Beware the Grumpy Old Men! Alternate Reality Rules on Comment Boards

I used to think I was pretty conservative. I actively campaigned for every Republican presidential nominee from Ronald Reagan to George W. Bush, served as a Republican precinct chairman and was a delegate to two Republican State Conventions. While I have since soured on the Republican Party, most of my underlying core beliefs remained the same. However, when I had the audacity to challenge statements made on some right wing discussion boards, I found out that I was a "liberal POS" (and they didn't mean Point of Sale System), "retarded" and "the worst kind of fool." Who knew?

Seriously, these boards are symptomatic of a larger problem. In today's America, many people tune out the Main Stream Media and only listen to those who confirm their biases. If the only people you talk to are the most conspiratorial minded 1%, you can find validation for the wildest theories. Woe to the person who walks in who is only 95% pure. They can expect an internet thrashing. While my recent experience has been with the right wing echo chamber, I am sure that the same can be said for people who find the Huffington Post to be too conservative.

As a public service (or perhaps I just want to vent), let me open a window into some of these forums. The three that I get the most emails from are The Last Resistance, Political Outcast and Eagle Rising. You can click on the article titles  below to get to the sites. Each of them send out email news updates which allow readers to comment. Sometimes the comments get pretty far afield from the original article. While the articles can be pretty bad, the comments are much worse.

Here are a few examples:

• Last Resistance had a post entitled "Eric Holder: Blacks Have a Civil Right to Murder" on November 8, 2013. The premise behind this article was that: (i) Trayvon Martin tried to murder George Zimmerman; (ii) Eric Holder said that the federal government was thinking about pursuing federal civil rights charges against Zimmerman; and that therefore (iii) Eric Holder believed that blacks have a civil right to murder white people. The article was full of gratuitous slurs against black people such as, "there's nobody black people love more than black people" and "the American government sets very low standards for black people." However, to me, the most absurd premise about the article was that Zimmerman was the victim and Martin was the aggressor. The article said:

If Zimmerman violated Trayvon’s civil rights, then that means it was Trayvon’s civil right to kill Zimmerman, because that’s the only thing Zimmerman stopped Trayvon from doing.

Huh? I thought this was nuts and said so.

In response, I was told:

 Bonk:

It's not a race thing, it's a culture issue. BO would love a race war, so he can declare martial law. His Obamacare does well to help kill off most of the senior population.

Sharon:

Did you conveniently forget that Martin was bashing Zimmerman's head on concrete and would have most likely killed him if Zimmerman hadn't shot him? Perhaps you need to open your eyes and stop drinking Liberal Kool-Aid.

freemanfornow:

The 911 operator knew Zimmerman was on foot and continued to ask about Martin's actions, which required Zimmerman to continue following (with his gun holstered and concealed). As the police car was entering the neighborhood, Zimmerman broke contact and started walking back to meet the officer. That's when Martin doubled back and attacked Zimmerman.

Avenger:

Why is that all liberals sound so retarded? Liberal organizations were formed so the organizations can easily influence the stupid to say and believe fairy tales like Steve Sather is spouting. As Steve shows, short-circuited 'logic' and liberal ignorance can be funny and entertaining.

• In another article, entitled Neo-Nazis: Haters We Love to Hate on November 14, 2013, the author told the story of a Neo-Nazi who found out that he was part black. The article pointed out the stupidity of Neo-Nazi groups. So what did the comments say? You guessed it: Barack Obama is just like the Nazis.

Rockyvnvmc:

There's little difference between the Obot's hatred & the Nazi's, except the Obots hate Whites And Jews... even those whites amongst them.

Obamaism is following the Nazi's lead, word for word, out of 'Mein Kampf'. Now, just like Hitler, Obama's hoing after our guns... we All remember what happened next, after Adolf disarmed his opponents...

Harold:

Why worry about a small group of neo-Nazis, when we have a whole bunch of them in Washington,D.C. who are trying to rule like Adolph's Nazi's. starting with the white house.

• In TX School Says Cheerleaders Part of Government So Their Speech Can Be Controlled on November 8, 2013, the author asked what I thought was a fair question: whether cheerleaders at a football game are speaking for themselves or for the school when they hold up banners with Bible verses. Because the article only offered one side of the argument, I offered the rebuttal, which is, that when cheerleaders selected by the school are wearing uniforms with the school insignia on them and are given a special platform not available to others that maybe is not unreasonable to consider them to be acting as representatives of the school.

