Glenn Beck

I guess when you are a supporter of fascists you are to the right of some of the most hardline and dogmatic Conservatives. It looks like Glenn Beck is going to be getting some grief from the extreme Right-wingers of the Horowitz-Geller-Spencer axis if he doesn’t take back his statement that Geert Wilders is a fascist. Sit back and enjoy!

From the Atlantic Wire:

Geert Wilders, the Dutch politician and outspoken critic of Islam, sparked outrage across Europe last week when he showed his anti-Islamic film in the UK’s House of Lords. Though the backlash against Wilders from America media has also been harsh, some of it has come from the unlikeliest of sources: Fox News. The conservative network ran a special report from Bret Bauer on Wilders, and Glenn Beck indirectly lumped him in with French politician Jean Marie Le Pen as members of a rising fascist movement in Europe (starting at the 13:00 mark).

Beck’s comments were relatively benign–at least for him. But that didn’t appease hardline conservatives, who slammed Beck and Fox in general for denigrating Wilders. The backlash has taken on several forms, but the one consistent theme on the right is anger.

• What’s Up, Glenn? “What is he doing?” asks a befuddled Pamela Geller at Atlas Shrugs. “Was Beck saying that the UK was right to ban Wilders in the interest of ‘community harmony?’ And the fact that he was allowed to enter the UK last week was a dire sign?” After extolling Wilders’ virutes, Geller warns Beck to think twice in the future. “Is this going to be be Beck’s narrative? If so, he is wrong. And he ought to be silent until he learns everything.”

• Next Time, Know Your Stuff At Power Line, Paul concludes Beck was simply uninformed. “It was apparent to me that Beck was out of his depth with Wilders. [...] I’ve said before that the European ‘right’ is a complex phenomenon that does contain fascist elements. It takes a little bit of work to identify those elements.”

• Denigrating a ‘Hero’ “Shame on you, Glenn,” chastises The RightScoop’s Cubachi, who proceeds to heap praise on Wilders.

Geert Wilders. A hero, a man who is risking life and limb to rescue the Netherlands and Europe from radical Islamization and communism taking grip of his country and continent. Everyday he has to wear a safety vest and hide his family and give them 24-hour security because he is willing to say the unpopular thing to protect and defend his nation.

• No More Beck for Me Vowing never to trust Beck again, iOwnTheWorld’s BigFurHat embarks on a screed-worthy tirade to set the Fox News host straight. “Glenn – there is NO MODERATE ISLAM. This is what you get when you go out on a limb with a guy that is largely fueled by emotion rather than brains. I’m not saying Beck isn’t smart, but he is a bit Howard Bealish for me, and this is what you will have to endure with him.”

Rep. Keith Ellison

Lynne Torgerson, an Independent Conservative who we profiled before as an opportunist who was trying to play off of people’s fears to win votes confirms our suspicions in an interview with some die hard anti-Muslims.

Hart Van Denberg breaks it down.

When you launch an independent campaign to unseat the first American Muslim to ever hold a seat in Congress, and you introduce yourself to the public by saying the guy is unfit for office by tarring him with a guilt-by-association link to Islamic militants, it’s only a matter of time before right-wing Christians with a persecution complex come calling, looking for some action.

And so, over the weekend, Lynn Torgerson was interviewed by a couple of people most folks have never heard of, Babe Huggett and Warner Todd Huston, in an online-only broadcast from BlogTalkRadio called “Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Conservatism.” What ensued was ensued was a journey through the two hosts’ dark paranoia.

Sometimes Torgerson went there with them, sometimes she didn’t. Mostly, she had a hard time getting a word in edgewise, as the hosts gradually steered her away from her criticisms of incumbent 5th District Rep. Keith Ellison, and towards an endless attack on Islam. Here are a few highlights:

Ellison and the Council on American Muslim Relations

Torgerson: “He has been a person who has regularly appeared at their fundraisers and CAIR regularly appears at Keith Ellison’s fundraisers. So here we have an elected federal official with too close of ties to a named co-conspirator organization funding terrorism.”

