Yet Another Anti-American Republican Ignores Constitution - Gingrich Front Group Calls For Punishing Judges By Eliminating Their Court

Yet Another Anti-American Republican Ignores Constitution - Gingrich Front Group Calls For Punishing Judges By Eliminating Their Court

Earlier this month, a unanimous panel of 9th Circuit judges held that a 43-foot tall Latin cross cannot constitutionally be displayed on federal land in San Diego. Even though this decision flows naturally from the First Amendment and from Supreme Court decisions forbidding the government from endorsing Christianity — or any other faith — above others, the right’s reaction to this decision has been predictably apoplectic.

Perhaps the most unhinged reaction comes from Newt Gingrich’s Renewing American Leadership, which proclaims that the judges who decided this case must be punished by having their court abolished:

    Upon ascending to the presidency, Jefferson then did something remarkable — he and his congressional allies passed the Judicial Act of 1803 that simply abolished the newly-created judgeships and the courts they presided over. He reminded the deposed judges that they had no cases to hear, no building in which to hear them, and no funding for their salaries. The former judges took their case to the Supreme Court, demanding that their positions be restored. Under the plain terms of the Constitution, however, they didn’t have a leg to stand on, and President Jefferson emerged victorious.

    Today we face a similar issue: those whose policies are unable to win at the ballot box are seeking to build a stronghold of government power in the courts, without needing to garner a single vote. Just as it did in 1803, the Executive and Legislative branches could take action today and ”reorganize” the Ninth Circuit Court right out of existence!

Gingrich himself made a similar argument last year, when he told the now-floundering CPAC convention that Thomas Jefferson’s “judicial reform act of 1802 abolished 18 out of 35 federal judges, over half…I am more cautious than Jefferson. I would only abolish the Ninth Circuit Court.” This proposal, however, has one big flaw: the United States Constitution.

The Constitution provides that “[t]he judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behaviour, and shall, at stated times, receive for their services, a compensation, which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office,” a provision which exists entirely to prevent Congress from strong-arming judges by threatening their jobs. While there is some precedent for reducing the size of a judge’s area of jurisdiction for non-punitive reasons — the 5th Circuit was split into two circuits in 1981 after it became too large and unwieldy — an Act of Congress which effectively stripped a court’s judges of all their responsibilities would certainly run afoul of the Constitution.

Moreover, while Gingrich is correct that Jefferson did unconstitutionally abolish several federal judgeships, this precedent is best read as a sign that the framers, while brilliant, were no less capable of letting their passions overcome their ability to follow the Constitution than modern lawmakers occasionally prove to be. Indeed, Jefferson himself came to power in part because of a nationwide backlash against wildly unconstitutional laws passed by his predecessor.

Ultimately, however, the most frightening thing about Gingrich’s proposal isn’t its direct conflict with the Constitution, but the implications of such a violation of the Constitution for a fair and impartial judiciary. The framers protected judges from exactly this kind of intimidation because they knew that judges cannot be trusted to enforce unpopular laws or to extend the law’s protection over unpopular groups if they constantly have to watch their backs. At the end of the day, Gingrich’s proposal is nothing more than another sign of the right’s utter contempt for the Constitution and the law.

Gingrich is supposed to be one of the big thinkers of the Anti-American conservative movement. Which just goes to prove how low their standards are to be considered a great thinker.

It Looks Like Newt Gingrich is a Twit. What Does That Say About The Pretend Patriots That Support Him

It Looks Like Newt Gingrich is a Twit. What Does That Say About The Pretend Patriots That Support Him

Republican presidential candidate Newt Gingrich is the latest not-Romney to capture the attention of GOP primary voters. With a solid lead in three early primary states, he’s giving the erstwhile front-runner a serious run for his money. While Newt may be the flavor of the moment, the Iowa caucuses are just three weeks away, so while he's behind in fund-raising and has had trouble organizing a nationwide campaign, it's impossible to count him out.

In light of his resurgence, let’s take a trip down memory lane and examine some of the most absurd statements Gingrich has made over the years. Rehashing every outrageous comment by Gingrich would be a lengthy endeavor, so this is not a comprehensive list.