 What I saw in the comments was hatred against Muslims and Jews and sympathy for Joe McCarthy.

SpudPicker:

Too bad McCarthy didn't get a lot more help way back when! He had the right idea but was outnumbered and outgunned. He needed help but didn't get it.

Winston Blake:

The three women on the Court are... JEWS...

The Jews Who Rule America

V Steve:

My free speech:

Jews and muslims should be ran out of the united States, jewish groups want to destroy our christian heritage and our culture which our founding fathers founded the united states on, muslims want to enforce their sharia law to replace the constitution and bill of rights.

Denise B:

He's absolutely 110% correct. Jews and Muslims are completely Anti AMERICAN. Screw off to Israel.

fort9erdon:

As there should be! Islam, is not a religion, but in fact is an agenda for world domination, therefore not entitled to protection from the first amendment. Islam is an idea, that belittles women, causes 98 percent of the evil in this world, and Muhammed was an insane pedophile, sex deviant, who hatched an idea that took hold in a very evil, backward culture. Mulims are stuck in a very bloody 6th century world. Islam should be outlawed. America will be doomed by Islam, because PC IS DESTROYING THIS COUNTRY! WAKE THE HELL UP AMERICA!

• When Eagle Rising wrote a story about Sarah Palin Warns Obama of Impeachment on October 16, 2013, I thought it was bizarre that anyone would still listen to Sarah Palin and said so. 

Sarah Palin has not shown any familiarity with the Constitution. On top of that, she was incapable of serving one term as Governor of a small state. She is an intellectual lightweight who is overly in love with the sound of her own voice.

 Of course, this does show my bias.   The comments in response to my shot across the bow were equally poignant adding more heat than light to the discussion.




BarefootBoy1:

Steve Sather is full of Blather. Your Ignorance and Stupidity is showing.

Jon Hawk:

and yet another Mis informed Liberal fanatic who does no fact checking obviously...go drink some more koolaid and do some actual research before making ill founded and un truthful remarks about someone you moron

Poodleguy:

And Steve is full of equine fecal matter!!!!! Go away, you leftist POS.,,,,

Of course, the comments that were not directed against me were even worse.

TimboT:

Obama is still in power because of the evil of this nation and the world. The Despot has been propped up by none other than Satan who is the Devil and Prince of the Air.

Peggyjsl:

Here is one for you Delbert whether anyone likes it or not: The current president, Community Organizer is muslim (says so himself) Islamic and is of the muslim brotherhood and his god is Allah, which means "curse" and in arabic the mark of the beast "666" is "In The Name Of Allah" and "Shariah Law" is their caliphate

Marian:

Obama will never stop lying. He must be impeached now! I do not want him in prison...I want him gone....ship him off to Pakistan with Mooch and his two daughters. Get rid of Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi...the rest will be replaced in November 2014. We need to clean up Washington and air out the WH!

G. Frazier:

Anybody, who votes NOT to impeach Obama should be tried for treason! Obama should not only be tried and convicted, he should also be sentenced to prison - HARD LABOR, MIND YOU - until he has paid back every cent he's stolen from the nation.
That should keep him busy until at least 2525!!

DavidE:

Obama is our greatest enemy ever!! Being a devout Muslim, he hates our guts and is looking for ANY excuse to implement Martial Law to extend his dictatorship indefinitely to destroy our country and imprison or kill our citizens. GOD BLESS AMERICA

Final Thoughts

There you have it. Barack Obama is a Muslim Nazi who is in league with Satan to encourage black people to kill whites so that he can impose martial law. I don't know whether to laugh or to cry.   Reading these articles and the comments they inspire, it is clear that there are some people who are very, very angry about nearly everything in America.   If the comment boards allow them to blow off steam and commiserate with their compatriots, they may well be doing some good.   However, when there is a constant refrain that the other side is not just wrong, but in league with Satan, I worry that some will be inspired to take up arms against their fellow Americans.  Hopefully, these are just a bunch of grumpy old men who while their time away on the internet while they wait for their social security check to arrive.  Maybe they just need to get out of the house and feel the sun upon their faces.    

Impeach Obama? What Does the Constitution Say?

It seems like hardly a day goes by without some rightwing figure claiming that President Obama should be impeached.    In the past week, Texas Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst claimed that the President should be impeached for offenses ranging from failure to prevent the attack on the Benghazi consulate to his implementation of the Affordable Care Act and immigration laws, while former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin contended that the President should forfeit his position if he allowed the country to default on its debt.    

