Cromwell Burns in Hell

Here are a fewpictures that folks at the Daily Kos took at Glenn Beck’s “I Have A Scheme” Rally.

Here’s a shot of the crowd on the Washington Mall.  CBS reported that the crowd was approximately 87,000 in size (plus or minus 9,000, according to their crowd estimate methodology). 

An estimated 87,000 attended. The wingnuts will probably claim a zillion people attended (as we've seen, math isn't right-winger's strong point).

 When Barack Obama gave his acceptance speech before a similar number of people in Denver in August 2008, Beck commented that it reminded him of something that would have taken place in Nuremburg (old Glenn is obsessed with Nazi analogies).  Using what passes for Beck’s logic, how should we characterize his rally?

There was lots of empty rhetoric at the rally praising Martin Luther King Jr.  Not surprisingly, not every wingnut got the message to pretend to admire King.

The sign reads "The Bold Truth MLK Was Pro Communist." Well, at least he spelled it correctly.

Much of the rhetoric at the rally was to devoted to praising and honoring the military.  Apparently, that means to the wingnuts in attendance using the World War Two Memorial’s fountain as a wadding pool and the monuments as bleacher stands. 

No commentary is necessary here.

Or here, either.

This wingnut apparently didn't get the word that you weren't supposed to bring signs (particularly, misspelled ones!).

I just spent the last three hours watching “Beck Fest” or what the participants referred to as the rally to “Restore Honor” or “Restore America.”   It seems to me that America already restored some of it’s lost honor with the departure of the Bush/Cheney cabal, and the only thing I would like restored right now is the three hours of my life that I wasted watching this turd.  For all the hype circulating around this event, this teabaggers between temper tantrums gathering  has turned out to be a real yawner.  Even the collection of rubes in attendance appeared largely bored by it all — apparently there wasn’t enough rabid teabagger rhetoric or empty-headed conspiracy theories offered up for them to wallow in.  

Among the “highlights” of this latest right-wing embarrassment:

Caribou Barbie showing up at this “non-partisan” rally to use  a handful of veterans as props in a shortened, watered-down versions of her typically empty-headed stump speech (apparently the organizers couldn’t come up with the cash for a full-length discourse from this idiot, or maybe she just quit half-way through the speech…you know she has a habit of not fulfilling obligations and commitments).  Regardless, the dullards in attendance loved every minute of the babblings of their know-nothing queen.

Every black wingnut in America was paraded on the stage in a lame attempt to connect Beck and his agenda with that of Martin Luther King, Jr.  Beck’s primary prop to achieve this Alveda King, the niece of MLK.  For those who aren’t familiar with her, Alveda King has long been estranged from the King family over her misrepresentations (such as asserting that MLK was a conservative Republican) and her extremist views (she has equated gay marriage with genocide).  Like many right-wingers, she’s also an enormous hypocrite – claiming to be staunchly pro-life while undergoing two abortions during her child-bearing years.   

Alveda King appearing on Beck's Fox Show with another civil rights icon Ted "Happy to See Alot of White People Here" Nugent

Her appearance at the rally really undermined Beck’s earlier assertion that he had no idea that the date was the anniversary of MLK’s March on Washington.  Of course, the fact that Glenn Beck is a compulsive liar is obvious to everyone except the most delusional of the teabaggers.

A strong streak of evangelical Christianity was present throughout the event.  In spite of the assertions of wingnuttia, most of  us on the left have no problem with religious expression.  Many of us on the left are people of faith, and I can’t think of a movement for equality and social justice (that concept that old Glenn finds oh-so-scary) have featured progressive members of the clergy.  We just want to ensure that the framer’s separation of church and state is respected and maintained (a separation that right-wing theocrats– our would be American Taliban – are continually trying to breach). 

Also, we do object when those on the right attempting to rewrite history to match their religious beliefs.  Beck is particularly guilty of this given his promotion of David Barton, a pseudo-historian who has twisted history to claim that the United States was established as a “Christian Nation.”  Neither Barton nor Beck have apparently ever read Article VI of the Constitution (which forbids any religious test or oaths for holding a public office or trust), the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment (which prohibits the government from establishing a religion), or the Treaty of Tripoli (where Jefferson explicitly refutes the idea of the United States being a Christian nation).