1. No free speech for you!

In 2006, at an awards dinner honoring the preservation of free speech no less, Gingrich unleashed the scary specter of terrorism to argue that free speech must be curtailed, which he admitted would ignite “a serious debate about the First Amendment.”

Gingrich said:

    Either before we lose a city or, if we are truly stupid, after we lose a city, we will adopt rules of engagement that use every technology we can find to break up their capacity to use the Internet, to break up their capacity to use free speech, and to go after people who want to kill us to stop them from recruiting people before they get to reach out and convince young people to destroy their lives while destroying us.

His remarks immediately sparked controversy, leading him to write an op-ed days later in which he clarified that the First Amendment should not be used as a shield for terrorists working “to build 'franchises' among leftist, antiglobalization groups worldwide, especially in Latin America.”

.........3. Yay for child labor!

Newt Gingrich longs for an era when children as young as five could slave away for 14 hours a day in a sweatshop. At least that’s the impression he gave when declaring to a crowd at Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government that child labor laws should go.

“It is tragic what we do in the poorest neighborhoods, entrapping children in, first of all, child [labor] laws, which are truly stupid,” said Gingrich, adding, “Most of these schools ought to get rid of the unionized janitors, have one master janitor, and pay local students to take care of the school.”

Weeks later Gingrich doubled down:

    Really poor children in really poor neighborhoods have no habits of working and have nobody around them who works, so they literally have no habit of showing up on Monday.

    They have no habit of staying all day. They have no habit of "I do this and you give me cash" unless it’s illegal.

But not to worry, even Gingrich has his limits. When speaking to WNYM radio host Curtis Sliwa, he clarified, “Kids shouldn’t work in coal mines; kids shouldn’t work in heavy industry,” but he still supports having poor school kids scrub toilets in public schools.

4. Blame the gays

In October, during a campaign stop in Iowa, Gingrich called gay marriage a “temporary aberration” that “fundamentally goes against everything we know.” He reminded his audience that “marriage is between a man and woman” and “has been for all of recorded history.”

This coming from a past adulterer who has been married three times. It’s not the number of marriages or even the affair that makes this statement outrageous, but rather the hypocrisy. In his personal life, he has no problem disrespecting the so-called “institution of marriage,” yet when it comes to giving same-sex couples the right to marry, Gingrich is suddenly raging with concern about the sanctity of marriage and commitment.

And, as someone who constantly reminds his audiences that he's a historian, it's odd that Gingrich doesn't know that polygamy has been the most common domestic arrangement in human history.

Gingrich’s disdain for LGBT marriage equality was on display one month earlier during an interview with Catholic radio, where he cast blame on same-sex marriage for the country’s economic woes.

5. Life as a white man is so unfair

Gingrich, like most conservatives, loves to play the victim card, like the time he called then Supreme Court Judge nominee Sonya Sotomayor a “reverse racist.” This was in response to a statement made by Sotomayor during a 2001 lecture at the University of California, Berkeley, School of Law, where she said, "I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life.”

However, Gingrich and his fellow conservatives conveniently ignored the broader context of Sotomayor’s speech. She was making reference to former Justice Sandra Day O'Connor's famous saying: "A wise old man and wise old woman will reach the same conclusion in deciding cases.” Sotomayor went on to say that she hoped her gender and race would give her unique insight into cases that others on the bench, such as wise old men, may lack.

Gingrich was so outraged by her remark that he went to Twitter to air his grievances. "Imagine a judicial nominee said 'my experience as a white man makes me better than a Latina woman.' New racism is no better than old racism,” wrote Gingrich, adding: "White man racist nominee would be forced to withdraw. Latina woman racist should also withdraw.”

....8. So what if women get paid less?

In the land of Gingrich, the fact that women still make less than men isn’t all that important. During a recent campaign stop at Harvard, Gingrich fielded a question from freshman undergraduate Holly Flynn, who said:

    I’d like you to clarify your stance on women’s rights. And I’d like to know what you’d do to ensure gender equality in the United States. Given that even today, women make 77 cents to every man’s dollar.

