And now from the "Can't Make This Stuff Up" department, a judge in Texas is issuing absurd campaign rhetoric from his official position. Specifically, Judge Tom Head is abusing his the public trust by arguing that his county needs to raise taxes because President Barack Obama's re-election will lead to civil war:
"He's going to try to hand over the sovereignty of the United States to the (United Nations), and what is going to happen when that happens?," Head asked the station during a Monday interview. "I'm thinking the worst. Civil unrest, civil disobedience, civil war maybe. And we're not just talking a few riots here and demonstrations, we're talking Lexington, Concord, take up arms and get rid of the guy."
Head also seems to fear the retaliation of such civil unrest.
"Now what's going to happen if we do that, if the public decides to do that? He's going to send in U.N. troops. I don't want 'em in Lubbock County. OK. So I'm going to stand in front of their armored personnel carrier and say 'you're not coming in here'" [staff, "Texas Warns of Obama Civil War," Houston Chronicle, August 22, 2012].
Judge Head is not expressing genuine concern for public safety. He is stirring the worst absurd GOP-Bircher paranoia on the public dime. This "civil unrest" prediction is the same anti-Obama nonsense we heard in 2008, when various conservative shouters claimed that the election of Barack Hussein Obama would lead to a black uprising and chaos in the streets. Hmm... even given the worst excesses of the fearful white Tea Party and the Occupy kids, I'd be hard-pressed to say there's been any major uptick in civil unrest (though I welcome my readers to submit crime and chaos stats to the contrary).
Texas, you've got a judge who needs impeaching. And America, you've got lots of reasons to vote against Barack Obama, but fear of civil war should not be one of them.
I'm beginning to think we'd better brace ourselves for a virtual hurricane of this brand of hysterical nuttiness, Cory. More and more, it appears that the inmates are running the asylum. And our leaders and media — instead of protecting society from such madness — has chosen to pander to it and present it as somehow valid political discourse. I don't recall it ever being quite this crazy in my lifetime.
I thought for the briefest of moments the other day that there was a real judge in that Howie video. It felt a little like reading this.
I'm not sure this is any scarier than any statement by Joe Arapaio.
And if you can say you need to lower taxes to cut the deficit, why not make up a completely false reason to raise taxes?
We are talking about a state where the GOP platform says "we oppose critical thinking skills."
Justin, just to amplify your thoughts here a little, I think it's important to admit that we're all doing it, not just the GOP and libertarian lunatic fringe. I've heard quite a bit of goofball nonsense from the far left, too. (Curiously though, that brand of craziness goes largely unnoticed in the press and thus doesn't become part of the mainstream national dialogue.)
For example, imagine that Dem party politics was dominated by people who believe that 9/11 destruction of the WTC was a "wag the dog" inside job and that speaking out agains such nonesense was tantamount to party treason if not downright anti-American.
I was being sarcastic, so my thoughts may have been a bit distorted in the amplification. (Like Neil Young's old Tweed Fender Deluxe) But I guess he now says he was talking about "an extreme circumstance" and his quotes were taken out of context (despite the fact the full interview is available in print and video). So maybe he was being sarcastic too.
I just want to thank Head and Akin for doing all they have for the Obama campaign this week.
Are people getting zanier or is the internet megaphone making us more aware of them? Justin's last sentence at 10:08 am pretty well sums it up. The law of unintended consequences is what saves us. For every person who devours this drivel, countless others read it to their amusement. I HOPE I'm right for Bill's (and all of our) sakes.
I hear ya, Justin. No critique intended.
Yeah, Mark, that's the hope... that nobody is as smart as everybody.
Interesting discussion and Bill is wise to look at both ends of the extreme spectrum.
Here's an interesting article that gets more into the psychology of extremism. Not surprisingly there are a number of article and scholarly studies on the subject.
http://www.healthguidance.org/entry/16426/1/The-Psychology-of-Extremism.html
Good article, Jana. Thanks!
welcome to the wonderful world of the Republican Party (shaking head)
no war is civil, or holy: world without end, till death do we part. we are all of African descent and as the Gregorian calendar plays its tricks on my pagan bones the full moon lights the way to the relative safety in the harbor of another Obama term….
