Conservatives project fears onto "others"

This is the entire GOP plan: Credibility destroyed after Bush debacle, their only strategy is to scare us

The party of security tanked the economy and unleashed Middle East disaster. Now they have nothing but fear itself

By Paul RosenbergConservatives had always been comfortable with blacks as other, as containers for their most unwanted projections. But before blacks were demonized, the pattern was initiated with Native Americans. Another Kleinian theorist, Robert Young, has written about racism and projective identification (here and here, for example), noting that “the price of admission into a culture is the acquiring of its projective identifications.” Young cites the example of a 1503 decree by Queen Isabella citing Native Americans’ purported “hard habits of idolatry and cannibalism” as justification for authorizing slavery:

The European charge of cannibalism was unfounded. Harmless and helpful natives were bad-mouthed as wild and bestial, thus legitimating the activities of a master race. The savagery of the conquistadors was projected onto their victims, who could then be seen as subhuman and could be treated in subhuman ways—which they extravagantly were.

A similar dynamic applied to enslaved blacks, regardless of the colonizing power involved. The savagery of conquest was projected into the conquered. However, when situations allowed, there was often a place for a few “respectable” tokens who served a variety of different functions for white slaveholders, and later white leaders who followed them—to endorse their views, make them seem more reasonable, provide pacifying “leadership” for the masses, etc.

Obama was threatening for a number of reasons, not least that he adopted a form of respectability politics, while remaining relatively loyal to the black base, and running as a Democrat, whose policies were anathema to movement conservatives. Hence, at the overt level, he disarmed the demonizing projective processes, particularly in courting conservatives outright—praising Ronald Reagan, inviting Rick Warren to give the invocation at his inauguration, reaching out to conservative opinion writers, dining with them within weeks of taking office, etc.—but he would not validate the projection of otherness onto other blacks as a whole, which is a core purpose of the “respectable black” figure. And thus the need to otherize him (and project white evil acts, impulses, phantasies, etc. into him), as blacks had always been otherized, needed to find a new form, a new rationale. Which is precisely what the birther phantasy did. It said that everything about him was a lie, so nothing he did could make any difference. It invalidated any action he might take, leaving it to be reinterpreted by those who most despised him, without any regard to the facts.Comment:  For more on the subject, see Conservative Freakout Over Denali = Racism and What the Crusades Controversy Is About.

Obama: Colonists were merely dissastified

Obama Doesn't Understand American Indian History

By Peter d'ErricoPresident Obama doesn't understand America's history with Indigenous Peoples. A careful reading of his recent conversation with author Marilynne Robinson on September 14, 2015, in Des Moines, Iowa, shows he has serious misconceptions.

In the midst of the conversation, Robinson referred to hearing people in America saying, "The system is failing." Obama responded: "That's part of what makes America wonderful, is we always had this nagging dissatisfaction that spurs us on. That’s how we ended up going west, that’s how we—'I’m tired of all these people back east; if I go west, there’s going to be my own land and I’m not going to have to put up with this nonsense, and I’m going to start my own thing, and I’ve got my homestead.'"

That's pretty amazing. President Obama, so attuned to the "fault line of race," has it in his head that the Indian wars resulted from dissatisfied non-Indians, who, in order to feel better about their lives, "went west"!

I guess the same explanation might apply all the way back: The Puritans were dissatisfied with their lot in England and Holland, so they went west to Massachusetts, and rounded up the Indians into "praying town" reservations. Other colonizers found their "own land" named "Virginia," where they became rich from tobacco plantations worked by indentured servants and slaves.

And so on back even further: The conquistadors, "tired of all those people" back in Spain, went west to the "new world" and made it their "own land," and made the Indigenous peoples their "own slaves."

Obama managed to skip over these gory details to get to his conclusion that "we" solved our "nagging dissatisfaction" and became a "wonderful" country. Who was "we"? It certainly didn't include the Indians. They were in "our" way.Comment:  What the colonizers really said:

"I'm tired of all these people back east with their rules requiring payment for land. If I go west, there’s going to be my own land stolen from Indians and given to me.

"If there's any trouble, the Army will protect me against the 'savages' who want their land back. I deserve these government handouts--free land and security--because I'm a privileged white man."

Conservative freakout over Denali = racism

What's behind the conservative crying over the Denali name change?

For starters, it obviously is not about giving Alaskans what they want. Because they want the original name restored.

An Alaskan On What The Lower 48 Don't Get About Denali

By Julia O'MalleyAlaska is a conservative state. Registered Republicans outnumber Democrats by a wide margin, but the state’s brand of conservatism has a pro-development, anti-government, libertarian flavor. Most people don’t see the mountain’s name change along partisan lines. Instead, some see it as a victory in the state’s long public lands tug-of-war with the federal government, while others, especially in the Alaska Native community, see it as a victory for indigenous rights. And pretty much everybody has been calling the mountain Denali for years.

There’s also something worth explaining about the culture here. We put Alaska-ness before all else, and tend to view outsiders with suspicion. In Alaska, nobody really cares if you went to Harvard, but if your grandmother was buried here, you should say so because it gives you cred. I think this is because there are only 700,000 people in this state and a whole lot of dangerous country, animals and weather. People from very different backgrounds tend to find themselves relying on each other, so we care most about stuff like whether you are the type to carry a tow strap in your truck and would be willing to pull us out of a ditch in a snowstorm. Politics come way second. Our loyalty to Denali over McKinley is driven by the same impulse. Denali is ours, it comes from here, it carries a tow strap. McKinley isn’t and doesn’t.Playing politics with Denali

So why are non-Alaskan conservatives ignoring the wishes of Alaskan conservatives?

The GOP’s ludicrous “Mt. Denali” freakout: What this latest “scandal” reveals about the right-wing outrage machine

Trump was the highest profile critic of the Obama administration decision to restore a mountain's original name

By Bob CescaOkay, several points on this ridiculousness—the latest in a series of non-scandal scandals:

• McKinley was originally named Denali until 1917 when it was changed in honor of President William McKinley. If the GOP is concerned with, say, the traditional definition of marriage, shouldn’t they also be interested in the traditional name of a mountain?

• The Alaska Geographic Board has actually used “Denali” as Alaska’s official name for the mountain since 1975.But:None of this is relevant to the far-right, of course, nor will there be any retractions issued given the myriad facts surrounding the name change. Knowing the long list of trivial and not-so-trivial “gates” that have each induced relapsing outrage comas among googly-eyed Obama haters, this could be one of the most trivial. It’ll never top the reaction to Obama’s use of teleprompters (which are used by every other public figure) or the baffling indignation over Obama’s choice of a tan suit for his press conference wardrobe, but it’s way up there.

In the effort to level the odds for 2016, not to mention all previous Obama-era elections for that matter, the GOP has been engaged in a shotgun strategy, framing nearly every White House decision as those of a legion of super-villains, motivated by the president’s so-called radical agenda to “fundamentally transform” America (an agenda that really doesn’t exist). It works well as red meat for the base, and it’s maybe successfully shaved a few points off Obama’s approval numbers by sheer attrition, but outside of the conservative entertainment complex, it’s easy to see exactly what the GOP is up to. It’s a scam and bears little similarity to reality. And this particular Denali issue is maybe the finest example of the GOP’s desperate scandal-mongering.Alaska's Great White Mountain

In renaming a peak that honored a Republican hero, President Obama stepped into the center of a fray over political correctness, American culture, and partisanship.

By David A. GrahamFor non-Rovians, what makes Obama’s “Denali” decision sting is the symbolism. One of the key stories of the Obama presidency is the sense among white, conservative Americans that their country is disappearing. Though seldom couched in directly racial terms, the issue of racial identity always lurks beneath the surface. The sense that white America is fading is not irrational, and it’s not just about the black president in the White House. Census projections have Caucasians becoming not a majority, but merely a plurality, of the population within a couple decades.

The reaction to Dylann Roof's massacre in Charleston is an example of how this plays out. Even some people who were horrified by the shooting and supported South Carolina’s decision to remove the Confederate battle flag from the state-capitol grounds felt uncomfortable with the sudden rise of demands to erase other symbols of the Confederacy or of white-supremacist leaders of yore—statues of Jefferson Davis, college buildings named for racists, and the like. These changes are just and overdue, but they’re also understandably disorienting, and for people who already feel their heritage and way of life are under siege, they seem a step (or several) too far. Conservatives complain, using a phrase Obama himself employed in October 2008, that the president is in the process of “fundamentally transforming the United States of America.”

Still, much of the reaction to Obama’s decision is almost comic. “Mt. McKinley is still there,” Erick Erickson proclaims, vowing to keep calling it by that name. “I will still call the mountain Mt. McKinley in the same way I will call Turin, Turin, instead of Turino like the idiots at NBC decided to do during that city’s time hosting the Olympics,” he writes.

