Sanity Sunday - Week in Review (July 30 - August 5) and Nomadic Playlist 4

by Nomad

This edition of Weekly Review covers a lot of ground. While the last seven days weren't particularly dramatic, there were quite a few noteworthy events.  

Russia Brags About Infiltration

The week started off with a mysterious remark from Russia's top diplomat, Sergey Lavrov,  On Monday, Lavrov claimed  Russia now has access to insider information about U.S. military plans. Addressing the Terra Scientia on Klyazma River National Educational Youth Forum, he explained that Moscow would be

"provided with information about the schemes harbored by the militaries of both the U.S. and other Western countries against the Russian Federation."

The State Department declined to comment on Lavrov's remarks. However, the Defense Secretary, James Mattis put his own spin on the Russian admission, saying that it was "most important that we talk with those countries we have the largest disagreements with."
This is the man in charge of overseeing the defense of our nation.

What Ought to be Investigated

by Nomad

Land Grab Scam: How Ted Cruz May Have Found One Issue that Can Unite Both Parties.. Against Him

by Nomad

It's a rare and beautiful thing when the American people come together, forget their differences and agree on something.
GOP candidate Ted Cruz may have stumbled on that very issue. It's too bad for him that a study shows bipartisan public opinion, (including Independents) is overwhelmingly against him.

Under the Hammer

As loyal Nomadic Politics readers know, we have lately had a couple of posts (here and here) on Senator Ted Cruz and his support for a state-level Koch-brothers' initiative to force the federal government to turn over federally-protected lands, including national parks.
Well, it mainly operates at a state-level but as we have seen there are some Congressmen in Washington who are in on the scam.

To summarize (as far as humanly possible), it's part of a three-step arrangement that would also entail states taking on the financial burdens for expensive public land maintenance that they clearly cannot afford. The reason for that somewhat bizarre idea is to justify the auctioning off of protected land to the highest bidder.

But there's some bad news in store for Ted Cruz.

Why Can't We All Just Get Along?: Speaker Ryan's Hopeless Dream of GOP Solidarity

by Nomad

Newly-crowned Speaker of the House, Paul Ryan has his work cut out for him. The real question is how long the  ultra-conservative minority will give him before the daggers come out of their togas. 

A few days ago, Paul Ryan became the 62nd Speaker of the House of Representatives, following behind weepy John Boehner. The 45-year-old Wisconsin Republican Ryan seemed less than enthusiastic about taking the position and even laid down certain conditions before considering it.

If Ryan wasn't dancing a jig, then that's not much of a surprise. His predecessor was repeatedly left dangling in the wind by the fringe Tea Party who took every opportunity to undermine his authority and scuttle whatever hard-won legislative deal he arranged with the president.

Compromise was an anathema to the ultra-conservatives and that made any kind of deal, regardless of who gave up what and what was gained, utterly hopeless.

Nothing has changed on that front and Ryan is fooling himself if he thinks his charm will calm the roaring beast in the den. In the vote for the Speaker post, Ryan received 200 out of 247 votes, dissent coming mainly from the radical right wing subminority, the House Freedom Caucus.

"Coal Rolling " Ban Exposes New Jersey Governor Chris Christie's Air Quality Hypocrisy

by Nomad

Although the air quality in New Jersey is a serious problem, Governor Christie's sweetheart relationship with the Koch brothers doesn't give him a lot of authority to do much about his state's air pollution problem. Not when so much of the problem blows in from Koch country.
So what's a presidential hopeful to do? Go after the small fish, of course. 

When it comes to air quality standards, New Jersey has a serious problem. That's according to the American Lung Association which  grades every county in the nation on its air quality and ozone levels. They found that as in past years the Garden State remains among the nation’s worst for pollution.

Poisons Blowing in the Wind

In fact, New Jersey is not alone. The survey found 42 percent of the nation’s population live in counties that have unhealthy levels of either ozone or particle pollution. The ironic part is that the state or county that produces the pollution may not experience the damaging effects.
Experts say that New Jersey's problem is "a combination of locally produced pollution and pollution that travels.”

