Friday, November 25, 2011

Right Wing Nuts Still Wrong, Still Extreme, Still Harping on the Turkey Thing

This turkey of a story has more legs than ......well, than a real turkey has drumsticks!  Right wing watch caught this from the American Family's Bryan Fischer (he's also afraid of Mormons as well as Muslims) who was prominent in Rick Perry's political evangelism event earlier this year. 

This is not a passing aberration; this turkey story.  Rather this is part if a larger issue, a core theme, a central topic in the 2012 GOP political debate.

To correct the inaccuracies that Fischer is pushing - all turkeys are slaughtered the SAME. There is NO PRAYER said over them, and they are not labeled as being different, because they are NOT different from the way non-religious designated meat iss always slaughtaered - (and not just turkeys) . Any turkeys tht are subsequently labeled Halal - OR KOSHER - have the pertinent religious requirements satisfied for such labeling at the retail distribution source, where the labeling is then, appropriately, noted.

In the case of Butterball turkeys, Butterball indicates this occurs primarily in other countries to which they sell turkeys; there are more than 20 other countries to which Butterball exports this American ag product.

Fischer was a prominent speaker at the Rick Perry Prayer event; he was a prominent speaker at the Values Voter Summit, where every political candidate in the GOP Presidential contest spoke, along with the Speaker of the House, John Boehner, and Majority Leader Eric Cantor.  Islamophobia is a key part of a number of our would-be candidates, notably Gingrich, Cain, Bachmann, Santorum.  The only consistent exception has been Ron Paul, and he is highly unlikely to be the next GOP presidential candidate.

These candidates have a fundamentalist approach that would make Christianity and secular law identical.  They would make a Christian version of our secular law which given NO religion a preference something different than what it is NOW.  Frightening people over Sharia law and pseudo-Halal turkey is not different than some of the similar anti-Semitic tactics which used to target Jews.

This Halal turkey story is NOT going away, it is not merely a minor embarassment of a lone extremist.  It IS part of a larger facet of conservative politics.  It is a dog whistle; it is fear mongering, a straw man bogey man of hatred.  In that sense, it is no different than the straw man effigy that conservative students burned in Scotland.  This is just a different Islamic strawman, thrown on a different bonfire, a U.S. conservative bonfire.

These people throw around the word Freedoms constantly.  But what they want to do is to take away freedom - freedom of assembly, freedom of religion, rule of non-partisan unbiased law.

We don't need religious crazy fundamentalists in the White House. We don't need race and ethnic or religious hatred in our politics.

I found this quote from Reuters about the crosses case in question, which pertains ONLY so far as I understand this, to the installation of a religious symbol on public property.  In the past there have also been controversies about putting up crosses to honor someone who was not Christian but another religion - notably Jewish, which boiled down to the issue of are crosses specifically Christian or not (it was determined they were) so a further issue here may have been the respective religions, or atheism, of the fallen officers.

"The challenge to the Utah crosses was brought by a Texas-based group called American Atheists, which sued to remove the memorials from state property."
I haven't gone looking for any studies yet, but I wouldn't be surprised to see a close correlation between being pro-gun, and anti-muslim/anti-sharia law, and those who are also pro-Christian dominionism/christian political evangelism. That excludes Jews, Muslims, and Mormons, and in some cases Roman Catholics. I'm not saying ALL pro-gunners are fundamentalist crazy haters and bigots, but there IS a significant overlap.

Fischer would ban Muslims from joining our armed forces, and has also lobbied for Muslims to be allowed to immigrate to this country ONLY if they converted to Christianity, as well as demanded that Native Americans convert to Christianity 'in order to be full U.S. citizens'. Fischer has had extensive support from the candidates, some even before they were running for President, including during their campaigns for other offices.

The sham historian David Barton has also been prominently promoted by a number of the Republican candidates, especially Michele Bachmann who has invited this pseudo-scholar to address 'classes' on the U.S. Constitution - which he is emphatically NOT qualified to do by any legitimtate standard of knowledge - specifically to promote the idea that this is an exclusively Christian nation, and that other religions should at best be tolerated, but that U.S. laws must conform to "Biblical Christianity".


  1. Yeah, that's just crazy for these extreme right wing nuts to say that the Constitution is the law of the land.

  2. No, sorry, anonymaroon; it's not that the sane people don't know that the Constitution controls which laws might be made and enforced. It's that the current GOPantsshitters have no fucking clue what the Constitution actually says. And those who don't understand the Constitution would be your people; the common clay, the salt of the earth, regular folks; y'know, the assholes.