The “Turin” comparison is instructive—after all, just as with Denali, the people who actually live there call it “Torino.” More generally, the thrust of the reaction seems to be, You can’t rename Mount McKinley! It’s had that name for a very long time. This argument might seem more than a bit ironic to Athabascans, in whose tongue “Denali” means “the Great One,” and who called it by that name for far longer than the “McKinley” label has stuck. Alaska Natives have been pushing to rename the mountain for years, saying that the official name, among other things, conveyed a “fundamental disrespect” for their culture.Conservatives = racists, again

No need to hint that racism is lurking in the background. The conservative crying is explicitly racist.

Conservative Reaction to ‘Denali’ Proves It: They Don’t Care About Native Americans

By John Paul BrammerOf course, millions of Natives died in the process of colonization. But that’s an uncomfortable truth conservatives have chosen to ignore.

And they ignore it because they’re afraid to open that can of worms.

If they did, they would have to acknowledge that Native Alaskans have been fighting to reclaim one of their sacred sites for a long time and that this is not simply an opportunity for them to hit Obama.

No, instead, Native voices are pushed out of the debate entirely. Just like Native voices have been pushed out of nearly every facet of American society.

It’s no wonder Natives who do choose to participate in United States’ elections skew Democratic. Especially when you have Republicans like John McCain selling out sacred Native lands to foreign mining companies.What's in a Name? Restoring Denali's Name Should Just Be the First in a Long List

By Doug KielGOP presidential candidate Mike Huckabee commented, “I’m wondering what’s next—the renaming of the Washington Monument to the ‘Obama Monument’?” Huckabee’s “what’s next” remark is in part a critique of what he perceives to be an abuse of executive power, but it is also a common, paranoid refrain in the face of white privilege being challenged.

Restoring the name of North America’s highest peak does not signal the erosion of white supremacy as some conservative Republicans seem to worry. Unfortunately, their white supremacy remains firmly intact. But the name restoration does reflect that President Obama is willing to pay respect to Indigenous nations. As the debate over Indian mascots and logos in professional sports has shown, names do in fact matter, and non-Natives quite often clutch to their colonial naming rights as firmly as they can.How one mountain proved claims of “principled conservatism” are just racism

By Amanda MarcotteSo what exactly is the great conservative principle at stake here? State’s rights? Alaska already calls it Denali. Preservation of existing norms and standards? Well, the name is going back to what it was before, which is the restoration of tradition, which conservatives should theoretically support. What about Donald Trump and his ongoing belief that allowing people of different cultures to come in to yours will dramatically alter and eventually destroy your existing culture? If that’s so, then he should be applauding the government for rejecting the way that outsiders came to Alaska and just started renaming stuff without asking the people who were there first.

Clearly, the only real principle here is the belief that white people are better than everyone else, and that the names of things like mountains should reflect this belief in white supremacy.

That’s where we’re at, folks: 2015, and the right wing is having an openly racist fit that doesn’t even bother to pretend to be about anything but believing white people are better than everyone else.Renaming = white power

The truth about right-wing Denali outrage: Destroying the tenacious colonialist “right” to re-name is long overdue

The mountain has always had a name—and so has every other place in Alaska, before white explorers made their marks

By Paula Young LeeEarlier this year, the blog, “Athabascan Woman,” run by Angela Gonzalez, featured a round-up of Facebook comments regarding the “Denali” question. Vera Schafer affirmed: “That’s the real name. The people who came and changed every name didn’t know each place had a name. The people who wrote about Alaska said it was ‘vast wastelands.’ It wasn’t because people were already living here and everything had a name. Every hill, knoll, river bends, slough had a native name.” Another commentator, Darlene Reena Herbert, wrote: “There is a word for everything on earth and beyond in Dinjii zhuh ginjik” (Native people language).”

That language, however, is not American English. Worse, the word itself, meaning “great one,” refers to the physical properties of the mountain, and not to the achievements of mortal men who become immortal through great deeds. “Alaska is full of glaciers and other places named for white male explorers,” Alaska transplant Amy Price McCord wrote in an email to me. These places include Prince William Sound and Mt. Edgecumbe (thought to be named after George, earl of Edgecumbe; its original Tlingit name is L’ux).

The names systematically affirm a colonialist mentality that subjugates rather than respects the land, exploiting a theologically-informed attitude to nature that has enriched coffers for centuries. Now, that model is beginning to crumble in the face of overwhelming evidence of climate change. The president’s trip to Alaska is partly driven by the widespread recognition that it’s one of the places in the world most vulnerable to its immediate effects.

The partisan refusal to recognize climate change is driving its own set of memes linking “Denali” to “Denial.” Hence there is political peril in restoring the names of people, places, and things using the names originally bestowed on them. Return the names to their original forms, return the land to the people? For some Conservatives, renaming is a sign that the world is run amok with political correctness, but also something more when the President of the U.S. endorses it. To restore a name symbolically acknowledges that other cultural systems have legitimacy and merit, which correspondingly confirms that the landmarks of my thoughts are not the same as the landmarks of your thoughts.The Long History Behind Renaming Mt. McKinley

By Ben RailtonQuirky details aside, this renaming controversy echoes far deeper and more longstanding American historical and cultural issues. After all, whatever Dickey’s intentions in choosing McKinley, it was that 1890s choice which represented the original renaming of the mountain, a change in the name of a sacred place for generations of Alaskan Native Americans (particularly members of the Koyukon Athabaskan nation). Alaska has acknowledged that sacred heritage for decades, and the mountain has been known as Denali within the state since the 1970s. But every time Congress has tried to formalize the change, Ohio has protested and stalled the process, arguing that the name McKinley is an important part of their state’s history and heritage.

Yet that name exists at the explicit expense of another foundational American cultural heritage and identity. As a result, in maintaining the name McKinley over Denali on the national level, as in the original act of renaming the mountain, mainstream European American culture has extended the acts of settler colonialism and imperialism that have stolen and occupied Native lands for centuries—a process illustrated in William Dickey’s own era by the 1893 military coup in and 1898 annexation (by the McKinley administration!) of Hawaii.

Such imperial renamings have been part of the European colonial enterprise from literally its first moments: In a 1493 letter describing his first voyage to Spanish financial backer Luis de Santangel, Christopher Columbus writes, “To the first island I discovered I gave the name of San Salvador, in commemoration of His Divine Majesty, who has wonderfully granted all this. The Indians call it Guanaham.” And they have certainly continued into our postcolonial American existence—many of our prominent spaces and places, from Mt. Rushmore to Lake Superior, were similarly renamed by European settlers and officials from their original Native designations.

In her 1834 poem “Indian Names,” Lydia Sigourney imagined a far different process and effect, one in which the continued use of Native American names such as Massachusetts and Connecticut might lead to better collective memories of these peoples and the American histories (both proud and tragic) to which they connect. “Their name in on your waters,” she writes, “Ye may not wash it out.” Yet it seems to me that we have been able to maintain these Native names without engaging with those histories—perhaps because we can do so without controversy or even attention to what the names signify. It is precisely changes such as the renaming of Denali that will be required, to force our collective engagement with these names and their contested contexts.If it isn't clear how racist and wrong it is to go around renaming people's homelands, consider this scenario (via Twitter):F. N. Caring Society ‏@IndigenousXca
We should all travel across the world and name sacred sites in europe after random ndnsSo Mt. Olympus is now Wakan Tanka. Stonehenge is now the Great Medicine Wheel. The Matterhorn is now Mt. Deloria. Etc.

For more on Denali, see Let's Rename Ohio's Tallest Mountain and Denali Name Change = Political Attack?

Denali name change = political attack?

A conservative friend wondered why liberals didn't demand a name change for Yukon's Mt. Kennedy. Thereby implying that changing "Mt. McKinley" to Denali was a liberal attack on conservatives. In a Facebook debate, I took a few minutes to rip this claim to shreds:

You are aware that this move was led by two Republicans, right? You've actually read an article on the subject and aren't simply repeating something stupid you heard on Faux News...right?Have you ever heard of something called "regional pride"?Have you heard of the word "nonresponsive"? Try addressing my point about this change being led by Republicans if you're not too afraid of getting your butt kicked.

You mean the regional pride Alaska Natives feel for Denali? What other regional pride is more relevant than that in Alaska?

If Ohioans want to rename their highest mountain, no one's stopping them. Why aren't you proposing that solution if "regional pride" is your concern?