That means no one governor or state legislature can do much about the problem. It requires joint action from those states who -literally- get the fallout of other states that pollute. In a country as fractured as the US, working together for a regional solution in bipartisan way is nothing but an exercise in nostalgia and idealism.

Free Market Mayhem: Do You Really Want to Live in a World without Environmental Regulations?

by Nomad

For corporations, a world without rules, without any annoying government interference might be heaven on Earth. But for the rest of us, it could be pretty damned close to hell on Earth.
We already have plenty of evidence of what life could be like if de-regulators get their way.

We often hear a lot of chatter about the benefits of deregulation and how important it is to avoid government interference in the world of big business. 

True to their Ayn Rand roots, both Ted Cruz and Rand Paul, both candidates in 2016, have expressed the idea that "If only the government got its hands out of the private industries, then a purer form of capitalist harmony would emerge."

Free-market libertarians believe in a totally hands-off approach to government and this includes nearly all corporate oversight. Since governments (and the laws they create) are the only powers strong enough to regulate things, corporations would essentially become unrestricted and above the law. One way to that is by eliminating the agencies that are involved in policing.

In November of last year, Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky stated that his top priority was not going after the major polluters -such as the mining industry- His utmost concern was trying to do what he could “to get the EPA reined in.” 

The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is primarily tasked with effectively managing, overseeing, and enforcing environmental laws. It has the legal authority to go after and prosecute polluters who would choose the break the laws in the name of profits.

So, all in all, McConnell's soundbite might seem like an unusual position for a politician charged with protecting the public interest. However, an investigation explains his personal stake in shielding the coal industry. 

In other words,  blame  it on the in-laws.

Con-Artist Conservatives and The Great Hoodwinking of America 3/3

by Nomad

The Part One and Part Two we looked at how many similarities there are between the fraud and swindles and the modern conservative movement. 

In this, the final installment in the series we wrap things up with two questions: Have middle-class Americans at long last realized that they are the victims of the Republican scam? Followed by the more important question: Is it too late to save American democracy?

Novelist Walter Kirn makes an interesting observations about the victims of swindles. It could explain why the Republican con game has continued for so long. Under normal circumstances, most victims catch on. So why do some people keep voting for the conservatives?

The reason, Kirn says, con artists get away with what they get away with is because their victims are "ashamed of their own blindness and their own gullibility, and they tend to just quietly go away." 

Outsiders might wonder why American voters who have realized that they have been played for the last 40 years are not un-stuffing the feathers from pillows and heating up the cauldrons of tar.
The reaction is, in fact, a bit more subtle. You can find the effect...if you know where to look.

Monstrous Ideas: How Ayn Rand's Pernicious Philosophy Allowed Conservatives to Destroy the US

by Nomad

No philosopher stirs the conservative heart like Ayn Rand. Yet, her warped philosophy of selfishness and the glorification of greed is today a major cause of the American malaise.

Back in 1979, Phil Donahue interviewed Ayn Rand, a person who was later to become "a major inspiration for the Tea Party movement."
If, for that reason alone, the oft-quoted Rand deserves a little of our attention. The interview came at a key moment in American political history, It was when the American voter rejected Carter and instead chose the conservative Ronald Reagan to lead us on a new path. 

In 1966, Ronald Reagan was, in fact, a fan and had written in a personal letter, "Am an admirer of Ayn Rand."

Born in St. Petersburg, Russia, on February 2, 1905, Alisa Zinov'yevna Rosenbaum was a novelist, playwright, screenwriter and a philosopher beloved by the free-market conservatives. Her brand of philosopher was called Objectivism. Among its other tenets. this philosophic system supports the idea that the proper moral purpose of one's life is the pursuit of one's own happiness (rational self-interest).  Thinking of others is something that should be avoided. It is, she said, a dangerous thing to do.

No wonder it became a founding principle of the conservative movement. 