  3. Democummz said:
    "No, sorry, anonymaroon; it's not that the sane people don't know that the Constitution controls which laws might be made and enforced. It's that the current GOPantsshitters have no fucking clue what the Constitution actually says. And those who don't understand the Constitution would be your people; the common clay, the salt of the earth, regular folks; y'know, the assholes."

    Translation: I don't have an intelligent comment so I'll just sound like a ranting, raving lunatic, that'll make my mommy proud.

  4. Annoyingscum:

    Chapter and verse, asshole, chapter and verse. What, exactly, part of the constitution are the assholes in the videos defending.

    Give us some substantive comment of your own; unlike your first comment, which musta made you chug a whole 2 litre MD in celebration of your cauterized wit.

    They have no idea wtf they're talking about and do do you.

    Lay it on us, Weer'dbeardy or mikeyw or whatever other popsucket is too chickenshit to post under his own blognomen. GOD, Gunz and Gutlessness
    go together like Cheetos, Mountain Dew and Kodiak.

  5. Democummz,
    If you'd watch the videos you wouldn't have to ask stupid questions.

  6. Dang, Democommie, you're in a pissy mood today. I'm going to use my comment to remind everyone that we gun owners aren't monolithic.

    I support gay rights, including full marriage. In fact, I would like to see the government give civil unions to everyone, and leave marriage as purely a religious sacrament with no secular meaning.

    I'm pro-choice on abortion for the first two trimesters, and I support legal abortion in the third when the mother's health is in danger.

    I accept the scientific evidence regarding global warming--its causes and effects on climate.

    I want to preserve the separation of religious institution and state in America. Secular law is the only law that applies to all citizens. That mean no Sharia, but it also means no Christian fundamentalist laws, either.

    Oh, and I believe in the right of individuals to own and use firearms.

    I wonder where I've failed to think critically today. . .

  7. Anonymous wrote "Yeah, that's just crazy for these extreme right wing nuts to say that the Constitution is the law of the land."

    Of course, that wasn't the crazy part. The crazy part is claiming thta the Consitution was to establish a Christian theocracy, and that only Christianity is protected. It is pure insanity to claim there is any encroachment of Sharia law into our courts. (Go look it up; it's been debunked by mutliple fact checkers, contrary to statements made by some of the right wing politicians.) If you want to know where the crazies are, take a look at how many right wing nutjobs have proposed legislation to ban sharia law.

    Ditto those who wish to force the Constitution and everything that evolved from it to Christianity.

    The people who are fighting the separation of church and state do NOT know their constitution.

    Greg - your error today in logic was to limit the options of the Warsaw ghetto uprising(s) to fight with weapons and die, or just die.
    The third option was the better one, and there were plenty of people who took it - leave, and return to fight when you had a prayer in hell of winning.

    But I did credit Ron Paul for not sharing the anti-muslim hatred and bigotry of the others, as a libertrian. Too many of his other ideas stink, for that to do much good on the right however.

  8. "The crazy part is claiming thta the Consitution was to establish a Christian theocracy, and that only Christianity is protected."

    I watched the videos and did not hear anyone say that, except the dude on the Young Turks videos. I may be wrong, but I think you are confusing what the candidates said, on the videos you presented, and what the dude on the other videos said.

  9. Dog Gone,

    By the time of the Warsaw uprising, leaving wasn't an option, nor was it an option for many in the time before the war. Again, j'accuse, Dog Gone. You must be part of the upper class, since you think that everyone can just pick up and move to somewhere better. Many people don't have that option.

  10. I think you have gaps in your knowledge of WW II history, Greg.

    I would refer you to the easy source - good ol' wikipedia - for these numbers:

    Jewish prisones of German camp "Gęsiówka" liberated by Home Army durning Warsaw Uprising 1944Further information: Polish Righteous among the Nations, Żegota, Rescue of Jews by Poles during the Holocaust, and The Holocaust in Poland
    There was a substantial group of Poles who risked their lives during the German occupation to save Jews. Poland was unique among the German-occupied countries to establish an organization which specifically aided the Jewish people.