This is yet another example of why we correctly label Republicans "racists." Because you have no argument that doesn't amount to "white people are more important than others."I don't have any strong feelings about this one way or the other. But, then again, I am from California. Alaska Republicans would favor the change as it plays up their local history, Ohio Democrats would oppose it as it messes with their local history.Again, nonresponsive. Republicans are the ones who responded to Alaskan regional pride and restored the name they've used for their mountain for decades. This has nothing to do with Obama or liberal politics.

Your comments are also nonresponsive to the issue of why Alaskans or anyone should care about Ohio's regional pride. Ohioans can change a name in their own backyard if they want to honor someone. Otherwise, they can shut up. What Alaskans do in Alaska is none of their business.

Meanwhile, you have no feelings...but you're trying to imply that Obama was targeting a "Republican" mountain for some reason. Regardless of your lack of feelings, your implication is stupid and ignorant. I suggest you educate yourself so I don't have to keep noting your stupidity.

For more on Denali, see Republicans Protest Denali Name Change and Ohioans Protest Denali Name Change.

Republicans protest Denali name change

I accompanied the news about the Denali name change with a sarcastic comment: Why does Obama hate America so much? Because it was obvious that's how brain-dead conservatives would react. And because they're as predictable as crybabies without their bottles, they did.

Conservative Heads Explode After Obama Renames Nation’s Tallest Mountain

Karl Rove was the first contender for stupidest white-man response to the Denali name change:

Karl Rove: Obama Wouldn't Be President If McKinley Hadn't Annexed HawaiiRepublican strategist Karl Rove said Monday that President Obama should be "more gracious" to the man whose name he just stripped from North America's tallest peak.

After all, Rove told Time magazine, it was President McKinley's administration that annexed Hawaii, making it possible for Obama to be President.In related news, an infinite number of other events also made it possible for Obama to become president. Like a speck of dust caused Obama's father to blink and miss seeing Obama's mother. Pay more respect to that speck of dust, President Obama!

Sheesh. What's the "gracious" way to rename a mountain, pray tell? Give us some examples of name changes that were done "graciously" even though you didn't like them.

Obama hates Republicans?

But with all the bigots in today's Republican Party, Rove's mild complaint about graciousness couldn't stand as the most extreme:

Conservative Radio Host Says Obama Changed Mt. McKinley's Name Because He Hates White Republicans

American Family Radio host Bryan Fischer complained on Monday that President Obama thinks "America is bad and everybody else is good."

By Justin BaragonaThe former American Family Association spokesman said the following on his show:

“Why would Obama do this? Well, there’s a very simple reason: President McKinley was a Republican and he was American and he was white. So he was all the things that President Obama has such a visceral distaste for. In his worldview, America is bad and everybody else is good, Republican is bad, everybody else is good and so forth.”

It should be noted that Republicans from Alaska have not only commended Obama for his decision but were key in pushing forward legislation to make the change. The state’s two Republican Senators, Lisa Murkowski and Dan Sullivan, sponsored a bill to change the federal designation. Meanwhile, the state’s governor, another GOPer, applauded the President for officially changing the mountain’s name.

But, none of that matters to right-wingers like Fischer. Any chance to whine about the current black usurper of the White House, you take it! In fact, he loved his line so much about Obummer hatin’ ‘Murica that he also tweeted it out.

Name change = "assassination"?

Unfortunately for Fischer and Rove, Laura Ingraham--or at least her website--took the prize for extremism:

Laura Ingraham's Website: 'McKinley Assassinated Again' By Obama Decision

By Sara JerdeThe post carried the headline "McKinley Assassinated Again" and the subhead "Obama changes mountain's name as erasure of our history continues." It included a bad photoshop image of Obama crossing out a sign that read "Mt. McKinley (American Heritage)" with red spray paint.

Jon Conradi, Lifezette's director of audience engagement, whose LinkedIn page also identifies him as a former communications director for the U.S. House as well as a Republican operative, wrote the post.And:Conradi continued:The forces of political correctness wish to return America to a blank slate from which they can color the canvass of the future with their progressive vision of society defined by sexuality, secularism, and government dependence. But first they need to get all that pesky history, and proud American heritage, out of the way. President McKinley is their latest victim.

The peak was named after McKinley during his first candidacy for the presidency in 1896 and was officially minted Mount McKinley by President Wilson in 1917 to memorialize the president and his historic administration. The president has found greater cause with politically correct forces who believe the peak’s moniker was offensive to Native Americans, who knew the summit as Denali.Actually, Natives still know the mountain as Denali. As do most Alaskans, including its Republican senators. Which is why they all wanted the original name restored. It had nothing to do with McKinley or Obama's wishes and everything to do with Alaska's heritage.

Which is something Republicans supposedly believe in--states' rights, local control, etc.--when they're not raving hypocrites. Unfortunately, they're raving hypocrites all the time, as this issue proves.

I assume someone posted the following as a spoof of right-wing ignorance. But I gather some right-wing ignoramuses took it seriously. Enough so that Snopes had to post an explanation, believe it or not.



Good God...right-wingers are stupid.

For more on Denali, see Ohioans Protest Denali Name Change and Obama Renames Mount McKinley.

Obama's speech at Selma

Read the full transcript of Obama's rousing, emotional speech in Selma

Obama’s speech in Selma was an answer to those who question his love for America

By Ezra KleinObama's critics question his love for the country he governs. "I do not believe—and I know this is a horrible thing to say—but I do not believe that the president loves America," former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani said in February. They look at Obama's steady belief that America is not yet good enough, not yet pure enough, not yet perfect enough, and they see a skeptic, not a patriot.

In this speech, Obama's answer to this criticism was direct:Fellow marchers, so much has changed in fifty years. We've endured war, and fashioned peace. We've seen technological wonders that touch every aspect of our lives, and take for granted convenience our parents might scarcely imagine. But what has not changed is the imperative of citizenship, that willingness of a 26 year-old deacon, or a Unitarian minister, or a young mother of five, to decide they loved this country so much that they'd risk everything to realize its promise.

That's what it means to love America. That's what it means to believe in America. That's what it means when we say America is exceptional.There is an implicit radicalism in what Obama is saying here. To believe America is good enough is to abandon the tradition of criticism and activism that has made America great.

Obama's answer to Giuliani is that Giuliani has mistaken uncritical adoration for the hard work required of true love. Patriotism is active, not passive. Those who love America prove it by working to perfect America. They continue marching.People tweeted their thoughts on the historic event:Retweeted Bill Maher (@billmaher):
Watching the commemoration in Selma on the news -- so much has changed in 50 years! Like, the cops didn't have tanks back then.

Retweeted Jamil Smith (@JamilSmith):
"What could be more American than what happened in this place?" President Obama asks. True of both the courage and the violence.

Retweeted Elizabeth Warren (@SenWarren):
It's up to us to make sure our government serves ALL of our people. We must restore the ‪#‎VotingRightsAct‬. ‪#‎Selma50‬ http://t.co/NZpYsrBsMaWhile Democrats were celebrating the march of liberty and justice, Republicans were, uh, doing something else:

The GOP’s Conspicuous Absence from Selma

By Charles C. W. CookeIf we are to regard the founding generation as being worthy of contemporary political lionization—and we most assuredly should—then we must consider those who marched at Selma to be so, too. If we are to put George Washington upon our plinths, and to eulogize him on our currency, we must agree to elevate Martin Luther King Jr. to the same dizzy heights. They are less famous, perhaps, but by virtue of their brave march across the Edmund Pettus Bridge, John Lewis and Hosea Williams immortalized themselves into quintessential American heroes in the mold of Sam Adams and George Mason. To miss an opportunity to solemnize their daring is to blunder, disgracefully.

If all men really are created equal, the anniversary of Selma must be treated as a date every bit as important to American history as is the end of the Siege of Yorktown. As it would be unthinkable for the leadership of the Republican party to ignore July Fourth, it should be unthinkable for its luminaries not to celebrate the anniversary of the March to Montgomery either. Where have you gone, Speaker Boehner, a movement turns its lonely eyes to you.The Native aspects

My thoughts on Obama's oration:

Good speech, though I might've cut it half.

We should elect this guy president. He has strong opinions on the things we need to change!

But why is he quoting from Scripture if he's a Muslim?!

Obama mentioned Natives twice:We are Lewis and Clark and Sacajawea—pioneers who braved the unfamiliar, followed by a stampede of farmers and miners, entrepreneurs and hucksters. That's our spirit.

We're the fresh-faced GIs who fought to liberate a continent, and we're the Tuskeegee Airmen, Navajo code-talkers, and Japanese-Americans who fought for this country even as their own liberty had been denied.Okay, but the failure to say more was a missed opportunity considering the enormity of our crimes against Natives.

