47:28 AM PDT

      •  The fear

        A lot of Dems have bought the Republican narrative hook, line and sinker.  The narrative is that America doesn't like liberal policies, and that Democrats win when they adopt conservative policies.  This may have been true in the past, but the Democrats are failing to win because they haven't distinguished themselves enough from Republicans.  This is what the so-called "values" are.  We need to outline our principles and stick to them.

        by Unstable Isotope on Sun Apr 10, 2005 at 06:09:10 AM PDT

        •  Dueling Memes

          A lot of Dems have bought the Republican narrative hook, line and sinker.  The narrative is that America doesn't like liberal policies, and that Democrats win when they adopt conservative policies.  This may have been true in the past, but the Democrats are failing to win because they haven't distinguished themselves enough from Republicans.

          Yes indeed.  In fact, the most widespread perception of liberalism is that it's unprincipled and wishy-washy.  Liberals are seen not as dangerous, radical, or subversive but rather as lacking in commitment to any values whatever.  Note how Rove & Co. used the "flip-flop" meme on Kerry. Apparently this was more effective than the "Massachusetts liberal" meme which was also employed, but far less frequently.  

          by angry blue planet on Sun Apr 10, 2005 at 06:38:52 AM PDT

    •  I'd give you an 8 or a 12 if I could

      This is the real problem that we dare not mention. Thank you.

      by jlb on Sun Apr 10, 2005 at 05:06:27 AM PDT

    •  I disagree with you.

      I truly believe that the Democrats are afraid to let the genie out of the bottle because they know that once we start to clean house we might just get rid of them as well.

      I don't think it is a case of the Democrats being afraid of a general housecleaning so much as it is fear of setting off a true culture war in America where everyone has to choose sides and fight it out.

      I think that we are getting close to that right now, and it is what the social conservatives actually want. It is part desperation on their part, and part the feeling that with Bush (one of their own) in office as President this is their one last chance to win the war of Good vs. Evil for the soul of America.

      DeLay's attacks on the Judiciary, along with Senator Cornyn's similar veiled attack and the recent conference reported by Dana Millbank Washington Post and Hunter's Diary all show a gathering of the forces by the social conservatives. But the recent articles against DeLay in the WSJ, Weekly Standard, and National Review all show that the economic conservatives are appalled. We don't need to force those two groups to work together.

      The fact is that the social conservatives would lose such a war, but no one would win. I think there is a chance it could tear America apart for generations.

      But if the Democrats continue to let the social conservatives show their true colors, there will be a real lash-back against them, and the economic conservatives will have to split off or go down with them. In fact, it wouldn't surprise me to see the actions taken to remove DeLay trigger such a lash-back. Take a look at my Diary to see what I mean. Conservatives circling wagons around DeLay

      I think you can see the real attack by the Democrats against DeLay, and he is the lynch-pin of the Republican Congressional majority.

      I really think we Democrats will enjoy this next 90 or so days. You got the beer and pop corn?

      by Rick B on Sun Apr 10, 2005 at 09:44:23 AM PDT

      •  Senator Cornyn on Fox News this AM

        just sat and smirked at Chuck Schumer, was was righteously furious at what the repubs are trying to do to this country's checks and balances.

        That smug bastard Cornyn just sat and smirked and giggled. Schumer looked like he was trying to control himself.  I thought his frustration with Cornyn and Wallace, the host, was going to blow his head off.

        Bastards.

        by adigal on Sun Apr 10, 2005 at 11:15:22 AM PDT

  •  Supreme Court decisions aren't worth the paper

    they are written on.I attended a conferance last night where the woman lawyer who argued and won the supreme court decision that gave the prisoners in guantanamo the right to representation by a lawyer.The Bush administration has all but ignored it.They have admitted to Lying,moving prisoners to avoid the court order and laughed in the face of the supreme court.
    Until and unless the supreme court finds the Bush administration in Contempt and orders the Attorney general arrested they are MOOT.

    by ctkeith on Sat Apr 09, 2005 at 07:48:09 PM PDT

    •  have the courts become irrelevant

      It seems that the GOP is moving toward a direct interpretation of the Constitution. In effect, they feel that Congress alone determines constitutionality. The courts are no longer determinative in the area of the constitution.
      I'm not a student of ancient history, but this sets the stage for our own demise, a demise from within.

      by jackinthebox4 on Sun Apr 10, 2005 at 05:18:20 AM PDT

      •  Not only the congress

        Sen. Cobourn of Oklahomas cheif of staff argued on C-span that the President could Veto,By not implementing,any Supreme court decision if he felt it was unconstitutional or AGAINST THE TEACHINGS OF CHRIST.

        by ctkeith on Sun Apr 10, 2005 at 07:07:38 AM PDT

      •  Brandenburg

        Another measure of how irrelevant Supreme Court decisions have become is how blithely the lunatics ignore the Brandenburg test on limits to the freedom of speech.  These guys making threats against federal judges need to be arrested for inciting violence the second someone even tries to harm a judge.  There is an absolute line that people in a free society are not allowed to cross.  

        The only problem is, of course, that if people were going to get arrested for inflammatory remarks it wouldn't be these murder-mongers threatening judges (which is just fine for anti-American Republicans), it would be those of us posting messages here on this diary today....

        by salsa0000 on Sun Apr 10, 2005 at 07:56:26 AM PDT

•  judges

  what confuses me is it is the conservative judges they are pissed off at the most.

  by tgdonoho on Sat Apr 09, 2005 at 07:04:44 PM PDT

  •  Apostates...

    ...are worse than unbelievers.  

    by DHinMI on Sat Apr 09, 2005 at 07:05:22 PM PDT

    •  Totally.