BTW, didn’t you love that one minister who cited the bible passage which cited the need for public care of the poor and taxation?  You could almost hear a pin drop in the stunned silence of the crowd, only broken by the the sound of a few teabagger heads exploding!

I’ll give Beck some credit for giving a speech that was devoid of most of the incendiary rhetoric that he has become notorious for.  It was the “kinder, gentler” version of Beck, who encouraged a rejection of “hate”  (it’s too bad that he doesn’ t take his own advice when conducting his own radio and television show).  It was also devoid of the crazy conspiracy theories that he has woven that his gullible followers have accepted as fact.  No, it was a Beck that tried to give an uplifting, patriotic, religious address to rival William Jennings Byran’s “Cross of Gold” speech or King’s “I Have a Dream” Speech. 

The result?  It was pretty much a dud.  There were no memorable lines or phrases.  Old Glenn couldn’t even give us a good cry — although he did pretend to choak up about three times.  Beck has swindled his rube followers once again.  This time not be tricking them into investing in overpriced gold coins, but giving up their time and money to attend this non-event.

As a speech and event, it was pretty empty — just like Glenn’s head and conscience.

Recently, the students in my three American National Government courses took their first exam, which was  largely focused on the U.S. Constitution.  The bad news is that about a third of my students flunked.  The good news is that they probaby fared better than your typical teabagger who claims to have a great knowledge of — and love of — the Constitution.  In a number of earlier posts, I’ve pointed out the high level of wingnut ignorance of the core document and the subsequent 27 amendments.  Let’s procede with a few other examples of teabagger cluelessness.

First, we had the recent case of Arizona trying to intrude upon an area reserved for the federal government.  Wingnuts celebrated the passage of this legislation, and Arizona Governor Jan Brewer  suddenly became a teabagger favorite.  Let’s see what the framers had to say about this matter.  Article One, Section Eight clearly lists the establishment of a “uniform rule of naturalization” as a power of the U.S. Congress.  If the wingnuts had bothered to read a little further into the document, they might stumble upon Article Six and a little something called the Supremacy Clause, which clearly asserts the supremacy of national laws in our political system. 

One humorous response to a very unfunny law

 Also, the law’s requirement for naturalized citizens to carry documentation confirming their legal status, and the obvious racial profiling that would occur under this legislation, would run right into a brick wall called the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause. Not surprisingly, a federal judge struck down major portions of this odious law.  Of course, the wingnuts have screamed bloody murder over the decision, and have accused the judge of “liberal judicial activism.”  Apparently, these ignoramuses have never heard about the separation of powers (which grant the courts the power to review the laws) and a case called Marbury v. Madison.

Constitution 1, Teabaggers 0.

Speaking of the Fourteenth Amendment and the Equal Protection Clause, a federal judge used that language in the constitution to strike down California’s Proposition 8, which banned same-sex marriage in the state.  An overwhelming percentage of wingnuts supported this ballot proposition, apparently fearful that the temptation of marrying someone of the same gender was so powerful that it would destroy millions of  traditional marriages. Once again, wingnuttia has gone berzerk, claiming that the judge in the case was another liberal activist (appointed by the far-left Ronald Reagan — a.k.a. “Conserva-Jesus”) who was biased in the case because he was openly gay (using wingnut “logic” wouldn’t a “straight” or married judge also have to excuse themselves for bias?). 

Sanford, Vitter, Ensign Gingrich, Limbaugh...all staunch defenders of the sanctity of "traditional marriage" (which apparently means cheating on and/or divorcing your wife!).

 I also must say that I was amused by the outrage at this decision as illegitimate because it conflicted with the will of the voters (do these lunatics think that liberties should be at the mercy of the majority?) , and I could barely contain my laughter as multiple-divorce buffoons like Rush Limbaugh and Newt Gingrich bloviated about the “sanctity of marriage.”

Constitution 2, Teabaggers 0.