Canceling out these two mentions were these lines, which came just before the code-talker paragraph:We're the slaves who built the White House and the economy of the South. We're the ranch hands and cowboys who opened the West, and countless laborers who laid rail, and raised skyscrapers, and organized for workers' rights.That sounds something like, "We're the brave entrepreneurs who crossed the Atlantic to find workers for the South's burgeoning cotton industry."

The phrase "opened the West" covers up a lot and obscures the truth. The only way the West was "closed" was "closed off to the white man's colonization by signed treaties." So we're celebrating how ranchers, miners, and railroads opened the West to disease, poverty, and land theft? Great.

Or as I tweeted:

Obama at ‪#‎Selma50‬: "We're the ranch hands and cowboys who opened the West"...by breaking treaties and killing Indians, he forgot to say.

For more on the subject, see What the Crusades Controversy Is About and Ryan: Obama Threatens Western Valuess .

Americans worse than ISIS

More on the subject of Obama Compares ISIS to Crusaders and What the Crusades Controversy Is About:

GOP Lawmaker Says Obama Defended ISIS At Prayer Breakfast

Obama defends ISIS by comparing them to every Christian who killed, tortured, or enslaved someone. In other words, Obama thinks ISIS is as bad as America!

ISIS responds, "How dare you compare us to centuries of Euro-American thugs and killers?!"

Here are 8 Christian Terrorist Organizations That Equal ISIS

History of Lynchings in the South Documents Nearly 4,000 Names

Keep trying, ISIS losers! So far we're like a thousand times more barbaric than you are!

And some "wisdom" from a few months ago:

Christian activist calls for holy war: ‘Islam has no place in civilized society’

We need a holy war to stop the Muslims' holy war because holy wars have no place in civilized society!

The holy war to end all holy wars! Just like World War I, except holy!

For more on Christian terrorism, see Report Documents Right-Wing Terrorism and The Logical Conclusion of Extremism.

Below:  There were Americans in the Crusades? Okay, if you say so.

What the Crusades controversy is about

More on the subject of Obama Compares ISIS to Crusaders:

Christian Violence: Obama Touches a Sore Spot in American Politics

By Peter d'ErricoWhat are these people upset about? One wonders whether Gilmore and Donohue really don't know the history of Christianity, or if they believe this history should be hidden. Given the sad state of education in the United States, the possibility of their ignorance exists. Equally sadly, the possibility exists that they know this history and want to hide it.5 Right-Wing Freak-Outs Over the President's Completely Accurate Comments on Christianity

The pundits forget that Christians are capable of “terrible deeds in the name of Christ.”

By Amanda MarcotteThese statements are 100% true. But the right has reacted as if Obama burned the American flag in the Oval Office. Perhaps it’s because the National Prayer Breakfast was designed to strong-arm national politicians into paying fealty to the religious right on pain of being accused of being anti-Christian. Or perhaps it was just because they’re bored. Here are five more ridiculously over-the-top conservative reactions to the President saying something that is objectively, demonstrably true about Western history.Let's be clear: The Obama Crusades controversy is over whether it's okay to hate Muslims

By Max FisherTo be crystal clear: this is not a fight over the fine-grain imperfections of Obama's historical analogy or over the implications for US foreign policy. It is a fight over whether it's okay to hate Muslims, to apply sweeping and negative stereotypes to the one-fifth of humanity that follows a particular religion. A number of Americans, it seems, are clinging desperately to their anti-Muslim bigotry and are furious at Obama for trying to take that away from them.Comment:  The controversy is about making it okay to hate Muslims and not okay to criticize Christians. Today's conservatives want to turn America into a Christian theocracy. They can't do that if people understand how Christians have persecuted and killed everyone who was different from the white male norm.

For more on Christian terrorism, see Report Documents Right-Wing Terrorism and The Logical Conclusion of Extremism.

Obama compares ISIS to Crusaders

The latest manufactured "controversy" by Fox News:

Fox Hosts Explode At Obama For Talking About The Crusades At Prayer Breakfast

By Brendan JamesThe hosts of "Fox & Friends" were not amused on Friday by President Obama's reminder to Christians that the Muslim world has not been the only corner of the globe to deal with deadly religious extremism.

"How shocked were you," Brian Kilmeade asked viewers, "about the President's remarks yesterday at that prayer breakfast, equating the Crusades in the year 1095 to what we're experiencing today and witnessing with ISIS and their brutality?"

The three co-hosts then angrily talked over each other while introducing the clip of Obama speaking on Thursday at the National Prayer Breakfast.

The footage showed Obama discussing the Islamic State terror group and religious violence more broadly by mentioning the Crusades, initiated by Pope Urban II. The President said Christians should not get on a "high horse" about religious barbarism."So he's saying the Catholic Church was the ISIS of its time," said Doocy. "So try telling that to the pope who is going to visit Washington, D.C."

Give me an audience with the pope and I'll be glad to tell him. We can discuss the papal bulls about converting the "savage" Indians.

Right-Wing Christians Angered By Obama’s Comparison Of ISIS To The Crusades

The Foolish, Historically Illiterate, Incredible Response to Obama's Prayer Breakfast Speech

A history of Christian terrorism

Sorry, Fox: Obama Was Right About Christianity's 'Terrible Deeds'

By Christia MercerConservatives across the country are freaking out about President Obama’s claim that “people committed terrible deeds in the name of Christ” at the National Prayer Breakfast. Everyone from Rush Limbaugh and Jim Gilmore to Megyn Kelly and the hosts of Fox & Friends is venting about it. Unfortunately, the president is exactly right.

Every century in the history of Christianity is full of examples. But one of the most vivid cases of Christian-motivated bloodshed is what was happening exactly four hundred years ago, in the winter of 1615. Long-standing religious hatred and political tensions were escalating across Europe. When spiritual leaders incited violence, their followers were keen to comply. The means of killing were gruesome and imaginative. Arms were ripped from living torsos, writhing bodies stretched on racks, and men’s severed genitalia burned before their dying eyes. Kings, princes and politicians employed draconian measures to squelch criticism and halt change.

A century before that, Martin Luther’s attempt to purify Christianity of its papal poisons led to decades of struggles across Europe. More than 100,000 poorly armed farmers were slaughtered in 1524-25 when they took Luther’s teachings to imply greater social justice. Over the course of the 16th century, villages were razed, schools closed and disease left unchecked. By 1615, the continent was teaming with terrorist plots, counter-plots, and spies. But when Catholic councilors were sent to Prague and summarily tossed by the Protestant assembly out palace windows, a line was crossed. The so-called Defenestration of Prague of 1618 marks the official start of the Thirty Years’ War.

In 2015, longstanding religious hatred and political wrangling are again sweeping Europe with their own shadowy sources in the last century. Kings, princes and politicians again employ draconian measures to control criticism and stop change. In this global struggle, villages have been destroyed, schools bombed, and disease left unchecked. Nor have our contemporaries lacked imagination in their violence. Schoolgirls have been kidnapped, journalists beheaded, and interrogation methods enhanced. Our cycle of violence is much the same as that of our predecessors. Unchecked power and ignorance promote loathing, leading to increased viciousness, intolerance, and more hatred. Chérif Kouachi, one of the men responsible for the Charlie Hebdo massacre, was first moved to radicalism by images of American soldiers humiliating Muslims at Abu Ghraib prison. Brutality and stupidity beget more of the same.Yes, ISIS Burned a Man Alive: White Americans Did the Same Thing to Thousands of Black People

The United States practiced a unique cultural ritual that was as least as gruesome as the "medieval" punishments meted out by ISIS against its foes.

By Chauncey DeVegaISIS burned Muadh al Kasasbeh, a captured Jordanian fighter pilot, to death. They doused him with an accelerant. His captors set him on fire. Muadh al Kasasbeh desperately tried to put out the flames. ISIS recorded Muadh al Kasasbeh's immolation, produced a video designed to intimidate their enemies, and then circulated it online.

ISIS's burning alive of Muadh al Kasasbeh has been denounced as an act of savagery, barbarism, and wanton cruelty--one from the "dark ages" and not of the modern world.

American Exceptionalism blinds those who share its gaze to uncomfortable facts and truths about their own country.

For almost a century, the United States practiced a unique cultural ritual that was as least as gruesome as the "medieval" punishments meted out by ISIS against its foes.When America behaved like ISIS: Jesse Washington and the Bible Belt’s dark history of public lynchings

How dare ISIS emulate racist Americans from the last century?!

What would happen if Obama stated, "George Washington and Thomas Jefferson owned slaves," or "US soldiers massacred Indians at Wounded Knee"? Censure, hearings, perhaps impeachment?

A president could get in trouble for reading a history textbook aloud. Seriously.

