Jim Wallis causes ungodly stir in Oshkosh, by Gosh

Still want to be a "Christian Nation?"

The cautionary tale below pretty much says it all about how that will play out.

The Christian minister Jim Wallis, activist and founder of the organization Sojourners is being targeted over his invitation to participate at a Christian music festival.

"After researching extensively the words and published positions of Jim Wallis and his organization, Sojourners Magazine, and seeking fervently the guidance of the Holy Spirit in prayer, we believe the social justice message and agenda they promote is a seed of secular humanism, seeking an unholy alliance between the Church and Government," Q90 FM, a Christian radio station based in De Pere, Wisc., said in a statement.

You see, there are good Christians, and "humanist" Christians who believe in "social justice." Ironically, the chosen few blessed with a radio station bestowed upon them by the government, clearly believe our "CHRISTIAN NATION" should not allow..."an unholy alliance between the church and government?" Huh?

And throughout history, many were accused of heresy.

By including Wallis in the speaker line-up, some accused the festival of compromising the Gospel. Crosstalk radio host Ingrid Schlueter expressed her opposition to presenting Wallis as "a credible Christian leader" and said youth are in "spiritual danger" if they attend the five-day event."

Is there anyway of knowing who is and is not a "credible Christian leader?" I hope they never come after me. At the risk of offending those identified as "credible Christian leaders and followers," I'm going to go out on a limb and allow this heretic Wallis to make his case:

In his response, Wallis said, "The biblical definition of social justice has to do with helping bring about God's Kingdom on earth as it is in heaven, just as Jesus taught us to pray," according to the The Post-Crescent of Appleton, Wisconsin. "And in a world where half the population lives in poverty, there is a great need for God's Kingdom to be more fully present.

The Q90 idol worshippers won't stand for this talk of tolerance and help for the needy.

"There is spiritual danger here," she said. Youth will be "sitting under the tutelage of a religious and political radical who is ... hostile to the biblical Gospel." Mary Danielson of Calvary Chapel in Appleton, Wis., said Wallis claims to be an evangelical pastor, but is merely using Scripture to "justify his radicalism.""He does not hold to the central tenets of biblical Christianity but he reads a brand of social justice into the Bible," Danielson said on Crosstalk radio.

Responding to the uproar, Wallis, who also serves as a spiritual adviser to President Obama, released a statement, saying: "Let me be very clear that we believe in the separation of church and state. We believe the church and the government are able to best fulfill their roles when they function separately and apart from institutional intrusion.

"Agree or disagree – Jim Wallis touches your heart, stretches your mind, and challenges your values," stated Leith Anderson, president of National Association of Evangelicals. "He thunders like an Old Testament prophet, yet he is gentle and gracious. With a heart for people and a dream for a better tomorrow, Jim Wallis looks tough times in the eye and talks of hope."

Q90 FM, meanwhile, noted that they are not calling for a boycott of Lifest and they do not consider Wallis an enemy. "We just have a fundamental disagreement on the wisdom of bringing Mr. Wallis to Lifest," the radio station said.

Yeah, right. It's pretty obvious Q90 believes Jesus would have been a tough love conservative. And certainly not a radical. Who would have thought Glenn Beck's tirade on social justice would have had such a major influence on Christianity?

Should Our Elected Representatives Be Allowed to Usurp the Voters Will…? Gawd, Republicans are real Constitutional Scholars.

It's nice to know the Governor of Hawaii has such a firm grasp of REPRESENTATIVE government.

Hawaii's governor on Tuesday vetoed legislation that would have permitted same-sex civil unions ... Republican Gov. Linda Lingle's said, "voters should decide the fate of civil unions, not politicians. It would be a mistake to allow a decision of this magnitude be made by one individual or a small group of elected officials," Lingle said.

Did she just veto, as "one individual," the civil unions legislation. Clueless? We would hate to have that whole group of public servants, our elected representatives, defend and vote the will of the people. Why do we even bother with government?

Save $19 billion? Republicans say NO to Fiscal Responsibility to pay Down Deficit.

You know, we could save more if …

That's the answer I think we'll get from the Republicans, who will discount the CBO estimates on money saved with the new energy legislation, insisting they can save even more money with deregulation and more tax breaks paid for by the taxpayer.

Congressional budget experts say a climate and energy bill now stalled in the Senate would reduce the federal deficit by about $19 billion over the next decade. The report by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office was the second positive analysis of the bill by a government agency in a month, but is likely to carry more weight than a similar report issued by the Environmental Protection Agency.

After all, what would the EPA know, right?

In its report Wednesday, the CBO said the energy bill would increase federal revenues by about $751 billion from 2011 to 2020, mostly though the sale of carbon credits in so-called a cap-and-trade plan to be applied to utilities and other sectors of the economy. The legislation has been panned by many Republicans as a "national energy tax." No GOP senator has signed on as a co-sponsor.

But reducing the federal deficit isn't something the Republicans want to talk about right now. They're concentrating on the increases to the deficit, regardless of the Demoratic plans to reduce it. There's an election to win, and planning ahead while saving taxpayer money is not in the GOP's or their strong suit. It's always easier to whine about something to jazz up the base of low information voters.

An analysis by the EPA last month concluded that the Senate bill, dubbed the American Power Act, would cost households an average of $79 to $146 per year … Americans are willing to pay less than a dollar a day to … reduce oil imports and create energy-related jobs … lawmakers have begun considering the more modest approach that would limit the carbon tax to the electricity sector. Some White House officials have begun to speak favorably about such a "utility-only" approach, which they believe could be more attractive to Republicans.

Who gives a rats ass about making it more attractive to the Republicans.

Again, Minimum Wage still Too Much for Conservative free Market Candidates. Low Wages the Unspoken Party Platform.