Not only was Gingrich dismissive of the pay gap, he even twisted the facts around to showcase men as the real victims here:

    Well, the latter is going to change dramatically in the next generation, because more women are going to college than men. And they’re doing better than men and entering professions more than men,” replied Gingrich. “In fact, if anything, you’ll be here in 15 years wondering what we’ll do about men inequality and male unemployment. Because the people who had the deepest decline of income are males who don’t go to college.

His analysis feeds into a larger narrative that says women are rising to the top and men are losing out, which is most apparent in what Alice O’Conner calls “the myth of the mancession,” referring to the notion that the recession has been far more devastating for men than women. O’Conner notes that men lost a greater share of jobs when the recession first hit, but only because “they are disproportionately represented in traditionally hard-hit and better-paying sectors of the economy.” 

9. Guilty until proven innocent

At the Nov. 22 CNN Republican debate on National Security, Gingrich said, "I think it's desperately important that we preserve your right to be innocent until proven guilty,” but only “if it's a matter of criminal law.” He rejects applying these same basic standards in cases of national security — crimes for which he believes due process should be thrown out the window.

Gingrich makes the bizarre argument that if we allow alleged terrorists due process, America could be nuked. His words: “If you're trying to find somebody who may have a nuclear weapon that they are trying to bring into an American city, I think you want to use every tool that you can possibly use to gather the intelligence.”It's unclear what this unlikely Jack Bauer scenario has to do with trying people who are already in custody. 

Does Gingrich watch a lot of bad movies and simply take the political positions of the bad guys. It seems like it. American movies tend to be morality plays in which the good guys or gals - abet flawed - save the day. Gingrich filters everything through that supposedly super brain and concludes that any evil is OK as long as you get what you want in the end. Just imagine, having a president Newt will be just like having a President Cheney.

America Haters at Fox News Hosts Pollster Who is Paid To Make Up Smears About Health Care Reform

America Haters at Fox News Hosts Pollster Who is Paid To Make Up Smears About Health Care Reform

You may recall GOP pollster Frank Luntz's recently released a 28-page memo, "The Language of Healthcare 2009: The 10 Rules for Stopping the 'Washington Takeover' of Healthcare," which is intended to help conservatives defeat President Obama and congressional Democrats' health-care reform initiatives.  As we've noted over the past two weeks, Fox News has provided a forum for the Luntz talking points while Politico hyped his memo and downplayed a progressive pollster’s pro-health care reform memo.

Well, now it seems Luntz doesn't want anyone asking who paid for his "10 rules" memo.  Via Huffington Post's Sam Stein:

    Conservative communications guru Frank Luntz has written the playbook for GOP opposition to the Obama administration's health care proposal. His plan, which is heavy on framing the president's proposal as a government "takeover," is already popping up in statements from top congressional Republicans and on Fox News, despite the fact that no Democratic legislation has been proposed.

    But when it comes to discussing who funded his messaging, the wordsmith Luntz is notably devoid of words. Asked about his funder in an interview with the New York Times Magazine to be published on Sunday, Luntz was close-lipped:

    Q Who paid you to write the health care memo?

    A It's not relevant.

    Q A pharmaceutical company?

    A No pharmaceutical company was involved.

Riiiiiiight, it's not relevant who paid for the memo – a memo with talking points now being parroted by Fox News and other conservative media outlets and figures.  I know it may be a bit of a stretch to expect Luntz to understand that this is an issue about his credibility as a pollster – if he has any left – but it's the right thing to do.

 Luntz was one of the so-called experts used by the anti-American conservative movement to spread the falsehood about health care reform being socialism. That was found to be one of Poltifacts lies of the year. Unfortunately or fortunately depending on your point of view, health care reform or the ACA was a free market solution.

How Conservatism and Personhood Laws Could Make Women Servants to Government

How Conservatism and Personhood Laws Could Make Women Servants to Government

Tuesday’s ballot initiative in Mississippi regarding a constitutional amendment that would grant fertilized eggs legal personhood is polling right down to the wire, with 45% of Mississippians favoring it and 44% opposed. Gender influences opinion on this initiative somewhat, with men favoring it by six percentage points and women opposing it by four percentage points. Race and party affiliation has even more influence, with Democrats and African-Americans registering around 60% opposition to the amendment. This suggests that the racial and class-based aspects to this amendment that have passed national attention aren’t passing the attention of Mississippi voters, and hopefully fear of this law will be enough to keep personhood for fertilized eggs from becoming law. 