And a relevant tweet:Retweeted Murtaza Hussain (@MazMHussain):

Its too bad Obama couldn't have made this point but its clear the last Crusade was in 2003, not ~800 years ago: http://t.co/KsWc7Ngzsa

Donald Rumsfeld's holy war: How President Bush's Iraq briefings came with quotes from the BibleChristians aren't to blame?

In the following, Russell Moore, President of the Southern Baptist Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission, said, "The evil actions that he mentioned were clearly outside the moral parameters of Christianity itself and were met with overwhelming moral opposition from Christians." Wow, that's roughly 100% wrong.

Why Obama Is Right About Christian Violence

By Jack JenkinsJackson and Limbaugh’s dubious claims to Christianity notwithstanding, the two main assertions underlying most of these arguments are both absurd and, arguably, unChristian. The first—that violence committed in the name of Christ is somehow exempt from criticism because it happened in the past—ignores history and reality. Like it or not, horrendous torture happened during the Inquisition and the era of slavery, both of which were justified using biblical scripture. And the argument that the Crusades—which resulted in the deaths of untold thousands—were only in response to Muslim provocation is highly contested among historians.

More importantly, while these events are long past, these critics are apparently tone deaf to the numerous modern examples of violence perpetrated by people claiming to represent Christ. In 2011, Anders Behring Breivik, a self-professed Christian, launched a horrific assault in Oslo, Norway to defend “Christian Europe,” using an arsenal of weapons to kill 77 people—most of whom were teenagers. In November of last year, suspected Christian terrorist Larry McQuilliams mounted a full-scale attack on Austin, Texas, firing off more than 100 shots in the city before embarking on a botched attempt to burn down the Mexican Consulate. And in central Africa, the Lord’s Resistance Army (which, similar to ISIS, seeks to establish a theocratic state based on the Ten Commandments) forcibly recruits child soldiers, terrorizes local villages, and is thought to be responsible for the deaths of 100,000 people in Uganda and the displacement of 1.7 million in the greater region, according to the United Nations.

One wonders if Jackson and others would be so willing to “defend” Christianity’s apparently sinless history to the faces of those 60,000 to 100,000 child soldiers, youngsters who were ripped from their homes, tortured brutally, and forced by the LRA to run needlessly into battle—all ostensibly in the name of Christ.

In addition, the second argument directed at Obama’s statements—that violence in the name of Christ was always met with overwhelming moral opposition from Christians—is only true when examined through the lens of several centuries of history. Few senior members of the Catholic church would defend the Crusades today, but they were waged with broad support in their time, and the institution of slavery took centuries to dismantle.More Christian atrocities

The Right-Wing Doesn’t Want to Talk About Christian Atrocities, So Let’s Talk About Christian Atrocities

Tens of thousands of Muslims flee Christian militias in Central African Republic

Comment:  For more on Christian terrorism, see Report Documents Right-Wing Terrorism and The Logical Conclusion of Extremism.

Natives in the 2015 SOTU

President Obama mentioned Natives in his State of the Union speech Tuesday, saying:I want future generations to know that we are a people who see our differences as a great gift, that we’re a people who value the dignity and worth of every citizen--man and woman, young and old, black and white, Latino, Asian, immigrant, Native American, gay, straight, Americans with mental illness or physical disability. Everybody matters.A posting suggests why this is significant:

"Immigrants and Native Americans"Rather that listing black and white, Latino, Asian and Native American--which is what most people do when they are being inclusive--he introduced the pairing of immigrant and Native American. In other words, we're all either an immigrant (by choice or slavery) to this country or Native American.

Some might simply write this off as political correctness. But I think it represents the deep respect President Obama has demonstrated for both the gifts and challenges of this land's First Nations People.

Tea Party = Confederate Party

Not a Tea Party, a Confederate Party

Tea Partiers say you don’t understand them because you don’t understand American history. That’s probably true, but not in the way they want you to think.

By Doug Muder[T]he enduring Confederate influence on American politics goes far beyond a few rhetorical tropes. The essence of the Confederate worldview is that the democratic process cannot legitimately change the established social order, and so all forms of legal and illegal resistance are justified when it tries.

That worldview is alive and well. During last fall’s government shutdown and threatened debt-ceiling crisis, historian Garry Wills wrote about our present-day Tea Partiers: “The presiding spirit of this neo-secessionism is a resistance to majority rule.”

The Confederate sees a divinely ordained way things are supposed to be, and defends it at all costs. No process, no matter how orderly or democratic, can justify fundamental change.

When in the majority, Confederates protect the established order through democracy. If they are not in the majority, but have power, they protect it through the authority of law. If the law is against them, but they have social standing, they create shams of law, which are kept in place through the power of social disapproval. If disapproval is not enough, they keep the wrong people from claiming their legal rights by the threat of ostracism and economic retribution. If that is not intimidating enough, there are physical threats, then beatings and fires, and, if that fails, murder.

That was the victory plan of Reconstruction. Black equality under the law was guaranteed by the 14th Amendment. But in the Confederate mind, no democratic process could legitimate such a change in the social order. It simply could not be allowed to stand, and it did not stand.

In the 20th century, the Confederate pattern of resistance was repeated against the Civil Rights movement. And though we like to claim that Martin Luther King won, in many ways he did not. School desegregation, for example, was never viewed as legitimate, and was resisted at every level. And it has been overcome. By most measures, schools are as segregated as ever, and the opportunities in white schools still far exceed the opportunities in non-white schools.

Today, ObamaCare cannot be accepted. No matter that it was passed by Congress, signed by the President, found constitutional by the Supreme Court, and ratified by the people when they re-elected President Obama. It cannot be allowed to stand, and so the tactics for destroying it get ever more extreme. The point of violence has not yet been reached, but the resistance is still young.

Violence is a key component of the present-day strategy against abortion rights, as Judge Myron Thompson’s recent ruling makes clear. Legal, political, social, economic, and violent methods of resistance mesh seamlessly. The Alabama legislature cannot ban abortion clinics directly, so it creates reasonable-sounding regulations the clinics cannot satisfy, like the requirement that abortionists have admitting privileges at local hospitals. Why can’t they fulfill that requirement? Because hospitals impose the reasonable-sounding rule that their doctors live and practice nearby, while many Alabama abortionists live out of state. The clinics can’t replace them with local doctors, because protesters will harass the those doctors’ non-abortion patients and drive the doctors out of any business but abortion. A doctor who chooses that path will face threats to his/her home and family. And doctors who ignore such threats have been murdered.

Legislators, of course, express horror at the murder of doctors, just as the pillars of 1960s Mississippi society expressed horror at the Mississippi Burning murders, and the planter aristocrats shook their heads sadly at the brutality of the KKK and the White Leagues. But the strategy is all of a piece and always has been. Change cannot stand, no matter what documents it is based on or who votes for them. If violence is necessary, so be it.‘Hatriots’ in Action: Conservatives Push for Armed Rebellion if Obama is Not Impeached

By Josh KilburnIt’s easy to prove that the political right-wing hates the United States; every action that they’ve taken has been the antithesis of what they’ve claimed. They may swear by democracy, and claim loyalty to the Constitution with one breath, while with the other, despise the very foundation of this country, the Constitution, and the multiculturalism that makes this country so strong.

Remember that in 2012, a Virginia Republican Committee newsletter openly called for armed rebellion if President Obama was re-elected. This is not how you support democracy. Over the last week, the Republicans have been pushing hard to impeach or sue Obama for doing his job when the Republicans in congress refused to do theirs—this is not how you support democracy.

Tom Tancredo, former Republican Congressman, warned that if “Republicans are too afraid to challenge presumptuous dictatorial behavior, then the war is already lost and we should stock up our ammunition shelves and join a militia.”

Last month, one such right-winger, Mike Vanderbogh, stood before a crowd of fellow terrorist militia members and declared “This administration, this regime, seems to operate ever more increasingly as a lawless gang than not on the rule of law but rather on the rule of men—which is to say the law of the jungle, enforced by the iron fist of government power,” and that “We will vote with our guns.” It’s gotten so bad that there is almost no way to tell the difference between the right wingers and the jihadists in the Middle East.Comment:  or more on conservative racism, see Right-Wing Terrorism Worse Than Jihadism and Conservatives Want a Race War.

Conservatives boo Redskins trademark decision

While Natives and liberals cheered the Redskins trademark decision, conservatives denounced it. More to the point, they blamed it on the black man in the White House. They proved once again what I've said many times: that conservatives are racists.

Conservatives: Redskins Ruling Another Day In 'Obama's America'

By Tom KludtThe White House said the decision to cancel the Washington Redskins' trademark registrations was made by an independent tribunal, but that hasn't stopped many on the right to link the ruling to the tyrannical arm of Barack Obama they've warned about for years.