      An unbeliever can be converted, and possibly even respected. Apostasy is a death sentence.

      Reform is the enemy of revolution.

      Hey, does anybody know any other good Stalin quotations?

      by felagund on Sat Apr 09, 2005 at 07:10:58 PM PDT

      •  His Definition of Politics

        "Who, Whom."

        by DHinMI on Sat Apr 09, 2005 at 07:12:26 PM PDT

        •  Actually Lenin

          First said politics was all about "Kto kogo?" (Who, whom)

          by sdf on Sat Apr 09, 2005 at 07:23:19 PM PDT

      •  Yeah, also appropriate to recent events

        He said "One death is a tragedy, a million deaths is a statistic."

        by sdf on Sat Apr 09, 2005 at 07:22:22 PM PDT

        •  Here, let me translate that thought

          Terri Shaivo = 1 death
          Those without health insurance = 1 million deaths
          Stalin and Delay approve.

          by Dont Just Stand There on Sat Apr 09, 2005 at 07:24:44 PM PDT

          •  Precisely (n/t)

            by sdf on Sat Apr 09, 2005 at 07:41:31 PM PDT

      •  Stalin quotes

        From Bartlett's Familiar Quotations. Link

        On the right-wing attempts to hijack the universities: "Education is a weapon whose effects depend on who holds it in his hands and at whom it is aimed."

        On the support Tom DeLay can expect from fellow Reps: "Gratitude ... is a sickness suffered by dogs."

        On Iraq: "History shows that there are no invincible armies."

        On the Pope (really): "The Pope? How many divisions has he got?"

        On the Democrats in November 2006: "To choose one's victims, to prepare one's plan minutely, to slake an implacable vengeance, and then to go to bed ... there is nothing sweeter in the world."

        -dms

        by dmsilev on Sat Apr 09, 2005 at 07:31:11 PM PDT

        •  Enough Divisions

          Too bad that Stalin wasn't alive to see that the Pope had enough divisions to bring down Stalin's vile perversion of communism.

          by freelunch on Sat Apr 09, 2005 at 07:35:43 PM PDT

          •  Gah.

            I heard quite enough about somebody other than the actual people of communist countries having "ended communism" in the Reagan hagiographies, thank-you-very-much. :-P

            http://slate.msn.com/id/2116428/
            http://slate.msn.com/id/2116443/

            by rmharman on Sat Apr 09, 2005 at 11:15:00 PM PDT

            •  Solidarity.

              I belive that the fact of a Polish Pope was a great inspiration to the Polish people and the Solidarity labor movement.  In particular the leader of the movement, Lech Walesa, was a very devout Catholic - a fact that would have puzzled Karl Marx no end.

              by Sam I Am on Sun Apr 10, 2005 at 06:25:49 AM PDT

              •  The problem is...

                I don't think anyone is suggesting the late Pope didn't help bring down Communism, especially in Poland.

                The problem is that the Republicans have been using the "Pope fought commies!" meme to try to equate "Pope" with "Republican".

                You'll notice they make him sound like a Good Cold Warrior when, in fact, his real support was for Solidarity--something which is a bit of an anathema to Republicans as i understand it.

                John Paul II's support for not just Solidarity but also other "economic justice" issues is something that has been rarely mentioned, outside NPR puzzling over why it has been mentioned so rarely.

                by Shapeshifter on Sun Apr 10, 2005 at 12:04:08 PM PDT

        •  And this by Uncle Joe Stalin:

          "The people who cast the vote decide nothing. the people who count the vote decide everything".

          For our own "leaders" and their surrogates to be quoting Stalin is a pretty good clue as to how they regard democracy, not to mention humanity in general.

          by sbj on Sat Apr 09, 2005 at 08:12:17 PM PDT

          •  That's also

            The Official State Motto of Florida I believe!

            by Dont Just Stand There on Sat Apr 09, 2005 at 08:22:27 PM PDT

            •  Florida has another distinction.

              It is a "persistently vegetative state".

              I know. I live here.

              by sbj on Sat Apr 09, 2005 at 08:34:33 PM PDT

          •  According to David Brock

            in "The Republican Noise Machine" the neo-cons have used communist tactics throughout their ascendancy ... a lot of them having been leftists at one time.

            A great book, btw ... just reading it for the first time.

            by cedubose on Sat Apr 09, 2005 at 11:52:29 PM PDT

        •  He might have been one of the biggest

          assholes in history.

          However he was often very perceptive.

          "When we hang the capitalists they will sell us the rope we use."
          

          by AnonymousArmy on Sat Apr 09, 2005 at 10:48:29 PM PDT

  •  Krazeez?? As M. Stewart would say...

    "It's a good thing"  I LOVE IT when the freaks bounce off the walls & I get to read about it because, i think, someone else is reading about it. Someone, maybe a repug, perhaps a conswervative, is thinking "WHOOAA holy fuck WHAA?" right along with me. This nutty shit points to the beginning of the end and slightly ahead of schedule i'd say.

    by sooner on Sat Apr 09, 2005 at 09:12:59 PM PDT

  •  The judges are actually conservative

    That's not the same as 'neofascist'.

    And I beleive considerably more concern should be voiced over loonies calling for the assassination of judges.

    It is likely by and by that one of their even nuttier followers will try to put the idea into effect.

    by phillies on Sat Apr 09, 2005 at 09:53:46 PM PDT

    •  Quite right

      There are a lot of conservative judges who believe firmly in the Constitution and the Rule of Law. Their issue is how the Constitution is interpreted.

      Then we have the  DeLay/Cornyn/Schafly/Vieira/Moore social conservatives who want a Biblical veto over the Constitution when they don't like the results of Rule of Law procedures. These are the folks currently talking about impeachement and even assassination of judges who they don't like and posting the Ten Commandments in courts.