Most of the national attention to this ballot initiative has focused on the potential effects it could have on access to abortion and birth control, as supporters of the personhood amendment erroneously claim that hormonal birth control works by killing fertilized eggs. (All forms, including emergency contraception, work by preventing ovulation.) These are very real concerns, of course, but not out of the ordinary for an anti-choice movement that spends most of its time trying to restrict access to contraception and abortion. The personhood represents an even more disturbing shift rightwards, because if it’s passed into law it will turn women of reproductive age into a criminally suspicious class whose privacy will be invaded and basic rights ignored, all with the pretense of protecting this new class of “persons”. If this law passes in Mississippi, women who have miscarriages could be facing the handcuffs, and pregnant women could very well lose basic freedoms to a state that uses the fetus in their bodies as an excuse to control them. 

And the women who will be most affected will be those who are already targeted routinely by law enforcement: poorer women, young women, and women of color. 

The campaign for the personhood amendment fallaciously claims that they’re just trying to return Mississippi to a pre-Roe state, but this is simply and demonstrably untrue. Fertilized eggs didn’t have personhood status prior to 1973; bans on abortion and contraception were generally justified by the state arguing it had a right to control sexual morality, which is why the court decided Roe on the basis of sexual privacy rights. Under pre-Roe laws, doctors were mainly the ones prosecuted for providing abortion, but under personhood laws, a woman who procures an abortion has taken a hit out on a legal “person”, and can also be charged with a crime. At it’s foremost, this is about expanding the power of the state to throw women in jail for private medical choices. 

But there’s so much more at stake with this wild expansion of state control over women’s bodies. That’s why it’s ridiculous for personhood amendment supporters to wave off concerns that this law will lead to imprisoning women for miscarriages. If embryos count as “persons”, then it’s entirely possible and in fact likely that the state will start investigating women who miscarry. Like Will Saletan writing for Slate notes:

    A woman who suffers a miscarriage would be prosecuted not because she had a miscarriage, but because police and prosecutors suspect she might have had an abortion. You would certainly be investigated if your born child disappeared and you said it had died in an accident.

Much like everything conservatism stands for small government is just another myth, a fairy tale of epic proportions. Conservatives, given the chance and power to govern at the state or federal level have always increased the size and power of government and taken away more rights from individual Americans.

Did liberals cause the housing crisis? No.

America Hater Karl Rove and His Astroturf Group American Crossroads takes aim at union workers to stop Obama jobs bill

America Hater Karl Rove and His Astroturf Group American Crossroads takes aim at union workers to stop Obama jobs bill

Jonathan Chait looks at the polling memo produced for Karl Rove's American Crossroads on how to kill President Obama's jobs bill. Jed Lewison previously highlighted the memo's origin in fear; Chait points to two key strategies it promotes:

    The key fact to understand about the bill, delicately left unmentioned by the American Crossroads memo, is that Americans want to do all the things Obama proposes. By a twenty-point margin, they favor funding new road construction and a payroll tax cut. By a 30-point margin, they agree with higher taxes on the rich to cut the long-term deficit. They support helping stave off layoffs of police officers, firefighters, and teachers by a 50-point margin. How do you fight that?

    You redefine the issue as a generalization. People don’t like firing police officers and teachers? Fine, just call them “union workers[.]”

The memo (warning: Karl Rove PDF) found that if you describe Obama's proposal to "give billions to states to stop layoffs of teachers and firefighters," 70 percent of them favored it. But let's say you describe it as "giv[ing] billions to states to keep government union workers on the payroll." Support drops dramatically.

That's exactly why it's so important to always remind people that we're talking about police officers and teachers and nurses and firefighters and librarians and custodians and construction workers, no matter how much the repetition can make you feel like you're talking about the Village People.

