Madness on the Right

Mitt Romney: Gone but not forgotten.

When he left us, he said, while dipping his head cutely to the right, "If I fight on in my campaign, all the way to the convention, I would forestall the launch of a national campaign and make it more likely that Senator Clinton or Obama would win. And in this time of war, I simply cannot let my campaign, be a part of aiding a surrender to terror."

Got that? Senator Clinton and Senator Obama, together or single, are "aiding a surrender to terror." Well, thank god Mitt, the moron, is gone - hopefully for good.


The Pope has suggested that there be a "limited application of Islamic law" in Italy. What? Nah, I'm fibbing.

Actually, it was the archbishoprick of Canterbury in England who suggested that such a thing be done in Britain. His notion is to "allow British Muslims to choose to resolve marital and financial disputes under Islamic law, known as Shariah, rather than through British courts."

The archbishoprick's name is Rowan Williams. And no, this is not a joke. And yes, he's a blithering idiot.

Why don't we move to England, start a new religion, set up some laws for believers in our religion and then petition the English government that we be allowed to use our laws to resolve certain problems among us, rather than the English courts?

Is this ecumenism gone mad? Or just plain madness?


Hope you're not worried about Afghanistan. You shouldn't be 'cuz Condoleezza Rice says that everything is hunky-dory over there, and the war is "winnable." (Please note that it's our sons and daughters that are fighting it and not Condi!)

But wait, there's a problem. Rice was in Kabul with a British representative and it seems she speaks with forked tongue. With one fork she emphasized the "improvements" made in Afghanistan since the U.S. et. al., threw out the Taliban in 2001. I can't determine just what "improvements" she is talking about, however. The Taliban is getting stronger, the role of women is diminishing, schools are under attack, there is a growing demand for establishment of Islamic law, and the poppy farmers are making whoopee...so what's improved? Not much, actually.

The upshot is this: (and this is the second fork) In spite of all these nebulous "improvements," the U.S. is concerned "that the mission of stabilizing this country is in danger of stalling or even deteriorating."

So, according to Condi, the war is winnable and we've made lots of progress, but it looks like everything's falling apart.

We've come a long way in seven years. Not.


About five weeks ago, Congress passed the Open Government Act of 2007. Bush signed it "reluctantly." It would promote open government by making the Office of Government Information Services in the National Archives the final resting place for all government records. It would also facilitate access to government records.

Bush, who operates what is indubitably the most secretive government in American history, had a change in his sneaky little heart and thought he could pull a fast one on the Congress and the rest of us.

I mean, who reads the huge federal budget? No one, usually. It's about a gazillion pages long. But Bush got caught, anyway. Buried in the 1,314 page appendix, someone found an eight-line provision which would abolish the above-named office, transferring its functions to the "very agency that defends other federal agencies wishing to keep government documents shrouded: the Department of Justice." Sheesh!

Just another day at the White House where the fox guards the henhouse.


We've written before about the Bush administration's program to ostensibly fight AIDS in Africa. We mentioned that the $15 billion program is so flawed and misguided that the money might just as well be dropped from a plane flying over the sub-Saharan nations its supposed to help.

You see, it's an AIDS program developed for Christian right-wingers. It has effectively stymied the work of Planned Parenthood in Africa because not a penny of this money can go to organizations which offer abortion counseling, or suggest the use of condoms, or hand out condoms.

Essentially, the money goes to faith-based groups (on the Christian fruitcake fringe) who agree to push for abstinence. Unfortunately, abstinence is not a popular topic in Africa (or in most countries!).

Democrats want to make some changes this year. The Republicans are crying "foul." John Boehner, Repub House leader and others are wailing that those changes would jeopardize this "successful program to combat AIDS." That's an inside joke among Repubs. It is anything but successful.

Bush wants to add another $15 billion over the next five years. Democrats say that's insufficient and they want $50 billion. Furthermore, the Dems would eliminate the requirement that 1/3 of all prevention spending go to abstinence programs. The Dems would also get rid of the Republican rule that money can go to family planning groups for AIDS work so long as none of it is spent on abortions.

It's hard for me to believe that the United States government has caved in to the Christian right to such an extent that people working in Africa to prevent the spread of HIV/AIDs cannot talk about condoms or hand out condoms, even though it has been proven that condoms are the most effective deterrent against the spread of the disease?


Larry Beinhart, writing for Alternet, explains how Mike Huckabee thinks we ought to change the Constitution so that it is in line with the Word of God.

Here's what Huckabee said, in part: "...I believe it's a lot easier to change the Constitution than it would be to change the word of the living God. And that's what we need to do, to amend the Constitution so it's in God's standards rather than to try to change God's standards so it lines up with some contemporary view of how we treat each other and how we treat the family."

Beinhart then refers to an interview Huckabee gave to CNN's Wolf Blitzer. Huckabee suggested that the Constitution affirmed the pro-life movement, because, he said, the Declaration of Independence and our "founders made it very clear that all of us are equal" (More on that later). Futhermore, Huckabee explained that "in all of our historical settings" marriage has referred to a man and a woman.

Beinhart writes with wry humor noting that Mr. Huckabee is fundamentally wrong in his assumptions. It's actually much harder to amend the Constitution than the Word of God. "Amending the Word of God is quite easy. Any preacher (like Mr. Huckabee), a Pope, a self-proclaimed new prophet, even a mere pundit, can come along and say, 'This is actually the word of God! Not that old stuff you used to believe.'"

Beinhart is right. It has happened over and over again and continues to happen today. He also points out that Huckabee is not helpful when he says "the Ten Commandments are still the Ten Commandments."

Beinhart notes that there are three different versions of the Ten Commandments and that even the various religious groups can't agree on which is correct. Furthermore, "The reality is that virtually all contemporary Christian and Jewish groups have amended them. And that any group that tried to enforce them, in the manner called for in the Bible, would be subject to arrest."

But Huckabee is just blowing smoke. His goals as president Include the passing of two Constitutional amendments: one banning abortion, and another defining marriage as "a union between one man and one woman."

Interestingly enough, the Bible (Christian or Jewish) says nothing about either of these issues.

To conclude, as Beinhart points out, Huckabee's history is screwed. He claims the founders of our nation "made it very clear that all of us are equal." We are equal, they believed, because every person has "intrinsic worth in value." Huckabee wants to believe this so he can use it to prop up his "pro-life" views.

Unfortunately for Mr. Huckabee and so many muddled thinkers like him, the founders of our nation did not believe everyone was equal. That's why they arranged that only white males with a certain amount of wealth would be able to vote. "The historical truth," as Beinhart points out, "is exactly the opposite of what Huckabee claims.

What this makes clear is that Huckabee is about as unqualified to be president as anyone could be. That he creates a false history in order to provide a rationale for his religious beliefs is bad enough. The worst of it, though, is that he wants to establish a government based upon his fundamentalist, dominionist, Christian views.

So much for the provision of separation of church and state. That alone should disqualify him.

We can't say he didn't warn us!