Note: A Texas jury convicted five Holy Land Foundation organizers in 2008 of funneling money to the Palestinian group Hamas, which the U.S. government has labeled a terrorist organization. CAIR was listed as unindicted co-conspirator in that case, but the link is used by right-wing activists, lawmakers and journalists to paint CAIR as a terrorist front — an accusation the group vehemntley denies.

Ellison has supported CAIR group and spoken at its gatherings aimed at generating better understanding between Muslims and non-Muslims. He has known the group’s leader since the two were at college together, and has received campaign donations from some CAIR members.

Moderate Muslims

Haggett: Muslims “squeal and they scream for tolerance. And if you criticize them, they immediately accuse you of bigotry. Yet they are the most intolerant of people, correct, when it comes to their religion? They consider themselves superior and either you’ve got to convert or die.”

Torgerson: “I think we have to be careful. There do exist moderate Muslims.”

Immigration

Haggett: “Here’s the problem with moderate Muslims. As long as they are 1 percent or less of the population in any given area, they can be such model citizens. They can be wonderful. They’re just nice and sweet and everything. And then when their numbers increase, to like 2 to 5 percent, they start proselytizing, and then they start pushing, and at 5 percent they get more aggressive. And when you get to 10 percent, like they have in France right now, that’s when the riots start. that’s when the lawlessness starts. That’s when the burning of cars starts — you know its winter season because that’s when the cars are going up in flames. … Should we allow unlimited immigration of Muslms into this country? I don’t think so.”

Torgerson: “Right. I would agree with that position. These are very difficult issues to address. But I do think we do need to limit immigration.”

Note: For a reality-based review of the riots in France, click here.

Infidels

Haggett: “We have to be very careful about letting Muslims in because unfortunately a good Muslim is forbidden by the Koran to live among the infidels unless he intends on using (his) demographics to convert the area he moves to to Islam. So, what do you see as the threat of Islamic sharia law getting established here, because in the UK they’ve had massive Islamic immigration and you start getting Islamic no-go zones where people who are not Muslims literally take their lives in their hands going into these areas. Like firemen. Like ambulance people. They get attacked because they’re not Muslims.”

Huston: “Not only that, but these same communities start pushing for a parallel set of laws. They want to have their own courts. They want to settle their own issues. And unfortunately England has allowed this to happen.”

Torgerson: “Yes, clearly we cannot have in the United States separate sharia courts and separate sharia law. This particular form of radical Islam that cannot be practiced in the United States. All people, no matter what their religion or nationality, in the U.S. have to be subject to the U.S. Constitution.”

Note: The UK sharia courts exist outside the legal system. And here are some basics on Islam.

Death Cult

Haggett: “To me, Islam is a religio-political death cult. So how do you manage to divorce the politics from the religion. Because essentially anytime it imposes its will through sharia it goes from being a religion that somebody practices, you know, within their religious community to a political statement. And that’s the whole aim of Islam, to be dominant in all areas, including politics.”

Torgerson: “These are very difficult issues I think to even grasp and then to formulate into words.”

Subversion

Haggett: “If Islam is so antithetical to the American political system, why are men like Keith Ellison running for, and getting into office? Are they trying to subvert us from within?”

Torgerson: “I’m not sure.”

Note: Later, when asked why she stalled on that answer, she said she hadn’t ever thought about whether Ellison’s faith is actually trying to subvert us from within and added that no evidence of any such nefarious plot actually exists. Torgerson has hinted before of some shadowy effort by Muslims to take over the world. But, maybe because she’s a lawyer and sensed too many assertions masquerading as questions wrapped into one, Torgerson balked in the interview with Haggett.

Lawfare

Haggett: “It doesn’t matter what your background is. The first time that anyone — you could be a saint, you could walk on water — the first time you say something a Muslim doesn’t like, they’ll immediately shout “bigotry” at you. I mean, it’s just the way they work. As a lawyer, what are your thoughts on the Islamic practice of Muslims using lawfare (sic) in their cultural jihad to overthrow western civilization in general and America in particular?”

Torgerson: “Did you say ‘lawfare?’”

