bookmark_borderSilence from the three Nazi, I mean GOP, Presidential Candidates

If a presidential candidate attended a NAZI rally to try to get some votes, and if the leader of the rally spewed hate-mongering rhetoric about working towards a “final solution” for the “Jewish problem” in the USA, do you think the mass media would be interested in reporting this event?  Do you think the mass media would ask some pointed questions to that presidential candidate?

  • What if three GOP presidential candidates attended a conference hosted by a religious nutcase who advocates the death penalty for homosexuals? (I seem to recall that the Nazis sent homosexuals to death camps along with millions of Jews).  
  • What if the religious nutcase spewed his hate-mongering ideas at that very conference from the stage on which he interviewed those three GOP candidates?  

Do you think the mass media would be interested in reporting this event?  Do you think the mass media would ask some pointed questions to these GOP sociopaths who pretend to be normal human beings?  Apparently not.
Ted Cruz, Bobby Jindal, and Mike Huckabee all attended a conference hosted by the religious nutcase Kevin Swanson, who during the conference spewed his hate-mongering ideas from the stage on which he also interviewed those three sociopaths who are in the running to be the next president of the U.S.A.
It appears that Cruz, Jindal, and Huckabee have no interest in apologizing for the moral equivalent of attending a NAZI rally to try to get a few more votes from right-wing idiots:

GOP Candidates Really Don’t Want To Talk About ‘Kill The Gays’ Conference

SUBMITTED BY Miranda Blue on Wednesday, 11/18/2015 2:50 pm
A couple of weeks ago, we reported extensively on a conference in Iowa organized by extremist pastor Kevin Swanson, at which three Republican presidential candidates joined Swanson on stage shortly before he went off on a series of rants about how the biblical punishment for homosexuality is death, Harry Potter is bringing God’s judgment on America, and how if your gay child gets married you should show up to the wedding covered in cow manure.
MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow ran a segment on the conference, but other than that, as a number of commentators have noted, the media has been strangely silent on the Republican candidates’ participation in this event.
Today, Des Moines Register columnist Rekha Basu reports that she reached out to the campaigns of the three candidates, Ted Cruz, Mike Huckabee and Bobby Jindal (who has since dropped out of the presidential race), and found them rather reluctant to talk about it.
For more details:

bookmark_borderHuckabee, Cruz, and Jindal Kiss the Ring of Religious Nutcase Kevin Swanson

By “ring” I don’t mean jewelry worn on Swanson’s finger.


“Republican presidential candidates Ted Cruz, Mike Huckabee and Bobby Jindal all spoke this weekend at the National Religious Liberties Conference in Iowa, an event hosted by Kevin Swanson, a Colorado-based pastor and activist who frequently informs his followers that the biblical penalty for homosexuality is death and defended a proposed law in Uganda that would have imposed life imprisonment or capital punishment for homosexuality.”


Please watch the video of religious nutcase Kevin Swanson speaking at and hosting the conference where Cruz, Huckabee, and Jindal appeared and were interviewed on stage by Swanson.

The terrorist attacks on Friday night in Paris remind us all about the ultimate results of religious fanaticism: violence and death.
It is the duty of rational and caring human beings in  this country to do whatever we can to prevent sociopaths who gladly kiss the ass of a violent hate-mongering religious nutcase (like Swanson) from becoming President of the United States of America.  
It appears that Huckabee, Cruz, and Jindal would happily slit their own mother’s throat in order to get a few more votes from Evangelical Christians and right-wing religious fanatics.
NOTE: The video on this story begins 5 minutes and 55 seconds into the posted video (you can skip over the story on Democratic presidential candidates).

Rachel Maddow: Three Republican candidates speak at anti-gay pastor’s rally


bookmark_borderIs the Religious Right Finished?

