Michele Again

Last week I posted on Michele Bachmann's wild claims that the government had been infiltrated by crazed Islamic Jihadists bent on our destruction. What I didn't emphasize, and clearly should have, is that her bizarre and outrageous claims were made within the context of her role as a sitting member of the House Select Committee on Intelligence. Yes, her comments were intended to garner votes and (more importantly) campaign funds for her re-election drive, but given the stature of her committee assignment, the effects of her perfidy have a longer reach.

Like Senator Joseph McCarthy of Wisconsin, Bachmann is clearly determined to ride this wild pony through the election and beyond. It's easy for me, a dirty fucking hippy living on the West Coast, to note the comparison. What made me uneasy is that I wasn't so certain that her constituents and fellow Minnesotans had made the same connection. Well, at least one, columnist Jon Tevlin of the Minneapolis Star Tribune, has made the connection.

Here is what I wrote in a column in December about Michele Bachmann:

"You have to give the Republicans credit for their sense of humor in naming her to the Intelligence Committee, but given Bachmann's difficulty with facts, it's hard to believe they will be handing over top secret information to her. Look for Bachmann to use her position to talk about wild government takeover theories and dubious foreign threats, which she will then refuse to discuss further because they are secret."

That's pretty much what Bachmann has done in her most recent allegations that the "halls of Washington" are crawling with Islamic infiltrators. In her response to Rep. Keith Ellison's concerns about her claims, Bachmann indeed hinted that she might have some secret info, but "nor am I able to get into the private discussions and documentation received by the various House committees ..."

I point out my previous column not to show how prescient I am, but how predictable Bachmann has become in her studied formula to make news: Use half-truths and loose associations to make wild accusations; repeat on friendly, unquestioning media outlets until it reaches mainstream; then run like hell from tough questions and claim everything is "out of context."

For a while, such behavior was comical. But now even Speaker of the House John Boehner, from her own party, has called Bachmann's behavior "pretty dangerous" -- following military hero John McCain's rare verbal pummeling of her on the Senate floor. It is no longer amusing.

Maybe it is something else: Michele Bachmann's Joe McCarthy moment? [Emphasis added]

One can only hope that her constituents have decided that Bachmann's "sell-by" date has been reached, because her comments have had an impact on US security interests around the world by virtue of her committee assignment. For more on that, I urge you to read Tevlin's entire column.

This is not simply the case of a zealot pushing a sincerely held belief. If it were, the "report" she is relying upon for her assertions would have fewer red flags in it. From Raw Story

As evidence of their claims, the five Republicans cited “The Muslim Brotherhood in America: The Enemy Within,” a ten-part video course produced by the Center for Security Policy.

The movies claim that the “Muslim Brotherhood was helped in its efforts to achieve information dominance over the George W. Bush administration” by Norquist, a Christian. The influential anti-tax activist is also accused of using “various organizations to promote Islamist agendas.” [Emphasis added]

Norquist a secret Jihadist?

Mercy!

Venal and stupid: Michele Bachmann.

Don't Bother, They're Here

(Click on image to enlarge to see some of the fine details, then kindly return.)

David Horsey has produced a lot of superb cartoons and posts to accompany them, but this one might be one of his best.

While Michele Bachmann's craziness may have been knocked off the front page by the horrific tragedy in Aurora, Colorado, I'm sure she will return much sooner than later. She's running for re-election, and, as we saw earlier this year, when an election is involved, she's all for grabbing the Queen of the Tea Party Mantle and the headlines.

This has been a week in which someone at the Republican National Committee must have said, "Send in the clowns!" Michele Bachmann, Rush Limbaugh and lesser jesters in the GOP circus were just a few fake noses and a seltzer bottle short of performances worthy of Ringling Bros.

Bachmann was the premier buffoon. The Minnesota congresswoman alleged that a top aide to Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, Huma Abedin, may be a spy for the Muslim Brotherhood. ...

On Wednesday, Sen. John McCain rose to Abedin's defense on the floor of the Senate, not naming Bachmann, but clearly aiming fire in her direction. "When anyone, not least a member of Congress, launches specious and degrading attacks against fellow Americans on the basis of nothing more than fear of who they are and ignorance of what they stand for, it defames the spirit of our nation, and we all grow poorer because of it," McCain said.