John Adams vs. America's Encroaching Oligarchy

 by Nomad

John Adams, second president of the United States, well understood the dangers of people like the Koch Brothers and the judges. legislators, educators, and members of Congress that worship at their feet.

The Koch Brothers and the Opening of the Gates of Hell

by Nomad

An insane tabloid article from 1995 proclaims that Hell has released its laid-off work force. And very soon, says a mystic, the demons will be making the earthly realm their home.
Laughable? Yes, Ridiculous? Of course. But then again, let's look at what was happening in 1995.

I found this silly article in the November 21, 1995 issue of the now-defunct Weekly World News.

It's pretty standard fare for a tabloid, along with special diets and the latest travails of Bat Boy. 

(Like the half-boy, half bat, the Reverend Magnist of St. Paul also appears to be a non-existent character. At least, there was no trace of him online.)

I like the part where it says:

"We can expect to see two very ugly results of downsizing [in Hell]... First, demons will be appearing more often. We'll be seeing the reddish horned creatures everywhere...Secondly, more people will be going insane as the spirits of the demons take possession of their minds and bodies.."

Christian theology with a capitalistic spin. At the end, the mystic added  that we all must be on guard against these demons on the loose "whether they keep their own hideous bodies or take over those of our fellow human."

But suppose just for a second (and no longer) we take this seriously. What was going on in 1995 to support the Reverend's notions? 

Hmmm, let's see what a little research uncovers...

As one source reminds us, this was actually an important moment in the Republican party. Around this time, the Koch brothers set up a shell company called Triad Management which was used to funnel millions in secret money to help the Republican Party. 

New Rules on Textbooks: The Age of Reason Approved by Texas Board of Education

by Nomad

A recent decision by the Texas Board of Education will attempt to roll back the effect of religious and political groups' influence over public school textbooks. 
Despite this good news, the question remains whether the experts which the board will consult for accuracy can actually be trusted. 

Here's another sign that what was once blood red can just as easily become sky blue. AP is reporting news that civil libertarians will see as a victory of science and established facts over religious dogma and the influence of politics.

The Texas Board of Education imposed tighter rules Friday on the citizen review panels that scrutinize proposed textbooks, potentially softening fights over evolution, religion's role in U.S. history and other ideological matters that have long seeped into what students learn in school.

How The Minority Used its Majority
This issue has been brewing for awhile. One reason for this is that Texas is the nation's largest state with more more than 5 million public school students. Also, it is because many of the textbooks printed there are accepted in other states as well. Thus all it takes is for a few activists with a religious or political agenda to have a vast influence over what is being taught to our children.

The 15-member education board approves textbooks for school districts to use, but objections raised by reviewers can influence its decisions. The volunteer review panels are often dominated by social conservatives who want more skepticism about evolution included in science textbooks, arguing that a higher power helped create the universe.

The article pointed out that social conservatives used their majority on the board to affect these changes to the textbook selection process. 

The board also had long been controlled by social conservatives before election defeats weakened their voting bloc in recent years — but not before its culture war clashes drew national headlines. 

It was clear that certain issues were on the hit list.

Those members pushed for de-emphasizing climate change in science classes, and requiring social studies students to learn about the Christian values of America's founding fathers and evaluate whether the United Nations undermined U.S. sovereignty.

In an effort to reverse the influence of narrow interest groups, the new rules mandated that teachers or professors be given priority for serving on the textbook review panels for subjects in their areas of expertise. Furthermore, the rules enable the board to appoint outside experts to check objections raised by review panels and ensure they are based on fact, not ideology.

"It won't eliminate politics, but it will make it where it's a more informed process," said Thomas Ratliff, a Republican board member who pushed for the changes, which he said "force us to find qualified people, leave them alone, and let them do their jobs."

The new rules were unanimously approved.

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.)

Slimy and Dark Arts: Texas GOP State Chairman Munisteri's Desperate Database Deception

by Nomad
The Wall Street Journal reported last week about a fundraising letter by the Texas GOP state chairman, Steve Munisteri.