When I commented on a right wing message board that Sarah Palin might benefit from reading the Constitution, I was hit with responses describing my position as "Sather's blather," "equine fecal matter" and something about my opinions being typical for a leftist.    I knew what I was getting into when I posted, so I was not terribly shocked by the response.   However, since it was not that long ago that agitated liberals were calling for the impeachment and hanging of President Bush, I thought it might be productive to pull out my copies of the Constitution and the Federalist Papers and see what they had to say.  I also consulted my copy of Grand Inquests, which is Chief Justice Rehnquist's book about the impeachments of Justice Samuel Chase and President Andrew Johnson.

The Constitutional Text

The Constitution provides several methods for vacating the office of the President.   First, the people can decline to re-elect a president when his term ends.   No matter how popular the president is, he must leave office after two terms under the 22nd Amendment.   There is also a procedure for declaring the President unable to carry out his duties under the 25th Amendment.   Finally, Article II, Section 4 provides that:

The President, the Vice-President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

Treason is defined by Article III, Section 3 of the Constitution to mean:

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.

Bribery has a pretty clear meaning.  However, "other high Crimes and Misdemeanors" is problematic.    In 1970, Gerald Ford defined it as "whatever a majority of the House of Representatives considers it to be at a given moment in history."   While that may be accurate, it is not very helpful.   (When Rep. Ford subsequently became President Ford, he probably saw the wisdom of a less expansive definition).   

The Views of the Founding Fathers

 According to the Constitutional Rights Foundation, the Constitutional Convention worked through several phrases before arriving at "Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors."    First they tried "treason, bribery and corruption."   Then they dropped corruption and left it at treason and bribery.   George Mason proposed adding "maladministration" but James Madison objected and proposed "high Crimes and Misdemeanors against the state."   "Against the state" was dropped and we ended up with the final formulation.   The Constitutional Rights Foundation explained that:

Since 1386, the English parliament had used “high crimes and misdemeanors” as one of the grounds to impeach officials of the crown. Officials accused of “high crimes and misdemeanors” were accused of offenses as varied as misappropriating government funds, appointing unfit subordinates, not prosecuting cases, not spending money allocated by Parliament, promoting themselves ahead of more deserving candidates, threatening a grand jury, disobeying an order from Parliament, arresting a man to keep him from running for Parliament, losing a ship by neglecting to moor it, helping “suppress petitions to the King to call a Parliament,” granting warrants without cause, and bribery. Some of these charges were crimes. Others were not. The one common denominator in all these accusations was that the official had somehow abused the power of his office and was unfit to serve.

The Federalist Papers appear to be more interested in discussing the structural aspects of who gets to determine impeachment (Articles of Impeachment are voted upon by the House and the case is tried to the Senate) than the grounds for impeachment itself.   However, in The Federalist No. 65, Alexander Hamilton described impeachment as resulting from:

those offenses which proceed from the misconduct of public men, or in other words, from the abuse or violation of some public trust.   They are of a nature which may with peculiar propriety be denominated POLITICAL as they relate to injuries done to the society itself.

Both the CRF and Hamilton seem to agree that impeachment requires an abuse of the powers of office or a violation of the public trust.  Under the English tradition, acts amounting to mere negligence, such as failure to moor a ship or appointing an unfit subordinate could grounds for impeachment, the rejection of the term "maladministration" suggests that something more was required.   Additionally, the use of the term "high" referred to acts committed in the capacity of a public person.   As a result, a President arrested for driving drunk while on vacation might be a low crime, while getting drunk at a state dinner and challenging the French foreign minister to a duel would be a high one.  

 The Historical Record on Impeachment

The use of impeachment in practice also provides an imperfect guide.   Three presidents have had impeachment proceedings commenced and fifteen federal judges have been impeached.   Among the Presidents, Andrew Johnson was impeached but not convicted for attempting to remove the Secretary of War from office in violation of a congressional enactment, Richard Nixon resigned prior to being impeached on corruption charges and Bill Clinton was impeached but not convicted for lying about a sexual affair with a White House intern.    Judges have been removed from office for offenses ranging from mental instability and intoxication on the bench, waging war against the United States, perjury, accepting bribes and income tax evasion.   

