Think Progress

Jewish Organizations Condemn GOP For Standing By As Tea Party Protesters Waved ‘Vile’ Anti-Semitic Signs

One of the most disturbing images from yesterday’s Tea Party rally against health care reform on Capitol Hill was a protester’s gruesome sign showing a pile of dead Holocaust victims. The banner — captured by ThinkProgress here — read: “National Socialist Health Care: Dachau, Germany – 1945.” Another sign said that “Obama takes his orders from the Rothchilds [sic],” a reference to the famous Jewish banking family often implicated in conspiracy theories. Today, Nobel Prize winner and Holoacaust survivor Elie Wiesel strongly condemned the signs, calling them “indecent and disgusting.” From his foundation’s Twitter page:

The National Jewish Democratic Council also criticized the “vile invocations of Nazi and Holocaust rhetoric” and called out GOP leaders who stood in plain view of the signs but ignored them. The Simon Wiesenthal Center demanded that the rally organizers “publicly repudiate the use of Nazi and Holocaust imagery.” Rep. Steve Israel (D-NY) made similar comments in a video he posted on YouTube, singling out the rally’s organizer, Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN):

I can’t believe that Congresswoman Bachmann would stand where she stood, and see those images, and not have the common decency to say, “I disagree with the use of those images.” I think that she owes the memory of those who perished in the Holocaust an apology. She owes us all an apology. And I’m waiting. We’re all waiting.

Watch it:

When Politico asked House Minority Leader John Boehner’s (R-OH) spokesman for comment on these signs, he simply replied, “Leader Boehner did not see any such sign. Obviously, it would be grossly inappropriate.” Today, Rep. Eric Cantor’s (R-VA) spokesman called the photograph “inappropriate.”

Fox And Friends Muse About ‘Special Screenings’ And ‘Special Debriefings’ For Muslims In The Military

After news broke yesterday that the suspected gunman responsible for the “horrific outburst of violence” at Fort Hood, Major Nidal Malik Hasan, was Muslim, some commentators began assigning “collective responsibility for the actions of one man” to the Muslim community as a whole. On Fox and Friends this morning, Geraldo Rivera warned against casting “a gloomy cloud of suspicion over all the Muslim G.I.s who serve with great honor”:

RIVERA: I think that the great tragedy of this incident is that it will cast a gloomy cloud of suspicion over all the Muslim G.I.s who serve with great honor and who are an amazing assist to the United States in this conflict we’re having with radical Islam. This will, and also, I remember my dad, just very briefly. When we were growing up there would be a notorious crime and my dad used to gather the family. We used to say, like a little prayer, “please God” that it’s not a Puerto Rican. You know because we had, dealing with so many social pressures and prejudices, dealing with all the rest of it, we didn’t want one of these awful examples to cast aspersion and negativity on our group. And this is the same thing with American Muslims now, specifically American Muslim G.I.s.

But, as both Raw Story and Media Matters have noted, later in the segment the hosts of Fox and Friends suggested that “special debriefings” and “special screenings” of Muslim soldiers should be considered. “If I’m going to be sticking in an outpost, I got to know the guy next to me is not going to want to kill me,” said Brian Kilmeade. Gretchen Carlson pondered whether the military had been “exercising political correctness in not approaching” Hasan “as seriously as they would have had he not been a Muslim.” Watch it:

Muslim- and Arab-American organizations have loudly spoken against Hasan’s attack. “We condemn this cowardly attack in the strongest terms possible and ask that the perpetrators be punished to the full extent of the law,” said a Council on American-Islamic Relations statement. In a statement, the Association of Patriotic Arab Americans in Military urged “the media, government officials and all of our fellow Americans to recognize that the actions of Hasan are those of a deranged gunman, and are in no way representative of the wider Arab American or American Muslim community.”

Did The Authors Of New Muslim Conspiracy Book Steal Documents From A Muslim Organization?

Wednesday, a small group of House Republicans — Reps. Sue Myrick (NC), John Shadegg (AZ), Paul Broun (GA) and Trent Franks (AZ) — hosted a press conference in the capitol building calling for an investigation of the Muslim-advocacy group Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), alleging that the organization was “connected to…terrorists” and is “planting spies in key national security-related congressional offices.”

The four members of Congress based their claims on assertions made in the new book “Muslim Mafia: Inside the Secret Underworld that’s Conspiring to Islamize America,” co-authored by P. David Gaubatz and Paul Sperry. The authors of the book planted an intern inside of CAIR for six months. The authors claim that a memo the intern obtained from the group proves that the organization “planted spies” inside the nation’s national security infrastructure.