A mere hour after the United States Patent and Trademark Office announced the cancellation of six of the team's trademark registrations because "they were disparaging to Native Americans at the respective times they were registered," RedState.com editor Erick Erickson already knew who was really behind the decision.

Erickson pinned the blame on "a bunch of overeducated white guys who cry during 'Love Actually'" and "a class of men who pee sitting down"—two effete, easily aggrieved constituencies who apparently have some clout with Obama in charge.

"The lesson here is that guilty feeling white liberals are a threat to freedom and, in Barack Obama’s America, the key to survive is to not appear on the radar of in Washington, D.C," Erickson wrote. "Once Washington’s elite know of your existence and you do not behave like them, they will turn the power of government in your direction."

Conservative shock jock Rush Limbaugh also said that Obama's fingerprints are all over the decision. Limbaugh faulted political reporters for failing to acknowledge the President's complicity in the "tyranny."

"This is not the Patent and Trademark Office. This is Barack Obama," Limbaugh said Wednesday. "One of the things in reporting out of Washington that has happened during this administration—this is the Executive Branch. All this stuff is coming out of the Executive Branch. All of this, well, tyranny, it's all coming from the Executive Branch. And Obama owns the Executive Branch. He is the Executive Branch. But yet, it's never reported that way."Limbaugh gets schooled on mascots:

Rush Limbaugh: Redskins Losing Their Trademark Is Obama’s Fault! (Audio)

By Rika ChristensenLimbaugh is either closed in a more opaque bubble than we originally thought, or he’s willfully ignorant, because outrage over team names and mascots have been going on for a long time.

One has to wonder just how Limbaugh could possibly be unaware of all of that. He thinks the Redskins controversy is new, is one of the first (if not the first) of its kind, and that it’s Obama’s fault.

Something else Limbaugh is apparently unaware of is the fact that this is actually the second time the Patent and Trademark office has cancelled the Redskins’ trademark. The first time was in 1999, but an appeals court overturned that decision in 2003. President Obama said that, if he owned the team, he’d change the name, and 50 members of Congress sent a letter to the NFL asking them to force a name change, but neither of these actions can actually do anything. They just express sentiments.

So this is nothing new, and has nothing to do with Obama, whatever Limbaugh wants to say. He’s clearly not paying any attention; the Patent and Trademark Office’s decision was in response to a case before the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, Blackhorse v. Pro Football Inc. The case itself was symbolic because cancelling a trademark doesn’t force a name and logo change. This wasn’t done on a whim. It wasn’t an order from Obama. It’s not something that happened suddenly, with no warning. But Limbaugh, in his ongoing witch hunt against liberals, will never see that.As does Erickson for blaming the decision on effeminate men:

Man’s man Erick Erickson—and his sad, terrifying existence

Why is it that alpha male Erickson keeps losing to the emo feminists and men who cry?

By Simon MaloyI’d like to respond to this, but before I do, I feel I should establish my manly bona fides so that I can’t be dismissed as an effete, womanly pantywaist. I’ve never seen “Love Actually” and I don’t care for Hugh Grant. I played rugby and ice hockey as a younger man, though was forced to give them up after too many shoulder separations and concussions. There’s a lot of Hemingway on my bookshelf and I ate a steak last night. I own a power drill and have more than 100 screwdriver bits. My dog weighs more than 70 pounds. I just did 15 push-ups.

(Belch)

There. With my shallowly defined masculinity established, we can continue.

The first thing to point out is that while Erickson puts the blame on white men, the chief plaintiff in the case against the Washington football team is a Navajo woman, Amanda Blackhorse. She’s been leading the effort to get the team’s name changed for eight years. Other people who recognize the name is offensive and are not snivelly professorial liberal caricatures include: Hall of Fame players, NFL executives, former coaches, former Redskins and John McCain.

But let’s assume that Erickson is right and white liberals whose bathroom habits he’s curiously interested in are an existential threat to his worldview–what does that say about Erick Erickson? I mean, Erickson clearly views himself as a superior manly specimen, constantly belittling those who disagree with him as “beta males.” And yet, the beta males and weenie girly men keep getting the better of him.

Faux News

Meanwhile, on Fox News:

Glenn Beck Suggests Harry Reid Is Brain Damaged For Advocating Washington Redskins Name Change

By EllenOn the same Kelly File show in which Glenn Beck preached the need for America to “come together,” he later repeatedly smeared those who want the Washington Redskins team to change its name. Beck didn’t just argue against the name change, he suggested those who feel differently are anti-American and–in a page from Karl Rove’s Hillary Clinton playbook–suggested Sen. Harry Reid is suffering from brain damage for advocating the change. Beck concluded this display of “unity” by suggesting the team rename itself the Washington Benghazis.

“I feel sorry for Harry Reid and I mean this sincerely.” Beck said–right before suggesting Reid is brain damagned. “Harry is, I’m sure, a nice guy… but I really think that there’s something wrong with him. I think he slipped or something. I don’t understand it.”

There was no pushback from Kelly over such an outrageous and baseless claim.Like all the other racist conservatives, Beck is apparently unaware that Native activists have led this fight for decades. It literally has nothing to do with Senator Reid or President Obama.

Brian Kilmeade Mocks 'Redskin' Protest While Elisabeth Hasselbeck Giggles

By PriscillaAs the mouthpiece for those who yearn for the good old days when minorities knew their place, it isn't surprising that "political correctness" is an ongoing subject of derision on Fox & Friends which sees "PC" as an infringement on free speech rather than a way to show sensitivity to race and gender issues. The curvy couch cretins actually agreed that things were so much better when people laughed at racial slurs. During the same segment, Brian "all terrorists are Muslims" Kilmeade lamented that women no longer appreciate being called "sweet broads." So it isn't surprising that Kilmeade, in keeping with Fox friend Tucker Carlson who says that the Redskins controversy is silly "PC," doesn't understand what the big deal is. In discussing this issue, on yesterday's Fox & Friends, Kilmeade, once again, demonstrated his cluelessness!

Obama's #PrezRezVisit

Trending in Indian Country: "PrezRezVisit" Gained National Attention

By Vincent SchillingOn June 13, As President Barack Obama and the First Lady Michelle Obama made their way to visit the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe in North Dakota and meet with Tribal leaders, ICTMN and Indian country took the #PrezRezVisit hashtag Twitter Ball–and ran with it.

Within hours of first introducing the hashtag on Thursday, via a tweet by this correspondent @VinceSchilling, Thousands and thousands tweeted about the excitement, cautious optimism and speculation about President Obama and the First Lady’s visit.

Shortly before President Obama was to land in North Dakota, the #PrezRezVisit hashtag had gained such steam and recognition, The Washington Post’s Abby Phillip reported on the “cautious hope” Native Americans were expressing.

“[O]nline, Native Americans have been determined to keep the conversation alive. More than 5,000 tweets with the #PrezRezVisit hashtag have been sent out so far, after the trend was started Thursday by Indian Country Today correspondent Vincent Schilling,” Phillips wrote in The Washington Post.

Immediately after posting of the tweet, Indian country and supporters jumped into action on #PrezRezVisit which only gained traction as the time for the President’s and First Lady’s arrival loomed closer. Within hours, the hashtag was trending in such places as Chicago, Philadelphia and Canada.

In addition to attention from The Washington Post, MSNBC’s Ed Show also dedicated a segment to Obama’s visit and the popularity of the #PrezRezVisit Hashtag.Comment:  Rather than cover this visit in Newspaper Rock, I tweeted and retweeted about it using the #PrezRezVisit hashtag.

The event didn't generate a lot of hard news. Most of the news value was in the announcer's poking fun at the Obamas and their interacting with the Lakota, especially the children. Twitter was a great tool for that.

Teabaggers are 25% more racist

Are Tea Partiers racist? Answer: yes!

Are Tea Partiers Racist?

By Arian Campo-FloresA new survey by the University of Washington Institute for the Study of Ethnicity, Race & Sexuality offers fresh insight into the racial attitudes of Tea Party sympathizers. "The data suggests that people who are Tea Party supporters have a higher probability"—25 percent, to be exact—"of being racially resentful than those who are not Tea Party supporters," says Christopher Parker, who directed the study. "The Tea Party is not just about politics and size of government. The data suggests it may also be about race."

Surveyers asked respondents in California and a half dozen battleground states (like Michigan and Ohio) a series of questions that political scientists typically use to measure racial hostility. On each one, Tea Party backers expressed more resentment than the rest of the population, even when controlling for partisanship and ideology. When read the statement that "if blacks would only try harder, they could be just as well off as whites," 73 percent of the movement's supporters agreed, while only 33 percent of people who disapproved of the Tea Party agreed. Asked if blacks should work their way up "without special favors," as the Irish, Italians, and other groups did, 88 percent of supporters agreed, compared to 56 percent of opponents. The study revealed that Tea Party enthusiasts were also more likely to have negative opinions of Latinos and immigrants.