Amazing how well the Republicans are doing when you consider they're holding up millions of jobless Americans unemployment checks, apologizing to BP for the nations worst oil disaster, unabashadly calling for the end of Social Security and Medicare, and demanding lower wages to compete in the global economy. And yet, Republicans are favored to win big time in November. Here's another "lower wages" story, from Thinkprogress:

Minnesota GOP candidate for governor Tom Emmer … proposed cutting the minimum wage for service workers who receive tips, such as bartenders and waiters. In order to justify the cut, Emmer said that some of these employees earn “over $100,000 a year,” and even make more than the people who employ them … “With the tips that they get to take home, they are some people earning over $100,000 a year. More than the very people providing the jobs and investing not only their life savings but their families’ future,” Emmer said.

Minnesota is one of few states that does not follow the federal minimum wage for tip-earners — $2.13 an hour. Instead, tip-earners make $5.25 to $7.25 an hour in addition to tips. Emmer says that hurts businesses’ bottom lines.

According to the latest data available from the Bureau of Labor Services (BLS), Minnesota food and beverage service workers earned an average of $10.45 an hour in May 2010, a number that includes tips.

What a way to get the economy up and running again.

The Real Conservative Agenda: Employer Amnesty? Throw all the rules out for Three Years, including Minimum Wage.

Vin Suprynowicz of the Las Vegas Review Journal wrote this fruitcake solution to the Bush Recession, "Amnesty for employers: A sure-fire way to get everyone back to work."

If this doesn't raise a few red flags, then we are truly in for a conservative run in the upcoming elections. From discussions with my conservative friend, there is nothing that will change his mind on anything, which throws facts and common wisdom out the door and makes Suprynowicz right on target.

Mr. Obama said his No. 1 priority was going to be jobs. He didn't mean it, though.

You won't believe Suprynowicz's answer. Hold on to your sanity, here's Syprynowicz's solution....

The president could stimulate a giant sigh of relief out there among
private-sector employers by declaring that ObamaCare is suspended for three years, along with all those other big-government initiatives. Tell Congress they've done a wonderful job, and send them home.

…we need an "employer amnesty." Simply tell employers that for the next three years, the federal government doesn't care how many employees you have, or who they are. Uncle Sam doesn't want to hear about it.

We're going to get busy rounding up and deporting some 12 million illegal aliens, so we won't have to worry about all these new jobs going to illegals. Otherwise, hire whoever you want, and don't tell us.

Minimum-wage laws? Three-year hiatus. Withholding, matching and submitting income taxes, Social Security taxes, Medicare taxes? All gone for three years. Tear up the forms. The IRS is on a three-year leave of absence. We won't need to keep transferring those moneys from young workers to old retirees; we'll just draw down the "trust funds."

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission? Laid off for three years. OSHA? You won't be hearing from them. The ADA? In abeyance. Environmental impact statements for that new hospital, highway or factory you want to build? No one will ever ask to see them if you can get it done in the next three years.

I know what you're thinking, Suprynowicz is a fringe freak, no one could possibly take him seriously. You mean like Palin, Angle, Bachmann…etc? This is the mind set we're dealing with this November. There's more zaniness.

Leftists, statists and fascists will be outraged over any and all of these proposals, of course. "You want workers to die!" they'll shriek, jumping up on their chairs and clutching their petticoats about their knees. "You want racists to be allowed to hire anyone they want, without quotas! You're against the disabled! Allow people to work for any wage they'll agree to? Who will protect the weak-minded and the oppressed from greedy capitalists offering them jobs?"

Which means "creating jobs" isn't really their top priority, or their second, or their third, or their 25th, is it?

Yet keeping each and every one of these current job-killing federal taxes, regulations and mandates in place and operating at full strength is more important, isn't it?

So what Mr. Obama really meant … you small people who work out there in Privatesectorland are just going to have to hunker down, shut up, and pay a whole hell of a lot more taxes to get it done, because we're not going to reduce the tax and regulatory burden on private employers who might want to create a job. In fact, you beasts of burden ain't seen nothin' yet!"

Here's a comment that proves the mindset of the current conservative movement to the above insanity:

This is an excellent column! Besides Obama being profoundly dishonest and dangerous to our economy, he leads a bunch of sheep, headed up by Reid, behind him!

Corporate Discounts for Energy, Consumers see Increase in Energy Bills. Any wonder who's in Control?

Tough times for consumers has prompted Wisconsin utility companies to give them a discount on their bills...just kidding. Actually, they've worked out a corporate discount during these difficult times, making up the difference by charging you and me higher prices.

But that's okay, it isn't like the government passed cap and trade, making companies pay more for energy that in turn gets passed along to the us. Whew, dodged a bullet there.

A utility consumers group has filed a lawsuit against state regulators challenging a June decision to permit Wisconsin Power & Light to give industrial customers discounts on electric rates.

The Citizens Utility Board complains the discounts could drive up rates for residential customers to make up the difference.

Not surprisingly, an official announcement by the utilities hasn't been possible since there's no real excuse.

Officials at the Public Service Commission didn't immediately return a message. Steve Schultz, a spokesman for WP&L parent company Alliant Energy, had no immediate comment.

My Conservative Friend thought I needed a Lesson on Socialism...by Glenn Beck!!!

I just received this email from my conservative friend:

Since you have no idea what Socialism is… let me hold your hand and I’ll draw you a picture. No, better yet let me show you.

It's at this point I'm supposed to click on the Glenn Beck video of his list of new big government entities. GLENN BECK!!! Good god.

Big Government is bad for the economy. Our founding fathers wanted limited Government. I’ll sight the Federica Papers as evidence.

MY RESPONSE:

I'll sight the Constitution. The founding fathers left government up to the people to decide how large or small.

Tenth Amendment –The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Pretty simple huh? The powers are left up "to the people." And since the constitution itself framed the kind of government we had structurally, the Bill of Rights were a GENERAL, non-specific, list of rights. Madison worried that listing the 10 rights would leave the impression that all other rights were not granted. Madison was right, because you are doing what he feared you would do.

Boy, don't you wish we could all live in a country the way you, the Republicans and tea party's see it? Living in servitude to God and one Constitutionally "pure" party. A party that will not tolerate opposition. I think the word is totalitarianism.