      I don't think that the "Rule of Law" conservatives are going to buy into the "Bible as Law" social conservative crap.

      But neither is ever going to support Democrats, either.

      by Rick B on Sun Apr 10, 2005 at 10:02:56 AM PDT

•  He's Against Paper Money?

  Then maybe HE'S the goof who advised Bush on than Social Security trust fund stunt he did in WV last week.  

  by DHinMI on Sat Apr 09, 2005 at 07:04:55 PM PDT

  •  it's official

    the wheels are off the wagon.

    by rasbobbo on Sat Apr 09, 2005 at 07:39:52 PM PDT

    •  No that would be me

      Off the wagon...

      How can you read any of this sober?

      by IGrantius on Sat Apr 09, 2005 at 11:04:29 PM PDT

•  Anthony Kennedy is a Marxist?

  Riiiiiiiiiiight.  I'm just glad I wasn't drinking milk when I read that.

  by angryandy on Sat Apr 09, 2005 at 07:06:15 PM PDT

  •  and a Satanist too.

    How long before the next round of Salem witchcraft trials resume one wonders? And I thought that Miller's Crucible was allegory.

    by Dont Just Stand There on Sat Apr 09, 2005 at 07:13:31 PM PDT

    •  Wait for Ann Coulter

      to do the rounds making the case to give the Salem "witch hunters" another look. Revisionist historians have smeared their efforts to eradicate evil! We need more of their kind to bring the evil liberals to justice -- this time, preferably with a baseball bat.

      </panic>

      by cmlorenz on Sun Apr 10, 2005 at 05:35:45 AM PDT

  •  William Kennedy was nominated

    after Robert Bork was rejected, so he holds a special place in radical right ignominy.

    However, he also played a key role in stopping the Florida 2000 vote count. Not enough for these thugs.

    by seanflynn on Sat Apr 09, 2005 at 07:20:14 PM PDT

    •  Plus...

      ...he wrote the decisions in the Texas sodomy case and the recent ban on juvinile capital punishment.

      He also was part of the majority in Casey v PA (which affirmed Roe) and I think he supported one of the University of Michigan affirmative action cases, iirc the one concerning the law school.  

      by DHinMI on Sat Apr 09, 2005 at 07:24:43 PM PDT

      •  Juvenile capital punishment

        That seems a weird issue to put a stake in.

        by Unstable Isotope on Sun Apr 10, 2005 at 06:12:31 AM PDT

        •  Actually a Perfect Example of What the Right Hates

          Scalia was so pissed about that decision that he did something that's almost never done on the court, he read aloud his dissent.  Here's what I wrote the day of the decision:

          "In the cursory looks at the decision that have so far appeared, what seems most exciting is that Justice Anthony Kennedy, in writing the majority opinion, bases the decision strongly in terms of social science research and observations of what is cruel and unusual punishment in other nations of the world. This will surely make the strict constructionalists and other legal scholars from the Taliban school of exegesis go absolutely crazy, as apparently Scalia did. (He actually read his decision out loud, which the Justices, especially those in the minority, almost never do; I guess Zell Miller wasn't available to read it for him.) But as a matter of setting precedent, laying a foundation of comparing the use of capital punishment in the other developed countries of the world offers hope for the ultimate abolition of the death penalty."

          For the wingers, that decision is a classic example of "judicial activism."  The decision was based not only on social science research, but on a comparison to practices in other countries.  It wasn't a strict and narrow reading of the constitution and precident, and the wingers considered it a case of the SCUSA "legislating" rather than acting as a judiciary.  

          Last month Cornyn introduced a resolution stating that courts using foreign judgements, as Kennedy did in the capital punishment case, "threatens the sovereignty of the United States."  Kennedy, because of decisions like that and the TX sodomy case, is becoming the wingers' poster child for what they consider the most pernicious cases of judicial activism that have passed the court in the last couple decades.  

          by DHinMI on Sun Apr 10, 2005 at 07:12:59 AM PDT

          •  Not to mention the Geneva Conventions

            clearly the product of godless disspiative European socialists

            by mbkennel on Sun Apr 10, 2005 at 10:42:17 AM PDT

  •  Marx and Lenin were Gay? Does that make..

    Finklestein, Gannon, et. al. RED?

    by Al Rodgers on Sat Apr 09, 2005 at 07:26:23 PM PDT

    •  Mary Cheney is a Marxist, Leninist, Satanist?

      by Al Rodgers on Sat Apr 09, 2005 at 07:27:19 PM PDT

•  Stalin

  was Saddam's idol, too.

  by x on Sat Apr 09, 2005 at 07:06:37 PM PDT

•  Now they're channeling Stalin?

  They must feel pretty darn confident to do that.  Did they forget he's a communist?

  by Unstable Isotope on Sat Apr 09, 2005 at 07:08:26 PM PDT

  •  Not to mention the "Irony-is-dead" fact

    that the guy accusing Kennedy of being a Marxist-Leninist is quoting ... Stalin.

