Arizona Legislature Rejects Common Core Initiative for Tea Party Agenda

by Nomad

In a victory for the Arizona's Tea Party, the legislature has rejected the Common Core Standards Initiative. 

This nationwide program would have guaranteed that Arizona's high school students would be able to compete academically with students from any other state. Business leaders are warning that this decision would put students in the state at a disadvantage when seeking employment.

The Arizona legislature is, with argument, quickly becoming the nation's laughing stock. Only a week after approving of a bill to allow shop owners to discriminate against gay citizens under the name of religious freedom, lawmakers there have voted along party lines to drop out of the Common Core standards. Republicans voted 6-3 to bar Arizona from participating in the program.

The Common Core Initiative is a attempt to create a national educational standard, designed to prepare students with the information and skills they need to compete in the global economy. The initiative is sponsored by the National Governors Association (NGA) and the Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO) and has been adopted by 45 states. Arizona approved of the changes four years ago.

Specifically, Common Core targets what K-12 students should know in English language arts and mathematics at the end of each grade. While educators and business leaders hailed the program as a step forward, Arizona lawmakers want none of it.

Academic Studies about Right-Wing and Tea Party Voters Reach Interesting Conclusions

by Nomad

Several   academic research studies about the minds of right-wing supporters, the power of fear to warp our thinking and the intelligence of the Tea Party offer some surprising insights to the present state of US politics. 

If accurate, the studies also provide some depressing news about the possibility that the great divide between left and right can ever be bridged.

Canadian Study: Are Right Wingers Naturally Less Intelligent?

A newspaper article in the UK Daily Mail, has information, which might- or might not surprise you:

Right-wingers tend to be less intelligent than left-wingers, and people with low childhood intelligence tend to grow up to have racist and anti-gay views, says a controversial new study.

According to Canadian academics, conservative politics work almost as a 'gateway' into prejudice against others. The Canadian study reviewed large studies from the UK which made a comparison between childhood intelligence and political views in adulthood across more than 15,000 people.

Their conclusion? People with low intelligence gravitate towards right-wing views because these views make them feel safe. In addition to that, children with low intelligence tend to grow up to be prejudiced.

Both educational level and social status seem to play no role in whether a person is prejudiced or racist. It is, they insist, related to innate intelligence, rather than acquired knowledge.

The study, published in Psychological Science, claims that right-wing ideology forms a 'pathway' for people with low reasoning ability to become prejudiced against groups such as other races and gay people.

There are good reasons for this. Cognitive ability-that is, the ability to think - allows us to form impressions of other people and to be open-minded, say the researchers.

'Individuals with lower cognitive abilities may gravitate towards more socially conservative right-wing ideologies that maintain the status quo. The status quo is a more friendly environment to those with less cognitive abilities. 'It provides a sense of order.'

Those right-wing ideologies are all about order, not diversity. Such ideologies generally stress hierarchy and resistance to change, attitudes that can contribute to prejudice, said lead researcher Gordon Hodson, a psychologist at Brock University in Ontario.   

Obama and EO 13036: New Tea Party Hysteria over Emergency Preparedness

by Nomad

When President Obama announced in no uncertain terms that he would use his executive powers to get around Congressional obstructionism, some on the Right appeared outraged. It's no surprise then they would dig up something from the past to launch yet another call for impeachment. In this post, we explore Executive Order 13036, the Tea Party meme and the source of this quackery.

As we have all come to realize, Republican hysteria seems to know no limit. The latest drum-beat which has the Tea Party radicals dancing frenetically to is now the word "outlaw. It sounds like this: Obama is an outlaw isn't he? And what an outlaw he is? What law has that outlawing outlaw Obama outed today? Impeach that outlaw.
Outlaw? Outlaw.

Quacking ducks make about as much sense. 

I saw this very black and very sinister-looking poster in the twitter-sphere. (I added the "Busted" so it couldn't be recycled.) The memes warned that the president has signed this here executive order- practically a royal decree- giving him the right to take, not just my hope, my dignity, my reason for living but... all my things. "Everything you own" can now be taken away. 