These results are bolstered by a recent New York Times/CBS News surveyfinding that white Tea Party supporters were more likely to believe that "the Obama administration favors blacks over whites" and that "too much has been made of the problems facing black people." The survey also showed that Tea Party sympathizers are whiter, older, wealthier, and more well-educated than the average American. They're "just as likely to be employed, and more likely to describe their economic situation as very or fairly good," according to a summary of the poll.

If Tea Party supporters are doing relatively fine, what are they so riled up about? These studies suggest that, at least in part, it's race. The country that the Tea Partiers grew up in is irrevocably changing. Last month, new demographic data showed that minority births are on the verge of outpacing white births. By 2050, Hispanics are expected to account for more than a quarter of the American population. The Tea Partiers "feel a loss … like their status has been diminished," says David Bositis of the Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies, which examines issues of race. "If you listen to [their] language, it's always about 'taking our country back.' But it's really not taking the country back as is. It's taking the country back"—as in time.

Bositis finds the movement's arguments about reckless federal spending unpersuasive. Why, he asks, weren't they up in arms when President George W. Bush launched two costly wars and created a new unfunded mandate with his Medicare prescription-drug plan? Why didn't they take to the streets when he converted a surplus into a massive deficit? "I don't like to be in a position where I'm characterizing people as being racially biased," says Bositis. "But when the shoe fits, what do you do?" Given modern societal norms, "they know they can't use any overtly racist language," he contends. "So they use coded language"—questioning the patriotism of the president or complaining about "socialist" schemes to redistribute wealth.Comment:  For more on teabagger racism, see Obama = "Trifecta of Othernesss" and Republicans Want to Restore Confederacy.

Bill O'Reilly's white privilege

Another Super Bowl event, Bill O'Reilly's interview with President Obama, shows the same white privilege at work in the Coca-Cola ad controversy.

Bill O’Reilly’s Obama interview showed a nation still divided

By Dana Milbank[T]his time, O’Reilly gave only a passing pleasantry at the end (“I think your heart is in the right place”) and otherwise was hostile from the start. He leaned forward in his seat, waving his pen and pointing his finger at the president. He shook his head doubtfully at some of Obama’s answers. Here he was “asking” Obama about whether the Benghazi killings were a terrorist attack:

Obama: “By definition, Bill, when somebody is attacking our compound — ”

O’Reilly: “Yes?”

Obama: “ — that’s an act of terror, which is how I characterized it the day after it happened. So the — so the question ends up being who, in fact, was attacking us?”

O’Reilly: “But it’s more than that — ”

Obama: “And that — ”

O’Reilly: “ — though — ”

Obama: “ — well, we — ”

O’Reilly: “ — because of Susan Rice.”

Obama: “No, it — ”

O’Reilly: “It’s more than that, because if Susan Rice goes out and tells the world that it was a spontaneous demonstration . . . ”

Obama: “Bill — ”

O’Reilly: “ — off a videotape but your . . . ”

Obama: “Bill . . . ”

O’Reilly: “ — your commanders and the secretary of defense know it’s a terror attack . . . ”

Obama: “Now, Bill . . . ”

O’Reilly: “Just . . . ”

Obama: “ — Bill . . . ”

O’Reilly: “ — as an American . . . ”

Obama: “ — Bill — Bill . . . ”

O’Reilly: “ — I’m just confused.”

Obama: “And I’m — and I’m trying to explain it to, if you want to listen.”

O’Reilly did not want to listen. He wanted to inform Obama that “I’m paying Kathleen Sebelius’s salary and she screwed up, and you’re not holding her accountable.” He all but demanded that Obama confess that his “you can keep your health insurance” promise was the biggest mistake of his presidency.Bill O’Reilly’s toxic buffoonery: Fox News remains alive and well—and dangerous

Ailes and O’Reilly channel the white backlash in a country trying to become a multiracial democracy. That’s scary

By Joan WalshMaybe the worst part was when O’Reilly asked a viewer’s question: “Why do you feel it’s necessary to fundamentally transform the nation that has afforded you so much opportunity?” O’Reilly presumably got lots of suggestions from viewers, and I’m sure many were uglier than that. But what does it mean that that’s the question he chose?

It means, again, that O’Reilly and Ailes and their viewers see this president as unqualified and ungrateful, an affirmative action baby who won’t thank us for all we’ve done for him and his cohort. The question was, of course, deeply condescending and borderline racist. Obama has been afforded “so much opportunity”? What about O’Reilly, who pretends he’s a working-class son of Levittown, Long Island, when he’s actually the kid of an accountant who grew up in Westbury and went to private high school and university?

This notion that an older generation of white people worked hard for everything they achieved, while a younger generation of folks like Barack Obama had their success handed to them, is a staple of the white backlash that Ailes has been channeling since he helped elect Richard Nixon in 1968. Having just finished Gabriel Sherman’s Ailes biography, “The Loudest Voice in the Room,” I watched the O’Reilly interview with the sinking feeling that our nation, while fortunate in so many ways, has been uniquely challenged in this crucial time: As we make the transition to a fully multiracial democracy, our leading cable news network is headed by a man who has spent his entire career channeling his own paranoia and resentment and weird racial ideas. Oh, and sexism.

Unbelievably, O’Reilly got his sit-down with Obama the same week that the RNC’s Reince Priebus threatened to boycott MSNBC over a mildly lame tweet tweaking “rightwingers” about that lovely Cheerios ad–and naturally, MSNBC apologized. That’s became MSNBC is a business, while Fox is a political machine that also happens to make a lot of money (because it serves the side of the aisle where most of the money is).

Fox doesn’t apologize. Its hosts just scream “Benghazi!” louder. Obama’s insubordination inevitably became just more grist for Fox programming. The dolts on “Fox and Friends” are very, very angry that the president blamed their network for scandal-mongering. “Bill Clinton didn’t blame the New York Times for his scandal,” Brian Kilmeade told his sidekicks. “George Bush didn’t blame every media outlet for running down the war or for Katrina. Why attack the people who are asking you questions?”

Thanks in large measure to Roger Ailes, we live in a country now where a carnival barker with an ugly comb-over can make the duly elected president show him his papers, and an angry mediocrity like O’Reilly can condescend to an accomplished black man who is in fact his moral and intellectual superior.Comment:  Look at how O'Reilly kept interrupting Obama. That has never happened and would never happen with a white male president.

And "the nation that has afforded you so much opportunity"...wow. Like O'Reilly owns the country and Obama is merely visiting it. Like white America has given Obama a great gift by tolerating his presence.

Never mind that Obama's white and black ancestors have lived here for centuries--as long as O'Reilly's have, if not much longer. In O'Reilly's mind, he's the second coming of the Founding Fathers. And Obama is little more than a newly freed slave.

Obama could turn that question around and ask O'Reilly about all the benefits he's gotten from his white upbringing. But that's not how white privilege works. White men get to confront minorities, not the other way around.

We saw an excellent example of this in Boastful Cornerback = Thug? When a black man, even a well-educated one, challenges the white orthodoxy, he gets slapped down.

It doesn't matter if white athletes have said much worse. What matters is that blacks are supposed to know their place and not step over the line.

This is the same white privilege we see in countless Native issues. From sovereignty and treaties to mascots and headdresses, white men get to tell Indians what's right and wrong.

If white men get their way, they think it's the natural order of things. But if someone challenges them--by electing Obama, protesting mascots, speaking "foreign" languages--they cry like whiny babies.

Educating DMarks about systemic racism

Once again, correspondent DMarks disagreed with one of my postings: The Myth of Reverse Racism. Once again, he's wrong and I'm right.

DMarks wrote:There is no reverse racism. It is all racism, and it does indeed include instances such as affirmative action denying white people of jobs just due to their skin color.Tim Wise addressed your affirmation action "argument" in the passage I quoted. Go ahead and dispute his points if you can.

Simply declaring that he's wrong--that affirmative action is racist--isn't an argument. It's an assertion of your beliefs. It's the opposite of what I'm looking for and a waste of our time.

DMarks also disagreed with the cartoon I posted:

The final comic, by the way is completely invalid, since it doesn't look at people as individuals, but only generalizes on race.No, this cartoon is completely valid as a generalization about the ongoing racism in America, which is perpetuated by institutions that no one person can change. Your ignorance of this structural, systemic racism doesn't change the fact of it. You obviously can't touch it with anything resembling an argument, so you simply wish it out of (your) existence.