    Who's a commie now?

    by sdf on Sat Apr 09, 2005 at 07:25:31 PM PDT

  •  Maybe they think he's okay now

    since he was converted, along with Hitler, by True Father Sun Myung Moon.

    by Ugluks Flea on Sat Apr 09, 2005 at 08:51:27 PM PDT

  •  Quoting Stalin

    So, when did conservatives decide to start quoting Stalin to make their points?  Check out the diary below to find out.

    by Thomas Kalinowski on Sun Apr 10, 2005 at 06:12:08 AM PDT

•  They really have lost it

  This unceasing demand for a Khomenei style regime in Washington is simply staggering. Why not just use the clergy as judges as they do in Iran? The Wingnuts are going to levels of discourse I never would have anticipated even six months ago. As Marx said, history repeats itself, but I'm not entirely sure if what we are witnessing is farce or tragedy?

  by Dont Just Stand There on Sat Apr 09, 2005 at 07:10:22 PM PDT

  •  To them

    the only thing wrong with Iran or the Taliban is that the government was Islamic instead of Christian.

    by Unstable Isotope on Sat Apr 09, 2005 at 07:15:47 PM PDT

    •  Amen

      Indeed. The ONLY thing. And well, maybe the fact their brown and don't eat pork-rinds. But aside from that....

      by Dont Just Stand There on Sat Apr 09, 2005 at 07:19:53 PM PDT

      •  "their"....J*sus Lord

        Dumb-ass me. Drink and post. They're = THEY ARE obviously. That ought to learn me.

        by Dont Just Stand There on Sat Apr 09, 2005 at 07:22:04 PM PDT

        •  Consider my "4"

          as a reward for ~knowing~ the difference between there and they're and at least feeling guilty.

          I share your pain.

          by Rick B on Sun Apr 10, 2005 at 10:20:39 AM PDT

      •  Double AMEN to that

        by TheLupo on Sun Apr 10, 2005 at 10:24:27 PM PDT

    •  You're not the first

      person wise enough to point that out.

      As the very courageous Dr. Warren Hern of Boulder had to speak over Sean Hannity to say a few years ago, the only difference between Al-Qaida and our own right wing is 8,000 miles.

      by moiv on Sat Apr 09, 2005 at 07:58:41 PM PDT

  •  The mask of mankind

    has a teardrop.

    by c2shiningc on Sat Apr 09, 2005 at 09:02:18 PM PDT

•  Pie

  Does the conservative who can get closest to openly endorsing judicial assassinations without getting dragged off in handcuffs get to take home a pie or something?

  I don't think anyone was getting pied at that conference.  You gotta kinda speak in front mixed audiences to get pied.  Ask Bill Kristol.

  Serious question:  When was the last time any mainstream-ish liberal made even veiled threats against the safety and well-being any federal officials?

  And, fine, given that this Viera guy may not be fully representative of mainstream conservatism (though Cornyn and DeLay and probably even Schlaffly certainly are), when was the last time an out-of-mainstream liberal made those threats at a conference attended by Democratic members of Congress?

  (Leave aside for the moment that the right-wing bloviators have tried to paint Ward Churchill as mainstream, even though, as near as I can tell, not even he is calling for death to judges.)

  Anyone?

  by folkbum on Sat Apr 09, 2005 at 07:11:18 PM PDT

  •  Excellent Points

    He's probably not representative of even the near fringe of the right wing (like Schlaffly and others).  Anyone on the left but to the right of the Weathermen has avoided that kind of rhetoric since the early 1970's.  

    And people outside of the mainstream left don't even get admitted into conferences attened by liberal members of Congress.

    And I'll take your point a little further--remember when Grover Norquist--who's as central to the conservative movement as anyone alive--referred to bi-partisanship as "date rape?"  Or when he essentially called the people who fought WWII and support the New Deal communists?

    by DHinMI on Sat Apr 09, 2005 at 07:18:04 PM PDT

    •  True dat

      I've been thinking a lot about conservatives' culure of victimization (I did a diary last week):  Playing the victim worked so well to move conservative issues front and center--think about the "working the refs" strategy of those alleging liberal media bias--that they can't let it go now, depsite utter conservative control of virtually every facet of our lives.

      It also meshes perfectly with a fundamentalist Christian theology, a theology I know well from growing up in.  Satan is out to trap you at every instant, that your guard must be constantly up, and anyone--anyone who tries to get you to think for yourself or change your mind is persecuting you on a religious level, even if it's just to tell you that the earth revolves around the sun.

      So to them, threats of violence are calls, essentially for self-defense.  Threats, whether against their persons or against their world-views, require deadly force to combat.

      by folkbum on Sat Apr 09, 2005 at 07:40:55 PM PDT

  •  Yeah, it's weird

    Remember all the talk about liberals being "mean" and "angry" and "crazy" (Al Gore and Howard Dean).  A classic case of projection if I've ever seen one.

    by Unstable Isotope on Sun Apr 10, 2005 at 06:14:08 AM PDT

•  What happens if the worst happens

  and some crazed nutjub tries to hurt Kennedy or another judge?   Because I am starting to really get concerned that that is the likely next step.  I hope that security for all federal judges is stepped up.  

  by gmb on Sat Apr 09, 2005 at 07:13:23 PM PDT

  •  And who is responsible for security?

    ??

    scary thought there...

    by notcho on Sat Apr 09, 2005 at 07:29:51 PM PDT

    •  This...

      This is probably what is meant by "cutting budgets"...they'll start with cutting the security budget for the court...and then be "shocked and awed" when the wingnuts succeed...This is a scary group indeed...I hope all federal judges, conservative and liberal, are taking note...The rule of law is under attack in this country...

      by TexasDemocrat on Mon Apr 11, 2005 at 09:10:15 AM PDT

  •  We'd understand!

    What happens if the worst happens and some crazed nutjub tries to hurt Kennedy or another judge?

    Well, we'd understand that the nutjob felt that "where judges are making political decisions yet are unaccountable to the public, that it builds up and builds up and builds up to the point where some people engage in - engage in violence"

    by Senator John Cornyn (R-TX) on Sun Apr 10th, 2005 at 01:39:02 EST

    by orthogonal on Sat Apr 09, 2005 at 10:28:38 PM PDT

  •  If???

    Eric Rudolph just pled guilty for anti abortion bombings.  Matthew Hale is was convicted for plotting to have a judge killed.  James Kopp shot and and killed an abortion doctor.