Supreme Court Justice Samuel Chase was impeached but acquitted on charges of arbitrary and oppressive conduct of trials after he used his charge to a Baltimore jury to rail against the current administration.  According to Grand Inquests by Chief Justice Rehnquist, Chase's impeachment was an attempt by Congress and the President to remove a judge whose criticism had become a thorn in their collective side.    According to Rehnquist:

(T)he Chase acquittal has come to stand for the proposition that impeachment is not a proper weapon for Congress (abetted, perhaps, by the executive as in the case of Chase) to employ in (confrontations between branches of government).    No matter how angry or frustrated either of the other branches may be by the action of the Supreme Court, removal of individual members of the Court because of their judicial philosophy is not permissible.    The other branches must make use of other powers granted them by the Constitution in their effort to bring the Court to book.

Rehnquist, p. 134.   

Chief Justice Rehnquist similarly concluded that the failed impeachment of President Andrew Johnson stood for the proposition that impeachment could not be used to remove a president whose policies Congress found repugnant.    He wrote:

Andrew Johnson was not, of course, convicted; he was acquitted.  His acquittal confirmed what had already been established by the acquittal of Samuel Chase in 1805.   Impeachment would not be a referendum on the public official's performance in office; instead, it would be a judicial type of inquiry in which specific charges were made by the House of Representatives, evidence was received before the Senate, and the senators would decide whether or not the charges were proven.

 Rehnquist, p. 271.     

Seven years later, Rehnquist's theory would be tested as he presided over the Senate trial of President William Jefferson Clinton.   The House of Representatives adopted two out of four proposed articles of impeachment on a largely party line vote.    The case was tried to the Senate on charges of perjury and obstruction of justice.   The case was doomed when all forty-five Democrats voted not guilty, preventing the Senate from obtaining a guilty verdict.   Five Republican Senators rejected both charges, while an additional five Republicans not guilty on the perjury charge.    

The failed Clinton impeachment can be viewed in more than one way.   One lesson is that impeachment of a President who is popular with his own party is doomed to failure.    This is the realpolitik  lesson.   However, there is a more subtle lesson a well.   The Clinton impeachment, while based on very real misconduct, largely concerned the President's behavior in his private capacity.   The charges of perjury leveled against him arose from a civil suit unrelated to his duties as President of the United States.   The obstruction of justice charge was more difficult, because it involved allegations that the President attempted to use his public powers to cover up his private misdeeds.  It may be that when history is ultimately written, it will report that the Clinton impeachment failed because he was guilty only of "low Crimes and Misdemeanors."   

President Obama and Impeachment

It seems no small understatement to say that President Obama is unpopular with the Republican Party.  Partisans on the right can score political points (and raise money) by attacking the President with intense fervor.    However, I will go out on a limb and state that there is absolutely no chance that the President will be removed through impeachment.   President Obama is as popular with Democrats as he is despised by Republicans.    Given that there are currently 53 Senators who caucus with the Democrats (including three independents), there is simply no way to find 67 votes for conviction.   Even if all 47 Republicans voted to convict, it would take another 20 votes from Democrats and Independents to succeed.    That is not going to happen.

Furthermore, the complaints about President Obama fall into two categories:  political and preposterous.   Impeachment was never intended as a means of resolving political disputes; that is what elections are for.  The Republican Party lost the last two national elections. If they seek a do-over of the last election under the name of impeachment, they may well lose the remainder of their support among middle of the road voters.   As for the charges that President Obama is a closet Kenyan Socialist Muslim who wants to overthrow our Democracy and institute an Islamo-Fascist regime, I seriously doubt that the President's detractors could come up with enough evidence to convince even one Senator.   My suspicion is that Republicans are happy to allow their firebrands to stir up the faithful but they would never seriously pursue an impeachment they could not win.  

  

Say It Like It Isn't: Lies, Gaffes and Misstatements

I became an Independent because I wasn't inspired by Republicans or Democrats. It wasn't always that way.

I remember the excitement of the first campaigns that I worked on during the 1980s. In 1979, I was one of the founders of the College Republicans at Texas Lutheran College. I was campus coordinator for George H.W. Bush. I remember thinking of him as a decent, intelligent man with an impressive resume. I became a reluctant supporter of Ronald Reagan, but came to be impressed by him. I also remember the local candidates that I supported, people like Jim Sagebiel and Margie Reinhardt, who swept out the corrupt Democrats in Guadalupe County. I also remember working on Edmund Kuempel's first campaign for state representative.

