Category Archives: Conservatives

Sharron Angle: Jefferson “Misquoted Out of Context” on Separation of Church and State

01 Thursday Jul 2010

Posted by in Bill of Rights, Congress, Conservatives, Constitution, Politics, Republicans

≈ 2 Comments

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

In an interview with Nevada journalist Jon Ralston, Republican candidate for the U.S. Senate, Sharron Angle, was asked to defend a 1995 statement in which she said, “the tenet of the separation of church and state is an unconstitutional doctrine.” Angle’s response was that “Thomas Jefferson has been misquoted…out of context.” Watch:

OK, here’s Thomas Jefferson in context, from his often-quoted letter to the Danbury Baptists:

“Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should “make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” thus building a wall of separation between Church & State.”

Jefferson repeats verbatim the text of the First Amendment, that Congress shall “make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” followed his own words, “thus building a wall of separation between Church & State.” Look up any definition of “thus” and you will see synonyms such as therefore, hence, and consequently. Substitute any of those words for “thus” in Jefferson’s letter and the meaning is crystal clear.

That’s Jefferson. What about the widely-acknowledged “Father of the Constitution” and the man who proposed the Bill of Rights to the first Congress—James Madison. What were his thoughts on the subject?

“Every new and successful example, therefore, of a perfect separation between the ecclesiastical and civil matters, is of importance; and I have no doubt that every new example will succeed, as every past one has done, in showing that religion and Government will both exist in greater purity the less they are mixed together.” (Letter to Edward Livingston, July 10, 1822).

Madison even saw the appointment of chaplains as a violation of the establishment clause:

“Is the appointment of Chaplains to the two Houses of Congress consistent with the Constitution, and with the pure principle of religious freedom? In strictness the answer on both points must be in the negative. The Constitution of the U. S. forbids everything like an establishment of a national religion.”

Ms. Angle, when it comes to matters of the Founders and the Constitution, speak not of what you know not. And don’t believe everything you read on a sign at a Tea Party.

The Real Cost of Killing the Tax Extenders Bill

24 Thursday Jun 2010

Posted by in budget, Congress, Conservatives, economy, George W. Bush, Politics, Republicans

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

The confederation of hypocrites and liars in the United States Senate, aka the Republican caucus plus Ben Nelson, voted today for the third time to kill the “tax extenders” bill which would have extended unemployment benefits, several tax credits, and Medicare funding to states facing budget crises.

Sens. Susan Collins of Maine, George Voinovich of Ohio, John Kyl of Arizona, and Ben Nelson of Nebraska all cited the cost of the bill and what it would add to the deficit, about $33 billion, as the main reason for their “no” votes.

Nice to see this new-found consternation about deficits from these four hypocrites. All four voted for the Bush tax cuts in 2001 and 2003, which cost approximately $2.5 trillion, not one dime paid for, all deficit financed. All four voted for Medicare Part D, also in 2003, which cost another trillion dollars, not one cent paid for.

Since these 4 are so concerned about cost, let’s take a look at what the price of their action today will be. From Suzy Khimm at Mother Jones:

“In addition to the millions of Americans who stand to lose unemployment benefits, a huge number of private and public sector employees will lose their jobs due to state budget cuts. Without federal help, states will have to pour in more money to prop up Medicaid, forcing them to make cutbacks in other parts of the budget. As a result, Moody’s chief economist estimates that 200,000 jobs could be axed without federal Medicaid support, and the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities puts the number as high as 900,000—jobs belonging to teachers, firemen, police, and social workers, among others.”

The Wonk Room has more:

“[The Atlantic’s Derek] Thompson pointed to a Center on Budget and Policy Priorities report stating that “without the extended Medicaid funding, Pennsylvania plans to cut funding for domestic violence prevention in half, eliminate all state funds for addressing substance abuse and homelessness, cut funding for child welfare by one-quarter, and cut payments to private hospitals, nursing homes, and doctors across the state — among other steps.” But Pennsylvania is not the only state that will have to take dramatic steps if Congress doesn’t act.