Just the other day I read an article by a (black!) editor in the Rapid City Journal expressing concerns that Barack Obama is acting like a dictator, ruling by edict ... and that we're slowly losing all our freedoms, to end up like a banana republic in the end ... to which my immediate reactions were as follows:
(1) The President is acting within the Constitution, right? If the Constitution lets him issue certain types of "edicts," what's the problem? If we don't like it, then let's change the Constitution, or let Congress call the President on his actions.
(2) One can become enslaved with the obsession of an ideal of freedom, to the point that the whole idea turns into bondage. Sometimes freedoms have to be abridged for some of us, in order to guarantee a modicum of freedom for all. I don't see any dangerous edicts coming out of the White House lately; in fact I suspect that the lack of any action by the President on such issues would be far more dangerous.
(3) If Congress won't do anything, fiddling while Rome burns, how can we fault the President for trying to quench the fire?
(4) We must always keep a close eye on the balance of powers, of course. That's at the heart of our freedoms. But to some extent it's a "use it or lose it" game, and Congress is losing it big time.
As for civil unrest, well, we might see some of that if the economy gets bad enough, but I suspect it would be more likely to occur if we elect Mitt Romney than if we elect Barack Obama. Predatory investors would reap a huge windfall, making the division between rich and poor dramatically deeper and wider ... all the while giving people like himself (Romney) a tax cut to practically zero. That's the sort of thing that can indeed lead to civil turmoil, especially when a whole lot of people get homeless and hungry and cold and wet and fed up.
My own publisher is currently having its life sucked out by vulture capitalists, just the way those weird insects suck the innards out of frogs, and I'm not particularly happy about it. This sort of abuse could get worse, but I suspect it will get worse faster under Romney than under Obama. We need somebody who will put a lid on these vulture capitalists right now.
Mr. Stan, you seem the sanest of us all.
None of this surprises me. I was more surprised that the Republican Party actually allowed Obama to take office in 2009. I fully expected they would try to pull a coup, an assassination or use emergency powers to prevent him from becoming President.
I guess the margin of victory was such that they had no choice. Also, they needed someone else to take over so they could try to shift the blame for the faltering economy on something other than their middle class destroying policies. What better way to do that then let the black man take the blame for dumb whitey's f---ups.
Still, wasn't that little meeting of Republican leaders with Newt on the day Obama was inaugurated pretty much the beginning of a planned treachery and a slow motion coup? How else do you explain the whole astro-turf Tea Party "rebellion?" It was all dumb whiteys fed lies by Limbaugh and bussed in by the Koch Brothers.
You are a gentleman and a scholar, Stan. I agree with everything I remember you writing. Except I used to work on venture capital and not everybody is Bain or Carlyle, just the monstrous ones that try to influence public policy and make outsourcing and job slashing investment strategies (job creators my ass). But they still don't deserve the low tax rates on "unearned income", carried interest and capital gains (how would you feel if all your income was "unearned"). One of the great parts of ACA is finally making these guys pay FICA equivalent taxes (even though its still only a quarter of the rate real workers pay). Now if we could get Congress to repeal their offshore tax loopholes and tell them pay your share or don't do business here we would really be making some progress. Or we can adopt Paul Ryan's plan and cut all their taxes to zero. The choice is clear and you are very adept for sniffing out the vermin.
Nice Stan. Watching the Varilek - Noem debate reminded me of something else that is crazy about the current Republicans...cap and trade or cap and tax now that it is a Democratic initiative.
Cap and Trade was a free market idea that was originally a Republican idea...go figure why they are against it now. (1 guess only)
The same thing with the ACA or Obamacare as they derisively call it or as Romney primary opponents called it Obamneycare.