Bachmann’s former campaign manager, Ed Rollins, was just as scathing. "Having worked for Congressman Bachmann's campaign for president," he said, "I am fully aware that she sometimes has difficulty with her facts, but this is downright vicious and reaches the late Senator Joe McCarthy level." [Emphasis added]

And it's not just McCain and Rollins who objected to the unwarranted vilification. Even House Speaker John Boehner noted that such attacks were "dangerous." That didn't stop, or even slow Ms. Bachmann. She widened her attack to include another member of Congress from her own state:

Shrugging off criticism from GOP leaders in Congress, Minnesota Republican Michele Bachmann broadened her allegations Thursday of Islamic infiltration in the U.S. government, accusing Democrat Keith Ellison of associations with the Muslim Brotherhood.

"He has a long record of being associated with [the Council on American–Islamic Relations] and with the Muslim Brotherhood," Bachmann told right-wing radio and TV show host Glenn Beck.

Ellison, whose Minnesota congressional district borders Bachmann’s, told the Huffington Post that Bachmann’s accusations are totally false. "I am not now, nor have I ever been, associated with the Muslim Brotherhood," he said, echoing the McCarthy-era government loyalty oath.

The exchange came a day after Bachmann was denounced on the Senate floor by Ariz. Sen. John McCain. Earlier Thursday, House Speaker John Boehner termed Bachmann’s allegations “dangerous.” ...

In a wide ranging interview, she called it “my duty” to speak up, and accused the FBI of a “purge” of training materials on radical Islam.

As for Ellison, who has publicly questioned the basis of her allegations, Bachmann said “he wanted to shut it (her call for an investigation) down.”

Bachmann repeated her accusations that Abedin’s family members, including her long-deceased father, associated with the Muslim Brotherhood. But even as she questioned how Abedin could have received a government security clearance, she denied accusing the Clinton aide of being an agent for the Islamic group.

“All we’re doing is asking a question,” she said. [Emphasis added]

Yeah, right. And in your newly drawn district you need to be sure your constituents are aware of your bona fides. Hopefully, for the rest of the state and the country, your constituents have gotten an up close and personal look at your beliefs and tactics.

In the mean time, Mitt Romney is now faced with another dilemma: what does he do about a base that believes non-Christians have no role in this country. Given the view of many fundamentalists that his own religion doesn't qualify him for sanctification, how does he pacify them? David Horsey wondered the same thing:

The quandary Romney faces and has faced throughout the campaign is that the conspiracy clowns include not just a few members of Congress and a bunch of conservative pundits and celebrities. Their ranks extend to all the folks who believe the same crazy stuff as Bachmann -- a broad segment of voters that just happens to be the base of the party Romney is trying to lead.

Does he dare shut them out at the convention? Or does he let them speak, thereby losing a huge chunk of the popular vote, including those in states that are up for grabs and close. I'm sure he'll be thinking about that as he goes to fund raisers in London with those banksters accused of being involved in the LIBOR scandal.

Popcorn futures are up.

Better Than Coffee

Occasionally, something in my morning scan of the news lifts my spirits rather than dampens them. It's rare, too rare, but it does happen just often enough to keep me going. This was one of those rare mornings.

From the Minneapolis Star Tribune:

Muslim families in the northwest metro suburbs, who for years have moved from one place to another for prayer services, won approval Tuesday night for a mosque that will share space with Plymouth's post office.

The Plymouth City Council voted unanimously to approve the Northwest Islamic Community Center's purchase and move into the building. The center plans to remodel it for family activities and to serve the worship needs of about 40 Muslim families centered in the Plymouth area.

"We welcome you to our community," Council Member Bob Stein said after the vote.

What a lovely sentiment and what a refreshing change over what is usually reported when Muslims seek approval for a new mosque/community center. Of course, it helps that Minnesota has a large community of Muslims, many from Somalia. That community has had ample opportunity to show that they are good neighbors, something that Minnesotans have clearly noticed.

And the new mosque in Plymouth is a win-win situation. The US Postal Service had the post office up for sale as part of its cost cutting retrenchment. The Islamic group has purchased the building and has leased back part of it to the government for a postal service counter. The USPS will still have a local presence.

It ain't much, but it's good news, and sometimes that's better than coffee in the morning.

Crickets

Yesterday's visit to Watching America was a rather strange one. There were a number of articles that struck me because, while they used America as a backdrop, the articles themselves were directed towards the issues of their respective countries. That backdrop wasn't a very flattering one. If you don't visit this valuable site often, this would be a good time to do so.

That said, the article I finally settled on came from the Economist. It had to do with a trial that took place in Murfreesboro, Tennessee. First, here's the background to the story.