Chait also highlights how the memo supports the Republican strategy of opposition to every damn thing that Obama wants or that could improve the economy:

    When one party is unanimously opposed to something, and the other party is disagreeing about it, many people figure it’s a bad idea. This was an insight Mitch McConnell grasped from the outset of Obama’s presidency, announcing that unified Republican opposition would help make the president’s policies unpopular. Accordingly, American Crossroads finds that the mere fact of Republican unanimity, and Democratic lack thereof, ranks among its most persuasive arguments against the bill[.]

They're pushing an agenda the American people do not want to see imposed. But they've got a lot of money to push it with, they're good at pushing it, and demonizing workers and obstructing progress are among their most powerful weapons.

It is no surprise that the America hating right-wing conservative movement would destroy millions of American's lives all for the sake of advancing the extremist agenda of the fake patriots who call themselves conservatives. They've been selling America their twisted brand of patriotism for years and just like those products that swear you can get rock hard abs while eating cookies and watching TV, there have always been Americans stupid enough to but into it.

This Is What Evil Looks Like

No Apology From Rush Limbaugh For Defending ‘Christian’ Terrorists

Rush Limbaugh is nothing if not stubborn. He’s now obstinately resisting an international outcry over his incendiary comments about Africa’s Lord’s Resistance Army.

This band of child-abductors, rapists and killers is acknowledged as bad news by pretty much everyone. Everyone, that is, except for Limbaugh, who took to the air shortly after President Obama announced he was dispatching 100 military advisers to help take them on.

    “Now, up until today, most Americans have never heard of the Lord’s Resistance Army. And here we are at war with them. Have you ever heard of Lord’s Resistance Army, Dawn? How about you, Brian? Snerdley, have you? You never heard of Lord’s Resistance Army? Well, proves my contention, most Americans have never heard of it, and here we are at war with them. Lord’s Resistance Army are Christians. It means God. I was only kidding. Lord’s Resistance Army are Christians. They are fighting the Muslims in Sudan.”

Much to Limbaugh’s amusement, this passage is now part of the Congressional Record, as last week Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK) quoted it on the Senate floor. Inhofe cited this exchange between Limbaugh and his helpers, and then moved on to tackle Limbaugh for taking the vicious LRA’s religious claims at face value.

“I want to make sure everyone knows that [the LRA’s leader] was officially disavowed by the Catholic Church in Uganda,” Inhofe said.

Limbaugh did not respond to this part of the criticism. Instead he tried to wriggle his way out. He completely ignored the dressing-down about the LRA’s well documented brutality, and instead conceded that he had been “misinformed” about whether the advisers President Obama deployed were intended for active combat.

The radio host then noted that Inhofe’s smack-down had included a mention of Limbaugh’s studio assistants, Dawn, Brian, and Snerdley. He transformed this into one big joke, while also implying that Inhofe’s umbrage had come from the fact the crew had never heard of the LRA, rather than the fact that they had fallen for the group’s propaganda hook, line, and sinker. From Limbaugh’s transcript:

    “I wanted to play the sound bites primarily ‘cause you three are now in the Congressional Record. All three of you. And you’re in the Congressional Record because you didn’t know something. How does it feel?”

At no point did Limbaugh address the fact that he had in effect defended a reviled group first listed as terrorists by President George W. Bush.

Perhaps unsurprisingly, this wasn’t enough to stop the story from spreading. On Monday the Times of London ran an article about a young woman, Evelyn Apoko, who it said had been “horribly mutilated while working as a human ‘mule’ for the LRA.”

Limbaugh obviously has a staff of assistants who could have done some research. perhaps it would be expecting too much for the mulch-millionaire pundit who makes a living telling other people what to think and feel because he knows it all, to do some research himself. All Limbaugh knows is that sending military advisers to Africa is president Obama's idea. Anything Obama is for, Limbaugh is against. Limbaugh is not pro good or pro America, he is pro conservatism. If that means being pro evil it doesn't bother Limbaugh or his lunatic followers.

Why Are Conservatives Such Freaks - Herman Cain’s weird opinion columns published by birther website

Herman Cain’s weird opinion columns published by birther website

Apparently for two years now Herman Cain’s been writing an opinion column that is published at hilarious birther conspiracy website WorldNetDaily, and no one noticed this, except for Yahoo’s Chris Moody.