Although you might not have heard of him, as an activist for conservative grassroots movements, Munisteri has been around forever. According to his bio:

As State Chairman of the Texas chapter of Young Americans for Freedom, Munisteri begun the practice of issuing legislative rankings for members of the Texas House of Representatives and State Senate. In 1980, Munisteri founded Young Conservatives of Texas, a group which continues to produce the future generations of our conservative leaders and elected officials in college campuses across the State.

Most recently he was elected to chair the Republican Party of Texas in 2010. For a conservative in Texas, the future looks rather grim. 

Texas is slowly but surely turning from a conservative red to a decidedly liberal blue. Apparently, as Texas slips from the Republican fingers, Munisteri is ready to pull out all stops; hence the letter. 

That letter, aimed at poaching the last dollar from the Texas rich, was full of the predictable fear-mongering about Democrats “ coming to take away your guns,” and more than that, “they’re coming to hijack your rights and freedoms.” 

He called the new Democratic voter-mobilization effort, Battleground Texas, “a clear and present threat to you and your family.” 

It’s the kind of rhetoric that doesn’t hold up to too much analysis or critical thinking but, to a certain type of Texas Republican, it really tends to stir the blood. To outsiders, it just smells like the sour BO of desperation. (At least the Texas Democrats behind Battleground thought so.)

However, there was another detail in the article about the letter that caught my eye.

To fight back, the GOP letter urges Republicans to give anywhere from $15 to $5,000 so the party can “immediately undertake our own effort to identify thousands of Texas conservatives.”

The letter warns that the former Obama operatives “have become masters of the slimy ‘dark arts’ of campaigning: creating massive databases; collecting information on every voter and non-voter; and then using that information to do whatever it takes to drive these voters away from Republican candidates and principles.”

That’s a rather interesting claim for Munisteri to make against the Democratic Party. While there is nothing illegal about collecting information in “massive databases,” Munisteri is playing on the ignorance of his constituents about modern political campaigning. As Mr. Munisteri well knows, these so-called dark and slimy arts have become a long feature of the Republican campaigns since the Bush administration. 

A Warning to Texas Secessionists: Alexander H. Stephens’ 1861 Speech to the Georgia Convention

by Nomad

As regular followers of this blog know, I often like to delve into history to find new perspectives. In an investigation into the Texas secessionist movement, I uncovered the words of man whose warning about such dangerous nonsense were ignored and because of this, events quickly spun out of control and nearly destroyed a nation.

His name was Alexander Stephens.

But first a little background information.

Sedition Framed as Patriotism

In a recent article in the American Spectator, a conservative magazine, Doug Bandow, a senior fellow at the Koch-founded Cato Institute, recently wrote about the secessionist movement. 

The article is provocatively titled The Great Secession: Would it really be the highest form of patriotism? and, by discussing these notions seriously givens them at least superficial form of legitimacy. He asks:

Is America too big? Is it time to break up the U.S.?

A week after the November election nearly 700,000 Americans from all 50 states had signed 69 secession petitions as part of the White House “We the People” online petition system. The missives requested the administration to peacefully allow states to leave the union. One petition advocated permitting states which seceded to form their own nation. A formal White House review is triggered by just 25,000 signatures.

Lest he become a laughingstock, Bandow is coy about his true feelings on the subject. On one hand, instead of condemning the movement, he would prefer to go after those on the left who have warned about the secessionists, like Huffington Post Bob Cesca.

Unable to help himself from cheapening the discussion, Bandow writes:

Indeed, one wonders if Cesca became a bit excited at the thought of visiting death and devastation upon Red States and all others who disagreed with him. Or perhaps he was smoking funny cigarettes or suffering from an overeager imagination when he wrote his column. 

Eventually, Bandow tires of making fun of liberals and his position becomes more clear.

Why shouldn’t people be able to re-order their political arrangements if they wish? Must whatever has been put together be forever kept together?...

There’s no inherent reason why any particular group of people should be in community with any other. Slavery will always stain the cause of the southern Confederacy, but what principle justified slaughtering thousands to hold the country together?