Yeah, that pesky Fourteenth Amendment.  It seems to ruin so much of the teabagger’s fun in discriminating against gays and other minorities.  Wingnuttia doesn’t seem very happy about the amendment granting all people born in the United States citizenship (particularly those brown ones).   Not surprisingly, they now propose legislation to clarify the amendment (gee, I didn’t know that you could alter the constitution by passing a law) or by actually amending the constitution with new language clarifying who is entitled to citizenship if born within the country. 

It seems that right-wing minds are plagued with visions of armies of “anchor babies” being unleashed on the country by the brown hordes who’ve been taking away all those minimum wage jobs that whites are clamoring for.  In spite of all the teabagger fury, don’t hold your breath waiting for two-thirds of both houses of Congress and three-quarters of the state legislatures to eliminate birthright citizenship.

Constitution 3, Teabaggers 0. 

As long as we progressives remain vigilant, we can protect our beloved constitution from the wingnuts and teabaggers who would “love” it to death. 

Just in case there actually is anyone out there who visits my site and wonders “where the hell has he been?”, let me fill you in.  I’ve been on a really long vacation in Europe. 

I left L.A. back on June 5th, arriving in Paris the following morning.  That’s were my Trafalgar tour entitled “the Best of France’” began.  It was a wonderful two weeks in what some of my wingnut friends refer to as “surrender monkey central.”  Some of the highlights included Nice (with an afternoon trip to Monaco), driving through southern France to Birratz on the Atlantic coast, driving north through Bourdeux wine country, a visit to St. Mont Michel and later that same day to Omaha Beach and the the nearby U.S. cemetary (which was a very moving experience), an afternoon visit to Monet’s house and gardens, and a couple of days in Paris (where I achieved a lifetime ambition to go to the top of the Eiffel Tower…it was truly awesome!). 

Two great weeks in France.

Given that I had about a month off between the end of the spring semester and the start of the summer, I decided to double up and take a second tour,  one by Scandinavia conducted by Globus named “the Scandinavian.”   The two tours were separated by a few days, so I headed up by train to Brussels, Bruges and Amsterdam before flying to Copenhagen for the second tour.  We spent two weeks exploring Denmark, Sweden and Norway.  My favorite stops were Copenhagen (went to Tivoli Gardens a couple of times),  Stockholm (an absolutely beautiful, waterfront city), Bergen (with it’s famous German Pier buildings) and Olso (be sure to check out the City Hall and Resistence Museum there if you get a chance).  The scenery in Denmark wasn’t much to write home about (mostly flat farmland), but Sweden was more interesting (with lots of forests, rivers and lakes, and hills and low mountains), and Norway (as you might have guessed) had the scenery that was absolutely stunning.

Another couple of weeks in "scary, socialist" Scandinavia (just another group of countries with objectively higher quality of life measures than our beloved U.S. of A.)

All in all, a wonderful month spent in Europe away from the wingnuts!

I just can’t keep up with all the wingnut/teabagger stupidity, so I’m taking a break from blogging.

For months now political pundits have been warning of a possible electoral disaster awaiting the Democratic party this November.   An economy spiraling downward into one of deepest recessions in American history, along with historical trends favoring the “out” party in midterm elections, seemed to signal electoral doom for the Democrats.  Not only was loss of the House a likely outcome, but perhaps even the majority in the Senate would be imperiled in a large Republican “wave.” 

With the events of the last few weeks, Democratic prospects may not appear quite as dire.  Some of my earlier posts have pointed out the positive signs in the economy, such as increasing employment numbers.  One other important factor that could greatly aid the Democrats is a Republican party driven outside the political mainstream by the teabagger movement.  Two weeks ago, Robert Bennett of Utah, who has been ranked as one of the most conservative senators by the American Conservative Union, was denied renomination at the teabagger-dominated Utah Republican Convention. 

Sen. Robert Bennett, with a 94 percent rating from the American Conservative Union, was not conservative enough for the teabaggers and was shown the door.