    This has been simmering for years.  The only difference now is that your elected officials are openly condoning it.  The violence isn't coming.  It's already here.

    And you'll notice...despite all the anger on the left about, say, Bush v. Gore, or Iraq, or the budget lies, or questionable voting procedures, or you name your outrage du jour, there have been no calls for violence against right wing judges by Democrats.  There have been no threats for vengeance.  

    This is a one sided issue.  No equivalency.  There is only one party these days that advocates violent revolution, and that is the Republicans.  It's time to take them seriously.  They don't want to live in America.  They want to live in another country, and they're willing to encourage killings to accomplish it.

    by IGrantius on Sat Apr 09, 2005 at 11:25:06 PM PDT

•  i keep hoping

  that the more frightening they get w/ this rhetoric, the more congressional seats we win back in 2006. they are scaring their supposed base.

  by lorraine on Sat Apr 09, 2005 at 07:13:31 PM PDT

  •  I keep hoping

    There will still be a Congress.

    by IGrantius on Sat Apr 09, 2005 at 11:26:09 PM PDT

  •  I think they are talkiing to their base

    But their base is a lot smaller than they think it is.

    What they have is a committed base, willing to get out and work for their beliefs, and a much larger group of allies who are willing to use them for political gain. They are conflating the two.

    They'll find the true size of their base when their antics make it cost more politically than their support is worth.

    by Rick B on Sun Apr 10, 2005 at 10:32:26 AM PDT

•  I saw some serious wingnuts on C-Span today - Act!

  for, like, two hours.  They scared the hell out of me. They are so far right, I wonder if C-Span puts them on so they can discredit themselves.

  Sen. Tom Coburn, new senator from Oklahoma who said that doctors who perform abortions should get the death penalty, sent his Chief Aide. His aide, furiously, said that we should impeach and remove every judge who was involved in the Schiavo case. I guess that includes the Supreme Court, because the next wingnut host said that we should start with the Supreme Court. He said they can be impeached even if they do not have the 2/3 to remove because it will teach those judges a lesson. Not, he hastened to add, that they are trying to intimidate. It is just that after they get through "reeducating" the American public, and impeaching the judges, the judges will come to agree with them, because their cause is moral and the only correct one.

  Another wingnut said we should start with Rehnquist because he ruled that a person can refuse food and water if he is terminal.  He said, "We all know, Of course they cannot - that is a sin."  I almost got sick.  Then they said that Rehnquist should be impeached for that view.  I would LOVE to see that.

  Why, C-span, do you give these nuts time, unless it is to make the rest of us see how crazy they really and truly are.

  I have to say, I was very fricking scared when watching these wackos. And the Catholic woman wearing the blood red lipstick, representing the Bishops, was really pissing this Catholic off. She said they will have postcards in every church, ready to mail to Congress, demanding that our representatives only vote for PRO-LIFE judges (I guess if they love war and the death penalty, that is Okey-dokey!) I say, steal every fricking postcard out of your churches. Call to action!!! Go Catholics!!!

  Or at least report the Catholic church to the IRS for politicizing so they lose their tax-exempt (gasp!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!) status.

  by adigal on Sat Apr 09, 2005 at 07:15:16 PM PDT

  •  For impeachment they'd need a majority in the Hous

    Very, very unlikely - there are plenty of House GOP members who would like to be reelected

    by seanflynn on Sat Apr 09, 2005 at 07:22:59 PM PDT

    •  And even if DeLay was able to whip them all

      The Repubs don't even have enough in their own caucus to convict--there are only 55 Repubs, and you need 67.  And there's no way in hell they'll hold on to all 55 (I know McCain, Chafee, Collins, Specter, Snowe, Warner, Hagel and maybe Grassley and Shelby wouldn't go for it), let alone peel off any Dems.

      by Christian Dem in NC on Sun Apr 10, 2005 at 12:52:37 AM PDT

      •  If it ever made the Senate

        they'd be lucky to get 10 votes
        maybe even 5

        by seanflynn on Sun Apr 10, 2005 at 02:32:43 PM PDT

  •  Weimar

    Remember, it wasn't the Nazis who set up the conditions for Hitler, it was the reactionaries who kept attacking the integrity of the law and the Weimar Republic. When Hitler began his campaign, the Establishment Right thought they would be able to use him.

    That didn't work.

    by freelunch on Sat Apr 09, 2005 at 07:43:25 PM PDT

    •  sound familiar?

      Merriam Webster definition of Fascism:

      "A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism."

      by tmendoza on Sat Apr 09, 2005 at 08:47:43 PM PDT

    •  Exact;ly!

      That's what's so scary about this shit - I keep trying to raise the alarm levels among my fellow academics, but the reaction generally is that oh, they're just crazy, it won't go anywhere.  But attacks on the legitimacy of the courts is easy for them to do, and is extremely dangerous.

      by geordie on Sun Apr 10, 2005 at 05:03:40 AM PDT

  •  Sent the AIDEs, eh?

    I note that the Republican Congressmen sent their AIDEs instead of attending themselves.  A wise choice, they're learning from Martinez.  If you later get in trouble for something your aide says, even if it's what you'd have said, why, it's them pesky AIDES again...of course, you had NO IDEA they was gonna pipe up with such awful nonsense!  See, they're so ashamed, they gave me their resignation already!

    I'm taking up a collection to send every Republican Congressman's staff a very special present...RED SHIRTS FOR ALL!

    In case you don't know what I'm talking about...
    