Arizona would have to cut funding for its state court system, Colorado’s likely cuts “include eliminating state aid for full-day kindergarten for 35,000 children, eliminating preschool aid for 21,000 children, and increasing overcrowding in juvenile detention facilities,” while New Mexico “could eliminate a wide range of Medicaid services, including emergency hospital services, inpatient psychiatric care, personal care assistance for the disabled, prescribed medications, and hospice care.”

Mark Zandi, chief economist of Moody’s Economy.com, estimated that 200,000 jobs could be at stake in this debate over Medicaid funding. “If state governments don’t get additional help from the federal government in the coming fiscal year, then the job losses will be at least that large — in all likelihood, measurably larger than that,” Zandi said.”

Do the deficit hypocrites care? Hell no. A pox on all their houses.

Welcome to Texghanistan

24 Thursday Jun 2010

Posted by in Conservatives, Politics, Republicans, Texas

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , ,

The New York Daily News has some details of the Texas Taliban Republican Party platform:

“The Texas Republican Party gives a whole new meaning to the word conservative.

The GOP there has voted on a platform that would ban oral and anal sex. It also would give jail sentences to anyone who issues a marriage license to a same-sex couple (even though such licenses are already invalid in the state).

“We oppose the legalization of sodomy,” the platform says. “We demand that Congress exercise its authority granted by the U.S. Constitution to withhold jurisdiction from the federal courts from cases involving sodomy.”

[…]

In addition, the platform says that homosexuality “tears at the fabric of society, contributes to the breakdown of the family unit and leads to the spread of dangerous communicable diseases.”

It also states that homosexuality must not be presented as an acceptable “alternative” lifestyle in public schools and “family” should not be redefined to include homosexual couples.

The 25-page proposal, presented last week as a guide for the state GOP over the next two years, includes other measures including outlawing “sexually oriented businesses” like strip clubs and banning “all pornography.” 

Dialing 1-800-MOVERS.

Would the GOP Deliberately Sabotage the Economy? Is There Any Doubt?

24 Thursday Jun 2010

Posted by in Congress, Conservatives, economy, financial reform, financial regulation, Politics, Republicans

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Commenting on a Huffington Post piece about how Republicans, and Ben Nelson (excuse my redundancy), appear poised to kill the tax-extenders bill in the Senate, Steve Benen at Washington Monthly writes:

“In the real world, this means millions of jobless Americans will lose their already-modest benefits, and hundreds of thousands of workers will be laid off over the next year, including teachers, police officers, and firefighters. All of this will happen because Republicans are more concerned about the deficit — a deficit they created under Bush/Cheney — than the economy.

It’s unpleasant to think about, and I really hope it’s not true, but it may be time for a discussion about whether GOP lawmakers are trying to deliberately sabotage the economy to help their midterm election strategy.”

What’s to discuss? It’s true. Of course Republicans are trying to deliberately sabotage the economy to help their mid-term election strategy, as well as their 2012 presidential election strategy. Republicans in Congress don’t care about deficits (see Dick Cheney) or the debt, except when they’re out of power. When they were in control of everything in D.C. from 2001-2007 what happened? Were there even any cursory attempts to rein in the deficit and pay down the debt?

Quite the contrary. With 2 wars and tax cuts and Medicare Part D, all on the credit card, the debt exploded.

You bet your ass the GOP wants the economy in the tank, as far in as possible. If unemployment is double what it is now and we go into a double-dip recession, or in their wettest dreams a depression, the champagne corks will be popping and ‘Happy Days Are Here Again’ will be blaring from the speakers in Michael Steele’s office. Do you think they care about the pain and suffering it would cause the American people? They care about one thing and one thing only—power. That’s it. If the “small people” have to bear the brunt of that quest, so be it.