The text- and for a meme asks a lot of reading from its audience- states:

Under Executive Order 13036 everything you own can be taken away under the guise of national security. This order rips our Constitution to shreds. One person has all this power? Are we really living as free people or are we living under a dictatorship? Was it not more than seventy years ago that an ugly short mustache man did the same thing in Europe? I leave you one burning question: What is the real purpose of this Executive Order?

That's right, this outlaw president is planning to violate the Constitution in order to get your household appliances, your flat screen TVs and most importantly, your guns.

The accompanying tweet advised me to Google Executive Order 13036. So, being a curious fellow with a lot of free time, I did as instructed and googled. 

But I somehow doubt many Right-wingers bothered to do so. If they had devoted as little as 2 minutes of independent research- instead of simply joining in with tweet-chanting "Impeach Obama"- they might have realized how they had been- once again- hoaxed by Tea Party fear-mongering.

Two Free Posters: Why 2014 won't be 2010 and Tea Party Clowns

by Nomad

Here's are two posters you might enjoy.

Please be sure to repost it, tweet it and pin it. Thanks!

__________________

The State of the Union - 1944: FDR's Second Bill of Rights

by Nomad

On January 11, 1944, Franklin Roosevelt gave his State of the Union address. Here is an excerpt:

We have come to a clear realization of the fact that true individual freedom cannot exist without economic security and independence. “Necessitous men are not free men.” People who are hungry and out of a job are the stuff of which dictatorships are made.

In our day these economic truths have become accepted as self-evident. We have accepted, so to speak, a second Bill of Rights under which a new basis of security and prosperity can be established for all—regardless of station, race, or creed.

Among these are:

• The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the nation;

• The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation;

• The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living;

• The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad;

• The right of every family to a decent home;

• The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health;

• The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment;

• The right to a good education.

All of these rights spell security. And after this war is won we must be prepared to move forward, in the implementation of these rights, to new goals of human happiness and well-being.

America’s own rightful place in the world depends in large part upon how fully these and similar rights have been carried into practice for our citizens.

Sequester Cuts and Killing Unemployment Benefit Extensions: When GOP Values Make no Sense

by Nomad

This week the Republicans appeared to be sticking to its tried and true conservative principles by blocking a vote on extending unemployment benefits. 

Add to that the impact of sequester cuts to state jobs training programs and you have a campaign issue nightmare. The question is: can any party get elected by hurting its most vulnerable voters? 
Not once but twice?

Two days ago, Republican conservatives used the power of the filibuster to block a Democratic bill to restore unemployment benefits to over a million Americans, hit hard by the recession. According to an announcement of this decision, the lawmakers declared they were standing on conservative principle.

Sen. Richard Shelby (R-Ala.) stated:

"People, if you pay 'em for years and years, they won't look for a job." 

Who is the "'em" and who are the "they"? What happened to "us" and "we"? 

Extending unemployment benefits, he added, creates no jobs. At a cost of $6.4 billion, the cost of the extension could not be justified, according to the Republicans. Shelby told an interviewer,

"That is a huge expenditure. What we need to do is spend that money on retraining these people that are unemployed -- help them for a few months and get them retrained and get them back in the job market. That's the problem."

As we shall see, there is a major problem with that idea. 

Other Republicans cited their conservative principles to support the filibuster. Senator Ron Johnson of Wisconsin said:

"I certainly ran because we're mortgaging our children's future. We're bankrupting this nation."

It's not hard to imagine the possible fallout from this decision come election time. With more than.1.3 million people Americans left without any kind of safety net nationwide, it could make a difference who controls the houses of Congress.

Waiting for America's Bhopal: How Budget Cuts and De-Regulation Are Making the Unimaginable Inevitable

by Nomad

Last year's West, Texas explosion and this week's West Virginia chemical leak could just be a wake up call to the nation. De-regulation and budget cutting may make us more competitive but at what cost?

A single environmental disaster could affect the lives of millions of people, cost the state billions and make entire areas uninhabitable. And that  could make the discussion of de-regulation and budget-cuts completely null and void.

Not long ago I read the book Five Past Midnight in Bhopal: The Epic Story of the World's Deadliest Industrial Disaster. It's the kind of book that you know you should read but dread to begin. It's an exceedingly thoroughly-researched book and at times, slow going. In spite of that,  in these days when environmental regulations are under attack by the conservative Republicans, it should be on every American's reading list.