Now, CAIR has filed a criminal complaint against the authors of the book, alleging that the memo they are using to attack CAIR was stolen. Indeed, Sperry was interviewed by Radio America yesterday and admitted that the planted intern “collected whole boxes of evidence marked for shredding” and took documents that “he felt he needed to preserve as evidence [of illegal wrongdoing].” Listen here:

According to DC law, the authors could be guilty of conspiracy to commit theft with a “bias-related crime” specification, meaning that they could face up to 15 years in prison if the stolen document is deemed to have a value of $250 or more, or only 270 days if it is deemed to have less value. From the DC Code:

§ 22-3211. Theft [Formerly § 22-3811]

   (a) For the purpose of this section, the term “wrongfully obtains or uses” means: (1) taking or exercising control over property; (2) making an unauthorized use, disposition, or transfer of an interest in or possession of property; or (3) obtaining property by trick, false pretense, false token, tampering, or deception. The term “wrongfully obtains or uses” includes conduct previously known as larceny, larceny by trick, larceny by trust, embezzlement, and false pretenses.

§ 22-3212. Penalties for theft [Formerly § 22-3812]

   (a) Theft in the first degree. — Any person convicted of theft in the first degree shall be fined not more than $ 5,000 or imprisoned for not more than 10 years, or both, if the value of the property obtained or used is $ 250 or more.
 
(b) Theft in the second degree. — Any person convicted of theft in the second degree shall be fined not more than $ 1,000 or imprisoned for not more than 180 days, or both, if the value of the property obtained or used is less than $ 250.

§ 22-3701. Definitions [Formerly § 22-4001]

   For the purposes of this chapter, the term:
 
   (1) “Bias-related crime” means a designated act that demonstrates an accused’s prejudice based on the actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, sex, age, marital status, personal appearance, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, family responsibility, physical disability, matriculation, or political affiliation of a victim of the subject designated act.

§ 22-3703. Bias-related crime [Formerly § 22-4003]

   A person charged with and found guilty of a bias-related crime shall be fined not more than 11/2 times the maximum fine authorized for the designated act and imprisoned for not more than 1 1/2 times the maximum term authorized for the designated act.

Of course, there was no need to take documents to prove wrongdoing because CAIR was doing nothing illegal. The much-touted memos that the authors claim is evidence of a Muslim conspiracy to undermine the United States are remarkably benign. The passage the authors cite simply says that CAIR will “develop national initiatives such as a lobby day and [place] Muslim interns in Congressional offices.” As Glenn Greenwald notes, this is “consistent with what virtually every political advocacy group in the nation does; it’s normally called activism and democracy. But because, in this case, it’s a group of Muslims who are doing this, these House Republicans are depicting it as some sort of nefarious espionage plot against the U.S. that demands a criminal investigation.”

Right-Wing Panel Agrees Obama Is The ‘First Muslim American President’

At the How to Take Back America conference last weekend, attended by several Republican lawmakers, former Reagan official and prominent neoconservative Frank Gaffney, right-wing historian Bill Federer, and Christian activist Walid Shoebat hosted a panel on “How to understand Islam.” An attendee of the panel asked the three speakers if they would consider President Obama a Christian or a Muslim, given his “roots.” While Gaffney gave a now familiar response linking Obama to the Muslim Brotherhood, Federer and Shoebat provided new theories, which elicited praise from the crowd:

GAFFNEY: If Bill Clinton, on the basis of special interest pandering and identity politics, was properly called the first Black American President, on that same basis, Barack Obama should be called the first Muslim American President. […] But there is evidence that a lot of Muslims think he is Muslim. But whether he is or whether he isn’t, the key to me, is is he pursuing that is indistinguishable in important respects from that of the Muslim Brotherhood, whose mission ladies and gentlemen, we know from a trial in Dallas last year, is to quote to destroy Western civilization from within by its own miserable hand. That’s what we need to keep our eye on.

FEDERER: In Islam, if your father is a Muslim, you’re automatically a Muslim. Since Barack’s father, stepfather, and grandfather were all Muslim, the Muslim world views him as Muslim. Mohammad allowed his warriors to say they’re not Muslim to gain advantage and um, but he’s uh, Islam permits you to lie to advance Islam, Saul Alinsky allows you to lie to advance your communist agenda, you can put them together.

SHOEBAT: I came from an American mother, Obama came from an American mother. I came from a Muslim father, Obama came from a Muslim father. […] Did you know that your President knows how to do the call to the prayer in eloquent classical Arabic? […] No one can do this in classical Arabic language unless he grew up and was raised as a Muslim.