    Known as the Żegota (Polish: "Council for Aid to Jews") the organization provided shelter, food, medicine, money and false documents for Jews across the country who could pass as Christians. Most of Żegota's funds came directly from the Polish government, then in exile. Individual Poles, both clerical[3] and secular, also offered various forms of aid to the Jewish people. For example, the children's section of Żegota led by Irena Sendler saved 2,500 Jewish children with cooperation of Polish families and the Warsaw orphanage of the Sisters of the Family of Mary, Roman Catholic convents such as the Little Sister Servants of the Blessed Virgin Mary Conceived Immaculate.[4]

    Most Jews who survived the German occupation of Poland were saved by Poles unconnected with Żegota. Estimates of Jewish survivors in Poland range from 40,000-50,000 to 100,000-120,000. Scholars estimate that it took the work of ten Poles to save the life of one Jew.[5] Of the individuals awarded medals of Righteous among the Nations (given by the State of Israel to non-Jews who saved Jews from extermination during the Holocaust) those who were Polish citizens number the greatest.[6] There are 6,266[7] Polish men and women recognized as "Righteous" to this day, amounting to over 25 per cent of the total number of 22,765 honorary titles awarded already.[8]

    There were a lot of people helping the Polish Jews to escape, along with Poles helping other non-Jewish Poles to escape as well. Poles formed a very significant part of the Allied armed forces.

    Yes, by the time of the uprising, those individuals had left it too late. There was no resistance thta would be successful, and no amount of private firearms that would have made the slightest difference at that point.

    But MANY other Poles DID realize thta they needed to leave. and NO, not all of them, not even most of them, were at all wealthy.

    That was not part of my assumption; rather my understanding of the people who did and who did not make the decision to leave was instead formed by some of the information I viewed at various Holocaust museums, including the one in Jerusalem. Tragically, many who had in fact been urged to leave did not do so, failing to anticipate correctly the horrific events which subsequently occurred.

    So, CLEARLY, leaving WAS a better choice than staying and waging a futile battle with very little in the way of effective weapons, and MANY did so.

    Yet you never mention that option in defining the choices. That is intellectual dishonesty in framing the discussion.

  11. Both Bachmann and Santorum have made comments about making the U.S. law conform to 'God's law', and have subsequently elabortaed that means exclusively Christian law.

    Anonymous wrote:
    I watched the videos and did not hear anyone say that, except the dude on the Young Turks videos.

    Thanks for calling to my attention that one of the videos is not appearing properly. However, beyond the videos posted hee - and there are a lot of them, this is not new or unusual informtion. There are many other sources besides what I've posted that make the same claims, and cite the candidates making that statement.

  12. "However, beyond the videos posted hee - and there are a lot of them, this is not new or unusual informtion."

    Since I don't listen to any of these warmongering morons I have no idea what they said beyond what you presented. My point was they didn't say it in the videos here. Again, you may be right, I just didn't see it here.

  13. Anonymous is apparently a Paulbot.

  14. Dog Gone,

    I'm seeing that you're just naturally argumentative. You just can't stand the idea that someone might agree with you on any point.

    Let me try to get you to focus on one point: Is there any situation in which you believe that armed resistance is appropriate? Is that ever the right choice?

    My answer to both questions is yes. Not always, and I'm sure that you'll be pleased to argue with any event in history that I name. But is there ever a time when you see such a choice as the right one?

  15. Greg Camp:

    Is there ever a time when you see gun control as a "right one"?

  16. Democommie,

    I've answered your question already. There are some limited measures that I'd accept--such as a universal criminal history background check, so long as it's free--but only if your side will agree to a permanent recognition of our right to firearms--owning, carrying, and using.

  17. Since the Righties are doing so badly, I think they should drop any pretense at normality and just put Ann Barnhardt up there. She could run on the anti-halal platform.

  18. Greg Camp:

    IOW, "No, us gotz to haz our gunz, 4evah!".

    Criminal background checks will do nothing, absolutely nothing, to weed out KKKrazzeepants and violent people with sealed juvie or otherwise non-public records.

    Face it, you and your insecure friends love yore gunz more than you love everyone else's freedom. Selfish bastards, the lot of you.

  19. Greg wrote:I've answered your question already. There are some limited measures that I'd accept--such as a universal criminal history background check, so long as it's free--

    Why, if there is a cost to doing the background check, should it be free? If there is a cost to legal ownership, the people who own the guns should pay it. Just as they should pay to safely store their firearm securely. If they can afford the gun and they can afford the ammo, they can afford the rest.

    Or are you going to require us to also subsidize buying a firearms for anyone who wants to own a firearm but can't afford it?