It's the same vision Gingrich had for the GOP, a permanent majority party in government. One party rule, something I believe you're against right now.

Instead of wondering why you're in the minority party, maybe like minded conservatives should retool and come up with a more workable plan. It beats whining incessantly that no one is listening to you.

Wealth Care Sycophants: Sean Duffy, Scott Walker, Ron Johnson, Paul Ryan, Tea Party Movement...

Congressional candidate Sean Duffy cares more about the increased taxes on large companies and wealthy people than he does about the average Wisconsin taxpayer. The same goes for Republicans Scott Walker and Ron Johnson. And who's about to back these Wealth Care candidates; the GOP and tea party "constitutionalists." The founding fathers aren't just rolling over in their graves, their sailing back to England on the first ghost ship out.

Remember when corporate tax cuts and lower taxes on wealth were supposed to spur economic growth, trickle down "voodoo economics" they called it, after the mild 2001 recession? Now after the Great Bush Recession, how'd that work out for you? It didn't.

So why is congressional candidate, Democratic State Sen. Julie Lassa, "defending" herself against a conservative candidate fighting for "Wealth Care" in the name of "freedom and liberty?" Like the Wisconsin State Journal pointed out:

He (Sean Duffy) noted that Lassa supported bills in the Democratic-controlled Legislature that raised taxes on some large companies and the wealthy and a host of fees to make up a budget shortfall last year. "Do I think that's going to resonate well with voters in the 7th district? I don't think it does," Duffy said.

Duffy may have a point. Ashland's multitude of millionaire's, in the far northern part of the state, should be relieved they a candidate looking out for their discretionary money. But for everyone else, Duffy's proposed tax cuts, Wealth Care, will be taken out of schools, library's, police, fire and public services. A fair trade off for Duffy.

But instead of offensively attacking Duffy's Wealth Care agenda, a plan that subtracts money at a time when it is needed to wipe out our current deficit, Lassa is defensive.

But Lassa noted the state budget also included deep cuts to state government and said Democrats acted responsibly(…blah, blah, blah….. )

Come on! Think about it for a minute. Duffy, and his fellow conservative candidates, are running on the totally symbolic meaning of "freedom and liberty," "paint(ing) Lassa as slow out of the gate in the campaign" (a big issue if your racing horses), and the horror of horrors "paint(ing) Lassa as Obey's hand-picked successor." Hey, didn't the GOP just hand pick candidate Ron Johnson to run against Russ Feingold, without knowing anything about his platform? Republican voters claim they still don't know a thing about him.

Lassa should wake up, and point out the problem with Duffy's "woulda, coulda, shoulda," plan: He was willing to allow the banks and Wall Street to crash, taking with it personal, corporate and state investments, wiping out retirement plans, collapsing our public school systems with teacher firings and the end to local public services as we know it. You wanna see large unemployment numbers? Follow the conservative "tough love," self-adjusting free market plan.

I call it insanity, chaos.

Duffy calls it his platform.

Alert: Conservatives, Tea Party's, Trying to take ownership of the Constitution.

For me, this is not a new story, but a newer movement to own the past. Glenn Beck is currently trying to take ownership and "re-energize" the "I've Got a Dream" speech. The conservative activist Supreme Court has redefined the Second Amendment and corporate free speech rights in the First Amendment.

But what's worse could be the tea party and courts unrelenting attempts to own the Constitution without a whimper or an aggressive fight to turn them back. We can always debate the meaning, but we can't take back the prevailing "marketed" identity of our founding document, once the opposition has defined it. It's called positioning. "Defining" whatever it is, before someone else does. No one does this better than Republicans, who have no specific national solutions to call their own, but can't stop talking about how much worse the country is due to the Democrats. The Washington Post explains:

"Tea party" activists across the nation tried to put the "independence" back in Independence Day … with … gatherings focused on the Constitution -- and how to use it for political gain. Coupled with an upsurge in organized classes and book clubs, the trend reflects a growing effort among conservatives to teach supporters how to do political battle using an inviolable weapon: the nation's founding documents … by arming supporters with the detailed knowledge to back only those candidates who are loyal to their ideals.

Debatable ideals that neither ideology owns. That healthy "ideal" allows for compromise, utilizing the best and strongest ideas from both sides, or at least provides a great alternative back up plan. What we're seeing now is a desire for a total takeover, one nation, one thought.

Kerry Scott, an organizer of the Alexandria Tea Party …"And having an understanding of the Constitution can lead to electing people who will uphold it."

A Constitutional understanding that may be wrong, and blindly obedient to the words and not the broader meaning. Like the following:

The view that the Constitution does not permit such federal actions as the passage of health reform, the regulation of the environment or the imposition of educational mandates on the states is, of course, a controversial one. Where the tea party sees an encroachment of states' rights, the left sees a valid interpretation of the mandate, described in Article 1, Section 8, to provide for the "general welfare."

Scott and others look primarily to the Constitution's 10th Amendment, which grants to the states all powers not specifically given to the federal government. Like those on the left, they also point to Article 1, Section 8, which enumerates Congress's specific powers, including the right to tax and to regulate commerce. Some conservative activists also point to the 17th Amendment, but in this case they oppose it. That amendment established direct election of U.S. senators by popular vote rather than appointment by their state legislatures. The thinking in that case is that the amendment removed the powerful Senate from control by the states.

Of course, those individuals who have nothing to do with the original meaning of the Constitution have an equal say in what direction the country takes:

Groups distributed pocket-sized copies of the Constitution and advertised 12-week classes they've organized to study it. They also promoted weekly book clubs, where they are reading such titles as "Capitalism and Freedom," economist Milton Friedman's manifesto on free markets, and "The Five Thousand Year Leap," in which anti-communist W. Cleon Skousen asserts that the United States is a Christian nation whose founders were guided by the Bible.