Watch it:

During the panel, Shoebat advocated entering Arab countries and converting Muslims to Christianity. He also went on a rant about how Muslims in meat packaging plants are contaminating America’s food supply because their hands are unclean.

Gaffney has a record of comparing Obama to Hitler — a major theme of the conference — and spreading other absurd reasons for why he thinks Obama is Muslim. As Matt Duss has noted, although it may be difficult to take Gaffney as a serious analyst, his “transparently bigoted” attacks are given a platform on major media outlets. This reason alone is why Gaffney’s smears shouldn’t be ignored.

In the past week alone, Gaffney has appeared as a pundit on Fox News and MSNBC, has been featured in an article in NewsMax, and wrote an opinion column for the Washington Times.

Lobbyist Dick Armey’s Pollution Gospel: ‘As An Article Of Faith,’ It Is ‘Pretentious’ To Believe In Global Warming

Former House Majority Leader Dick Armey (R-TX) appeared as a witness for the Republican bicameral hearing on climate change legislation yesterday on Capitol Hill. Along with a cadre of polluter CEOs and Chamber of Commerce officials, Armey played his part leveling an array of attacks on any effort to transition to a clean energy economy.

As the hearing progressed, most of the witnesses spent their time recycling months-old debunked studies. But Armey distinguished himself by invoking a religious argument to back up his smears against what he called “environmental hypochondriacs” filled with “eco-evangelical hysteria.” Armey claimed that in his world view, because God created the heavens and the Earth, it would be “quite pretentious” for people to believe God would permit global warming to even occur:

DICK ARMEY: What I’m suggesting is we have a sort of an eco-evangelical hysteria going on and it leads me to almost wonder if we are becoming a nation of environmental hypochondriacs that are willing to use the power of the state to impose enormous restrictions on the rights and the comforts of, and incomes of individuals who serve essentially a paranoia, a phobia, that has very little fact evidence in fact. Now these are observations that are popular to make because right now its almost taken as an article of faith that this crisis is real. Let me say I take it as an article of faith if the lord God almighty made the heavens and the Earth, and he made them to his satisfaction and it is quite pretentious of we little weaklings here on earth to think that, that we are going to destroy God’s creation. [...]

SEN. ORRIN HATCH: Mr. Armey it’s great to have you here. Great to see you again and we appreciate all you’ve done throughout the years and your work on Capitol Hill. Great job.

Watch it:

Despite Armey’s claims, global warming is very real and has already caused great damage to creation. Indeed, though Armey would like to create a false dichotomy between people who want to stop global warming and people who believe in God, no such gap exists. A Faith and Public Life poll found 63% of Catholics and 50% of white evangelicals want the federal government to do more to address climate change. Pope Benedict XVI has called for a greater focus on the environment, saying “if you want to promote peace, safeguard creation.”

Armey’s use of faith to demonize clean energy reform should come as no surprise. After promoting a polluter agenda for many years in Congress, Armey became a lobbyist for the firm DLA Piper, which represents many interests with a stake against curbing greenhouse gas emissions:

–- DLA Piper represents Sheikh Mohammed Bin Rashid Al Maktoum, Prime Minister of the UAE, on energy related issues such as maintaining the U.S.-UAE relationship where “U.S companies have played major roles in the development of UAE energy resources, which represent about 10 percent of global oil reserves.” [US Department of Justice, accessed 7/30/09]

– DLA Piper recently signed on Colonial Oil as a new client. [Senate Lobbying Disclosures, accessed 7/30/09]

– DLA Piper represents Irving Oil, lobbying directly on clean energy reform legislation. [Senate Lobbying Disclosures, accessed 7/30/09]

After leaving Congress, Armey became the head of Citizens for a Sound Economy, a right-wing front group funded largely by oil companies like ExxonMobil. CSE later morphed into the astroturf organization known as FreedomWorks, which Armey has used to orchestrate the vicious anti-Obama tea party rallies. And, as ThinkProgress has documented, though FreedomWorks purports to fight on behalf of a purely free market ideology, Armey has used FreedomWorks to whip up “grassroots” support for the clients he represents.

Conservative Education ‘Experts’ Want Less Lincoln And More Jesus In Texas Textbooks

The Dallas Morning News reported last week that conservative “experts” advising the state of Texas on school curriculum are arguing that the state’s social studies and history textbooks are giving “too much attention” to some of U.S. history’s most prominent civil rights leaders. David Barton, one of the so-called “experts,” claimed Hispanic labor leader César Chávez “lacks the stature, impact and overall contributions of so many others.” A colleague on the panel agreed, also singling out Thurgood Marshall for exclusion:

“To have César Chávez listed next to Ben Franklin” – as in the current standards – “is ludicrous,” wrote evangelical minister Peter Marshall, one of six experts advising the state as it develops new curriculum standards for social studies classes and textbooks. [...]