What a contorted view of American history. Bandow seems to forget that it was the South that seceded and launched an attack on the North. The slaughter came about as a result of the South defending its principle of maintaining slaves. 

And that came after the US government made repeated attempts to compromise on the issue of slavery. (The Missouri Compromise of 1820, The Fugitive Slave Act, The Compromise of 1850, The Kansas–Nebraska Act of 1854 were all attempts to prevent the issue of slavery from tearing the nation apart. Despite this, the South still embarked on its secession )

Bandow writes:

In many ways we are a badly divided people. Noted Patrick Buchanan: “While no one takes this movement as seriously as men took secession in 1861, the sentiments behind it ought not to be minimized. For they bespeak a bristling hostility to the federal government and a dislike bordering on detestation of some Americans for other Americans, as deep as it was on the day Beauregard’s guns fired on Fort Sumter.”

Note to Mr. Bandow. Beauregard was a Confederate and the attack on Fort Sumter was unprovoked. That attack- which was the opening salvo of the Civil War- came only months after Southern states voted for secession. 

Note to Buchanan: "Detestation" of your fellow citizen and “bristling hostility” to the freely-elected government is not an excuse to launch an armed attack. 

Is the Buchanan actually attempting to justify an attack on a US military base by domestic insurgents? There’s a word for what he is rationalizing. It is called treason.

But nobody can deny that Americans are a divided people at the moment. How did they come to be so divided? Could the Cato Institute, the Koch brothers, and their well-documented financial support of the Tea Party have anything to with it? Could Fox News have anything to do with dividing the nation?

This kind of behavior is called sedition- that is, (as defined by Wikipedia) the “overt conduct, such as speech and organization, that is deemed by the legal authority to tend toward insurrection against the established order. Sedition often includes subversion of a constitution and incitement of discontent (or resistance) to lawful authority. Sedition may include any commotion, though not aimed at direct and open violence against the laws.”

*    *    *    *

All this talk of secession didn’t impress Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia too much. Despite what conservatives and secessionists might say, according to the Supreme Court, the question is clear. Scalia wrote:

If there was any constitutional issue resolved by the Civil War, it is that there is no right to secede.

With all due respect, since when do wars solve Constitutional issues? Absurdly, Scalia even cited the Pledge of Allegiance as proof! So much the expert reasoning of the judicial hero of the conservatives. 

The American Conservative, like the American Spectator, plays the same games with the reader. While offering plenty of proof against the very idea of secession in principle:

Three Supreme Court justices, one famous president, a bloody war, and the language of a modern pledge of allegiance offer conclusive proof that secession, while an entertaining philosophical exercise, has no legal basis.

(Add to this list a Supreme Court case which declared no state has the right to secede.) But then the writer brushes aside the small mountain of evidence with:

Their various opinions and conclusions, however, all have gaping holes.

While the article may make a good case that (all things considered) succession could be legally defensible, the question isn’t, of course, only whether it is legal. The question is whether it is wise path to take. 

And experience tells us that secession, no matter how valid the reason, is dangerous and stupid thing to do.

Lone Star Secessionist Blues

This talk of secession really went into high gear when Obama won re-election, which clearly shook neo-conservatives to the core. But according to the president of the Texas Nationalist Movement (TNM), Daniel Miller, that’s only a coincidence.
He is quoted in the article as claiming:

“This is not a reaction to a person but to policy and what we see as a federal government that is so disconnected from its constituents and absolute no regard for what its purpose was.” 

He added that:

“self-determination is kind of the underpinning to all of this — the ability to provide Texas solutions to Texas problems.”

Fox News recently gave Cary Wise, TNM’s Executive Director, free air-time in order to promote his secessionist views (challenge- and fact-free). He told the interviewer:

“The state of Texas has a constitution.And our constitution said that all political power is inherent in the people.”

Wise wisely neglects to mention that while the source of that political power may derive from the people, our Founding Fathers decided in order to prevent mob-rule, our political system would be representative and the people are free and encouraged to vote in free elections for those politicians that best represent them.