Most people, I suppose, have heard of the industrial disaster at Bhopal but here's a little refresher.

The Bhopal Event

In the early hours of December 3, 1984, in the town of Bhopal, India, a nearby Union Carbide plant, which manufactured insecticides, accidentally released a heavy toxic cloud of chemicals into the surrounding residential area. The heavy cloud hovered over the area, which was comprised mostly of crowded slums. It literally fumigated the unsuspecting village, mercilessly killing the people that lived there.

Within hours, things quickly collapsed. Panic and confusion spread and any kind of coordinated response was impossible. The local government was totally ill-equipped to handle the emergency. (The very idea that it could happen at all seems never to have crossed their minds.)

The Conservative Roll-Back: "Restoring America" to A Not-So-Great Society

by Nomad

Former Vice-Presidential candidate, half-term Alaska governor and Fox News talking head Sarah Palin likes to tell  her audiences, 

"We don't need to fundamentally transform America. We need to restore America."

Like a lot of things she says-  which are always subject to revision, erasure, re-clarification or complete reversal- these words sound terrific until you think about them.

Palin apparently believes that America was once a perfect fairyland and all we need to do is to return to the past.
The question is: Restore it when exactly and back to what? 

In the photo above, taken in 1957, the man posing is Klans Imperial Wizard Eldon Edwards in his fancy duds. Edwards once said, "We white people are the inheritors of this country. We do not intend to surrender it."

Of course, it would be an exaggeration to claim that all Republicans (or Tea Party voters) are racists. On the other hand,  it is hard for many on the Left not to believe that the harsh judgement on most anything President Obama says or does is not in some way motivated by prejudice. In a recent editorial,

The majority of Americans are sick to death of the racial animus Republicans, former Confederate states, and particularly teabaggers are polluting this nation with. Many Americans believed, errantly, that the election of the first African American as President was a major turning point in this country’s long history of racism, particularly towards African Americans, but the only turning point was bringing the lingering hatred toward African Americans back to life.

The writer blames hate radio for stoking the white anger. But the problem goes straight to the heart of the two party system.

Republicans in Congress, particularly the leadership, are just as guilty as any white supremacist because their obstruction, even of their own ideas, is based on little else than opposing, at any cost, the African American sitting in the Oval Office.

In the year 1957, the very idea that a black man would ever hold the highest office was unimaginable. After all, for many in the South, the attitude was that blacks should know their place. And one place that a black person would never know, except as a guard or butler, was the White House. At one time, there was not even a question about that.

The Truth about Reducing Unemployment: Washington's Silver Line Metro Extension

by Nomad

Exclusive: In theory, there are practical ways to reduce unemployment. In this post we look at the long-awaited Silver Line Metro extension in Washington D.C shows to see if there can be any lessons to learn about the ways the solutions can get de-railed. 

_____________

Back in 1922, a British Labour politician by the delightful name of Frederick William Pethick-Lawrence wrote a small book named Unemployment, in which he laid out the causes for unemployment and possible solutions. He writes:

What is to be done about the unemployable, the lazy and inefficient workers? Punishment is the device to which large numbers of people fly when they are confronted with a human problem for which they can see no other easy solution ; and punishment sometimes active in the form of imprisonment or chastisement, and some times passive in the form of destitution, has been inflicted on bad workers all down history with the avowed object of making them into useful citizens. It has failed, as punishment usually fails, except as an expression of the vengeance of an outraged society.

Punishment and blaming the victim was not a remedy.  Though millions of Americans will see their unemployment benefits run out this month, few people in their right minds think it would do anything to reduce unemployment. It is merely a irrational way to punish people asking for the minimal assistance from the government.

Among the many points he makes, Lawrence concludes there are no easy answers to the problem of unemployment. Preventive measures require a degree of forward thinking not found in most governments. By the time an unemployment problem becomes prevalent, it is, he says, usually too late. As long as nations have booms and busts, there will be cycles of unemployment.

