William Gheen, founder of anti-immigration group Americans for Legal Immigration PAC says people need to start thinking about violent insurrection against "Dictator Barack Obama". On right-wing Christianist Janet Mefferd's radio show, Gheen said [mp3 file]:

We're no longer referring to him as President Barack Obama. Our national organization has made the decision and made the announcement we now refer to him as Dictator Barack Obama. That's what he is. And basically at this point, if you're looking for a peaceful, political recourse there really isn't one that we can think of, and I'm really not sure what to tell people out there than I guess they need to make decisions soon to just accept whatever comes next or some type of extra-political activities that I can't even really talk about because they're all illegal and violent.

No peaceful recourse. Just accept whatever comes next, or engage in extra-political activities that are all illegal and violent. It seems pretty clear to me, but of course he insists that he's been misunderstood, and that he really meant something else. Here are a few excerpts from his clarification statement.

My comments on the radio show were merely meant to reflect what I see Americans who are paying close attention to these issues see facing them.

See, when he said he didn't know what else to tell people, he was just explaining what he thinks they were already telling themselves. Got it? As explained in his clarification, while he believes that "people in America are being forced into a decision between submission or more revolutionary means", he wants everybody to understand that it's "Dictator Barack Obama" who's forcing those Americans to contemplate violent insurrection, while Mr. Gheen insists that he has "disavow[ed] any form of violence on many occasions".

Any form of violence. The guy is, apparently, a total and complete pacifist. But then he also says "I've never started a physical fight, but I've finished a few in my time and I would never engage in violence against anyone for any reason other than to protect myself and my family from physical harm."

So he's against violence except when he justifies it by claiming that it was defensive. Presumably like when you encourage others to engage in violent insurrection against the government, and then insist that it's because you were forced into doing so by the democratically-elected Chief Executive that you refer to as "Dictator".

In further clarification, he explains that "if there is ever another violent revolution in America [the violent revolution that he says people need to engage in if they're not willing to [j]ust accept whatever comes next], I can have nothing to do with it." So while he may feel that violent insurrection is the only option other than just giving up, his plan is to remain "committed to the path of peace and nonviolence", let other people do the fighting, and just act as a sort of cheerleader.

But if Gheen is committed to a path of peace and nonviolence, he has some funny ways of showing it. Back during the 2010 election, there was a bit of a fuss about AliPAC’s endorsement of Senate candidate J.D. Hayworth, and racist language posted by commenters on the AliPAC website. This is what the Phoenix New Times had to say:

We called ALIPAC organizeer William Gheen and had to listen to a blast of profanity and his asking us to contact him by e-mail in the future so he could shove a hard copy of our questions “up [our] ass.” He threatened to “sue the shit out of” New Times for even asking about racist language on the Web site.

Maybe it’s just me, printing out emails and forcibly inserting them up somebody else’s rectum isn’t anywhere near “the path of peace and nonviolence”.

In any case, it appears that he’ll be cheerleading for a team that he is sure will lose. Because, as he said in his clarification statement, “I do not believe that the forces that are destroying America can be vanquished with the force or [sic] arms. I believe this is a spiritual conflict. I believe that only through divine Providence will God save the United States of America.” Or maybe he was referring to “illegal and violent” spiritual warfare.

Is AliPAC encouraging the overthrow of the United States government through imprecatory prayer?

United States Senator Rand Paul doesn't like immigrants. He doesn't like illegal immigrants, at least partly because he sees them as a threat to national security. He wants to build an electronic fence, and new military bases with helicopters to intercept and stop anyone who tries to cross the border without going through a checkpoint first.l He wants to make English the official language of the United States, and he wants state and local governments to be free to pass enforce their own immigration laws, without interference from the feds.

Senator Paul also doesn't like US citizens whose parents are illegal immigrants. He doesn't think they're really Americans, and he'd like the Supreme Court to strip them of their US citizenship and deport them and their parents to Mexico (presumably regardless of whether or not their parents are actually from Mexico). And if the Supreme Court rules that they are in fact citizens as defined by the 14th Amendment, then Sen. Paul wants a new amendment to eliminate birthright citizenship in the future.

And finally, it turns out that Rand Paul doesn't like legal immigrants, either. Despite saying on his campain website that he "support[s] legal immigration and recognize[s] that the country has been enriched by those who seek the freedom to make a life for themselves", his recent comments at a Homeland Security Committee hearing suggest otherwise.

"We have 40,000 students coming to this country from all over the world." he said. Are they would-be attackers?"

The answer to Sen. Paul's question is "yeah, it's extremely unlikely but certainly possible that some of them might be." But the same can be said for any group of people. Including natural born US citizens whose ancestors have been here (legally) for generations. Including those teabagger militia guys Rand likes to hang out with sometimes. Including even the US Senate itself. I mean really, what kind of security screening is involved for members of Congress? Seriously, anybody could be a terrorist, but the simple fact is that the vast majority of people are not. And that goes for people trying to enter the US as students, refugees, visitors, or immigrants.

The thing is, visa applicants are screened. They have to fill out forms, they have to provide documentation, they have to go through an interview. The way the system is set up, it is assumed that they are trying to get into the country to violate the terms of their visa and stay permanently, and they have to provide evidence to convince the government representatives that they're not. The system isn't perfect. It can't possibly keep out every terrorist or potential terrorist. Nothing can. So we try to find a way to balance security, cost, and hassle.

That's an idea Sen. Paul seems to understand, at least when it comes to hassling American citizens. From the NY Times:

"We've done so many things to think that we're all terrorists, that universality we have to scrutinize everybody to the Nth degree instead of doing what I just think would be good police work," Mr. Paul said, adding that it would be less expensive and less intrusive to privacy if the country looked at "the people who did attack us and who continue to attack us, not really US citizens."