Freidman's greed and Skousen's unhistorical belief in a Christian nation is proof there is a partisan agenda here, that picks and chooses what the founders personally meant (through some time travel hot tub psychic connection). But like the terrifying 2,000 page health care reform bill, the hundreds of volumes of tax code and now the many pocket size Constitutions, large numbers matter most.

"I've read the Constitution 20 times in the past two months," said Brock Price, the Va., farmer who organized "An American Event" Saturday. "People are ignoring it. Politicians do not know anymore what's right and what's wrong."

Ah, the intricacies of Constitutional law.

Jefferson and the Selfish Spirit of Commerce, "that knows no country, and feels no passion.."

Corporate personhood is hardly what the constitutional framers had in mind...or was it? John Nichols explains:

(Thomas Jefferson) was, as well, a relentless critic of the monopolizing of economic power by banks, corporations and those who put their faith in what the third president called “the selfish spirit of commerce (that) knows no country, and feels no passion or principle but that of gain.”

Jefferson might not have wanted a lot of government, but he wanted enough government to assert the sovereignty of citizens over corporations.

In the early years of the 19th century, as banks and corporations began to flex their political muscles, he announced: “I hope we shall crush … in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength and bid defiance to the laws of our country.”

Some would have us believe the founders intended for corporations to control our elections -- and, tragically, five of these Tories sit on the U.S. Supreme Court, where they recently ruled that the nation’s biggest businesses may spend whatever they like to buy the results that serve their bottom lines.

James Madison: Bill of Rights LIMITS What the People had a right to have!

Here's a nice perspective on the Constitution:

On this 234th anniversary of our forefathers’ declaration of independence from England this question prevails: What would the Founding Fathers think about the way 21st century America handles the freedoms we enjoy and burdens that come with them?

Is it still the same Constitution they completed in 1787? It’s only been changed 27 times. “The Founding Fathers were very conscious of politics. ... They made some very significant compromises in writing the Constitution ... There was no consensus. These were compromises, just as there would be compromises today,” said Peter Bergerson, a social sciences professor at FGCU who teaches classes on this subject.

In the original Constitution there was little or no discussion of free speech and religion, guns and states rights.

So, after the Constitution was ratified in 1789, James Madison went to work on a Bill of Rights — the first 10 amendments to the Constitution.

Madison, the Father of the Constitution, wanted no part of enumerating these rights in the beginning.

“He thought it was nauseating that there should be a Bill of Rights,” Bergerson said. “His argument was that you would be limiting what the people had a right to have.”

After compromise, persuasion and a letter from Thomas Jefferson that said “half a loaf is better than no bread; if we cannot secure all our rights, let us secure what we can,” the Bill of Rights was written and became law two years after the Constitution was enacted.

To this day, these bills of rights are the most debated issues our court system tackles.

Here's another perspective on the separation of church and state that Christians, who insist we're a Christian nation, should keep in mind:

The philosophy behind the Founding Fathers’ position on religion is rather simple, stated elegantly in a letter written by James Madison in 1803: “The purpose of the separation of Church and State is to keep forever from these shores the ceaseless strife that has soaked the soil of Europe in blood for centuries.”

U.S. Drug Cost Close to Europe, Disproving Socialism Chills Innovation.

Here's an odd story trashing PhRMA's age old claims about Europe and high drug prices. According to the Financial Times:

The Financial Times: Claims by the US drugs industry that the US disproportionately funds research and development of new drugs by paying higher prices than Europe for its medicines have been undermined by a new study to be published soon in Health Economics, Policy and Law. The London School of Economics argue in their report that a rigorous like-for-like comparison shows that transatlantic differences in patented medicine prices are modest and declining over time. The co-authors conclude that “public prices for branded prescription medicines in the US are comparable to those in key European and other OECD countries”.

Their findings are an embarrassment for the industry, and notably PhRMA, its powerful Washington, DC-based trade body. In the past PhRMA has argued that Europe’s ill-conceived public policies, including price controls and sluggish regulatory decision-making, have chilled innovation and raised doubts among private investors who help to underwrite research. This data suggests profits in the US are only marginally greater than in Europe.

Past studies of drug price differences – including by the US General Accounting Office and by congressional officials – have suggested that US prices are at least one and a half times those of European prices. Such comparisons are flawed, often comparing European list prices with US factory gate ones, which do not take into account the discounts negotiated between manufacturers and health insurers in the US. He says some previous studies have also taken unrepresentative samples.

By taking a basket of 68 of the leading branded prescription medicines … authors conclude the US prices are a maximum of 25 per cent higher than European ones, and below Mexican levels.

Based on a comparison of prices … there is convergence over time, with innovative medicines becoming more expensive across the US, Europe and other countries.
But (the study) demonstrates that manufacturers of branded drugs do not significantly cut prices to compete with lower cost generic rivals once patents expire. Governments typically have to ensure that prescribers switch to generic alternatives to save money.

Texas Gov's Former Chief of Staff Gets Green Party on Ballot. NOTHING wrong there.

So what's the meaning and point of this story:

Wisconsin State Jouranl: The Texas Supreme Court has ruled that the Green Party can put its candidates on the November statewide ballot WHILE it considers whether the party took improper donations to fund its petition drive. Green Party officials have said if their candidates are blocked from the ballot, it would be a "death penalty" for the party.

I know, it looks like a third party, in this case the Green Party, would like a chance at being a part of the elections in November. But wait:

Perry's former chief of staff and close confidant Mike Toomey, who is now a lobbyist, was identified in court testimony as a Republican operative behind efforts to help a Green Party petition drive. A Perry campaign spokesman has denied Perry or the campaign are involved.

Well then, we have no reason to believe otherwise….it's just a coincedence. I'm sure the Supreme Court will make the right decision…

The Supreme Court, which has the case now, is made up of nine Republicans.

Oh boy. The question now is, did the district judge make the wrong decision?

But Dietz State District Judge John Dietz, who ruled in favor of the Democrats, agreed with Democrats that the signature gathering was overtly political.

Judge Dietz is an admitted partisan hack, right?

Bush Historically one of the worst. Big Surprise!