However he does suggest that when unemployment is widespread, it should be seen as an opportunity to overhaul the infrastructure of the country. The costs, Lawrence suggests, would "probably be borne partly by loans to be repaid out of receipts and partly by increased taxation spread over a period of years." 

In other words- gasp!- deficient spending and taxation. And so what, Lawrence says. This kind of relief work shouldn't be considered be wasteful since it would, if well-considered, become part of a larger investment in the nation itself. In both the long term and short term, there would be winners.

So let's take a look at what happened in the US when this solution was attempted. When we look at the one of the largest infrastructure projects - the Dulles Metro Extension- in the nation - the Dulles Metro Extension- we can make some interesting observations.

HuffPo: House Republicans Attempt to De-Fund Defunct ACORN.. Again

by Nomad

Trying to decide the "dumbest" thing that the House of Representatives has done lately is a real challenge, But that mission appears to have certainly gotten a whole lot easier. Recently House Republicans decided to include a provision in spending bills which would forbid all requested government aid from being used for an organization that ceased to exist over three years ago.

Zach Carter, writing for Huffington Post, supplies the details of this legislative lunacy brought to you by the ever- impressive Texas Republicans. Rep. John Culberson (R-Texas) and Rep. John Carter (R-Texas) both sponsored bills which included a provision that not one cent of these government funds would go to the activist group known as the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN) "or its subsidiaries or successors."

Rep. John Culberson	Rep. John Carter

The bills, which have nothing to do with ACORN were introduced on May 28/29 and will be voted on this week.

 

The Culberson bill makes budget appropriations of $73.3 billion for military construction and for veteran affairs "to support the military and their families and to provide for the benefits and medical care for our nation’s veterans."

 

Similarly, the Carter bill which makes $38.9 billion in discretionary spending for the Department of Homeland Security, carries the same prohibitions against ACORN.

If you happen to be a Tea Party person and are mathematically challenged you might want to know that between those bills, (whatever their merits), the requests total over $113 billion from the budget.

Call it a budget sequestration backtracking.

 

In any case, as Huffington Post noted, similar provisions in both bill declare that:

None of the funds made available in this Act may be distributed to the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN) or its subsidiaries or successors.

Has nobody informed either of them that Congress had already banned federal funding for ACORN back in the fall of 2009?

 

Why The Proposed Ryan-Murray Budget Deal Renders the Tea Party Powerless

by Nomad

Here's a little Interesting news. Reuters is reporting today that:

Budget negotiators in the U.S. Congress have reached a two-year agreement aimed at avoiding a government shutdown on January 15 and setting federal government spending levels through October 1, 2015.

While it might seem like a step in the right direction, it is hard not to be a little cynical about the deal. Even as a first symbolic step toward a real bipartisan compromise, the fine print reveals some horrors for the unemployed. (I'll talk about that at a later date.) What's more interesting is the underlying motive for the Republican party to offer any deal at all.  

This budget deal,  hammered out by Washington Democrat Senator Patty Murray, and Republican Paul Ryan from Wisconsin, may be bipartisan but it is hard to see why anybody would claim it was progress. (One site actually hailed it as "a new era of cooperation." Where have these people been the last five years, I wonder!)

Congressional negotiators reached a modest budget agreement Tuesday to restore about $65 billion in automatic spending cuts from programs ranging from parks to the Pentagon, with votes expected in both houses by week's end.

Now, sixty-five billion might seem like a large figure to you and me but when it comes to government spending it is practically nothing. A superpower can spend that money much faster than you can blow your nose.

In fact, these were spending cuts to the budget which have now been restored. So count that as a step back from the reducing government spending. Shrinking big government, (except when it came to the military) has been the rallying cry of the Republicans since Reagan's day. 

Reducing government spending was supposed to be what the last budget bust-up in Washington was all about. Remember that shutdown thingy?

And that turned out to be a political disaster for Congress, but especially for the Republicans. So it is no surprise that somebody in the party would be happy to avoid a repeat of that disgrace next January. 

Apparently the leader of the House John Boehner-who, in the end, just wants to be loved, sent Pretty-boy Ryan into the thick of the negotiations. It was probably a wise but cynical move on his part.

Clearly the Tea Party will take one look at this and begin frothing at the mouth.