    

    by ltfranklin on Sat Apr 09, 2005 at 07:49:49 PM PDT

    •  ROFL

      that is awesome... although it should be worded "When a creature you control would be put into a graveyard from play, sacrifice Red Shirt.  If you do, that creature remains in play."

      by Demosthenes on Sat Apr 09, 2005 at 08:09:56 PM PDT

      •  Geekery!

        I disagree, i think it should be a replacement effect as it is currently.

        Saying the creature "remains in play instead" is kind of mushy in terms of how that resolves precisely, but replacement works.

        Unless there has been some new rules or something i'm missing, anyway.

        by Shapeshifter on Sun Apr 10, 2005 at 12:16:47 PM PDT

    •  LOL!

      Those red shirted security drones assigned to the starship Enterprise detail sure took a lot of casualties over the course of any Star Trek season.

      by Agent of Fortune on Sat Apr 09, 2005 at 09:49:21 PM PDT

•  Hunter....

  I think Rove is losing his, smear filled, and at times, vicious Iron Grip on the Republican party machinery in general and the extreme right in particular, and it is showing.  Karl is busy trying to fulfill the delerium of "The Dubya Legacy," and I contend that this has taken up a great deal of his time.  Further, I think it is entirely plausible that Karl has had to rely on others to monitor the political "animals," and that these underlings have let the beasts get loose.  

  I cannot see such sloppy, out of touch, downright crazy noise coming from pre-November, 2004 Republicans of any stripe.  To see such an implosion of internal party control, and an almost fission like release of political goofiness and public frightening rhetoric, compounded by the rising spectre of an utterly corrupt Republican inner core group close to the President is all the more alarming.

  Hunter, I think the Republicans on the far right have bet every last dime of political capital and favor they have on the latest round of judicial insanity, and Karl has either not been able to rein them in, or didn't think it would get this far.

  Your thoughts?

  by boilerman10 on Sat Apr 09, 2005 at 07:19:58 PM PDT

  •  Ken Mehlman Doesn't Seem the Type...

    ...to kneecap some Republican who's screwing up.  

    by DHinMI on Sat Apr 09, 2005 at 07:21:41 PM PDT

    •  I agree.

      n/t

      by boilerman10 on Sat Apr 09, 2005 at 07:25:43 PM PDT

    •  Mehlman is a Marxist, Leninist, Satanist

      by Al Rodgers on Sat Apr 09, 2005 at 07:32:07 PM PDT

  •  On the other hand . . .

    How many of the major players in this mess are connected to Rove?  We can start with DeLay and Cornyn, two old Texas pals.  Mel Martinez was personally pushed into that Florida senate race by Rove.

    I think what we might be seeing, rather than a grip-slipping, is a coming-home-to-roosting.  Karl Rove's number one goal for 2004 was to get all those extra evangelicals to vote who didn't in 2000.  That worked out great for holding power, but now his bedfellows have moved on from pillow-talk to outright hanging from the chandeliers.

    by folkbum on Sat Apr 09, 2005 at 07:28:52 PM PDT

    •  and they all want to collect

      on those iou chits Rove handed out...

      by notcho on Sat Apr 09, 2005 at 07:32:05 PM PDT

    •  One Quibble

      I'll grant you Cornyn and the TX connections, but like Martinez, almost everyone who ran for a contested Senate seat in which the White House cleared the primary was "personally pushed" in to or out of the race by Rove and the WH.  Norm Coleman and John Sununu were pushed into their races, and while they're solid GOP votes on just about everything, I don't think of them as part of the Rove cabal.  

      by DHinMI on Sat Apr 09, 2005 at 07:37:31 PM PDT

      •  DeLay was powerful well before Rove

        I don't really think DeLay feels he owes Rove anything. If anything, it is the reverse.

        Rove uses a lot more people than he controls, and that depends on Bush's power. As Bush goes more and more "lame Duck" Rove will be less and less important nationally.

        by Rick B on Sun Apr 10, 2005 at 10:49:37 AM PDT

    •  Either way....

      the situation seems to be escaping from his grip.  So, the hanging from the chandeliers line, seems plausible to me.  However, Karl is a cold political realist, he knows what works and why it works.  The question begs why would he let things slip so badly that the public becomes alarmed and disgusted with the very Republicans who think they are "empowered" at this time?  It's like one of those Dilbert-like cartoons where Dilbert walks into a disaster at the office when he sees a "While you were out" memo on his desk.  Is this happening to Karl?

      Remember, there is a potent civil inertia in America that is like a check and balance all its own.  The latest gambit seems too extreme for the public that likes order and fairness, and the latest poll figures seem to bear this out.

      by boilerman10 on Sat Apr 09, 2005 at 07:42:49 PM PDT

  •  Rove unleashed a tidal wave he can't control

    Rove pandered to the most extreme elements of the Right just like the arch conservative Kurt von Schliecher thought he could both pander to and ultimately control Hitler. But the wingnuts were not about to be tied down by some dumb ass 'legal system'. Now sanity itself has left the building. So much for Rove's grand coalition. The peasants, brandishing pitchforks and torches aplenty, have awoken.

    by Dont Just Stand There on Sat Apr 09, 2005 at 07:33:49 PM PDT

    •  A Great Movie Dramatizing this

      http://www.cbs.com/specials/rise_of_evil/cast/

      by Al Rodgers on Sat Apr 09, 2005 at 07:39:28 PM PDT

      •  Have you seen Downfall?

        Surreal indeed those final days must have been.

        http://www.downfallthefilm.com/

        by Dont Just Stand There on Sat Apr 09, 2005 at 07:56:22 PM PDT

        •  Not yet, but

          I've seen The Bunker, with Hopkins as Hitler and Richard Jordan as Speer, which was interesting.

          Also, The Last Ten Days, with Alec Guiness which was poor.

          by Al Rodgers on Sat Apr 09, 2005 at 08:03:26 PM PDT

        •  looks interesting....