So far it's official: W. was a bad, really bad president. Think Progress:

Since 1982, the Siena Research Institute has polled 238 presidential scholars on whom they view to be best and worst presidents in American history. This year’s poll of scholars found that President Franklin Roosevelt was once again ranked on top, joined by Presidents Lincoln, Jefferson, Washington, and Teddy Roosevelt to complete the top five. However, President George W. Bush dropped 16 places to 39th, making him the worst president since Warren Harding died in office in 1923, and one of the bottom five of all time:

Today, just one year after leaving office, the former president has found himself in the bottom five at 39th rated especially poorly in handling the economy, communication, ability to compromise, foreign policy accomplishments and intelligence. Rounding out the bottom five: Andrew Johnson, James Buchanan, Warren G. Harding, and Franklin Pierce. Bush was rated second from the bottom on “intelligence,” “foreign policyaccomplishments,” and “handling of U.S. economy.”

This despite promises from Bush supporters that “history will be very kind” to the former president. President Reagan “dropped two places from 16th overall in 2002 to 18th today.” President Obama was ranked 15th. Taegan Goddard

Conservatives know what the founding fathers thought when they wrote the constitution. Stop with the liberal activism.

Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse made this comment recently during the Elena Kagan hearings that described perfectly, in a liberal safe kinda way, our current conservative activist supreme court:

WTVR-TV: "There may be judges on the court who have a particular mission right now and are selectively knocking out precedent that does not coincide with their ideological views."

Precedent prevents strong political points of view from changing the meaning of the constitution year after year, or decade after decade. It's the stabilizing force on the judicial branch. Like everything else the conservatives crap all over, the constitution is now being defined "their way" while they have the court, and by tea party activists who call our country a "constitutional republic." Good-bye Democratic Republic, whatever that meant.

Now let's gaze through the looking glass, and listen to the upside down, down the rabbit hole musings of Sen. Tom Coburn:

"I think we've learned a couple of things.... No. 1 is precedent trumps original intent. That is very worrisome for a Supreme Court. What that says is you discount what is in the Constitution, and the learned men of today have more wisdom and more knowledge than what our founders
did."

Precedent typically means that for many decades, even centuries, parts of the constitution were generally understood to mean one specific thing, decision after decision. For conservative ideologues today, driven by an all knowing authoritarian streak, the original intent by the founding fathers had been a victim of revisionist history since its inception. It's time to channel the actual thoughts of our founding fathers, through our God given powers of freedom and liberty, and tell every other clueless American how wrong they were.

They know, and that's all that matters.

70 Percent cut in Wages, California State Workers to Get Minimum Wage!!!

Multisource political news, world news, and entertainment news analysis by Newsy.com

Defending the Indefensible: Big Oils "Shakedown" of American Taxpayers.

Using the language of the GOBP, "shakedown" is just the word to describe the tax subsidies paid to Big Oil by taxpayers. Give us the tax break or else! Threatening job losses and higher prices, Big Oils message is pretty obvious. They even have the guts to call the industries $4 billion in tax breaks a year a bargain. If the GOBP were truly free market advocates, they would not only call Big Oils bluff, but tell them to roll with the economic ups and downs like everyone else:

NY Times: Oil industry officials say that the tax breaks, which average about $4 billion a year according to various government reports, are a bargain for taxpayers. By helping producers weather market fluctuations and invest in technology, tax incentives are supporting an industry that the officials say provides 9.2 million jobs.

Wouldn't it be nice in a "free market," Ayn Randian system, if we could all get huge tax breaks and subsidies when times get tough? That's why the whole argument about capitalism is a flawed game already won by big business. Here are just a few outrageous facts:

Deepwater Horizon drilling platform was flying the flag of the Marshall Islands ... Registering there allowed the rig’s owner to significantly reduce its American taxes ... The owner, Transocean, moved its corporate headquarters from Houston to the Cayman Islands in 1999 and then to Switzerland in 2008, maneuvers that also helped it avoid taxes … At the same time, BP was reaping sizable tax benefits from leasing the rig … used a tax break for the oil industry to write off 70 percent of the rent for Deepwater Horizon ...

Ending the subsidies and ending their tax avoidance policies, where the "American tax code indicates that oil production is among the most heavily subsidized businesses," prompted this "shakedown" threat to Americans:

the industry is … warning that it will lead to job losses and higher gasoline prices, as well as an increased dependence on foreign oil.

Other gaping holes in the "free market" myth:

The Congressional Budget Office (report) in 2005, (found) capital investments like oil field leases and drilling equipment are taxed at an effective rate of 9 percent, significantly lower than the overall rate of 25 percent for businesses in general and lower than virtually any other industry.

Jack N. Gerard, president of the American Petroleum Institute, warns that any cut in subsidies will cost jobs. “These companies evaluate costs, risks and opportunities across the globe. So if the U.S. makes changes in the tax code that discourage drilling in gulf waters, they will go elsewhere and take their jobs with them.”

“We’re giving tax breaks to highly profitable companies to do what they would be doing anyway,” said Sima J. Gandhi, a policy analyst at the Center for American Progress, a liberal research organization. “That’s not an incentive; that’s a giveaway.”

Some of the tax breaks date back nearly a century, when they were intended to encourage exploration in an era of rudimentary technology, when costly investments frequently produced only dry holes … in the 1950s, the State Department backed a Saudi Arabian accounting maneuver that reclassified the royalties charged by foreign governments to American oil drillers … entitled the companies to subtract those payments from their American tax bills … The Treasury Department estimates that it will cost $8.2 billion over the next decade.

As recently as 2005, when windfall profits for energy companies prompted even President George W. Bush — a former Texas oilman himself — to publicly call for an end to incentives, the energy bill he and Congress enacted still included $2.6 billion in oil subsidies. In 2007, after Democrats took control of Congress, a move to end the tax breaks failed.

After spoiling the oil industry for decades, ending tax breaks by a mere $2 billion a year is still enough to illicit Big Oils taxpayer "shakedown."