WND has published 113 Cain columns. The site advertises the columns as “exclusive commentary” from Cain, which led Moody to report initially that Cain was writing the columns for WND. Of course, in a very WND twist, it is just making up the “exclusive commentary” thing, because it makes up everything: Cain’s columns are syndicated by North Star Writers Group.

But WorldNetDaily considers Cain one of is own. Cain seems to write the columns himself (or at least he did initially, before his campaign took off), unless his ghost is particularly fond of exclamation points. None of them involve birtherism, which for years now has been WND’s sole driving concern. (Cain did flirt with bitherism earlier this year, thanks mostly to Donald Trump, but he now believes the president is an American.)

    Farah, a friend of Cain’s for several years, told The Ticket that he has been surprised by Cain’s rise over the past few months. While Farah would not make an official endorsement, he said Cain is his “favorite” candidate.

Good work, Herman: You’ve got Farah’s support! That should be more than enough to overcome the fact that Cain is basically taking the month of October off from campaigning in order to sell his book, because this entire “presidential run” was basically done to create a little buzz around a burgeoning conservative media personality, and the fact that he’s now tied for second in the polls is due to the hilarious collapse of various other more “serious” campaigns.

The WND site's stable is crazy conspiracy theories that are filled with opinions and few facts. They know they cannot win a public debate so they create bizarre UnAmerican accusations that are like raw red meat to its loony followers. Cain fits right in. They believe that allowing more poisons in the air and water will be good for business and deny that those poisons cause breast cancer, childhood ailments and respiratory disease. They were the ones who pushed the crazy myth that former Hillary Clinton aid Vince Foster was murdered by Bill Clinton and his associates out of jealousy. They believe if American business do not pay their share of taxes to maintain our infrastructure that America will somehow still be able to function as a healthy free market economy.  They believe a lot of bull. They never seem to have the facts to back up what they believe. So crazy Cain should fit right in.

Avowed America Hating Fascist Andrew Breitbart And His New Black Panther Smear

Avowed America Hating Fascist Andrew Breitbart And His New Black Panther Smear

Andrew Breitbart wants you to know that he doesn't think President Obama is "a secret member of the New Black Panther Party." But he's more than willing to hide the truth in order to conjure up the ridiculous smear that sometimes, they hang out.

Under the headline "Shock Photos: Candidate Obama Appeared And Marched With New Black Panther Party in 2007," Breitbart reports that at a March 2007 march in Selma, "then-Senator Obama was joined by a group of Panthers who had come to support his candidacy."

Breitbart is providing some publicity for charges that New Black Panther Party fabulist J. Christian Adams leveled at the president in his new book Injustice: Exposing The Racial Agenda Of The Obama Justice Department, which comes out tomorrow. Breitbart provided a blurb for the back of the book, and in the acknowledgements Adams thanks Breitbart, whom he describes as his "soul brother and pied piper."

In claiming that Obama was "joined by" the Panthers, "appeared and marched with" them, and "shar[ed] the same podium" with them, Breitbart carefully avoids explaining just what the event in question was. References to Obama campaigning "in Selma, Alabama in March 2007" and a mention of how "then-Senator Hillary Clinton and Al Sharpton were also in Selma at the same event" do more to confuse the readers than explain it to them.

What Breitbart is trying to avoid acknowledging is that several thousand people "appeared and marched" with the New Black Panthers that day. The event in question was the 42nd anniversary of the 1965 march from Selma, which ended when the civil rights marchers were attacked by law enforcement at Edmund Pettus Bridge. The Birmingham News reported:

    Former President Bill Clinton and presidential hopefuls Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama locked arms with civil rights icons Sunday and marched through thousands of wellwishers, crossing the Edmund Pettus Bridge to cap the 42nd anniversary Right to Vote and Bridge Crossing Jubilee.

It wasn't Obama's event. It wasn't the Panthers' event. They were all in Selma for an annual celebration of an historic civil rights moment. During that event, Obama and New Black Panthers leader Malik Zulu Shabazz gave speeches from the same podium, and both were part of the crowd that then marched across the Edmund Pettus Bridge.