As a matter of fact, here's some more signs that Republicans are crazy about being against their own beliefs just to obstruct and fight the President of the United States.
http://www.addictinginfo.org/2012/06/22/24-policies-that-republicans-supported-before-they-were-against-them/
Don,
That is crazy tin foil talk. The assertion anyone even considered or contrmplated a couple is flat out crazy.
No black helicopters are coming.
Don's fears are hardly isolated to the sanest among us, Troy: more militant lefties expected the Kochs to take out the President and veep then install the orange speaker of the louses a long time ago.
Yeah, it is crazy tinfoil talk, but the Republicans have proven time and again they ARE crazy, tinfoil types, and quite capable of descending into fascism. When you actually toss out of your party the people who talk about Obama being a socialist, a muslim, out to destroy coal, etc., then I'll believe something like a coup or secession isn't in your plans.
What struck me about Judge Head is that this guy really spent some time thinking about how he was going to lead an army of sheriff's deputies and a militia in a civil war against an army of UN troops right here in the US of A. And this guy is a Judge! Batsh!t crazy paranoid schizophrenic people with delusions of grandeur being elected is nothing new in the GOP. Look at Michele Bachman. But this guy takes the cake.
And Donald Pay. Troy is right. You just became the example of goofball nonsense from the far left. No offense.
Those who examine the phenomenon of racism make a distinction between personal bigotry and structural, institutionalized racial descrimination.
My concern with the GOP of late is with the latter, on several fronts: The systematic voter disenfranchisement of minorities, draconian immigration laws, irrational, unenforcable "personhood" laws, the adoption of policies that make women second class citizens, the passage of descriminatory marriage laws, etc. Institutionalized discrimination.
If that's black helecopters, quick... somebody talk me down.
uh, R? bashing a named commenter from the shadows will arouse my inner bodyguard: watch it.
Here's a little quiz to illustrate my point:
Of the four candidates in the current Presidential race, which one could best be described as a WASP (White Anglo Saxon Protestant)?
The correct answer is Barack Hussein Obama.
http://suite101.com/article/is-mormonism-a-protestant-religion-a300184
Well Bill, you're right. Didn't genealogists trace Pres. Obama's lineage back to some unsuspecting intersecting ancestor of Dick Cheney? If we could only know more about that person it might be very interesting.
I said "no offense" Larry.
Well, haven't seen this craziness reported anywhere, but Jackley is once again suing the government to tear apart the voting rights act. What a guy!
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/24/gop-attorneys-voting-rights-act_n_1828840.html
So Todd and Shannon counties in South Dakota are included in the list of former, and possible current, bad actors.
"Under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, certain states and jurisdictions with a history of disenfranchising voters must seek federal approval, called preclearance, before they can change their voting rules. The law was considered one of the great achievements of the civil rights movement, as it blocked states and towns from using tactics like poll taxes and literacy tests that were meant to keep blacks from voting."
What is it about the makeup of those counties that could even arouse suspicion?
Maybe Gant will want to require all of them to prove they are actual Americans...and maybe give them a test to see if they are qualified to vote. With questions like "Why did the Native Americans break the Fort Laramie Treaty of 1868 and force the white settlers to live in the Black Hills?"
The crazy...it hurts!
RNC Official: N.M. Governor ‘Dishonored’ Gen. Custer By Meeting With American Indians
A progressive group called on Republican National Committee leader Pat Rogers to step down on Friday after emails showed him telling New Mexico Gov. Susana Martinez’s staff that meeting with a group of American Indians “dishonored†Gen. George Armstrong Custer, the 19th century commander who killed scores of American Indians.
“The state is going to hell,†Rogers, who is a member of the GOP executive committee and is currently in Tampa for the RNC convention, wrote in a June 8 email released by Progress Now New Mexico. Former Republican gubernatorial candidate Col. Allen Weh “would not have dishonored Col Custer in this manner,†he wrote.
http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/08/susana_martinez_custer.php?ref=fpnewsfeed