So Rand Paul says it's wrong to assume that we're all terrorists, but a good idea to assume that all legal immigrants and visitors to the US are terrorists? That's ridiculous. What Rand Paul is calling for is a kind of profiling, and as security expert Bruce Schneier has pointed out, it's the kind of profiling that doesn't work.

There are two kinds of profiling. There's behavioral profiling bnased on how someone acts, and there's automatic profiling based on name, nationality, method of ticket purchase, and so on. The first one can be effective, but is very hard to do right. The second one makes us all less safe. The problem with automatic profiling is that it doesn't work.

The simple reason for this is because terrorists don't fit a profile. Paul's call to target students and refugees is not only unnecessarily discriminatory, it's ineffective. If his goal is to make the country safer, doing this would actually have the opposite result. If, on the other hand, his goal is to drastically reduce the number of people legally immigrating to or visiting the United States, or to send a message that foreigners aren't welcome in America, well then, I guess that might be a good way to do it.

Herman Cain was never really much of a contender for the Republican nomination. His polling numbers were okay but not great, and often significantly behind front-runners Romney, Palin (who hasn't declared herself as a candidate), and Giuliani. But I think his comments about Muslims in government have destroyed whatever chance he might've had.

Here's what happened. This is a short exchange during a March interview with Scott Keyes of Think Progress:

KEYES: You came under a bit of controversy this week for some of the comments made about Muslims in general. Would you be comfortable appointing a Muslim, either in your cabinet or as a federal judge?

 

CAIN: No, I will not. And here’s why. There is this creeping attempt, there is this attempt to gradually ease Sharia law and the Muslim faith into our government. It does not belong in our government.

Now you might think that sort of Islamophobic nonsense would be enough to end his political ambitions right there. But not necessarily. It turns out that there are a lot of Americans who not only don't mind anti-Muslim bigotry, they agree with it. And a lot of those Americans are Republicans.

In polling published in the Economist last year, 80.1% of Republicans had a somewhat or very unfavorable impression of Islam, compared to 45% of Democrats. 50.1% of Republicans and 17.6% of Democrats had a very unfavorable impression. So while his comment would've cost him some votes, it wasn't necessarily a campaign killer. Mitt Romney made a similar comment back in 2007, and he's still going. But then there's this, from June 7, with Glenn Beck:

BECK: You said you would not appoint a Muslim to anybody in your administration.

CAIN: The exact language was when I was asked, “would you be comfortable with a Muslim in your cabinet?” And I said, “no, I would not be comfortable.” I didn’t say I wouldn’t appoint one because if they can prove to me that they’re putting the Constitution of the United States first then they would be a candidate just like everybody else. My entire career, I’ve hired good people, great people, regardless of their religious orientation.

BECK: So wait a minute. Are you saying that Muslims have to prove their, that there has to be some loyalty proof?

CAIN: Yes, to the Constitution of the United States of America.

BECK: Would you do that to a Catholic or would you do that to a Mormon?

CAIN: Nope, I wouldn’t. Because there is a greater dangerous part of the Muslim faith than there is in these other religions. I know that there are some Muslims who talk about, “but we are a peaceful religion.” And I’m sure that there are some peace-loving Muslims.

See where Cain has seriously screwed up? First, he's exposed himself as an Islamophobic bigot. That cost him some votes from more moderal Republicans and Independents. Then when he tried to walk back his "misconstrued" comments, he was branded "a total fraud, a complete flip-flopper" by hard-core Islamophobes. And now he's talking about discriminatory loyalty oaths based on religion, which seems to be a violation of the "No Religious Test" clause of the Constitution. So who exactly would vote for Herman Cain?

Looking at his views on hot-button Republican issues, he's pro-war, pro-life, pro-Israel, and pro-drilling. He's also anti-tax, anti-union, anti-welfare, and anti-same-sex-marriage. Most if not all Republican candidates hold similar positions, so there's nothing there to set him apart.

Maybe I'm being a bit hasty to call his campaign dead in the water, but I think he's really screwed up. I think he blew it, and that his polling numbers in the next few weeks will really take a hit.

Bryan Fischer, the Director of Issues Analysis for the American Family Association says a lot of stupid, vile, hateful things. If you're at all familiar with either him or the organisation he works for, this isn't news. But in case you missed it, I'll share one of the more recent examples. Fischer is active on Twitter, and one of his recent messages was

How to shut down porn industry: pass, enforce laws against fornication, adultery. Every scene = all the photographic proof you need.

That's right, Bryan Fischer wants to make it illegal for people to have sex if they aren't married. I'm not sure if his preferred punishment is prison or stoning, but in any case, this is by far the dumbest things I've read all day.

But then while googling around to see some of the reactions to his insanely fischeresque tweet, I stumbled across a page on RightWingWatch with a little collection of stupid, vile and hateful things Bryan Fischer has said. Seeing so many of them gathered together in one place offered a really disturbing image of the world as Bryan Fischer wants it to be. Here are just a few of the lowlights:

• Muslim immigrants would be required to convert to Christianity.
• All welfare payments would be stopped, because African-Americans "rut like rabbits".
• "Homosexual conduct" would be illegal.
• Sexually-active (how would he know?) single adults would not be allowed to be teachers.
• All married couples would be expected to have a minimum of three children.
• 12-year-old children would be eligible for the death penalty
• high school would end at 16, and people would be expected to get married younger ASAP thereafter

Damn, and I thought Rand Paul's Fantasy America™ was bad. This stuff is just nasty. And with all that stuff about illegal fornication, I immediately think of some dystopian  combination of Orwellian surveillance, Egyptian-style virginity tests, and Ceausescu-era menstrual police.