GOP Bigots, Blasted by Big Business for Arizona "License to Discriminate" Bill, now Changed their Minds.

It wasn't that the "discriminated against gays" bill looked bad and bigoted, no, that wouldn't have been enough to force the manic GOP backtracking. What turned things around for the GOP was the unintended consequence of pissing off their big business base of supporters. The NFL, Apple, Marriott, Delta Airlines, Intel....not happy!

As the Washington Post's Harold Meyerson put it:

"As patriotism can be the last refuge of scoundrels, so religion can be the last refuge of bigots."

The very idea of giving business owners a chance to discriminate based on their religious beliefs is mind boggling.
My question now to my homophobic Republican friends trying to backtrack; what about your principles? Here's a compilation of clips showing Americans the control business has on Republicans, and how this ridiculously hateful bill has actually spread nationwide.

HRC: With the passage of SB 1062, the “License to Discriminate” bill in Arizona, opposition to the bill has been growing. Many businesses and organizations in Arizona understand that this bill does more that it says it would. It would allow any individual, corporation, institution, or business organization may be permitted to refuse services to LGBT people on the basis of religious freedom.

Businesses across Arizona are contacting Governor Brewer and letting Arizonans know that they are “Open for Business to Everyone!”

Who needs the Supreme Court, or the Constitution? Not Arizona

Aw, conservative cry babies didn't get their way. Time for a tantrum. 

This amazing story is unfolding in Arizona and on a few right wing web sites, where some claim they can override the federal government and the Constitution with voter approval.

Would I kid you?

To prove their "patriotism," Tea Party Republicans are getting out their dog eared pocket constitutions, tossed them into the trash bin, and have decided to ignore the rule of law and the founding document of our country. If this isn't a recipe for complete chaos, I don't know what is:

AZDailySun: Voters could get the right to overrule federal laws and mandates under the terms of an initiative filed late Thursday. The Arizona Constitution already says the federal Constitution "is the supreme law of the land." This measure, if approved in November, it would add language saying that federal document may not be violated by any government -- including the federal government.

More to the point, it would allow Arizonans "to reject any federal action that they determine violates the United States Constitution." That could occur through a vote of the state House and Senate with consent of the governor. But that also could occur through a popular vote on a ballot measure, effectively allowing voters to decide which federal laws they feel infringe on Arizona's rights as a sovereign state.

Now you know what our shoot from the hip, radically unorganized, small government Republicans think constitutes freedom and liberty; lawless Boss Hog chaos. There's more:

Organizer Jack Biltis said there is nothing in the U.S. Constitution which gives the federal government the power to enact a national health care plan. Biltis acknowledged that the U.S. Supreme Court, faced with exactly that question, ruled to the contrary. "I believe the Supreme Court completely got it wrong," he said.

Biltis’ also included the argument put forward by liberal talk host Thom Hartmann:

In fact, Biltis argued, the ability of the nation's high court to interpret -- and invalidate -- federal laws itself is not part of the U.S. Constitution but was claimed by the court in 1803.

Biltis (also) finds to be constitutionally unacceptable the federal law signed during the Bush administration which phases out the manufacture and sale of incandescent light bulbs to save energy. 

 Yes, he's one of those "pigtail light bulb" protesters. Does it sound like Biltis wants to go back to, let’s say, the Civil War?

Nor is Biltis troubled by the idea of individual states interpreting federal law -- and nullifying those they believe are unconstitutional. He said that is precisely what happened in pre-Civil War days when some Northern states refused to honor the federal Fugitive Slave Act which required escaped slaves to be returned to their owners.

But Bilitis’ measure isn’t the only one on the ballot:

A separate proposal crafted by Rep. Chester Crandell, R-Heber, would have Arizona declare its "sovereign and exclusive authority and jurisdiction over the air, water, public lands, minerals, wildlife and other natural resources within its boundaries." Exempt would be tribal and military reservations.

Here's conservative radio's nicotine numskull Vicki McKenna, and 10th Amendment Centers Michael Bolden, pushing nullification of the health care exchanges (audio):

Arizona Gun Sales at a Record Pace

The Tucson Citizen reports

In Arizona, it is likely that more than 200,000 new weapons will be put in buyers’ hands after background checks this year. That figure doesn’t include firearms purchased at gun shows and through private transactions. Such non-tracked sales are thought to account for 40 percent of all sales, adding about 150,000 guns purchased annually. The estimated sales total: about 350,000 guns per year.

Retailers report that demand for small handguns that can be concealed in a purse or briefcase has soared, while sales of rifles and shotguns have remained flat or declined.

Ya get that? Thousands, maybe tens-of-thousands of untrained, unqualified people will be carrying guns in Arizona from now on. Do you think that'll do more good than harm?

Although background checks are required for guns purchased through licensed retailers, no such screening is needed for guns purchased at the more than 20 major gun shows held in Arizona each year or through private transactions among individuals.

Non-licensed sales, which are hard to track, are thought to represent about 40 percent of the approximately 20 million guns that are sold in the U.S. each year.

This is the number-one problem. It's not theft, which the pro gun guys keep pushing as the main source of guns which flow into the criminal world. They do that so they can claim to be victims, innocent victims, which is debatable anyway since so many of them leave guns lying around the house for the burglars to take. But by far the two main sources of guns which end up in criminal hands are done through legal sales under today's pathetic gun control laws.

Private sales which require no background check as well as straw purchases which do, account for most of the guns used in crime. You know why they're so difficult to trace?  There's no licensing and registration, that's why.