 Why was this three-term incumbent shown the door by his own party?  Because he supported the bailout of the banking industry (a bailout which might have prevented an even more severe economic collapse and from which taxpayers will actually make a profit) and for committing the apparently unpardonable sin of working on a bi-partisan health care bill that required people to obtain insurance coverage.  Now, we’re talking about Utah here — the reddest of the red states — and everyone understands that the ”Real Love” state voters will elect any idiot with an “R” by his name. 

 That same weekend, an even more interesting and consequential development took place in the state of Maine.  There, in one of the last out-posts of moderate Republicanism, the teabaggers seized control of the state party convention and pushed through a ”wack job plablum, nutcase stuff” party platform.  Oh, that isn’t my description of the platform, but rather that of  Dan Billings, who has served as an attorney for the Maine Republican Party. The platform now consists of a mixture of thinly-veiled bigotry, Social Darwinism, paranoia and conspiracy theories. 

 The “highlights” include a demand for an investigation of “collusion between government and industry in the global warming myth” (so much for all that fancy science and book learning), that “Freedom of Religion’ does not mean ’Freedom from Religion” (actually, it does…anyone of these buffoons ever read the Establishment Clause?),  that “health care is not a right” and essentially condemning any government role in the area (I wonder how many of these reactionaries are on Medicare or receiving Veterans Administration benefits?), an embracement of “Austrian Economics”  (let’s turn the clock back to the wonderful 1880s when we didn’t have any of those pesky things like child labor laws, workplace safety regulations, etc.),

In Maine, the teabaggers showed tolerance, science, progress, and reason the door.

abrogation of the United Nations Treaty on the Rights of the Child (did these morons realize that we never ratified this treaty so it can’t be abrogated?),  a commitment against any government mandates on the media involving “diversity” and “localism” (because we don’t want to possibly be exposed to any other voices than Rush, Glenn Beck or Hannity, and thinking for yourself is hard), a call to remove “government obstacles” to the oil drilling and nuclear power (do these people have any clue what’s been happening with BP along the Gulf Coast?), and that we must resist “efforts to create a one world government” (remember, these are the people who see blue-bereted U.N. troops behind every tree and black helicopters flying overhead).

 Than came this past Tuesday.  In a Pennsylvania special election to fill the seat left vacant by the death of Democratic Representative John Murtha, Democrat Mark Critz faced off against Republican Tim Burns.  The Republican National Senatorial Campaign Committee had high hopes to win the seat.  After all, the district was the only one in the nation carried by John Kerry in 2004 and John McCain in 2008, President Obama’s approval ratings were twenty points lower here than the national average, and Republican candidate Burns was a favorite of the teabaggers.  So, the National Republicans dumped a million dollars into the district.  The result?  Democrat Critz defeated Republican Burns by a decisive 53 percent to 45 percent margin.  Democratic turnout in all four states holding primaries that day (Arkansas, Kentucky, Oregon and Pennsylvania) far exceeded that of the Republicans (so much for the energized, teabagger base and depressed, progressive base).

So, what was the big story that the media focused on from Tuesday?  The impressive Critz victory?  No.  Arlen Specter’s primary defeat?  No, not even that really tickled the media’s fancy.  The real media focus was on teabagger darling Rand Paul, who won a landslide victory in Kentucky’s Republican senate primary (although he received fewer votes than the top two finishers in the closely contested Democratic contest). 

Rand Paul has appeared before on Rachel Maddow's Show, but his performance on this past Wednesday's show was so appalling and wingnutty that even Republicans are telling him to shut up and lay low.

 Now, normally I would find this frustrating, but in this case I’m totally in favor of the media giving as much attention as possible to this wingnut.  Because the more people learn about Paul, the better the chances are that the Democrats will pick up this Republican-held seat.  Rand Paul shares many of the same crazy views of his father, Texas Congressman Ron Paul (another case of the nut not falling too far from the wingnut tree).  In fact, the son might even be crazier. Paul has expressed a desire to repeal the Americans With Disabilities Act (it’s just too much of a burden on business to provide reasonable accommodation for the disabled), a belief that the 1964 Civil Rights Act –which prohibited racial, religious or gender discrimination in access to public accomodations — should also be repealed (people have a constitutional right to discriminate!), and that criticism of British Petroleum — a foreign company that has caused billions of dollars in damage due to its careless practices –is “un-American!”