Delusions over Tea Time

Despite the damage done to the Republican party in October, threats of shutting down government -basically holding the government hostage-was the only weapon that the Tea Party minority had. This deal effectively takes that loaded pistol out of the hands of the petulant baby.

And this baby has a nasty disposition and has some old Republicans scared for their political lives.

How ALEC, The Koch Brothers and the Tea Party Congress Tried to Destroy the Constitution

by Nomad

The issue of "state's rights" is not at all new. In fact, the debate goes back before the founding of the nation. However, when Tea Party House members drafted the Repeal Amendment, courtesy of Koch-funded ALEC, it threatened to unravel the union that holds the United States together. And despite George Washington's warning, they very nearly succeeded.

Back in 2010, after taking over the House of Representatives, the Tea Party faction of the GOP proposed a "states' rights" change in the Constitution. Sponsored by Utah's Rob Bishop, the proposal was called the Repeal Amendment. It was designed to give states the authority to veto federal laws and regulations. Under this proposed amendment, supporters aimed “to push back the federal government's encroachment on sovereign states rights." 

Any federal law, like healthcare, abortion or gun control laws and even civil rights legislation, would be up for a vote in state legislatures. The resolution read:

“Any provision of law or regulation of the United States may be repealed by the several states, and such repeal shall be effective when the legislatures of two-thirds of the several states approve resolutions for this purpose that particularly describe the same provision or provisions of law or regulation to be repealed.”

The Cato Institute, a right-wing think tank and another 501(c)3 organization, supports the idea saying:

At present, the only way for states to contest a federal law or regulation is to bring a constitutional challenge in federal court or seek an amendment to the Constitution. A state repeal power provides a targeted way to reverse particular congressional acts and administrative regulations without relying on federal judges or permanently amending the text of the Constitution to correct a specific abuse.

Of course let’s not forget that the Cato Institute was co-founded by Charles Koch, co-owner of Koch Industries known for its financing of the Tea Party. So enthusiastic support for challenging the authority of the federal government shouldn’t come as a surprise. 

It is in fact a fundamental change to the balance of powers and not merely a corrective measure. In effect, it would invalidate the “united” part of the “United States” since state legislatures would have final say-so on the law of the land. The United States would, therefore, become about as united as say, the United Nations. 

In addition, the legislative branch in Congress would suddenly become irrelevant, since the eventual application of any congressional law would be subject to a vote in each state. The structure of the two houses of Congress prevents smaller less-populated states, most of which happen to be red states, from having undue influence or from dictating to the more populated states what national policy would look like. Under this proposed change, all that would change. 

The implications and the ensuing unnecessary complications are mind-boggling.

IRS Scandal: Why Should Tea Party Groups Have Any Tax Exemptions?

The rules for tax exemptions for organizations are not well-understood. They tend to be complicated and, even then not well-enforced. Still, it is fair to ask, when it comes to tax exemption, what makes the Tea Party organizations so special?

It has been really hard to get my head around the recent “scandals” that have “plagued” Obama’s second term. Quotation marks are mandatory in this case since, as far as I can see, the scandals seem to be an imaginative invention manufactured by the Republican Congress and a mainstream media.

(To be sure, there are questions that should be asked to the president about, for example, the handling of such things as Gitmo, the legality of drones, press freedom and other things.)

The investigation of the Benghazi tragedy has dragged along becoming less and less productive and more and more embarrassing for the investigators. All of the rocks have been squeezed and much to their dismay, GOP congressmen have found not even a drop of blood.

However, the most ridiculous of these so-called scandals has been the accusation of the IRS targeting Tea Party tax-exempt organizations. (Daily Kos has called the whole affair a "Scandalnavian nothing-burger.")

Targeting Flaunters

As long-time readers of this blog may know, we have examined the possible violations of both Tea Party and Christian right-wing 501(c)3 and 501(c)4 organizations in the past. The abuse of their tax-exempt status has been openly flaunted. It was clear that something had to be done.

In the run-up to the election, religious organizations, in particular, seem to challenge the administration to take action. A careful reading of the tax codes demonstrates beyond much doubt that these organizations should have come under some kind of scrutiny at least.

And yet, somehow we find the entire argument re-framed as "targeting" and "profiling." Is it really wrong to target those who publicly flaunt the law?