As the years went on, I became more involved, serving two terms as a Republican Precinct Chairman in Travis County. As Precinct Chairman, I noticed that the local Republican Party spent most of its time feuding with each other and arguing over who was more ideologically pure. I initially embraced the rise of the religious right. However, I began to notice that their version of Christianity did not line up with what I read in the Bible.

Ideologically, there were four straws that broke the camel's back: bankruptcy reform, immigration, the war in Iraq and the death penalty. However, more than these particular issues, I hated cringing whenever Republicans said something disingenuous, dishonest or just plain stupid. Accuracy and logic are not how you fire up the base. Howard Dean and the Daily Kos weren't much better.

With that really long introduction, here are some statements from this year that I found to be particularly offensive, weird or wrong.

The Health Care Debate

The Health Care debate produced many statements that were either dishonest, inflammatory or just plain stupid. For example:

"We believe that the job-killing ObamaCare law will result in a government takeover of health care. That's why we have pledged to repeal it, and replace it with common-sense reforms that actually lower costs.”--Spokesman for U.S. Rep. John Boehner

"It says specifically that people can't purchase private health insurance after a date certain, which means people will ultimately go into a single-payer plan where it is government providing health care and only one single government system. That's why this is so bad, Sean. This is socialized medicine ... This is, as I said, the crown jewel of socialism. It's what Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid have wanted from the very beginning."--U.S. Rep. Michelle Bachmann

"And who will suffer the most when they ration care? The sick, the elderly, and the disabled, of course. The America I know and love is not one in which my parents or my baby with Down Syndrome will have to stand in front of Obama's 'death panel' so his bureaucrats can decide, based on a subjective judgment of their 'level of productivity in society,' whether they are worthy of health care. Such a system is downright evil."--Sarah Palin

These statements are all examples of the Big Lie. The speaker makes an outrageous, inflammatory statement. When challenged, they spin an unlikely scenario in which the statement might come to fruition. For example, when the Obama health plan included a public option, the party line was that the public option would undercut private insurance, driving private companies out of business and lead to national health insurance which could then enforce health care rationing. The only problem with this scenario is that Republicans kept mentioning it after the public option was deleted.

"The final health care legislation that will soon be passed will deliver successful reform at the local level, but we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it, away from the fog of the controversy."--U.S. Rep. Nancy Pelosi

This last statement shows why many people don't put a lot of faith in the Democrats. While Nancy Pelosi no doubt meant to say that people would like the health care law once they were familiar with it, she came off as saying that Congress should pass it first and read it later.

Anti-Muslim Hysteria and the Ground Zero Mosque

Plans to build an Islamic Center on a site two blocks away from the World Trade Center site brought out a lot of hysteria.

"We can't say no to building a victory monument at Ground Zero because that's what this mosque is. They want to build a victory monument."--Rush Limbaugh

"At its essence, our position is about sensitivity. Everyone -- victims,opponents and proponents alike -- must pay attention to the sensitivities involved without giving in to appeals to, or accusations of, bigotry. Ultimately, this was not a question of rights, but a question of what is right. In our judgment, building an Islamic Center in the shadow of the World Trade Center would un-necessarily cause some victims more pain. And that wasn't right.--Abraham Foxman, Anti-Defamation League

"No matter how you try, this isn't about religious discrimination or intolerance. This is about constructing a mosque on the very spot where the landing gear of one of the hijacked planes crashed into the building on this site. Certainly you can understand the feelings of the families and victims of 9-11 - including our client - NYC firefighter and first responder Tim Brown - who survived the attack but lost nearly 100 colleagues that day. For them, the pain never ends. They consider this site hallowed ground and, like most Americans, don't believe this is the place to build a mosque. To them, it's insensitive. To them, it should be a memorial - not a mosque. It really is as simple as that."--Jay Sekulow

The Limbaugh quote is another example of the Big Lie. Because Muslims built a mosque to commemorate a victory sometime, somewhere in the world, the only reason that Muslims would want to build a mosque in lower Manhattan is to commemorate the 9/11 attacks. Of course, he completely ignores the fact that this mosque was intended to replace another mosque that had been in the same area for many years.

Abraham Foxman and Jay Sekulow are more subtle. They use the language of sensitivity. However, the fact that the landing gear from one of the planes struck the old Burlington Coat Factory does not make it hallowed ground. In fact, it was never considered hallowed ground until after the Muslims bought the property. This is a case of 1) revisionist history and 2) using sensitivity as a weapon.