Haggett: “‘Lawfare.’ It is a thing that Muslims do — especially the cultural jihadists — when they want to get sharia established, they’ll start bringing lawsuits. It can be the most frivolous lawsuits. It doesn’t matter. But they will bring lawsuits against anybody who speaks out against them, or like the wearing of the hijab. My research has shown that the muslim veil, that the women wear, is not a requirement in their religion. Yet they will force the issue and claim it is, and then sue if you try to say, ‘no, you can’t wear that in here,’ because it establishes a hostile atmosphere for other muslim women who do not wear it. Right?”

Torgerson: “With regard to the law I think we need to do exactly what we are doing, which is expose what this radicalized form of Islam is trying to accomplish and how the are trying to accomplish it. One is through terrorism and one is through culture. And to expose that is to bring to light the infringements on, I think, our freedoms of speech. We need to educate America that this is not a left or right issue.”

Ibrahim Hooper

Haggett: “The head of CAIR wants sharia law to sub-plant the Constitution.”

Torgerson: “Yes I believe that statement has been attributed to Ibrahim Hooper”

Note: Nihad Awad is the Executive Director and co-founder of CAIR. Hooper is CAIR’s national communications director. A Muslim convert, he once worked as a worked as a news producer at KSTP-TV.

The full interview is here.

This Kumar isn’t going to White Castle for some tasty burgers after a wild night out smoking weed, but is setting his sights on Congress.  The Kumar we are speaking of is the less well known Vijay Kumar, who was born in Hyderabad, India and immigrated to the US in 1979. We covered two other Conservative candidates, Allen West and Lynne Torgerson, who are running on an Islamophobic platform and Kumar is no different.

Kumar seems to fit into the tea-baggers portion of the Republican party. He is a hawk on all the issues, from gun rights to immigration and of course “national security.”  His website is littered with anti-Islamic rhetoric and innuendo while sounding as genuine as a snake oil salesman.

Vijay Kumar Running for Congress

Realistically Kumar has no prospect of winning even if he won the Republican primary, since the 5th Congressional District in Tennessee has been held by Democrats ever since Reconstruction, but anything can happen in the wily world of politics, especially when a candidate tries to play on the fears of the people.

The most instructional point that highlights Kumar’s vapid intelligence and parroting of other Conservatives is the conspiracy theory he furthers, that “Sharia is taking over the US.”

Sharia (Islamic) Law is slowly permeating America. We are focused on the global “War on Terror” and are ignoring a more dangerous threat developing right within our country.

Muslims are beginning to insist that they do not have to follow our laws and customs.

He is trying to whip up hysteria by focusing on a minority, which it turns out is not a threat to our country. According to the Pew and Gallup polls, Muslims in America are amongst the most law abiding citizens in the US and are obviously not advocating a replacement of our system of laws. One can only come to Kumar’s conclusion if you take the words of fringe extremists as representing the majority of Muslims, which is itself an essentialist process of logic.

We should roundly condemn and reject Islamic reasoning that our legal system is man-made and corrupt, while Islamic Sharia law is divine law. It is not the place of immigrants to our nation to rewrite our system of laws to suit their tastes.

Of course, no immigrant is trying to rewrite our system of laws (except maybe Orly Taitz), I haven’t seen a Sharia bill proposed by a Congressman yet but notice another interesting and revealing point, the disdain in which Kumar holds immigrants.  It seems to go right over Kumar’s head that he was an immigrant to this country and if he were by some freak miracle made a Congressman he would be writing and “re-writing laws.”  His implication is that immigrants have no place in America but to remain quiet and invisible.

All of this, when Christianity in this country is under siege by radical proponents of “separation of church and state.” Where is the outrage at these Muslim demands for special religious privilege? There seems to be no limit to the disregard for the American culture that allowed Muslims to settle in our country. How wonderful it would be if Christians enjoyed the same freedoms in Muslim nations as Muslims are taking advantage of in America. But they don’t and never will.