When Leona ("Queen of Mean") Hemsley went on 60 minutes and proclaimed “We don't pay taxes. Only the little people pay taxes” would anybody have accused the IRS of targeting super-wealthy hoteliers?
No.
Most people felt she deserved what she got for thinking she was somehow untouchable. Today the Republican party has become the chosen defenders of anybody who would defy  the IRS and the Obama administration, in general. 

Are Republicans Finally Waking Up to the Realities of the Sequester?

With so many insightful investigative report s and op-ed articles appearing online all the time, it's no wonder that so many of us are turning their backs on cable news sources. With so much out there,  scattered hither and thither, it's next to impossible to catch them all.
That's where I come in! Here's an op-ed article that I thought you might find interesting.

President of the United Steel Workers, Leo Gerard has written an excellent piece at In These Times called:

The GOP’s Big Yellow Taxi Syndrome

The same Republicans who thought Norquist's infamous comment about "shrinking government small enough to drown it in the bathtub" was witty and wise are now having second thoughts about the idea. Especially when it comes to cuts that affect their own districts.

Republicans bellyached for years that government must shrink. It had to be smaller. Cut the budget come hell or high water, they yammered. Well, darn if the sequester hasn’t brought hell and high water to Republican districts across America.....

Now that it’s here, now that it’s affecting their constituents, Republicans contend the $1 trillion in indiscriminate, across-the-board budget cuts they demanded should have been specifically targeted to eliminate only “waste, fraud and abuse.”

"Waste, fraud and abuse" is apparently a stock phrase that that been on the lips of the Republicans-especially the Tea Party radicals. And yet, when called upon to explain where they would have cut, (note the past tense) the GOP remained vague and tended to change the subject. It was a phrase that played well in sound-bites on Fox News and back home but, without any specifics, it was about as hollow as Satan's heart.

Riding the Rails and Ryan's Return to Failed Policies of the Past

by Nomad

While scouring the Internet for anything and everything, I found this extraordinary PBS documentary online called Riding the Rails. Here's a description of this independently produced feature length film.

At the height of the Great Depression, more than a quarter million teenagers were living on the road in America, many criss-crossing the country by illegally hopping freight trains. This film tells the story of ten of these teenage hobos -- from the reasons they left home to what they experienced -- all within the context of depression-era America.

If you have some free time, I invite you to watch. I haven't finished the whole thing yet but just listening to these stories of people at their lowest points (but who somehow survived) is truly inspiring.

South Carolina's Lee Bright: A Closer Look at Lindsey Graham's Possible Tea Party Challenger

by Nomad

When you listen to South Carolina Senator Lindsey Graham, it’s hard to remember that according to his own consultant, he is “a thinking person's conservative.” 

Lately that's been a contradiction in terms.

Even if true, the question might be whether conservative voters in South Carolina would actually vote for a representative that thinks. It's a bit of a high standard.

They seem to prefer a politician that fights, that rants, that issues bold but essentially meaningless proclamations while refraining from any unwarranted brain activity.

These days Graham has been giving his constituents exactly what they crave. His recent embarrassing displays on the highly-politicized Benghazi investigation and his even more inept attempt to block the vote on the Hagel confirmation was a calculated strategy to establish his conservative credentials with his home state voters. So the crazier Graham appears on the national stage, the more votes he believes he can get back home. 

And this is the key problem with Republican party today. Insanity is the flavor of the month. And it is happening in many Red states, not just South Carolina.

VAWA: A Closer Look at Five Republicans who Said No

by Nomad

Let's take a closer look at five Republicans who voted against the renewal of a bill which gives legal protections to women who are victims of violence.  

After the vote on the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA), the prospect of taking control of the Senate just became a little more remote. 

As The Daily Caller noted, many of the Republicans who have considered or who have announced plans to run for the Senate decided to vote against the bill. 

That legislation provides 

"$1.6 billion toward investigation and prosecution of violent crimes against women, imposes automatic and mandatory restitution on those convicted, and allows civil redress in cases prosecutors chose to leave unprosecuted. The Act also establishes the Office on Violence Against Women within the Department of Justice."