Religious Crazy Talk

When it comes to religion, the words of the Bible and the words of those who speak in the name of religion often keep little company.

"And they got together and swore a pact to the Devil. They said, 'We will serve you if you'll get us free from the French.' True story. And so the Devil said, 'Okay, it's a deal.' . . . But ever since they have been cursed by one thing after another." --Pat Robertson

“I beg you, look for the words ‘social justice’ or ‘economic justice’ on your church Web site. If you find it, run as fast as you can. Social justice and economic justice, they are code words. Now, am I advising people to leave their church? Yes.”--Glenn Beck

"I mean, it is a perversion of the gospel. It is a perversion of the gospel. And I understand that we are dealing with — we're not dealing with — we're not dealing with powers of the Earth. We're just not. This is a perversion of the gospel. And it is such a clear perversion of the gospel, I want to show you the collective salvation remarks."--Glenn Beck

Pat Robertson used a little voodoo history in order to blame the Haitian earthquake on a so-called pact with the devil. While there is a grain of truth to the fact that during the slave uprising someone performed a voodoo rite, it doesn't hold up that the Haitian people as a whole made a pact or that God would send an earthquake nearly 200 years later to punish them.

While Robertson is laughable, Glenn Beck is more insidious. Although he is a Mormon, and therefore does not have a Christian take on the Bible, it doesn't stop him from talking about the Bible. In each of these quotes, he suggests that language which can be legitimately construed as love of neighbor really means something evil and subversive. It is true that social justice can be a code word for socialism and it is also true that collective salvation derives from liberation theology. However, the actual quotes from President Obama talked about not forgetting the less fortunate, which is a very Christian message. Beck takes the "collective salvation" soundbite and spins an entirely different meaning on it.

Obama Derangement Syndrome

There are many examples which could go here, but I will use just two.

This usurper in the office of the President of the United States has been shredding our Constitution. Washington is dominated by socialists. . . . Socialists do not believe in god. Their god is the state."--State Rep. Leo Berman

Obama "doesn't ... want to admit we're at war."--Dick Cheney

You don't have to like President Obama. However, that is not license to make things up. Last time I checked, being elected President of the United States does not make you a usurper. Also, President Obama has continued so many of his predecessor's policies on the war on terror that his liberal supporters have felt betrayed.

Lies and Texas Politics

Gov. Rick Perry coasted to victory in this year's gubernatorial race. The ease of his re-election didn't stop the Governor and his party from telling some whoppers.

"Today is day 164 of liberal trial lawyer Bill White refusing to debate. He also continues to refuse to release his taxes from his years in public service."--Press Release from the Rick Perry Campaign

Actually, it was Perry who refused to debate.

"Bill White has presided over the construction of what may be the world's largest abortion clinic."--Republican Party of Texas

That's true only if the words "presided over" mean that he happened to be mayor at the time.

Immigration

"I don't know that all of you are Latino. Some of you look a little more Asian to me. I don't know that. What we know about -- what we know about ourselves is that we are a melting pot in this country. My -- my grandchildren are evidence of that. I'm evidence of that. I've been called the third Asian legislator in our Nevada state assembly."--Sharon Angle

Bizarre.

"I don't know how anyone of Hispanic heritage could be a Republican, OK. Do I need to say more?"--Sen Harry Reid

Patronizing

"Worst of all, Robert Rodriguez’ incendiary race film ‘Machete’ was made, in part, with help from tax incentives and location access provided by the Texas Film Commission, a division of Governor Rick Perry’s Office. A spokesperson from the organization confirmed that Rodriguez had indeed applied for funding."--Alex Jones, Infowars.com

A little anti-immigrant hysteria? Saying that the film had applied for funding is not the same as saying that it was made with tax incentives. Also, calling it an "incendiary race film" is just plain silly. It is a good guys vs. bad guys movie where some of the bad guys happen to be Anglo.

Random

Here are some random false statements from the past year.

I never considered myself a maverick."--U.S. Sen. John McCain

Is this a case of amnesia?

"We don't get a lot of calls from this White House… I have, frankly, never had a call from them."--Rick Perry

This is more amnesia, since Gov. Perry had just received a call from the White House.

As we head into 2011, I am neither Republican nor Democrat nor likely to change anytime soon.