*        *        *       *

As ABCNews pointed out, self-determination is a lovely thing but that privilege goes hand in hand with economic independence. For the six states advocating independence from the “tyranny” of the federal government, taking the federal handouts has been fairly easy.

All the states petitioning to secede from the United States that obtained enough signatures to elicit a response from the White House — with the exception of Alabama — were some of the largest recipients of federal funding in 2010.

Census records show that six of the seven states that amassed more than 25,000 signatures on their petitions to form independent nations in the past week took more than $10 million in revenue from the federal government that year.

The seven states – Texas, Florida, Louisiana, Alabama, Georgia, Tennessee and North Carolina – took more than 23 percent of all federal revenue allotted to the states that year.

If Texans really cared about out-of control domestic spending, there is one obvious solution. Legislators would return, or at least refuse, the $294 billion in federal funds that Texas received. According to an article by CNBC.com, when it came to taking federal funds, Texas ranked third, behind Florida and Maryland. 

It’s easy to brag about how well your state economy is when each of your citizens is being given a handout of $11,452 in federal dollars.

Nevertheless, according to one Texas petition that America “continues to suffer economic difficulties stemming from the federal government’s neglect to reform domestic and foreign spending,” in contrast to Texas which “maintains a balanced budget and is the 15th largest economy in the world.”

Politifact confirmed that Texas has actually managed to balance its budget but to do so, Texas legislators had to prioritize a bit:

Lawmakers did not cover all projected state costs of Medicaid in 2013 and put off a regular payment to school districts. As before, too, portions of funds intended for special purposes were set aside to balance the budget.

Balancing the budget is easy when you refuse to cover costs. Education and Medicaid are the two biggest items in the budget.

According to Spencer Harris, a health care policy analyst at the Texas Public Policy Foundation, Medicaid in Texas will soon become Texas’s biggest budgetary line-item. Medicaid is a little over 20 percent of our state budget if you just include the state funds, but if you look at the federal money is closer to 30 percent.

With the nation's highest rate of uninsured citizens, Texas can ill-afford to skip Medicare costs. 

Governor Perry would very much like to blame Obamacare for all his state’s ’problems but Harris says that’s not quite the full picture. More and more baby-boomers are eligible for Medicaid. Texas will see Medicaid cost increases “due not just to the expanded coverage under Obama’s law but also to expected increases in enrollment among currently eligible Texans.”

The other way Texas balanced its budget was by putting off its payments on its biggest budgetary drain, education. In a state that ranks 49th in the United States in getting its people at least a high school degree and in which nearly 1 in 5 Texans don't have high school diploma, that brings Texas as a nation to third world standards. 

Despite the fact that 60% of Texans surveyed in a Rasmussen poll opposed Texas going rogue, nearly have of all Republicans in Texas in supported the idea. That was enough for the TNM to file paperwork last month with the Texas Ethics commission to form their own superPAC,,Texas Nationalist Movement Political Action Committee. According to the organization, the superPAC was formed "for the purpose of supporting and endorsing candidates at all levels that are in-line with the mission, vision and values of the Texas Nationalist Movement."

And we can assume that other organizations in other states will soon do likewise. It will be interesting to see exactly how much the Koch Brothers will be giving in this latest attempt to ruin the nation. 

A Voice from the Past

It has taken over 150 years for the subject of secession to re-surface. Texas secessionists have either chosen to ignore or were never educated on American history. They seem completely oblivious to the hard-learned lessons of the Confederate disaster. 

Before the Civil War, when many in the South were advocating breaking free from the United States, one of the cooler heads, Alexander H. Stephens, issued an eloquent and prophetic warning for them to think carefully. There was no discussion about whether these states had the right to remove themselves. The Constitution seems pretty clear about that.  Stephens, a Georgia politician, implored southern extremists to consider the wisdom (not the legality) of such a radical step.

One hundred and fifty-two years ago next week, on January 17, 1861, Georgia held a special convention to vote  whether or not to remain in the Union of States. It was a decisive moment in the history of the nation and three other states, Mississippi, Florida and Alabama, had already voted to “cut loose” from the Union. By this time, the South had worked itself into a hysteria of indignation and was in no mood for compromise. 