The bill covered many important topics such as human trafficking, domestic violence (including during pregnancy) sexual slavery, forced abortion, sexual violence, marital rape and many other crimes that tend to target women. Any no vote would logically require some kind of explanation to the public. 

In this post I would like to shine a spotlight on five Congressmen and women who have dreams  of a revered Senate seat but who also decided to deny women suitable protections against violence.

The Conservative Victory Fund Project: Has Karl Rove's SuperPAC Declared War on Tea Party Nuttery?

by Nomad

Recently Karl Rove’s American Crossroads group officially fired the first shot in the battle for the soul (such as it is) of the Republican party when he announced the creation of a new super-PAC, the Conservative Victory Fund Project.  
The mission of the SuperPAC is 

"to “recruit seasoned candidates and protect Senate incumbents from challenges by far-right conservatives and Tea Party enthusiasts who Republican leaders worry could complicate the party’s efforts to win control of the Senate.”

Take that, Tea Party Express.

According to the New York Times:

The group, the Conservative Victory Project,[CVF] is intended to counter other organizations that have helped defeat establishment Republican candidates over the last two election cycles. It is the most robust attempt yet by Republicans to impose a new sense of discipline on the party, particularly in primary races.

As Insane as it might sound, it appears that the Rove Republicans are now playing the role of the old guard of the Republican Party. And apparently, the defenders of the empire have had enough of the Tea Party rebels. After all that wooing and courting, and skillful manipulation of least intelligent and most rabid right wing voters in ;last two election cycles, the GOP has finally come to the conclusion (a bit late) that maybe stitching together this pouty, disobedient Frankenstein was not such a bright idea after all. 
We, on the sidelines, stuffing popcorn in our greasy-lipped mouths, have seen this coming, of course. Look at how they treated Tea Party queen Sarah Palin at the Republican Convention in Florida last year. It was "Sarah who?" For the GOP, Sarah became their own  political form of  "Fatal Attraction." She was the drunken tryst in the backseat of the Republican Oldsmobile nobody wants to remember.

The Surprising Truth about Thomas Jefferson- The Anti-Christian Founding Father

by Nomad

Thomas Jefferson was one of the most interesting men that this nation has produced and yet, today, his lives and ideas are nearly forgotten. He was above all, a product of the Enlightened Age, and didn't have much patience with religion and especially the Christian one.

Bitter Infidel or Enlightened Intellectual?

Published in 1885, the old book, Notes on Thomas Jefferson, Citizen of Maryland, offers the historical researcher some impressive shocks, particularly when it comes to the subject of Jefferson’s religious beliefs. 
The approach of the book comes from an unusual angle. The book, written in support of Christian values, takes a dim view of the third president’s attitude.

Why is that important? The author’s evidence is not attempting to defend Jefferson but to indict him. Yet the information in the book reveals an unexpected side to Jefferson.. 

The book begins: 

For obvious reasons, whatever pertains to Thomas Jefferson possesses an interest for all Americans. 

As the principal author of the “Declaration of Independence,” the first secretary of state, the second vice president, and the third president of the United States, Thomas Jefferson has every right to the title of “Founding Father.”
Given the state of politics today, this founding father’s opinions might seem even more radical and controversial than they did in his own time. For good reason, historians have tended to gloss over this aspect of American history.

The Tears of John Boehner and the Coming Devastation of Public Education

by Nomad

For some who watched this 60 minutes clip, (ok, a few people) this could have been Boehner's moment of glory.

Here was a man who, it appeared, sincerely cared about the middle class. The American Dream. Here was a man who cared about the children.
However, to the vast majority of viewers, I suspect they felt that it was a shoddy bit of political play-acting.
Many, like myself, thought it was both amusing and frightening. (In that clip, he looked like the guy you would think twice sitting next to on the subway.)

But, taking a closer look at his statement:

Boehner: I can't go to a school anymore. I used to go to a lot of schools. I used to see all these little kids running around. Can't talk about it.
Stahl: Why?
Boehner: Uhh. (warbling voice) Making sure..uh. That these kids got a fair shot at the American Dream (sniffing) like I did. It's important.

But what does "a shot at the American Dream" actually mean for a man like Boehner?