The Obama administration (is pushing) a bill that would cut $20 billion in
oil industry tax breaks over the next decade. “There is no reason for these
corporations to shortchange the American taxpayer.”

Steele Screws up GOBP talking Points on War and Terrorism. Not even the Spin Cycle can Clean this one up. What a gift!

There are so many Republican contradiction in Michael Steele's public presentation, I thought I would preserve it here for easy reference, the next time the GOBP criticizes the Democrats as soft on terrorism and cutting and running from Afghanistan.

Obama Administration makes Health Care Reform Easy with Video.

Here's a simple explanation:

Chicago says, Want your Guns? Take a nice long Drive to get one and don't leave the house.

While the gun lobby has used every creative way to kill 80,000 Americans every year so some immature adult can playing with hand guns, opponents haven't been sitting on their hands either. If you thought the two recent supreme court miss interpretations of the Second Amendment were partisan legislative edicts from the bench, Chicago just one up them:

The Chicago City Council on Friday approved what city officials say is the strictest handgun ordinance in the United States. The 45-to-0 vote came four days after a Supreme Court ruling made it almost certain that the city’s existing ban on handguns would be overturned. The court ruled that Americans have a right to own a gun for self-defense.

The new ordinance bans gun stores in Chicago and prohibits gun owners from stepping outside their homes, even onto their porches, with a handgun. It will take effect in 10 days.

What will the five conservative activist Supreme Court Justices do now?

Obama Still talking About Racine? What did you guys say to him?

I just thought it was an interesting reference...

Jindal Hides his BP Performance Records, While Demanding BP Disclosure.

I'll be honest, I didn't think much of this story at first, but my sense of public accountability kicked in and I had to wonder what Gov. Bobby Jindal was hiding. It's not that I'm paranoid, it's more like having Jindal walk the public discloser walk. Even his fellow Republicans would like to point a finger his way if the Gulf cleanup delays had something to do with Jindal's performance and/or incompetence. Dave Weigel explains the political implications...

Bech U...what in God's name...

For a guy obsessed with marginalizing "Network's" outrageous and improbable character Howard Beale, Glenn Beck has done that and more with Beck U.

The right wing scam artist personified! Will people pay to be entertained and surprised by his next carnival act, or seek his paranoia laced counsel? In the end, it doesn't matter.

Keith Olbermann and guest Will Bunch tear it apart.

Bilbray Makes Sense once, E-Varify.

Good God!!!!

Except for my disagreement with Rep. Brian Bilbray on putting in place some plan for citizenship, I'm completely with him on E-Varify, and I think he's right, it's a Democratic issue to protect low wage workers.

Bilbray is a partisan loon normally, but he actually made sense this time, or am I going crazy.

Conservatives again willing to ignore laws they don't like, even when it comes to guns.

Even before state lawmakers deal with changing state gun laws to conform to the recent supreme court decision, one gun crazy conservative DA has decided he didn't need legislative action.

Jackson County District Attorney Gerald R. Fox has declared that, in light of the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling this week that the Second Amendment clearly applies to the states, he will no longer prosecute people for carrying concealed weapons, or certain other gun related offenses. The high court's ruling "immediately renders some of Wisconsin's current laws unconstitutional ... his office won't take any cases police might refer that are solely about violations of concealed carry, uncased or loaded weapons in vehicles, guns in public buildings or where alcohol is sold or served.

"…the elitists who seek to disarm all of us are wrong, and that every law abiding citizen can be trusted to protect themselves and their neighbors safely."

His announcement wasn't going over too well with some law enforcement officials in Jackson County. Black River Falls Police Chief Don Gilberg said he didn't think Fox's position was very well thought out, and not good public policy.

"When something's dumb, it's just dumb. Gilberg said … McDonald vs. Chicago … didn't … "allow a Wild West atmosphere in our cities and towns."

Milwaukee County DA John Chisholm said "But I think the proper forum to resolve this is in the courts and Legislature.

Notably absent from Fox's announcement was any mention of the law that makes it a felony to possess a gun within 1,000 feet of a school. A gun rights advocacy group, Wisconsin Carry Inc., and some individuals have challenged the constitutionality of banning guns within 1,000 feet of a school in federal court. They claim the 1,000 foot perimeter is generally impossible to determine, and that in populous areas like Milwaukee County, there are so many schools that the overlapping zones would effectively prohibit someone from carrying a gun at all.

On Fox's lawless plan to ignore present law, Nik Clark, president of Wisconsin Carry: "We totally support what he said. But if it doesn't include school zones, then it's all meaningless."

Fighting to carry guns in school zones? Really? Now you know who we're dealing with.

GOBP Wants to Steal Money from Rural Farmers and Rural Entrepreneurs and Stall the Recovery. Aren't many of them Republican too?

Remember the Rural Electrification Act? FDR's Rural Electrification Act of 1936 provided federal loans for installation of electrical distribution systems to serve rural areas of the United States-Wikipedia

Electric companies at the time said it was too expensive and not worth the investment. Now Obama is attempting to do the same with broadband service to farmers, rural small towns and businesses. Not it the GOPB gets their way.

President Obama on Friday announced 66 new broadband grants and loans totaling $795 million, part of the administration's continued rollout of Recovery Act grants meant to expand high-speed Internet connections across the country.

"And once we emerge from the immediate crisis, the long-term economic gains to communities that have been left behind in the digital age will be immeasurable," he said.

So far, the administration has doled out $2.7 billion in grants, which is less than half of the $7.2 billion set aside in the stimulus plan for broadband Internet
projects.

Which bring me to the following short sighted plan cooked up by the masters of disasters, the Republican Party. Keeping in mind what FDR did for electricity in rural areas, Rep. Jack Kingston (believe it or not he's on the Appropriations Committee) would kill that idea and stop all the waste. He put it this way,

"Basically paying Verizon and broadband companies to do what they were going to do with their own money, we're now going to pay for it with taxpayer money..."