In his speech before the members of the Constitution before the vote, former Congressman  Stephens warned,

That this step, once taken, could never be recalled; and all the baleful and withering consequences that must follow will rest on the Convention for all coming time.

Devastation to Charleston

Secession would, he told them, would inevitably lead to war and be a sure path to destruction of the South..

When we and our posterity shall see our lovely South desolated by the demon of war (which this act of your will inevitably invite and call forth); when our green fields of waving harvest shall be trodden down by murderous soldiery and the fiery car of war sweeping over our land; our temples of justice laid in ashes, all the horror and desolation of war upon us, who but this convention will be held responsible for it? and who but he who shall have his vote for this unwise and ill-timed measure.. shall be held to strict account for this suicidal act, by the present generation and probably cursed and execrated by posterity for all coming time, for the wide and desolating ruin that will inevitably follow this act you now propose to perpetrate?

In every respect, it was an accurate portrait of what was to happen to the South. He begged the other delegates to reconsider. Stephens asked them what reasons they would give to the victims of the coming calamity or to other nations of the world. 

What “one overt act” could they name or point to which could justify deserting the United States and breaking apart the Union, he asked them.

Can any of you today name one governmental act of wrong, deliberately and purposely done by the government of Washington, of which the South has the right to complain?

On the contrary, Stephens pointed out, hadn’t the federal government been more than willing to accommodate their Southern states demands? In any case, what, he asked, had they to gain by seceding from the Union? Within the federal government, the South had always had more representation than the North.

On the other hand, the South had very much to lose. There was the problem of the cost of running an independent government.

Look at another item, one.. in which we have a great and vital interest. It is that of revenue, or means of supporting government.

According to official figures, he said, three-fourths of the revenue for the support of the government came NOT from the Southern states, but had been raised uniformly from the North.

Sound familiar?

The result of the decision to leave the Union was, even then, predictable: a costly and bloody war.

Leaving out of view, for the present, the countless million of dollars you must expend in a war with the North; with tens of thousands of your sons and brothers slain in battle, and the offered up as sacrifices upon the altar of your ambition- and for what, we ask again?

Is it for the overthrow of the American government established by our common ancestry, cemented and built up by their sweat and blood and founded on the broad principles of Right, Justice and Humanity? And I must declare here as I have often done before.. it is the best and freest government-the most equal in its rights- the most just in its decision- the most lenient in its measure and the most inspiring in its principles to elevate the race of men, that the sun of heaven ever shown upon.

Now, for you to attempt to overthrow such a government as this, under which we have lived for more than three-quarters of a century- in which we have gained our wealth, our standing as a nation, our domestic safety while the elements of peril are around us, with peace and tranquility accompanied with unbounded prosperity and rights unassailed- is the height of madness, folly and wickedness, to which I can neither lend my sanction nor my vote.

Unfortunately, for the nation, all of Stephen’s predictions and wise advice were ignored by the Convention members who voted to secede officially from the Union. Some in the South even saw Stephens as a traitor to the Confederacy. 
Despite that view, Stephens was elected to the newly-formed Confederate Congress, and later that year, as vice-president of the Confederacy. In that position, he was witness to the fulfillment of his darkest prognostications. 

If the other delegates had listened to his wise and prophetic advice, the nation might have avoided a war that proved bloodier than any other conflict in American history. 

Alexander Stephens had only his common sense to guide him when he spoke at the Georgia Convention. Today, we have common sense (presumably) and the chastising experience of our past mistakes. The deaths of 750,000 citizens should be a pretty strong deterrent, after all.

When the Texas Nationalist Movement leaders (and all of the other irresponsible rabble-rousing secessionist groups) attempt to stir the discontented into the same disastrous mistake as our ancestors, we hope the good and intelligent and loyal citizens will reject this dangerous nonsense with the contempt it deserves.