Of course once they get it, their faux concern about the deficit and excessive spending will go out the door as they come in. Just like it did before.

Texas Republicans: Shut the Hell Up!

24 Thursday Jun 2010

Posted by in BP, Congress, Conservatives, Gulf Oil Spill, Politics, Republicans

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , ,

If I had a magic lamp with a genie inside, my first (and maybe my only) wish would be that the Texas Republican delegation in Congress shut the hell up. Every time one of these morons opens his mouth the image of my state drops another couple of notches. If it’s not Joe Barton apologizing to BP, it’s Screwy Louie Gohmert making another of the GOP’s endless Obama–Hitler comparisons.

On the floor of the House Tuesday night Gohmert quoted from Thomas Sowell’s ridiculous op-ed in the Jewish World Review in which Sowell wrote that the $20 billion fund to compensate victims of the Gulf oil spill was akin to dictatorial powers given to Adolf Hitler by the German Reichstag during the Great Depression, and a sign that “American democracy is being dismantled, piece by piece, before our very eyes.” From Political Correction:

A little analysis, if I may. Louie led off with this:

“There’s a brilliant man named Thomas Sowell.  And, um, I didn’t vote for Barack Obama in 2008, but I sure would have voted for Thomas Sowell.”

Translation: I’d vote for him because he’s one of the good ones, not like that uppity arrogant Obama feller. And after all, some of my best friends are……

Gohmert continued, quoting Sowell:

“…leading up to his [Hitler’s] taking power in the 1930s, he deliberately sought to activate people who did not normally pay much attention to politics.

Such people were a valuable addition to his political base, since they were particularly susceptible to Hitler’s rhetoric and had far less basis for questioning his assumptions or his conclusions.”

“Useful idiots” was the term supposedly coined by V.I. Lenin to describe similarly unthinking supporters of his dictatorship in the Soviet Union.”

Hitler wasn’t enough, so we double down with a Lenin reference. And that description, activating “people who did not normally pay much attention to politics?” A “valuable addition” to the “political base?” “Susceptible to rhetoric?” “Unthinking supporters?” Sounds a lot like a typical Tea Partyer to me.

Gohmert went on:

“And this isn’t in the article — this is my comment — but we do have useful idiots today, who are heard to say, “Wow, what we really need is for the president to be a dictator for a little while.” They know not what they say.”

Who the hell is saying the president needs to be a dictator for a little while, Louie? But Rep. Gohmert is right about one thing, we do have useful idiots today. Well, maybe not useful, but glance in the nearest mirror, Lou, you’ll see the other half of that phrase.

The Luckiest Man in Nevada

09 Wednesday Jun 2010

Posted by in Conservatives, Politics, Republicans

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , ,

I hope Harry Reid made a stop this morning at Caesar’ s Palace or the Golden Nugget and put down a very large wager on his favorite game of chance. In spite of approval ratings hovering in the 30’s, Sen. Reid has to feel like the luckiest man in the state of Nevada after the results of last night’s Republican primary contest to decide his challenger in November. Who woulda thunk that of the 2 leading candidates to go up against Sen. Reid the sane one was the “Chickens for Checkups” lady. Meet the winner, Sharron Angle:

“On her website — full of spelling mistakes and grammatical errors — Angle declares: “Like a soldier going to war, I am fighting for my country, the Constitution and a free society.” And as part of this effort, Angle reportedly wants to go to the Senate to fight to privatize Social Security; store nuclear waste in Yucca Mountain; eliminate the federal income tax; pull the country out of the United Nations; and allow unlimited campaign contributions.

Angle has voiced support for Prohibition, believes the U.S. Department of Education is “unconstitutional,” and wants to ban nearly all abortions.”