But they weren't going to pay for it...at all. This has been a big issue in south eastern Wisconsin for years. Kingston's plan would give the unemployed a paycheck, at their expense, by not creating new opportunity for rural businesses and job creation.

Brilliant!

GOBP Double Standard: They have exclusive use of Nazi references, but off limits and an argument loser for Democrats.

Keith Olbermann thankfully points out the obvious. But sadly, due to the twisted and convoluted conservative way of thinking, liberal bias somehow discredits the actual truth.

It must be magic?

Dean Baker sides with Paul Krugman, We're in Real Trouble now.

A 3rd depression? The Center for Economic and Policy Research's Dean Baker explains the difference between the U.S. and Greece (BIG difference Paul Ryan), and how the right wing Wall Street geniuses now have the opportunity to do major damage to the social safety nets in every industrialized country.

Have a good weekend.

Does Pamela "Gun Crazy" Gorman have a "pretty fair shot" in November?

This is so over the top "gun crazy," I couldn't help but post it here as proof, elections matter. Pamela Gorman is a "conservative Christian, and a pretty fair shot." My favorite line so far this summer.

On higher taxes, "She can take care of herself." (She's got a gun?)

Look, I know many will vote this fall in protest of the Bush Recession, taking it out on Democrats, but is this really your only choice?

Wisconsin Tea Party Focus: Voter Fraud and Recall Elections if they don't get what they want from ELECTED politicans.

Voter fraud rears its misguided ugly head again in the upcoming election. Feeding into the conservative paranoia that liberals would resort to a wholly created conspiracy of stealing the vote, like they would (a startling example of "projection"), tea party movers would love to misdirect citizen attention away from jobs, jobs, jobs. Simply put, they have no workable plan.

Let's face it, election fraud has been masterly hidden away by the Republicans, who have never brought it up as an issue for a good reason, it wins them elections without a paper trail.

But Tim Dake, from the laughably named, corny, super patriotic tea party group "Wisconsin Grandsons of Liberty," had this warning to our duly ELECTED officials:

"This does send a message to all legislators, that you're supposed to represent people, you're supposed to act in a responsible manner, and if you can't do that, we do have the authority and the ability to remove you from office."

I believe the word is "shakedown."



Now that's one self important pompous ass!

4th of July's Celebration of Freedom and Liberty ruined by Tan Tax!

Our worst fears have been realized, according to Grove Norquist and his Americans for Tax Reform:

Thanks to Feingold and Kohl, Obamacare tanning tax starts today.

What a time to hit up our unemployed American families struggling to keep their tans a rich bronze!

452,500 Wisconsinites who visit tanning salons will be getting an unwelcome lesson in Obamacare as a new 10 percent federal excise tax on indoor tanning takes effect.

Democrats, despite their tough talk about defending pay equity for woman, are really out to destroy women business owners:

The Indoor Tanning Association show(s) that well over half of tanning salon owners are women. The 724 tanning facilities in Wisconsin are estimated to employ 2,642 people.

Democrats are on notice, especially Sen. Herb "Khol":

“Senators Feingold and Khol have some explaining to do,” said Grover Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform.

Norquist goes one step further to politicize even the smallest purchase with this snarky "humorous" tax exemption card.

Americans for Tax Reform has issued an “Obama Tax Hike Exemption Card”, a wallet-sized parody card which “exempts” those making less than $250,000 from
paying any form of tax increase signed into law by President Obama. If challenged upon presentation of the card, the cardholder may politely ask: “Excuse me, but are you calling President Obama a liar?”

Nice way to slow the check out line, losers. (Idea: Say it while reaching for your loaded "open carry" hand gun.)

Health Care Reform Naysayers and Scaremongers Leave out Supply and Demand Free Market Forces.

Horror of horrors; more people will get treated if they get sick or injured, but that will result in, according to AP: "Health overhaul may mean longer ER waits, crowding."

Instead of "THE MARKET" changing and finding creative, profitable ways to take everyone in, we're paralyzed like a deer in headlights. What should be good news is given this bizarre ominous spin:

Rand Corp. researcher Dr. Arthur Kellermann predicts: "More people will have coverage and will be less afraid to go to the emergency department if they're sick or hurt and have nowhere else to go.... We just don't have other places in the system for these folks to go."

Big surprise? Not if you looked squarely at the research:

The biggest users of emergency rooms by far are Medicaid recipients. And the new health insurance law will increase their ranks by about 16 million. ERs are already crowded and hospitals are just now finding solutions.

What happened to the idea, "THE MARKET" will decide. Keep in mind, this is similar to the other anti-health care reform warning that "we don't having enough family doctors"-general practitioners. Demand will simply create an influx of new doctors filling the public and private need. Short term shortage, long term gain.

It's called DEMAND. It's called MARKET FORCES! Build it, they will come.

Alabama Candidate Rick Barber Pushes not so "Fair Tax" with Lincoln's Help

The FAIR TAX rears its ugly head, again, this time from the genius we know at Rick Barber. The Alabama candidate for congress thinks business will lower it's prices proportionally, once a fair tax is enacted and all other taxes are done away with.

Even though businesses already know what people are willing to pay for their product and services, Barber thinks the free market won't pocket the extra change, and instead lower their prices forever and give everyone a "good deal."

You know, it's okay to be a libertarian and a tax cutting conservative, but we don't have to let you drive us into an economic ditch again with dumbass naivety. Chris Matthews dissects this crazy stooge:



See the "Slavery" ad below:

Conservatives want to RAISE TAXES! Don't worry, it's only on the poor and middle-class.

Let me see; Conservatives don't like unemployment, the stimulus and government jobs, the minimum wage and employer health care. What could they possibly be for?

Making the poor pay taxes like everyone else, even if the wealthy guy finds a way not to pay anything with tax loopholes and write-offs. Progressive taxes are so unfair.

Sen. Scott Brown Makes Taxpayers Pay for Finance Reform

The Nation's Chris Hayes reveals the "shocking" truth; Sen. Scott Brown shifted finance reform funding to the taxpayers and small local banks from the big Wall Street monopolies. Yeah, for corporate freedom and liberty.