          Is it out on DVD, for it isn't showing, and I don't think it was shown here, but it looks interesting.

          by boilerman10 on Sat Apr 09, 2005 at 08:07:46 PM PDT

      •  These programs are nice, but....

        Until I see a program done by Germans who carry no baggage of religion or heritage of oppression from the Nazi regime, there will always be the claims of slant, whether deserved or not.

        The closest I have seen this issue fulfilled to my liking was the ZDF presentations of Hitler's Women, Hitler's Henchmen, and the Rise of the SS, etc.

        However, no one has taken this voluminous collection of documentary work to make one good, understandable, non-soap opera-ish, TV docu-drama production that has solid roots in Germany, done by Germans, subtitled in English, with out slant that I am aware of.  If there is such a production, I would really like to see it.    

        by boilerman10 on Sat Apr 09, 2005 at 08:21:40 PM PDT

        •  Downfall is a German production auf Deutsch

          The role of Hitler (played by by Bruno Ganz) is amazing.

          by Dont Just Stand There on Sat Apr 09, 2005 at 08:27:03 PM PDT

  •  Smoke and mirrors...smoke and mirrors

    Why are they allowing these people to make such noise?  I don't think they are out of control - I think that between Social Security and letting the wackos run loose (and this just started a few weeks ago) they are hiding something else in plain view.  I say to myself: Think.  What are they hiding?  

    Could it be the report which showed how badly our intelligence performed?  Why would they do that since it did not implicate the executive, although Sen. Rockefeller said today that they were not allowed to look at that.

    Could it be something else about the war and torture?  What could it be?  Lots of pages came out recently, I read about them briefly, what is out there that we are missing?

    Could it be something about the election?  Gas prices?  Soldiers' deaths??  What could be big enough that they are letting their base run amuck?  I think we have to keep digging, our side has to not be totally distracted by this, because although it is scary, I don't think this is their point.  What is their point?

    That is what keeps me up nights.

    by adigal on Sun Apr 10, 2005 at 11:34:56 AM PDT

•  Justice O'Connor's Life is in Danger

  Justice O'Connor spoke in Baltimore Thursday and mentioned that she has received multiple death threats.

  "It didn't occur to me that there would be as many threats, and I do receive them," O'Connor said. "I don't think the harsh rhetoric helps. I think it energizes people who are a little off base to take actions that maybe they wouldn't otherwise take."

  http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/local/bal-md.oconnor08apr08,1,4532464.story?coll=bal-local-headline s

  by Al Rodgers on Sat Apr 09, 2005 at 07:22:37 PM PDT

  •  I want to hear nino and thomas

    rehnquist too, but he has trouble talking.  Heads up boys: THE PEOPLE SPEAKING FOR YOUR PARTY HAVE CROSSED EVERY LINE IMAGINABLE.  They are now making thinly-veiled death threats against your collegues. Is that okay with you?  I know nino never turns down a paying speech engagement, what with all those kids.  get out there and condemn this boys.

    fucking rethugs like scalia and thomas and limbaugh and brooks.  they don't want to live in the world their goony supporters want to create.  they want to live in the genteel liberal world, with book stores and porn videos and birth control and divorce on demand.  when their side wins, they'll be the first boys out of the country.

    by sophiebrown on Sat Apr 09, 2005 at 08:56:37 PM PDT

  •  Amended

    "It didn't occur to me as I was voting to steal the election for Bush in 2000 that there would be as many threats, and I do receive them," O'Connor said.

    Karma's a bitch, ain't it Sandy?

    by JT88 on Sat Apr 09, 2005 at 08:59:22 PM PDT

    •  Buyer's Remorse

      While "Buyer's Remorse" isn't precisely accurate, i do wonder how much they regret voting to install Bush as, well, pseudo-President. I look at it like this: none of them have resigned. My guess as to why? None of them want to let Bush have a hand in picking their successors.

      I'm thinking they realize what they unleashed. A little too late, but better late than never i suppose.

      As an aside: i'm always confused by the Republicans who hold up the 2004 election (even assuming it didn't go for Bush because of massive fraud) as evidence that Bush was right and as a justification of his first term with respect to the oddly anti-democratic means in which he was placed in the office.

      After all, Saddam Hussein got elected by even wider margins than Bush did and yet that did not (in more or less anyone's mind) justify or negate the fact that he stole the office in the first place.

      by Shapeshifter on Sun Apr 10, 2005 at 12:27:35 PM PDT

  •  Judge Birch threatend with Impeachment

    Judge Stanley F. Birch of the 11th Circuit, who wrote the concurring opinion which blasted the president and congress over the Shiavo intervention, has been threatened with impeachment.

    http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1112991010919

    "Since releasing his widely quoted rebuke, Birch, a 1990 appointee of the first President Bush, has been the subject of impeachment calls from angry lawmakers. He's received letters telling him, 'You're going to burn in hell.'

    Congratulatory messages, Birch adds, have outnumbered the negative ones by about 10 to 1."

    As an attorney, I do not always agree with Judge Birch's decisions.  But I don't always agree with Justice Ginsberg either.

    We cannot function with a rubber stamp judiciary.    

    by Othniel on Sun Apr 10, 2005 at 06:06:34 AM PDT

    •  Demands for Impeachment

      I live in Texas, and Impeach Earl Warren bumper stickers were popular here even after he died.

      Same bunch, same message, same crap.

      It's the veiled death threats by public officials that are new. But they are coming from the Christian conservatives and their tame politicians. The Christian Conservatives have been a mainstay of the conservative movement since Reagan was elected and they haven't gotten doodley-squat for it.

