Tuesday’s Asshat of the Day

Filed in National by on October 26, 2010

Just when you thought you’ve seen the lowest of the low, another teabagger opens his mouth and shows that their movement is indeed racist.

Judson Phillps, the founder of Tea Party Nation, and it’s head grifter, wrote over the weekend that Congressman Keith Ellison (D-MN) should be defeated for re-election because he’s a Muslim.

Writing on his Tea Party Nation website, Phillips said that Ellison “is one of the most radical members in Congress.”

He continued:

“He has a ZERO rating from the American Conservative Union. He is the only Muslim member of Congress. He supports the Counsel for American Islamic Relations, HAMAS and has helped Congress send millions of tax dollars to terrorists in Gaza.”

First off, if this asshat had his facts straight, he would have known that there are two Muslim congressmen, Ellison and Rep. Andre Carson of Indiana. Second as has been pointed out by the NY Times,

“A small band of critics have made a determined but unsuccessful effort to link it (the Council on American-Islamic Relations) to Hamas and Hezbollah, which have been designated as terrorist organizations by the State Department, and have gone so far as calling the group an American front for the two.”

And Phillips has a very murky, financial past, including bankruptcies and tax liens. Hmmm, he sounds a lot like our very own Chrissie-pooh and Collin Bonoshow. What is it with these wingnuts and tax liens? But I digress. He also ran a for-profit teabag convention that was ill-attended after Frau Bachmann pulled out (although St. Sarah did show up for her $100K speaking fee).

Phillips is backing wingnut Lynn Torgerson in the 3-way race. Torgerson is also a piece of work, condemning Ellison for not supporting Israel. Let’s see what she writes:

The United States of America should support Israel. Israel is an ally and friend of the United States. The United States of America does support, and should support, its allies and friends. Israel also has values similar to the United States. For example, it is a democracy, and the only democracy in its region. Israel also supports similar freedoms we have in the United States. The United States also should not pressure Israel into a two state solution, nor the road map, nor to give up further land. Rather, that is the province of the State of Israel.

I am the only pro-Israel candidate on the ballot. My opponent, Keith Ellison, is not. My other challenger, Barb Davis White, is a Republican and a Ron Paul supporter, who wish to withdraw US aid to Israel.

With respect to Israel, Ellison writes the following on his website:

Israel/Palestine

The United States must play an active role in pursuing peace and reconciliation between parties in the Middle East that will achieve a two state solution that reflects and respects the sovereignty of each nation to live in peace and security.

A problem with this position however is that there is no “nation” of Palestine. When was “Palestine” founded? Does “Palestine” have its own language? Does “Palestine” mint its own money? The fact is that there is no state or nation of “Palestine.” Rather, a movement was founded by Yasser Arafat. However, Yasser Arafat was born in Egypt. So, Yasser Arafat was an Egyptian.

So a congressman who wants to work for a two-state solution and a peaceful settlement to the problems in the Middle East is instead called a terrorist by these nitwits. WTF?

Anyway, here’s how Phillips is handling being called out for his bigotry. Here’s one choice bit:

Consistency has never been one of the liberals’ strong points. They hate conservatives. They argue that conservatives want to strip women of their rights, execute homosexuals and impose a theocracy, all of which are lies born of a desperate and idiotic mindset. When an ideology such as Islam comes along that actually does all of those things, the liberals embrace it.

Um, Judson, one of your fellow teabaggers in Montana said that the way to handle gays was to use the “Wyoming solution,” referring to Matthew Shepherd. Your movement is all about taking away a woman’s right to choose, hell, you want to go back to the original Constitution, which means women would lose the right to vote. And you want to teach creationism and have the Ten Commandments place anywhere and everywhere. Sounds like a theocracy to me.

Regarding Phillips and Torgerson’s comments about Rep. Ellison, sometimes I wish our libel and slander laws resembled those of England and France, where if you say some of the crap these wingnuts are saying over here, you’d get sued. And you’d lose because you couldn’t prove what you said. Bankrupt these asshats. Oh wait, they’re already bankrupt, morally and financially.

Tags: , ,

About the Author ()

A rabble-rousing bureaucrat living in Sussex County

Comments (7)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. Whybother says:

    Jeez, even Ellison doesn’t dare criticize Israel’s brutalization and land grabbing. How lame.

    Interesting that you’d prefer we have less free speech in this country, rather than more, btw.

    Is this on topic?

    http://www.leedspsc.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/israel-palestine-map.jpg

  2. MJ says:

    WB – no, your link is not on topic. Save it for the Open Thread, if you must.

    And I’m not advocating less free speech. I’m advocating that candidates be held responsible for their wild, untrue, accusations.

  3. aprice says:

    MJ, didnt you get the memo? Anything a conservative says…. even “someone should kill………” on the air waves, is now protected free speech.
    Now a liberal on the other hand… well, they just had better know their place.

  4. Whybother says:

    I didn’t say that liberals should be more or less restricted in their speech than conservatives should be Aprice, I’m just saying that we should be pretty damned careful about restricting free speech by onerous slander and libel laws. It seems to me that they would have more of an effect on restricting speech than anything else. Now if we’re talking about breaking up the media companies in this country, and allowing wider public access to traditional media like radio and television, I’m all for it. Fairness doctrine too.

    The libel and slander laws don’t just apply to candidates either, they apply to journalists as well. We already have slander and libel laws in this country, I sincerely doubt that enhancing these laws would have anything but a chilling effect on free speech.

  5. MJ says:

    Here’s an example WB – O’Whack-a-Mole’s claim that Chris Coons and his family are going to make billions off of cap and trade. It’s a bullshit lie.

  6. Whybother says:

    I just don’t think our country would be better served by someone being able to sue me for saying that Dick Cheney was more than willing to kill millions to benefit a select group of wealthy industrialists. I’d rather be able to say things about public figures without fear of legal consequences. The solution to unpopular free speech is more free speech. I realize that all the propaganda we’re subject to makes regulating speech further appealing, but I think laws like this will only serve to limit speech further than it already has been.

  7. MJ says:

    WB – maybe you should read some history of how election campaigns are conducted in the UK.