Breitbart says that the Panthers "explicitly came to Selma to support Obama," and basically establishes that they followed Obama around that day. For Breitbart, this constitutes "an association between a vile racist organization and a future President of the United States."

Breitbart provides this photo, which he says shows that the Panthers and Obama "departed together for the main march itself":

But a less-cropped version of the image and the YouTube video Breitbart pulls it from shows Obama walking several feet ahead of the Panthers in the middle of a crowd of people:

Looks a little different in context, doesn't it? Photos at link.

In an attempt to further prove Obama's "association" with the Panthers, Breitbart claims that "Obama's own campaign website would post an endorsement by the New Black Panther Party in March 2008," later asking, "Who posted the Panthers' endorsement on the Obama campaign's website, and at whose instructions?" As a matter of fact, the Washington Times reported the answer to this question three years ago: the website, my.barackobama.com, allowed users to set up their own blog pages, and the Panthers themselves put up the endorsement. When the campaign became aware of the post, they took it down.

Breitbart also raises the specter of the New Black Panthers leader receiving invitations to the Oval Office, writing:

    I have been calling for the White House to disclose which Malik Shabazz visited the private White House residence on July 25, 2009, two months after the DOJ voter intimidation case was dismissed.  So far, the White House has refused to do so, leaving open the question of which "Malik Shabazz" appears in visitor logs released to the public.

But whichever Shabazz visited the White House, the administration has made clear that it was not the New Black Panther Party leader.

Fake patriots like Breitbart are using the same tactics history's worst despots and propagandists have used for centuries. They cannot win on the facts so they have to create false narratives, distortions of the truth, wild-eyed crazy conspiracy theories. The only people who are guilty of extremism are Bretibart and his mindless sheep followers. They are using the blessings of this democratic republic to undermine our freedom and national morality.

Conservative Republican Media Tell Bald-faced Lie About EPA and New Bureaucrats, Than Refuse To Correct Story

Conservative Republican Media Tell Bald-faced Lie About EPA and New Bureaucrats, Than Refuse To Correct Story

We talked earlier about the Daily Caller’s massive screw-up yesterday, on an important story about the Environmental Protection Agency. I figured the conservative outlet would grudgingly bury some awkwardly-worded correction and move on. I assumed wrong.

To briefly recap, the Daily Caller reported that the EPA is eyeing new greenhouse gas measures, which would in turn ask American taxpayers “to shoulder the burden of up to 230,000 new bureaucrats — at a cost of $21 billion — to attempt to implement the rules.” The piece was quickly embraced by the conservative message machine, with Fox News, National Review, and others trumpeting the story.

The problem, of course, is that the story isn’t true. The EPA, which only has 17,000 employees, is specifically “tailoring” its rule so that it won’t have to hire 230,000 officials. It’s right there in the court filings the Daily Caller relied on to publish its bogus piece.

Instead of backing off its obviously-wrong reporting, though, Daily Caller executive editor David Martosko is doubling down.

    “The EPA is well-known for expanding its reach, especially regarding greenhouse gas emissions. What’s ‘comically wrong’ is the idea that half of Washington won’t admit it. The EPA’s own court filing speaks volumes,” Martosko said in an email.

    “What’s more likely: that the Obama administration’s EPA wants to limit its own power, or that it’s interested in dramatically increasing its reach and budget? Anyone who has spent more than a few months in Washington knows the answer,” he added. “The suggestion that the EPA — this EPA in particular — is going to court to limit its own growth is the funniest thing I’ve seen since Nancy Grace’s nipple-slip.”

Look, I realize conservative media outlets like to play fast and loose with the facts. I also realize the right’s version of reality is often, shall we say, malleable.

But this is just ridiculous. Martosko is trying to make an argument based on assumptions and evidence-free predictions, and while I’m sure that’s more fun than journalism and abiding by professional ethics, the question here is plainly empirical. The Daily Caller reported — in black and white, and without qualifiers — that the EPA agency is “asking for taxpayers to shoulder the burden of up to 230,000 new bureaucrats.” Either that’s true or it’s not. What’s “well known” or perceived as “likely” is irrelevant. The claim is either accurate or it’s inaccurate.