Paul is a perfect representation of the political agenda of this reactionary fringe in American politics.  The more the media focus on these teabaggers, the more powerful force they become in the Republican party, the better for the Democratic party and the progressive movement. Apparently, even Republican leaders are beginning to see the teabaggers as a double-edged sword, and after the negative fallout from Paul’s disasterous interview on the “Rachel Maddow Show,” they have advised him to stop giving national media interviews (Friday he backed out of  scheduled appearance on Sunday’s ”Meet the Press” — only the third scheduled guest to do so in the program’s 62 year history).

With the growing spotlight on the teabaggers taking over the GOP, a progressive base that seems to be awakening from their slumber, a Democratic administration and Congress with a growing list of impressive accomplishments (health care reform, Wall Street reform, etc.), and a gradually improving economy, who knows what November might bring?  Stay tuned… 

Remember the "economic bikini" if you want to simply illustrate who dug us a deep hole of job losses, and who is digging us out.

You absolutely have to read Ron Brownstein’s piece in this month’s National Journal magazine.  The article is entitled “Repairing the Job Machine: More Jobs May Be Created This Year Than During George W. Bush’s Presidency.” 

Here are some of the highlights.  First, we have a little review of the “great” job growth under Pappy Bush’s idiot son.

“First, the numbers: From February 2001, Bush’s first full month in office, through January 2009, his last, total U.S. nonfarm employment grew from 132.5 million to 133.5 million, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. That’s an increase, obviously, of just 1 million. From January through April of this year, the economy created 573,000 jobs. Over a full year, that projects to 1.72 million jobs. Job-creation numbers are notoriously volatile, so the actual result could run above or below that estimate. But Obama administration economists are increasingly optimistic that job growth this year will exceed expectations. Few of them will be surprised if more jobs are created in 2010 than over Bush’s two terms.”

Brownstein goes on to talk about who is truly responsible for the current job losses, and the possible political ramifications of  increased job gains under Obama.

“Now the principal footnote: To compare job growth in 2010 with Bush’s record ignores the nearly 4 million jobs lost in Obama’s first year, during the freefall that began in Bush’s final months. That’s like ignoring a meteor strike. Over time, voters are likely to judge Obama by his degree of success in eliminating that deficit and reducing unemployment. Still, if the economy this year produces more than 1 million jobs — or, conceivably, more than 2 million — that will give Democrats more ammunition to argue that their agenda has started to turn the tide.”

Sounds like the Republican/wingnut cry of “where are the jobs?” might end up blowing up in their faces.  Sweet!   Brownstein then expands the comparison from just Bush versus Obama to a more sweeping analysis of post-World War II Democratic and Republican presidents.

“The real point of looking again at Bush’s record is to underscore how few jobs the economy was creating even before the 2008 collapse. Bush’s tally of 1 million jobs was much less than the economy had generated during any other two-term stretch since World War II: Dwight Eisenhower produced nearly 4 million, John Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson (together) almost 16 million, Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford (together) 11 million, Ronald Reagan 16 million, and Bill Clinton more than 22 million.”

What?  You’re telling me that those no-good socialist Democrats (Kennedy, Johnson, Clinton) created more jobs than Republicans like Ike, Tricky Dick, Jerry, and the sainted Reagan (insert Republican organism here).   How can that be?  Don’t conservative Republican tax cuts alway create jobs, while those awful tax-raising liberal Democrats destroy them?   Brownstein continues…

“In only eight of Bush’s 96 months did the economy create as many jobs as the 290,000 it did last month. Clinton exceeded that level 33 times. Reagan exceeded it 24. In all, the economy gained about 1.2 million jobs annually during the six years of recovery under Bush. It averaged about twice that during the expansion from March 1991 to February 2001.”