As a white man, you're a perfect example of white privilege in action. You don't experience racism against your entire social group, so you can't imagine such a thing. You can't imagine laws or policies that discriminate against an entire race. The only racism you recognize is on the individual level.

Poor whites, rich blacks?Downtrodden, poor whites almost outnumber Blacks... a reality ignored in this comic.Tim Wise talks about the "downtrodden, poor whites" in many of his essays on race. As he's noted many times, blacks face discrimination beyond that faced by poor whites.

Again, your ignorance of his arguments, despite his making them repeatedly, says more about your obtuseness than anything. You're literally ignoring anything that doesn't fit your white worldview.

And who's trying to help poor whites as well as poor blacks? By extending unemployment benefits, food stamps, and other parts of the social safety net? Liberals, that's who.

Conservatives don't care about poor whites much more than they care about poor blacks. They'd be okay if the world's poor people shriveled up and died. That way, rich people wouldn't have to deal with them.



Rich and upper middle class blacks exist in large numbers, another reality ignored.Which numbers would those be? Quit making fact-free assertions and provide the evidence to back your claims.

I've addressed the idiotic claim that Obama proves we're in a post-racial world many times. Mostly recently, in The Obama/Oprah Myth.

Go ahead and address the myth if you can--again, using facts and evidence to support your claims. Your faith-based belief in the goodness of white-majority institutions doesn't interest me.

Returning to the cartoon, my basic response to you is...so? Poor whites need help despite the lack of racism against them. Rich blacks don't need help despite the racism against them. And...?

What does the existence of these two groups have to do with racism against the third group: poor blacks who don't have the means to overcome racism? Nothing whatsoever?

It's like saying, "Dogs have fleas, but cats also have fleas, and fish don't have fleas. Therefore, dogs having fleas isn't a valid concern." Apparently you don't realize how ridiculous your "argument" sounds.

Systemic racism > individual racism

This posting is a typical example of how you conservatives deny, defend, or excuse the racism in our midst. Talking about how individual whites discriminate against individual blacks is missing the forest for the trees.

For every example of "individual" racism you could come up with, I could come up with several of institutional, structural, or systemic racism. By seeing only one kind of racism and ignoring others, you're missing most of America's racism.Any individual denied opportunity due to skin color is a victim of real racism.Yes, and any group denied opportunities due to skin color is a victim of real racism also. Institutions such as governments, businesses, and universities discriminate against racial groups as a whole, dummy, not just against individuals.

Are you even aware of these laws and policies? Was the South's Jim Crow legal structure just a matter of individuals discriminating against individuals? How about corporations such as the Washington Redskins, Urban Outfitters, or Victoria's Secret that use racist marketing techniques? How about Supreme Court decisions that refuse to recognize tribal sovereignty because white Christians "discovered" America? How are any of these racist examples a matter of denying opportunities to individuals?

They aren't, obviously. They're all example of institutional racism against groups. You've seen such examples in this blog--thousands of them--yet you don't understand them. Worse, as this posting proves, you ignore them. Hence the proper use of the term "ignoramus" to describe you.

P.S. to Anonymous: No, I'm not going to ban DMarks. But I may set some of my postings on racism to "no comments"--including this one. Any content-free comments that amount to "I disagree" or "You're wrong" are a waste of everyone's time.

If anyone wants to respond to this, you can e-mail me. If you come up with a valid argument--one I haven't addressed and dismissed already--I'll post it.

Conservative ignorance about Benghazi

I know! Egypt = pyramids. Iran = Iraq. Cuba = cigars. Syria = okay, I don't know that one. North Korea = Kim something...Kardashian? Liberia = Gaddafi. Benghazi = all of the above.

Facts, people! Read the Koran! Muslims are out to get us!

More poll questions:

How many Benghazis is Obama responsible for? 28% said 10 or more.

Is Benghazi still happening, or is it over? 37% said still happening.

Did Obama pass a law making Benghazi legal? 42% said yes.

Is Benghazi an abstract word that scares you because it sounds Muslim? A whopping 89% said yes.

In conclusion: Facts, people! Numbers are facts! Believe what I tell you because it "makes sense"!

For more on conservative ignorance, see Black Columnist Excuses "Redskins," Genocide and Miss America Sparks America's Racism.

Phil Robertson "wrong with honor"?!

This article:

Mike Huckabee: Phil Robertson holds same position on same-sex marriage as Obama

sparked a debate with "Tom" on Facebook. It begin with my take on Huckabee's claim:

I'm pretty sure you're wrong, Huckster. Obama didn't imply gays were sinners, unnatural, violating God's will, etc.

I wouldn't swear to it, but I doubt anyone has been fired for saying, "I support full and equal rights for gays, but I'm not comfortable with same-sex marriage." Which is about what Obama said and not close to what Robertson said.

Liberals = panderers?Obama was against gay marriage in 2008 to maximize his vote among younger evangelicals. It was a position of pure convenience.Maybe, but 1) Obama wasn't against gays, and 2) liberals criticized him for his wishy-washy stance. There's no point of comparison between 2008 Obama and Robertson except the most basic one: against gay marriage.

I've criticized Obama hundreds of times for pandering to conservatives. Do you have a point here? I mean, other than "Rob isn't a hypocrite but conservatives are"?Conservatives who oppose gay marriage do so on principle. Liberals who oppose it do so for votes.If the "principle" is homophobia, okay.

That's not a joke or an exaggeration, it's a fact. The Prop. 8 case proved it.

Opponents of gay marriage literally had no persuasive argument against legalization. All their arguments amounted to "We don't like gays because of the Bible," or homophobia.

Your statement may have been somewhat true in 2008. Now it's 2013 and liberals, including Obama, are mostly for gay marriage. Because the liberal principle of equality under the law easily outweighs the conservative "principle" of homophobia.

And as I said, we liberals pointed out Obama's failure to understand which principle was the greatest. Unfortunately for you, dumbass conservatives like Robertson still haven't learned the lesson. And partisan shills like you aren't willing to call him on it.

Hating gays = bravery?I have supported making same-sex marriages legally enforceable for going on 20 years now. I respectfully disagree with other rightists who do not. I am a divorce lawyer. The LGBT community has nothing on my profession when it comes to destroying traditional marriage. Phil Robertson and, for that matter, Chick-fil-A's Dan Cathey probably think I am the devil. So what? Neither man had anything to gain by coming out against same sex marriage but they did so anyhow. They're wrong but they're wrong with honor."Respectfully" means not calling liars "liars" and hypocrites "hypocrites." In other words, giving them a free pass. In other words, providing cover for their bigotry by "disagreeing" in the meekest and mildest terms. Which you do only when *I* post something about gay marriage.

Robertson had plenty to gain in his own mind. Like other bubble-dwellers who listen to Fox News, he thought he was reaching out to the great silent majority of "real Americans." He thought he'd get a parade down Main Street for speaking truth to (liberal) power.

Instead, he learned he's in a dwindling minority of intolerant ignoramuses. So I don't give him credit for being delusional about reality. He thought he'd be a hero and instead he's a goat.

And "wrong with honor" is a pathetic joke. Robertson called homosexuals "evil" and "God-haters." He advocated statutory rape (i.e., marriage for 15-year-old girls). Where's the "honor" in hateful claims, not to mention immoral behavior? Why aren't you denouncing him as wrong, period?

"Honor" in debate means using only arguments based on solid facts and evidence. Such as the fact that there's no reason sex or relationships have to be limited to opposite-sex pairs. If you don't understand this, you're not honorable, you're a stupid idiot who has no business opening his mouth.

Pretending heterosexuality is "logical" when it isn't isn't "honorable," it's a blatant lie. Uttering lies is execrable. And calling a liar "honorable" is basically defending him. Which is what you've done throughout this debate.

Straights love "gay sex"

Let's note that you and Robertson are confusing the issues. Robertson rejected gays and "gay sex" more than gay marriage. Obama did more or less the opposite. He (initially) rejected gay marriage while not condemning gays or "gay sex."

Let's also note that there's no necessary connection between gays, "gay sex," and gay marriage. You can be gay without having "gay sex." You can have a gay marriage without "gay sex." You can have "gay sex" (aka anal sex) without being gay. You can have it without being in a gay marriage.

Would any homophobes allow gay marriage if the partners declined to have sex? Would they ban anal sex among married or unmarried heterosexuals? No? Then conservatives are the rankest kind of hypocrites.

So to claim that Obama and Robertson said the same thing is completely false. Not only that, it demonstrates a remarkable level of stupidity confusion about the differences between gays, "gay sex," and gay marriage. They're three related but different subjects, morons.

For more on LGBT issues, see Duck Dynasty Star Is a Bigot and Two-Spirits Celebrate DOMA Ruling.