This week was a bad week for right-wingers. The Supreme Court (I hate the acronym “SCOTUS.” Sounds like a disreputable body part.) upheld the Affordable Care Act (“Obamacare”) against a challenge that would have removed the federal subsidy for health insurance purchase in non-participating (red) states. Then, just yesterday, came an even crueler blow when the Court struck down state bans on gay marriage. State officials here in Texas were apoplectic or lachrymose, vowing no surrender. Speaking of Glorious Lost Causes, neo-Confederates got a kick to the dentures when rebel flags started to come down across the south. Even the Republican governors of Alabama and South Carolina said that the Confederate Battle Flag is a symbol of racism and hatred and has no place on public property. The choruses of wailing, moaning, and gnashing of teeth wafting from the right were music to my liberal ears.
The ruling striking down gay marriage bans comes on the tail of a remarkable turnaround in public opinion. As recently as 2004, George W. Bush could run successfully on a campaign of “fears, smears, and queers,” that is, by playing up fear of terrorism, smearing John Kerry with the “swift boat” stuff, and decrying the “gay agenda.” Ten years ago a strong majority disapproved of gay marriage, and this has turned into strong approval. Does this ruling and the groundswell of public approval mean that the religious right has shot its bolt? Is it finished? After all, opposition to gay marriage is a big-ticket item for them, one of their key and defining issues. Braving charges of homophobia, they cast down the gauntlet and drew lines in the sand. Will the Court’s ruling impact them like the Scopes trial did in the 1920s? Will they now be castigated and humiliated in the media, held up as archetypical bigots and obscurantists, lampooned by every wag and wit with a microphone? Will they skulk off for a few decades at least, to lick their wounds and await a new day?
I think that any news of the demise of the religious right is grossly exaggerated. They have gotten a lot smarter since the 1920s. If beaten in open battle, they resort to guerilla attacks. Take abortion, which is as big or bigger issue for the religious right than gay rights. When Roe v. Wade recognized abortion as a constitutional right, it could no longer be attacked head-on. When you enter public office in Texas you have to swear to uphold the law and the Constitution. What they have done, then, is to try to make abortion die the death of a thousand small cuts. Bit, by bit, they chip away at it, with rules that make it more onerous, humiliating, or intimidating for women seeking abortions and harder for abortion clinics to stay open. For instance, anyone seeking abortion is required to get an ultrasound in hopes that image of the “baby” will shame her into backing off. Abortion clinics are required to meet unnecessarily strict standards, and abortion doctors must have admitting privileges at a local hospital. The net result is that clinics get closed, leaving only a few in the state. Since these measures cannot be defended as attempts to deny to women a constitutional right, they are risibly justified as “empowering” women or promoting their safety.
So, I think that the religious right will not surrender or even retreat. They will just start launching sneaky attacks on gay marriage, just like they do on abortion. One trick that the religious right has learned is to defend their agenda with the rhetoric of progressives. Thus, as noted above, laws designed to prevent women’s choices are defended as “empowering.” Likewise, instead of attacking gays directly, the new rhetoric will support “religious liberty.” State legislatures, as I am sure we will see in Texas, will offer a plethora of bills ostensibly to defend the freedom of religion but really intended to defend the freedom to discriminate. The argument will be that some people (conservative Christians) regard gay marriage as sinful on the basis of sincere and deeply held religious convictions, and therefore it would be an infringement of their religious freedom to require that they so act as to promote or sanction actions they regard as sinful. Really, it is amazing how creative fundamentalist legislators can be at coming up with underhanded ways to undermine federal rulings.
So, while we might pop a cork to celebrate the ruling, now is not the time for complacency about the religious right. On the contrary, we have to become a lot more vigilant in sniffing out their schemes and machinations. When they go behind the scenes, we have to drag them out into the daylight and expose the sleazy rhetoric they use to cloak bigotry in the language of progress. We have to be emphatic that freedom of religion does not include the freedom to make people into second class citizens because they are LGBT (actually, transgender will be the next big battleground).
Actually, the thing that might hurt the religious right the most is that the movement is graying. According to the polls I have seen, young people are moving farther away from the social conservative agenda, so demographics might do the job that the Supreme Court cannot. Gen X and the Millennials have grown up with more positive models of gay people in the media and with openly gay, lesbian, or bisexual friends and relatives. They have a hard time seeing that these people are deserving of hell because of whom they love. Will Southern Baptists have openly gay ministers in fifty years? Not impossible, I would say.