Christianity is under siege?  This is a country in which over 70% profess to be Christians, so it doesn’t look like Christianity is going anywhere nor is it threatened.  Kumar’s hypocrisy becomes evident, he complains that no one is watching over the Constitution as ‘evil Mooslim immigrants undermine it,’ but when it comes to his faith of choice he feels those who uphold the “separation of church and state” are radical.   One must ask Kumar where he stands in regards to the Dominionist beliefs that some of his Christian brethren harbor, does he support their cause to overturn the Constitution and replace it with Biblical laws?

In the end Kumar is just another wanna-be, right-wing, tea bag affiliated nauseating politician who attempts to sucker voters by playing off of xenophobia, hate, racism and patriotism.  A cocktail that thankfully will be rejected by most voters in his district.

Jane Norton

We have already done a few pieces on how the 2010 election season is turning out to be a doozie, and how the Conservative contenders all seem to be playing off of one form of Islamophobia or another. Allen West talks about going “kinetic,” and Lynne Torgerson seems to think saying “Keith Ellison is a Muslim” will automatically give her a victory.

Now we have Jane Norton, former Colorado Lt. Governor giving her full support to tea baggers.

GOP Senate Candidate, Sits Silently as Obama Called a Muslim by Sam Stein

Former Colorado lieutenant governor Jane Norton, one of the five candidates competing in the Republican primary for the state’s 2010 Senate race, is distinguishing herself with her full-hearted embrace of the tea party crowd.

Appearing at a recent coffee-shop event with Colorado voters, Norton sat silently while a female attendee declared twice that President Barack Obama is a Muslim and while a male attendee insisted that the president — who he deemed “an idiot” — wanted to let babies die on the side of the road “with the garbage.”

“Well as you can tell there is a lot of passion around what is happening in our own country,” Norton responded to the crowd, rather than correcting either individual. “And how we can channel that into positive constructive ways that will get our vote out it is going to be absolutely critical.”

Go here to see the Video: Jane Norton, GOP Senate Candidate, Sits Silently as Obama Called a Muslim

Also at the event, Norton praised the “tea-party movement and the 9/12 groups” for pushing a right-wing populist, anti-Washington agenda. The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee highlighted that exchange in a video it sent to reporters on Monday.

Colorado remains a hub of arch-conservative politics and anti-Obama sentiment despite its recent Democratic leanings. One month ago, an auto dealer in the state gained notoriety when he put up a billboard asking whether Obama was a Jihadist and demanding a birth certificate be produced for the president.

So it’s not all that surprising that Norton, in an effort to curry favor with the more impassioned voters, would tolerate that kind of over-the-top rhetoric. Indeed, the National Republican Senatorial Committee worked behind the scenes to get Norton into the race.

And yet, the willingness of the general public to stomach this kind of conspiracy-theory vitriol seems limited.

Edward Wycoff

What would happen if a Muslim man stabbed and bludgeoned his sister and her husband to death because he thought they were too liberal and were raising their children wrong? There would be a sure fire media storm, the anti-Muslim blogosphere would be in a crazed frenzy like a pair of zombies gorging on a fresh human victim. Accusations of “honor killing” would be flying around, and how “Islam” influenced the criminal actions.

Murder Suspect Disapproved of his Victims

EL CERRITO — A man stabbed and bludgeoned his sister and her husband to death in El Cerrito in 2006 because he thought the couple were too liberal, were raising their children wrong and because they hadn’t invited him over for Christmas, a prosecutor told jurors Tuesday.

Edward Wycoff, 40, of the Sacramento suburb of Citrus Heights coldly planned the slayings, including getting Lasik surgery and using night-vision goggles so he could find his way around the house where Julie Wycoff Rogers, 47, lived with her husband, Paul Rogers, 48, prosecutor Mark Peterson said.

He also purposefully picked the date for the killings - Jan. 31, 2006 - Peterson said in Contra Costa County Superior Court in Martinez. That was 20 years to the day after Wycoff’s grandmother, whom he hated, left his home after breaking her hip, the prosecutor said.

Wycoff regarded his grandmother as “evil” and thought his life improved considerably after she left, Peterson said. Because he believed the couple had also been making his life miserable, he chose that date to break into their home on Rifle Range Road overlooking Wildcat Canyon Regional Park, stab them repeatedly with a knife and bludgeon them with a wheelbarrow handle, Peterson said in his opening statement in Wycoff’s murder trial.