    What I WOULD agree to though is the funding of public areas that are safe and designated for shooting sports, like the one that Harry Reid helped create out in Nevada.

    I have never advocated for the end to all firearms, for shooting sports and for hunting. What I won't agree to is carrying - we should be a nation of laws and law enforcement, not individuals engaging in shootouts. The reason is that law enforcement is trained and has the resources, such as computer data bases, as well as better training in specific laws, to more correctly identify criminals. And they are more accountable for any excessive force.

    I also vigorously oppose the more liberal castle doctrine legislation, on the grounds that it is too easy for someone to commit murder and claim it was a crime where they were justified in shooting. Not to mention, I question how well some people shoot, and the dangers to others in nearby homes from the gun firing. It also presents some greater challenges to law enforcement when they arrive on the scene to correctly identify who is and who is not a threat.

  20. Democommie,

    Juvenile records are sealed for employers (except for working with children, etc.), but the police and court system have access now and forever. That's how it is here in Arkansas, at least, and how it's been in other places where I've lived. In other words, your boss may not know, but Big Brother always will.

    Dog Gone,

    Fine: No deals. Not now, not ever. You won't compromise on anything. Why should we?

  21. Greg Camp:

    You have a citation for that claim? Sealed records are sealed. The cops certainly do know about a lot of bad actors but not all of them. The ones that they do know about cannot have "prior bad acts" used against them in many cases. And as for agencies who have access to those records? It appears to be mostly folks in the Crime&Punishment bidneth, I'm not so sure that FFL guyz are gonna get that information without a court order (and why would they ask for one, it cuts into the profit margin).

  22. When I worked for a residential treatment facility for troublesome youths, my coworkers told me that the children's records were available for any kind of security check or the sort of background check for buying a firearm or getting a carry license.

  23. "When I worked for a residential treatment facility for troublesome youths, my coworkers told me that...

    Not a citation.

  24. How about this:

    It relates directly to the story about Arkansas.

  25. I wonder if they run fingerprint checks on every application, or if they only did so on this one when the residence part came into question.

    This did NOT come to light because the Law enforcement officers had access to a sealed juvenile record.

    This came to light because the fingerprints were in the system under the old name.

    So we are left with the same conundrum; what do the police know or not know about sealed records?

    Greg, since YOU are in Arkansas, why don't you contact the state police to ask that question?

    Or is that too much fact checking for you to do? An email which can be viewed with a contact person in the state police who can verify the contents would be desirable.

    (And why do I have to do all the fact checking around here - along with of course, Laci, who does as much or more even than I do?)

  26. Dog Gone,

    I've had my fingerprints taken each time I've applied either for a license or to transfer a license to another state. Fingerprints don't change, even when names do.

    As for calling the state police, why should I? I've already told you that I don't care. I've already told you that you're the one who wants universal background checks, so you have to keep an eye on the process.

  27. Translation - Greg doesn't know or care about the process. In fact he actively avoids knowing.

    We will remind you of that the next time you want to comment on process Greg, either existing or proposed.

    That suggests strongly to me that you know the process doesn't work, and you are afraid to have that quantified, because it will only serve to underline how groups like the NRA, with the support of people like Greg, succeeds in making this country more dangerous.

  28. dog gone:

    I'm beginning to think that Greg Camp may be suffering from paranoia. His take on firearms regulation reminds me of the attitude a lot of people I've talked to have about the IRS.

    I've heard horror stories over many years about what evil bastards the IRS's agents are. I'm sure that, as with any large organization, there are a certain number of bad apples in the system. My own experience with the IRS over a period of ten years when I NEVER filed or paid them on the due date (I always DID file an extension request) is illustrative to me.

    Not once in those ten years was I threatened with any sort of punitive action--not once. Granted, the amounts owed were never more than a couple of thousand dollars but, listening to the tales of woe from others I fully expected to be whisked off to some hellhole of a prison or sold into slavery! Nope; all I ever got were polite letters indicating the steps I needed to follow in order to square things up.

    I look at the sort of nonsense that people like Greg Camp trot out on this thread and numerous others and it does make me think that they're paranoic. Paranoia is not the fear of bad things happening, it is the unreasoanble fear of bad things happening*.

    * Not intended to be a professional/clinical description of the malady.

  29. Dog Gone,

    I'm neither afraid to have the numbers quantified, nor am I afraid in general. I told you that reporting records to the NCIS is your thing. I tolerate it, but you can't expect me to care whether it work perfectly or not.