      Now Bush has been in office and DeLay has been Majority Leader for over 4 years, and they still haven't gotten doodley-squat. For the first time, they can't really blame the Democrats. There aren't enough left in power for even a wing-nut conspiracy theory to carry weight.

      Who is left to blame? I guess, the judiciary. Now they reelected Bush, and they are getting impatient. So their temperature is rising and we are seeing the result.

      As Randall Terry, Eric Rudolph and the anti-abortionists demonstrate, these people have always been far out extremists. It's just that they didn't feel they could successfully demand control before. November's election allowed them to start to release their pent-up impatience.

      I have no doubt that they have new Erik Rudolphs currently training with the military or the militia movement. The anti-abortionists have spoken frequently about a finding a new "John Brown" for their cause. What's new is the politicians reacting to last November who are speaking directly to those people.

      by Rick B on Sun Apr 10, 2005 at 11:18:35 AM PDT

•  Do these people

  listen to themselves?

  If their solution for an out of control judiciary is acceptable, wouldn't it be equally acceptable for an out of control right wing Congress?

  These same whack jobs call for a cultural civil war out of one side of their mouths, and defend pre-emptive war from the other. Have they done the math on that set of beliefs?

  These people are seriously deranged, and I'm starting to think, very dangerous to public safty.

  It seems that nothing short of the complete destruction of our civil society will please them.

  That a major political party would appease, let alone encourage, these headcases is very troubling.

  by JoeWPgh on Sat Apr 09, 2005 at 07:25:41 PM PDT

  •  Joe, read Premilleniarist Theology.

    It seems that nothing short of the complete destruction of our civil society will please them.

    Following the Rapture, there will be a thousand years of war and tribulation, then Christ will come to save the remainder.

    But you see, the Righteous, (that is, them) will have already been taken bodily to Heaven in the Rapture because they have already "accepted Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior." They will be looking down and watching as we sinners suffer.

    It is all about the End Times and the Coming of Christ, and the "thousand years of war and tribulation" (The Millenium) is a necessary step for Christ to save the world. Or, to put it another way, the complete destruction of our civil society is exactly what they are praying for. That is the message of the "Left Behind" books.

    Scared yet?

    by Rick B on Sun Apr 10, 2005 at 11:31:24 AM PDT

    •  Do you ever wonder how these sactimonous idiots

      always miss the entire reason for Jesus' coming and the basis of his message of love?  If Jesus allowed the thief into heaven after one second of believing in Him, then everyone who wants to can be part of the rature, even the worse people on earth.  Also, why do these idiots read the Bible to say that blessed are those who amass a fortune and screw others while doing it? I do not see anything about making money in there as the road to heaven.  Also, for the Falwells and Robertsons, why did Jesus throw the moneychangers (those making money off religion) out of the Temple?  If I was was either of the two of them, I would not be waiting for the Rapture, because if they do not repent soon, they will be left behind.   Lastly to all of the "Christians" who think God is a Republican, let us remind them that Jesus said. "Render to Ceasar, those things that are Ceasars and unto the Lord those that are the Lord's" and that "my kingdom is not of this earth", and maybe they will see that if Jesus did not come to set up a theocracy, then who the hell are they to try to do so in his name?  There are a million more items that these sanctimonious dolts forget when trying to use God to push their own power agendas.  

      by TheLupo on Sun Apr 10, 2005 at 11:13:10 PM PDT

      •  I had totally blown Christianity off

        until I recently read Karen Armstrong's superb book "The BAttle for God." And I had done so because the fundamentalists and evangelistic Southern Baptists I knew had hijacked the language of Christianity for their sad psychosis.

        And it is a psychosis. They use the dogma of their version of Xtianity to resolve their severe anxiety at the social changes that are occurring here. It has little to do with real religion, as I learned from some Buddhists and Sikhs.

        But that wasn't the purpose of my post. What I wanted to express was the internal consistency and logic of their position, and the fact that those who adhere to that philosophy ~really do want to see the destruction of our modern society!~

        by Rick B on Mon Apr 11, 2005 at 10:05:16 AM PDT

•  I suppose expecting

  internal consistency is asking too much with someone like this.

  By that I mean, presumably Vieira, who conjures Marx and Lenin in a strangely antiquated bit of McCarthyite red-baiting, is not a Stalinist?

  After all, Stalin (the dictator whose crimes equal Hitler's), oversaw a totalitarian regime founded on Marxist-Leninist doctrines. I can't help but think Vieira sould have just quoted Hitler instead, but did not because he's a wimp. If he would just take the next step rightward he would be a bonafide Nazi. While I loathe real Nazis, even worse are those like Vieira who make these kinds of statements: statements that purposely toy with, but stop just shy of espousing, out-and-out fascism.  

  by gnat on Sat Apr 09, 2005 at 07:26:38 PM PDT

•  Brian Cook

  (posted today on The Smirking Chimp) coined a good phrase:

  The Vultures of Life

  by katchen on Sat Apr 09, 2005 at 07:27:04 PM PDT

•  why are we hearing so much of this now?

  This might sound naive, but I'm not sure I understand why this rush of theocrat bile is pouring out now. Are they speaking out so publicly now because they think Bush supports them?  Because they helped get him re-elected and now he owes them?  At the beginning of Bush's first term, they weren't nearly so vocal.  What is changing that gives them the comfort to go mainstream, when they hadn't been so outspoken to the general public before?  (And the eternal question, why does the media let such scary wackos get on the air?)

  by peregrina on Sat Apr 09, 2005 at 07:27:16 PM PDT

  •  Many kept a low profile

    prior to the election to make sure Bush looked more moderate, and now they're cut loose to be themselves

    It's like sheltered kids being let loose on a college campus  ;-)