With a properly enforced licensing of gun owners and registration of each gun bought to one of those licensees, along with requiring background checks on every sale, we'd have the problem under control.  So, why do so many gun owners resist this so vehemently?

The claim we most often hear to explain why they won't accept licensing and registration is because confiscation of guns would follow. I don't believe that and I don't think they do either. Given the American culture and the proliferation of guns, I don't think we can realistically expect anything like that. There would first have to be radical changes in the government and its relationship with citizens, the entire system of democratic elections and power brokering would have to be changed first.  No, that's not the real reason they resist.

They resist for the simple reason they don't want to be inconvenienced. Please keep in mind that most people, even most gun owners, do not oppose such initiatives which would obviously do good.  It's the very loud and well-financed minority of extremists that we hear this from. Self-centered in the extreme, they just don't want to be inconvenienced, never mind the nearly 100 a day who are killed with guns or the 200 others a day who are wounded. Never mind that many of them are innocent, truly innocent victims. None of that matters to the gun-rights extremist.


What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.

Arizona Senator Lori Klein - Proud Gun Owner

A New York Times op-ed by Frank Bruni

Tip sent in by Bruce

The dispute was this: Did a local lawmaker intentionally point her loaded .380 Ruger at a newspaper reporter during an interview, or was it all just a silly misunderstanding?

The reporter, Richard Ruelas, who writes for The Arizona Republic, said it was deliberate. Not hostile, mind you, but purposeful: State Senator Lori Klein was proudly showing off her piece. He told this story first in an article published Sunday in The Republic, repeated it in subsequent public comments and went through it one more time on the telephone with me. He sounded incredulous still.

He said that as he sat with Klein just outside the Senate chamber to discuss her gun-toting ways, “I looked down and saw a red dot on my chest.” He looked up and realized the dot was the laser sight of the Ruger, which she carries in her pocketbook. Although he wasn’t sure just then whether it had bullets in it, she informed him — after she’d lowered the pistol — that it always does.

The Republic article caused a public outcry that she had been reckless. Even Arizonans have their limits. She then disputed Ruelas’s account, saying that he had strayed into the gun’s sight as she demonstrated how it worked. After that she went silent.

The author goes on to bemoan the fact that "a cavalier attitude about guns persists and even flourishes" in spite of the recent high profile shooting in Arizona. He states that the Senator's pink gun is not cute and cannot be compared to Häagen-Dazs ice cream. But what in the world does Lori Klein and all the other lawful gun owners have to do with the criminal use of guns? Aren't they two completely separate things? That's what our gun-rights friends keep trying to say.

In my opinion they're all part of the same problem. There's much more in common between criminal gun owners and lawful gun owners than there is between either of them and the gun control folks. Let me explain.

All the guns that are used in crime start out legally owned by someone. In the case of Jared Loughner, he himself was the legitimate and legal owner of the gun, as sad a fact as that is, given the terrible and tragic lack of mental health screening that exists. He bought the gun, and then used it in a crime.

But, the same is true for the inner city hoodlum who shoots a rival drug dealer in Newark. He may have bought the gun from another criminal, in fact his particular gun may have had several illegal owners before it was used in a murder. But if you could trace it back far enough, you would find a point at which it passed from the hand of its legitimate owner to that of a criminal.

This is why we need strong gun control laws at the national level AIMED AT THE LAW ABIDING. No one disputes the fact that criminals won't obey our silly laws. That's exactly the reason, along with the fact that the legitimate gun owners of America seem to have such a hard time holding on to their guns, that we need proper gun control laws.

Of course, if I were writing those laws, Lori Klein would have to relinquish her guns immediately.

(cross posted at Mikeb302000)





How does that sound? Please leave a comment.

Arizona Concealed Carry Permits Made Easier

The Arizona Republic reports on four changes in the gun laws. Here's my favorite.

Since July 29, 2010, people 21 and older have been able to carry a concealed weapon without a permit in Arizona except in bars and restaurants that sell alcohol. Although the law does not require permits in most cases, some people still apply for them. A new law tweaks the permitting process by reducing some of the requirements for instructors and permit-holders.

Perhaps some people might wonder why anyone would bother getting a permit if none is required. One reason I've heard is to enjoy the reciprocity offered by neighboring states. If a guy does permitless concealed carry in Arizona, he couldn't legally carry his gun in other states which require permits.

What Arizona is doing with this law is lowering the quality of the average permit holder, who, when travelling to other states, is lowering the quality of the concealed carry gun owners there. Do you think that's a good idea? Wouldn't common sense demand an increase in qualifications rather than a decrease?

(cross posted at Mikeb302000)

What's your opinion?  Please leave a comment.

Arizona might do away with Medicaid. That'll get those illigal Aliens.

With power comes...arrogance!!! The new president of the Arizona State Senate Russell Pearse, provides not just a glimpse at how devoid conservatives are of "reason," but a shocking admission that reason and humanity have nothing to do with their strict ideological rule.

Who else would consider doing away with the state's Medicaid program? People? Can't afford them. Ed Schultz explains:

Related articles

• More on Texas and Medicaid, this time from an expert Michael Tomasky (guardian.co.uk)

Rep. Raul Grijalva threat with Toxic Substance comes right after racist poster.

From an outragiously racist poster to a threat. Big surprise? Keith Olbermann has the Grijalva interview.

Related articles

• Swastika Adorned Envelope Carrying Toxic Substance Mailed To AZ Rep. Grijalva's Office (lezgetreal.com)
• Raul Grijalva's Office On Lockdown After Swastika-Covered Suspicious Package Arrives (huffingtonpost.com)