“This record suggests two conclusions. One is that there’s no evidence to support the argument from congressional Republicans that tax cuts offer a silver bullet for expanding employment. Job growth boomed after Reagan cut taxes, but expanded even faster after Clinton raised them, and then faltered despite two massive tax cuts under Bush. If tax rates are the critical factor in that record, the relationship is well disguised.”

Devastating.  The entire Republican/wingnut economic philosophy comes crashing down like a house of cards, compliments of a few simple and succinct historical facts laid out by the good Mr. Brownstein.

I suggest you give this article to one of your teabagger friends.  But remember to stand back…their heads are likely to explode.

Every single Republican in the House, and all but save three northeastern moderates in the Senate (including subsequent party-switcher Arlen Specter) voted against President Obama’s economic stimulus plan in early 2009.  For months, wingnuttia pronounced the program a failure (even though  – as noted in earlier posts on this website  – a large number of liberal and CONSERVATIVE economists credited the program with helping to lessen the severity of the near depression thatBush and the Republicans left on Obama’s doorstep).  Teabaggers, who were silent as the Sainted Reagan, “Pappy” Bush and his idiot son W ran up trillions in additional debt, suddenly became outraged at a $700 billion stimulus package (of which approximately 40 percent was devoted to Republican-cherished tax cuts).  On his first day in office, Barack Obama had inherited a $1.3 TRILLION dollar shortfall in federal revenues for his first fiscal year in office. 

When not hypocritically criticizing the administration’s deficit spending, these shameless right-wingers have screamed about job losses.  “Where are the jobs?” mumbled House Minority Leader John Boehner (in one of those rare moments of sobriety when he wasn’t blubbering on the House floor or laying semi-conscious in a tanning bed).   Well, wingnuts, let’s talk about jobs.  Let’s look at what some people have called the “economic bikini.” 

The "economic bikini" traces job losses during Bush and Obama. Do you see a trend? Yes, once again Democrats have to clean up the mess of Republicans.

Notice how job losses mount and excelerate during the Bush Administration (the red half of the “bikini”), to the point where we were shedding hundreds of thousands of jobs due to gross economic mismanagement of conservative Republicans.  Now, notice that as the months pass during the Obama Administration (the blue part of the “bikini”), the jobs losses lessen (due in large part to the impact of the stimulus package, credited by objective economists with saving or adding in the neighborhood of TWO MILLION JOBS).  Not shown on the chart are the most recent economic states for April 2010 showing a massive INCREASE of 290,000 jobs.

So, next time some wingnut opens his pie-hole asking “where are the jobs?” show him this simple little chart.  It’s so simple that even Sarah Palin or Joe the Plumber could understand it  (well, maybe that’s expecting too much).  Oh, and also be sure to let that wingnut know that the economic recovery is taking place no thanks to him, his misspelled sign, and the obstructionist tactics of those he supports.

American Family Association founder Donald Wildmon, a well-known homophobe and advocate of banning media he finds "indecent."

Just when you thought that conservatives couldn’t go any lower, check out this press release by the misnamed American Family Association opposing President Obama’s nomination of Elena Kagen to replace retiring Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens: 

It’s time we got over the myth that what a public servant does in his private life is of no consequence. We cannot afford to have another sexually abnormal individual in a position of important civic responsibility, especially when that individual could become one of nine votes in an out of control oligarchy that constantly usurps constitutional prerogatives to unethically and illegally legislate for 300 million Americans.The stakes are too high. Social conservatives must rise up as one and say no lesbian is qualified to sit on the Supreme Court. Will they?

 You would think after all the revelations about closeted right-wingers (most recently the hilarious story of anti-gay activist George Rekers being caught with a male prostitute escort from a site called Rentboy.com!), that groups like the American Family Association would keep their homophobic, bigoted big mouths shut. 

But no, the pathological hate (and apparent self-loathing) from the right never stops.

Who is a U.S. citizen, and under what circumstances should citizenship be taken away?  With the ongoing controversy over illegal immigration and last week’s unsuccessful car bombing by a Pakistani-born U.S. citizen, debate over these questions has heated up.