Marshall also questioned whether Thurgood Marshall, who argued the landmark case that resulted in school desegregation and was the first black U.S. Supreme Court justice, should be presented to Texas students as an important historical figure. He wrote that the late justice is “not a strong enough example” of such a figure.

According to a draft of the proposed new textbook standards, “biographies of George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, and Stephen F. Austin have been removed from the early grades.” At the same time, Peter Marshall wants more teaching of Christianity’s role “in America’s past“:

Marshall…also recommends that school children get a better understanding of the motivational role the Bible and the Christian faith played in the settling of the original colonies. [...]

“In light of the overwhelming historical evidence of the influence of the Christian faith in the founding of America, it is simply not up to acceptable academic standards that throughout the social studies (curriculum standards) I could only find one reference to the role of religion in America’s past,” Marshall said in his review.

Actual education professionals in Texas appeared dismayed at Marshall and Barton’s assessment. “It is what we expected from unqualified political activists put on this so-called panel of experts,” said Dan Quinn of the nonprofit Texas Freedom Network. “This is yet another step toward politicizing our children’s education.” Jesus Francisco de la Teja, chairman of the history department at Texas State University said, “Whether you approve or disapprove of what [Chavez] did, there is no doubt about his contribution to bettering the lives of an untold number of Americans of limited economic means and education.”

Barton, a former vice chairman of the Texas Republican Party also insisted on emphasizing “republican” values in Texas’ curriculum:

[Barton] said that because the U.S. is a republic rather than a democracy, the proper adjective for identifying U.S. values and processes should be “republican” rather than “democratic.” That means social studies books should discuss “republican” values in the U.S., his report said.

The Fort Worth Star-Telegram reports that the social studies review panels will meet later this month and post their “initial recommendations” online with “final adoption” set for next March. But “[t]he debate here has far-reaching consequences,” the New York Times noted last January when Texas debated how evolution should be taught in schools, because “Texas is one of the nation’s biggest buyers of textbooks, and publishers are reluctant to produce different versions of the same material.”

FACT CHECK: The Right-Wing Smear Campaign Against Kevin Jennings »

The right wing has a new target: Kevin Jennings, whom President Obama appointed Assistant Deputy Secretary at the Department of Education for the Office of Safe and Drug Free Schools (OSDFS). Jennings has had a distinguished career as a teacher, author, and founder of Gay, Lesbian, and Straight Education Network (GLSEN), an organization that works to make schools safe for all students, regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity.

It is primarily Jennings’ work with GLSEN that has so outraged the far right. The Family Research Council (FRC) launched the “Stop Kevin Jennings” campaign this week, warning that he is a “radical homosexual activist” who has “worked tirelessly to bring the homosexual agenda into our nation’s classrooms.” “His history demonstrates disregard for our obligations to safeguard the health and well being of the student population,” writes FRC President Tony Perkins.

ThinkProgress investigated FRC’s claims and spoke to people who have worked with Jennings. A look at some of the “facts” about him:

FRC CLAIM: “Jennings’ and GLSEN’s concept of ’safe schools’ means special protections for privileged groups (especially homosexuals), rather than safety for all.”

FACT: As the gay son of a Southern baptist preacher, Jennings had a “childhood of prejudice, taunts, and harassment.” As an education leader, he has used those experiences to promote tolerance and anti-bullying measures in schools nationwide. ThinkProgress spoke with Molly Spearman, executive director of the South Carolina Association of School Administrators. Spearman first heard Jennings speak at the 2007 convention of the National Association of Secondary School Principals (NASSP). Spearman said that she was so impressed with Jennings, she decided to invite him to speak at her organization’s October 2007 summit on bullying:

I was a little nervous, being in South Carolina, a very conservative state. But once again, he handled it extremely professionally. He did a magnificent job, and it was a huge success. We had a waiting list of people who wanted to come. … We had several hundred people there. … He was very very well-received — absolutely rave views. And that was in conservative South Carolina. So he handled what could have been a very sensitive topic in a very professional way that was accepted by everyone.

Spearman added that while Jennings did present statistics on the harassment of LGBT students, he more broadly focused on the bullying of all students, pointing out that it was a problem that wasn’t specifically confined to one group.

- – - – -

FRC CLAIM: “Jennings is viciously hostile to religion.” More »« Less