______________________

Related articles

• Is Secession's Time Coming Again?
• For a Right of Unilateral Secession, Part Three: Design
• For a Right of Unilateral Secession: Part Two

The Rise and Fall of Businessman Rick Scott 1/2

Businessman Rick Scott, 
the Face of 
Corporate Healthcare

by Nomad

The story of Rick Scott's career before entering politics is a fascinating one. How a person with such a background would even consider the public scrutiny of a campaign show something about the audacity of the man.

When businessman Rick Lynn Scott decided to throw himself into the Florida governor’s race, he had one significant problem to deal with. 

As a candidate with absolutely no prior political experience, his sole qualification for being the Sunshine State’s governor was his shady history in business. 

A Very Aggressive Corporation

Before he lost his empire, Rick Scott had much to be proud of. At the young age of 34, he co-founded what was to become the largest private for-profit health care company in the US, Columbia Hospital Corporation. 

According to his supporters, Columbia was a wonderful example of how the free market system could be applied to health care, an idea that conservatives have gushed about for decades. Columbia, like Bain Capital, became known for its aggressive business tactics and since its founding had embarked on one of the most aggressive and successful buying and takeover sprees ever seen.

The Angry Right Wing Voter: Have We Gone Too Far? 1/2

by Nomad

Just look around. It’s easy to see that America is seething. From the Tea Party to the Occupy movement, voters are infuriated with the direction of the country. In itself, that’s not news. With the economy the way it is, that's hardly a surprise. 

And Americans tend to take a personal interest in politics- despite the fact that only 54% of the population voted in the last presidential election. (And that's a high figure from previous elections too!) 

Of course, politics in the US has never been known for its calm reflection and careful thoughtful approach. However, what seems to happening with each election cycle is becoming a matter of concern. No matter what the outcome, growing numbers of Americans are automatically rejecting the results. This in turn pushes the anger to the next level. 

Puppet Masters Koch Brothers and Pinocchio Mitt Romney

Mitt Romney's nose gets longer and longer

by Nomad

Once again, the American public is witness to the folly of the Supreme Court's decision in the Citizens United decision. The Brothers Koch recently launched a $6.1 million attack ad against the Obama administration which quickly received a "Pants on Fire" rating from PolitiFact.

The factchecker at the Washington Post had this to say about the ad which was sponsored by the Americans for Prosperity - an astroturf organization created and heavily-funded by the Koch Brothers.

Our Factchecker deemed this ad false, relying on since-debunked claims about the stimulus. “One can certainly raise questions about how stimulus funding was used and whether it was effective,” he wrote. “But there is no excuse for these kinds of ads, which take facts out of context or simply invent them.”

Out of respect for my readers and the truth, I will only give you a link to the original ad. Falsehoods when repeated often enough bear a similarity to the facts, especially when the lies come come various sources. That itself is the very reason why the Supreme Court's decision was such a disaster and a blot on the America's judicial history.

Koch Brothers Exposed: Film Trailer

by Nomad

Never in American history has there been a more organized and well-funded threat against the democratic process, the health and safety of all Americans and the impartiality of the Supreme Court. The Koch brothers have single handedly managed to corrupt two of the three branches of government and in the 2012, are seeking to make it three for three. Seriously. It makes all of the other threats America has faced small in comparison. 

 

In the Next Election....

___________________

We welcome your comments and opinions.

Americans for Prosperity: The Koch Industries - Tea Party Nexus

By Nomad

Americans for Prosperity: What It is

The Tea Party members seem to take great pride in portraying themselves as modern day revolutionaries, the conscience of the people taking back their government. In their minds, the Tea Party is a spontaneously organized, leaderless and populist grassroots movement. 

In fact, many- if not most of them- have never heard of the oil billionaires David and Charles Koch, or what they do or how they spend their wealth. It is a sadly ironic fact that even those saluting the Kochs’ flag may not know who these brothers are. If they have heard of the organization named Americans for Prosperity, it would have probably have been on Fox News. And, for a news organization, Fox News is exceedingly good at keeping secrets.