Although Wycoff was also armed with a gun, he didn’t use it because he didn’t want to boost the cause of gun-control supporters, the prosecutor said.

Wycoff, who is serving as his own attorney, told jurors that he still hates the couple “a little.”

“They owe me a life,” he said. “This has ruined my life, and Julie and Paul owe me for that.”

Wycoff agreed with the prosecutor that he resented members of Paul Rogers’ family for their liberal politics, and that he thought the couple were at times “too easy” when they disciplined their children.

He also said that “it wasn’t just Christmas” when he wasn’t invited over. It was also Thanksgiving in 2005, the year his and Julie Rogers’ father died.

“When someone does that, they hate you - they’re out to destroy you,” Wycoff said.

Peterson said Wycoff had planned to adopt the couple’s three children after he committed the killings.

The prosecutor played for the jury the 911 call made by Eric Rogers, then 17, after the killer broke into the home about 4:30 a.m. The boy’s sister, Laurel, then 12, could be heard screaming in the background.

The children tried to help their father, who told them, “I love you all” before dying, the prosecutor said. Eric Rogers brushed his father’s hair, telling him, “I love you, papa.”

Peterson said Julie Rogers’ last words to police were, “Kids OK?”

The children were not harmed. A third child, then 15, was not living at the home at the time.

In an interview from jail after the slayings, Wycoff, who is 6 foot 5 and weighs 300 pounds, said he had tried to disguise himself during the killings by wearing a motorcycle helmet and attaching a ponytail with his late mother’s hair.

In a poem, Wycoff wrote, “My sister, I gutted her like a fish,” Peterson said.

“And in fact, he did,” the prosecutor added, “and he’s proud of it.”

Wycoff was arrested after he turned up at a hospital in Placer County, seeking treatment for a gash on his leg that he probably sustained while breaking into the home, Peterson said.

Wycoff is charged with two counts of murder along with the special circumstance alleging that he committed more than one murder. Prosecutors said they will seek the death penalty if he is convicted.

Wycoff’s opening statement indicated he would try to justify the killings to the jury, rather than deny he committed them.

At the close of his remarks, Wycoff told the “few fans” in the gallery to contact his advisory attorney, David Briggs, if they wanted autographs.

E-mail Henry K. Lee at hlee@sfchronicle.com.

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/10/14/BAL81A4SU0.DTL

This article appeared on page D - 2 of the San Francisco Chronicle

In a related incident of what if they were Muslim, a human rights group has revealed that a Texas man has been sentenced to be executed after jurors at his trial consulted the Bible to decide his fate. Imagine what would happen if it were the other way around and Muslims had consulted the Quran! This is a theocratic action that contradicts the rules and procedures jurors are supposed to work from considering that an external factor was employed while delivering this man’s punishment.

Amnesty Reveals Bible was Used to Decide Execution

Amnesty International has highlighted a case of a man facing execution in Texas.

The human rights group has revealed a Texas man faces execution after jurors at his trial consulted the Bible when deliberating his fate.

Khristian Oliver, 32, is set to be executed on 5th November.

Jurors used Biblical passages supporting the death penalty to help them decide whether he should live or die. Amnesty considers that the jurors’ use of the Bible during their sentencing deliberations raises serious questions about their impartiality.

According to people in the jury room at the time, several Bibles with passages highlighted were passed around during deliberation.

One juror read aloud from the Bible to a group of fellow jurors, including the passage “And if he smite him with an instrument of iron, so that he die, he is a murderer: the murderer shall surely be put to death”.

A US federal appeals court acknowledged last year that the jurors’ use of the Bible amounted to an external influence prohibited under the US Constitution, but nonetheless upheld the death sentence.

Amnesty International is asking for the death sentence to be commuted.

Khristian Oliver was sentenced to death in 1999 for a murder committed during a burglary.

According to accomplice testimony at the trial, 20-year-old Oliver shot the victim before striking him on the head with a rifle butt.