The Las Vegas Review-Journal, a conservative paper, conducted a survey that identified Angle as the Nevada Assembly’s “Worst Member.” Twice.“

Running for Senator from Nevada on a platform of prohibition? Sounds like a winning issue to me. But there’s more, much more. From TPMDC:

“The peculiar ideology of Sharron Angle, the Republican nominee challenging Sen. Harry Reid in Nevada, is perhaps no better illustrated than by her embrace of the patriot group Oath Keepers, whose membership of uniformed soldiers and police take an oath to refuse orders they see as unconstitutional — including enforcement of gun laws, violations of states’ sovereignty, and “any order to blockade American cities, thus turning them into giant concentration camps.”

Back in April, Angle told TPMDC she was a member of the Oath Keepers at a press gaggle in Washington. On Monday, we decided to call Angle’s campaign to confirm her relationship to the group. Angle’s husband, Ted, picked up the phone.

“We support what the organization stands for,” he told us. “Sharron does.”

More TPMDC:

“Nevada GOP Senate candidate Sharron Angle earlier in her career spoke out strongly against fluoride… Angle, the tea party favorite who is taking on Sen. Harry Reid, tends to be skeptical of government programs, and her opposition to fluoridation of municipal water supplies back in the late 1990s is no exception.

The Las Vegas Review-Journal reported in April 1999 that the state assembly, of which Angle was a member, voted 26-16 for a bill that required fluoridation in two counties including the cities of Reno and Las Vegas… While another member of the Assembly suggested opponents of the measure were worried about the financial implications of fluoridation, the Review-Journal reported: “Angle said she simply does not like fluoride.” Angle added she believed most fluoride used in water supplies could contain “lead, arsenic, [or] mercury.”

Doo-wacka-doo-wacka-doo-wacka-doo-wacka-doo. (Apologies to Roger Miller).

Good Advice for Michael Steele: “Try Thinking Before You Speak”

11 Tuesday May 2010

Posted by in Conservatives, Constitution, Obama, Politics, Republicans, Supreme Court, Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele should have realized he stepped in it when the National Review advised him to “try thinking before you speak,” referring to Steele’s opening salvo following President Obama’s nomination of Elena Kagan to the Supreme Court. Steele released a statement criticizing Kagan for her support of Justice Thurgood Marshall’s speech in which he said that the Constitution as originally conceived and drafted was “defective.”

Had Mr. Steele taken the time to look into the context of Justice Marshall’s statement he might have found that Marshall was referring to the Three-Fifths compromise in Article 1 Section 2, which counted slaves as three-fifths of a person. I don’t know about Mr’ Steele, but I would call that a serious “defect.”

Justice Marshall also said the it took several constitutional amendments and a Civil War to right this wrong. Again, had Chairman Steele taken the time to look at the copy of the Constitution I’m sure he carries in his pocket he could have read the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments to find out the Marshall was correct. I assume Steele has heard of the Civil War, but maybe I take too much for granted.

But as is their habit, once the RNC had the shovel in their hands, they kept digging. Doug Heye posted this at gop.com:

“In the same law review article, Kagan endorses the view that the Court’s primary role is to “show special solicitude” for people a judge has empathy for.

In the article about her former boss, Justice Thurgood Marshall, Kagan wrote:

For in Justice Marshall’s view, constitutional interpretation demanded, above all else, one thing from the courts: it demanded that the courts show a special solicitude for the despised and disadvantaged.  It was the role of the courts, in interpreting the Constitution, to protect the people who went unprotected by every other organ of government — to safeguard the interests of people who had no other champion.

The majority of Americans want a justice who understands that the Founders intended the Court to serve as a neutral arbiter of disputes.  The question for Kagan is whether she believes in a ‘modern Constitution’ shaped by activist judges pursuing personal political agendas or whether she believes in basing judicial decisions based on the Constitution and the rule of law.”

Would that include “activist judges” like the majority on the Roberts Court who overturned more than a hundred years of legal precedent and greatly expanded the parameters of the case to “pursue their personal political agenda” by granting corporations the rights of individuals in Citizens United v. FEC? Those kind of “activist judges?”