Many conservatives have argued that the children of illegal immigrants born in the U.S. should not be considered natural born citizens.  This arguement was most recently made by California U.S. Representative Duncan P. Hunter.  I know, you saying “didn’t that wingnut retire?”  Yes, old Duncan  — who was the only Congressman to endorse the 1996 presidential candidacy of insane Congressman “B-1 Bob” Dornan, who excused U.S. violations of the Geneva Conventions at Guantanamo Bay because the prisoners were being treated to meals featuring lemon chicken, and who launched his own embarrassing  candidacy for the 2008 Republican presidential nomination — did retire from the Congress.  Unfortunately, his dimwitted, jarhead son of the same name was elected to fill his seat in 2008.  Young Duncan has proven once again that the (wing)nut doesn’t fall from the tree.

Duncan Hunter Jr. - A new dim-bulb in wingnuttia's not-so-bright universe

In response to a question at a teabagger rally in Ramona, California about the children of illegal immigrants, Wingnut Jr. agreed that he would favor stripping the citizenship of  those U.S. born children, mumbling something about how walking across a border doesn’t make one a citizen, that it was “something in our souls.”   Where do we start with this moron?  First of all, the underlying racism of that comment is appalling.  The history of the United States is a history of immigration, and also sadly a history of discrimination against these immigrants. Whether it was the Irish, Chinese, Italians, etc., these groups were not shown the welcome mat by large percentages of the population because they were “different.”  Are we really to be shocked to find the teabaggers, the modern-day Know Nothings, to demonstrate the same hostility? 

Bad news for Wingnut Jr. and the teabaggers.  Their idea about stripping the citizenship of these U.S. born children is unconstitutional.  For a group that shouts all the time about things being unconstitutional, it’s apparent that not many of these nimrods have ever read the document.  Let’s take a little look at something called the Fourteenth Amendment, Section One:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

The question as to whether this applied to the U.S. born children of non-citizens was addressed in the Supreme Court case of the United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898), which found that the American-born children of non-citizen Chinese immigrants WERE entitled to U.S. citizenship.  More recent Supreme Court decisions, such as Plyer v. Doe (1982) and INS v. Rios-Pineda (1985) have upheld this view of the Fourteenth Amendment.   Any law passed by Congress to strip these children of their citizenship rights is likely to be held unconstitutional.  Of course, most conservative leaders with access to a copy of the constitution or the U.S. Code already know this, but they’ll continue to whip up the anger and fears of their ignorant, sheep-like followers regardless of the facts.

Speaking about whipping up fear,  Joe Lieberman couldn’t help but open his mouth on the arrest of Pakistani-born Faisel Shahzad.  Shahzad, who thankfully turned out to be incredibly incompetent in his attempt to car-bomb New York’s Times Square. is a naturalized U.S. citizen.  Now Lieberman (along with GOP spokesmodel Scott Brown) wants to introduce legislation expanding the ability of the U.S. government to repeal a person’s citizenship beyond traditional violations like acts of treason against the United States.

On the surface, the proposal might sound quite reasonable.  That said, there are legitimate concerns that the language of the legislation might be too broad.  For instance, Lieberman argues that anyone accused of giving aid or support to the enemies of the United States or one of our allies should be stripped of their citizenship.  Hopefully the senator meant convicted and not just accused(after all, we do treasure due process here in the U.S. — or at least we used to).  Also, I’m concerned about the language concerning our allies.  For instance, if a person were sending money to support a resistance movement against an human-rights abusing authoritarian regime who happened to be allied with the U.S., would that person be eligible to be stripped of their citizenship?  Would a person like myself, who vigorously opposes the continued British occupation of the six counties of Northern Ireland, be a possible target?  If I give money to a group like Sinn Fein (the political arm of the now largely defunct Irish Republican Army), would I conceivably be threatened with the loss of my citizenship if that group suddenly makes its way — through right-wing, British unionist political pressure — to some State Department terrorism list? 

Hopefully cooler heads will prevail before we start tinkering around with our civil liberties again.  The Bush-Cheney years were an era of a brutal trashing of our Constitution.  Let’s not continue to further the damage under Obama.