Conservative Justices claim that separate "Words" are objectively true, but Combined words and their message may be misleading and irrelevant .

The title says it all. Despite being illegal, "judges cannot knowingly misrepresent the background of their opponents and should be disciplined," conservative justices showed their conservative stripes by dismissing a misleading, race baiting ad. After all, the separate words, by themselves, don't convey any particular message. I'm not exaggerating:

The Wisconsin Supreme Court deadlocked on whether one of its members committed misconduct, issuing unprecedented dueling opinions that order contradictory outcomes … the court split 3-3 on whether Justice Michael Gableman violated the judicial code of conduct when he ran a potentially misleading and race-baiting campaign ad in 2008.

Chief Justice Shirley Abrahamson and two others seen as the court's liberal bloc said Gableman knowingly made a false statement suggesting his opponent helped free a sex offender who went on to rape again. They said a judicial panel wrongly recommended dismissing the case, and directed the Wisconsin Judicial Commission to seek a jury trial.

I just love the explanation by the conservative justices, who parsed that the "words" themselves were true, regardless of their combined meaning or message. Holy crap:

Gableman had argued the words of the ad were technically true, if misleading. Three justices seen as Gableman's conservative colleagues said the ad was distasteful, but the words themselves were "objectively true." They ruled Gableman's speech was protected by the First Amendment and directed the commission to dismiss its complaint.

Another example of conservative activist Justice assholes doing whatever it takes to win. Hey, I'm protected by my free speech rights, the fact that the words are true, even though the message is "distasteful."

When Waterboarding isn't Waterboarding...in the press.

This Harvard study should tell us all we needed to know about a compliant press, and the real loss of our freedom to be informed.

Examining the four newspapers with the highest daily circulation in the country, we found a significant and sudden shift in how newspapers characterized waterboarding. From the early 1930s until the modern story broke in 2004, the newspapers that covered waterboarding almost uniformly called the practice torture or implied it was torture:

The New York Times characterized it thus in 81.5% (44 of 54) of articles on the subject and The Los Angeles Times did so in 96.3% of articles (26 of 27).

By contrast, from 2002‐2008, the studied newspapers almost never referred to waterboarding as torture. The New York Times called waterboarding torture or implied it was torture in just 2 of 143 articles (1.4%). The Los Angeles Times did so in 4.8% of articles (3 of 63). The Wall Street Journal characterized the practice as
torture in just 1 of 63 articles (1.6%).

USA Today never called waterboarding
torture or implied it was torture.

Defenders Against One Party Rule Want One Party Rule: Justices should wait to retire until after Obama.

Anyone else find it odd to hear Republicans and tea party protesters accuse Democrats of one party rule and of exercising a political power grab to control of our lives with liberal socialism.

But according to a recent Fox News poll, that's just what Republicans and tea party protesters are trying to do with their draconian vision for America. It's not like they're trying to hide their intentions:

According to a Fox News poll released Thursday: …a majority of voters say they would rather that any justices considering retirement wait to do so until the president's successor takes office.

The 5 conservative justices aren't enough for these totalitarian dreamers, they would much rather have one party rule on the supreme court. Congress and the presidency too. Nothin' wrong with that. That's good one party rule, because we're getting our freedoms and liberty from God.

The poll shows 64 percent of Democrats say they would vote to confirm Kagan, while 61 percent of Republicans say they would vote no.

Most Americans Think Two Is Enough for Obama … Thirty-four percent of American voters would like to see more justices retire while Obama is in office … but a 54 percent majority would rather any justices considering retirement wait to do so until his successor takes office. 58 percent of independents and 87 percent of Republicans (agree to wait.)

Amazing!

Sen. Coburn Laments "Freedom and Liberty" 30 years Ago, Sen. Amy Klobuchar Snaps Back.

The health care mandate was a Republican idea in the early 90's, to stress the need for personal responsibility. Now the Republicans are portraying that streak of individualism as a loss of liberty and freedom. Because everyone lets them get away with this incredible hypocrisy, they're encouraged to go a little bit farther the next time. Enter Sen. Tom Coburn, who laments to Elena Kagan how free we once were 30 years ago. Below is a clip of Coburn's question to Kagan, and Sen. Amy Klobuchar's gutsy answer.

Slate: As he put it to Kagan: "Have you ever contemplated the idea of what your freedom was like 30 years ago and what it's like today?" She has not, Kagan said.
"A lot of Americans are losing confidence because they're losing freedom," Coburn explained. Coburn scored a huge win for Fox News by posing this hypothetical to Kagan: If Congress passed a law requiring Americans "to eat three vegetables and three fruits, every day, does that violate the Commerce Clause? That's on the front of a lot of people's minds, not vegetables, health care. The very fact that the government is going to have the ability to take away, mandate what I must buy or must not buy—a very large loss of freedom."

It fell to Sen. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn. … was so astonished by Coburn's claim that Americans are on the brink of tyranny in 2010 and determined that there were no women on the Supreme Court. She then asked Kagan whether maybe women, at least, are a bit more free now than they were 30 years ago. Kagan agreed.

Klobuchar probably could have added that more Americans are "more free" today because of Thurgood Marshall, too. And she could have added this partial list of congressional statutes and Supreme Court decisions that have arguably made a lot more Americans freer since 1980: the Civil Rights Restoration Act (1988), Hustler Magazine v. Falwell (1988), Texas v. Johnson (1989), the Americans with Disabilities Act (1990), the Civil Rights Act of 1991, National Voter Registration Act (1993), the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (1993), United States v. Lopez, (1995), Rosenberger v. University of Virginia (1995), United States v. Virginia (1996), Romer v. Evans (1996), Lawrence v. Texas (2003), Roper v. Simmons (2005), the Voting Rights Reauthorization and Amendments Act (2006), Georgia v. Randolph (2006), D.C. v. Heller (2008), the Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay Act (2009), Graham v. Florida (2010), and McDonald v. City of Chicago (2010).