In January “NOT WELCOME” was spray-painted on a sign placed on the site announcing it as the future home of the Islamic Centre of Murfreesboro. The sign was vandalised again in June, one week after a contentious county commission hearing at which a local pastor declared, “We have a duty to investigate anyone under the banner of Islam.” The same month a Republican candidate for Congress from Murfreesboro declared herself “opposed to the idea of an Islamic training centre being built in our community”. In August construction equipment at the site was set alight.

When the righteous right wing terrorists didn't succeed in their intimidation tactics, they ponied up for a civil lawsuit, and here's where it gets good:

...The defence called a single witness, who testified that the county’s planning commission followed proper procedure; the plaintiffs called at least 17, including Frank Gaffney, who runs a think-tank in Washington, DC, and speaks often about the dangers of sharia (for whatever that is worth: on the stand he admitted, “I am not an expert on sharia, but I have talked a lot about it as a threat”). Their attorney’s questioning often focused not on the details of open-meetings laws but on the incompatibility of sharia and American law, on whether Islam is a religion (the federal government filed a brief saying that it is) and on whether advocating sharia law ought to be protected by the first amendment.

Like the author of the article, I am somewhat puzzled by the willingness of the hearing officer in letting that "expert" testimony in, but at least he reached the proper conclusion. He threw the case out.

Now two things about this article struck me. The first, of course, is the sheer meanness of Islamaphobes, a meanness which is not unlike that of their nasty cousins, the racists. One of the attorneys for the plaintiffs declared that the case would go all the way up to the Supreme Court. Gasp! I wonder who will fund that little exercise.

The second thing which struck me was that it was so reminiscent of the huge coverage given by the US press this past summer over the plans to build an Islamic center a few blocks from "Ground Zero." Not a day went by without coverage of the rhetoric roiling about the issue. In fact, the same kind of coverage was given to groups protesting such centers or mosques in various small towns around the nation, always providing a "balanced" version of the facts. Yet, as far as I can tell, there was little mention of the Murfreesboro case in any of the major news outlets the past three weeks.

I did a little Google check on the coverage of the New York center and found that stories started really showing up in June, peaked in August, leveled off in September, and then, by the end of that month, stopped entirely. There are probably several explanations for that. The most obvious is that the over coverage was getting tedious and not grabbing people as much. The second is that the new issue was the imagined threat of Sharia law replacing the US Constitution, which is still getting ink and electrons and was the alleged central issue in the Murfreesboro case.

Probably the main reason, however, is that the midterm elections loomed. There were plenty of stories to cover, several of which contained the left-over stench from the New York center as rightist candidates continued to mouth outrage over the very existence of Muslims, wherever they might be located. In other words, the damage had been done.

I don't know that the timing and over-reporting was intentional on the part of the press, but it certainly had the same effect as if it had been. It now appears that the kind of horrid behavior displayed in the Murfreesboro case is no longer news. It's the norm, and there's nothing newsworthy in the norm.

Tempest In A Crock Pot

File this post under "Howler." I don't remember the last time I laughed loudly enough to scare my cats under the bed. Here's the skinny:

Campbell Soup Co., the Camden, N.J., food giant, has been fighting a grass-roots boycott of its products after its Canadian subsidiary rolled out a line of soups certified as halal, meaning they're prepared according to Islamic dietary laws. ...

The halal soups, designated with a special label, are available only in Canada. The company has no plans to offer a similar line in the United States, said John Faulkner, a company spokesman.

That boycott is being led by Pam Geller, the libertoonian blogger at Atlas Shrugs. (I could have posted a link, but I really didn't think it worth the effort.) She claims to object not to the halal designation but rather to Campbell's use of the halal certifying group ISNA, a group she claims is linked to Hamas, the Holy Land Foundation, and the Muslim Brotherhood.

ISNA has denied any ties to Hamas or to officials of a defunct charity called Holy Land Foundation, who were convicted in the conspiracy case. It has specifically condemned religious extremism and violence. In the wake of the conspiracy trial, Jewish and Protestant organizations issued statements in support of ISNA. ...

Boycotting a company is, in my opinion, a perfectly legitimate political action, one that I have participated in several times in my life time. Generally, however, boycotts are based on facts about the company that justify the action, something of which Ms. Geller is apparently unaware if in fact she really only has it in for ISNA as a terrorist-supporting organization. Whether her motives are pure or not, however, her followers appear to have joyfully leaped into rank Islamaphobia.

Here's the kicker, however, the punchline, if you will:

Faulkner said Campbell hasn't noticed any effect on its sales since the boycott began.

Heckuva job, Pammy.