And in this case, what the Daily Caller reported is plainly wrong.

It happens. Media outlets get things wrong. I’ve been a professional writer for a while and I’ve made plenty of embarrassing mistakes. The responsible thing to do is correct the record and try not to do it again.

The conservative media world, though, just doesn’t seem to care. It explains a great deal about why those who rely on outlets like these seem so woefully uninformed about current events.

Conservatives have a long history of contempt for ant efforts to protect American families and children to add a few more dollars to the bottom-line of corporations like Exxon - who already make millions in profits per day. Add to their contempt for the average American's health a morally bent attitude toward the truth and no wonder the right-wing conservative press just makes things up in their ongoing propaganda. Conservatives have been accusing descent hard working Americans of being socialists for years, yet they are the ones that act most like Stalin's old Politburo.

Has Republican Conservatism Become a Cult

Has American-Style Conservatism Become a Religion?

As the American right lurches from traditional conservatism – a go-slow approach to governing that stresses the importance of continuity and social stability – to a far more reactionary brand typified by acolytes of Ayn Rand and Tea Party extremists waving misspelled signs decrying Democrats' "socialism," the time has come to ask whether modern “backlash” conservatism has become a religious faith rather than a pedestrian political ideology.

Ideology is grounded in the real world. It offers us a philosophical lens through which we can efficiently process what's happening in the world around us. Religion is different. It's a fixed belief system, based on faith, and it is immune to – or at least highly resistant to – challenges mounted by objective reality. Which better describes the belief system of a typical Rush Limbaugh fan or Tea Party activist?

Like religious faiths, the hard-right reveres an original text – the Constitution – and, like all religious fundamentalists, conservatives claim to adhere to a literalist interpretation of it while actually picking and choosing from among its tenets. Just as the vast majority of Christian fundamentalists don't actually stone their daughters to death when they're obnoxious to their fathers, the Tea Partiers conveniently ignore more or less the entirety of Article 3. Also like other fundamentalist sects, most conservatives actually have a poor understanding of what the text they revere actually means.

Like the Manicheans – adherents of one of the world's great religions at one point in history – they tend to see a world defined by a conflict between the forces of light and darkness. The forces of good are decent, conservative, "real" Americans – mostly white, married Christians, but with exceptions made for others who keep the faith. They stand opposed to a wide array of diabolical figures: liberals, gays and lesbians, Muslims, Mexicans, socialists and other foreigners, especially the French.

And like adherents of other religious faiths, they hold a special enmity for apostates. When stalwart conservatives like David Frum started talking about “epistemic closure” – “conservatives’ tendency to operate in an information bubble” – they were pilloried by their fellow travelers, accused of the worst offense: liberal heresy. Not only are moderate conservatives like Kathleen Parker or Christine Todd Whitman ripe targets, but so are red-meat Republicans who stray from the party line to any degree. Even people like former Utah Senator Bob Bennett can be painted as RINOS (Republicans in name only) if they stray from church doctrine even slightly.

Backlash conservatives also have their prophets and their saints. Just listen to Republicans talking about the Founders – a groups of liberals, moderates and conservatives of their day who agreed on very little but are assumed by the flock to have been staunch right-wingers. The faithful conveniently ignore the real-world foibles of their Holy Men. Yes, Ronald Reagan offered amnesty to undocumented immigrants, raised taxes 11 times and ran roughshod over the separation of powers enshrined in the Constitution, but to the believers, he remains as pure as the Virgin Mary is to Catholics. (Reagan would be polling right there at the bottom with Jon Huntsman if he were running for the GOP nomination today.)

Perhaps the easiest parallel to draw between conservatism and religion is the right's vilification of climate scientists, 98 percent of whom agree that human activities are changing our world with dangerous consequences. The attacks are reminiscent of the Catholic Church's running battle with “Copernicans” who believed that the Earth revolved around the sun; a theory that flew in the face of church doctrine. In that sense, Michael Mann of “climate-gate” fame is like a modern Galileo (only Mann has been completely vindicated while Galileo was handed over for trial by the Roman Inquisition and lived out the rest of his life under house arrest).

Conservatives certainly claim they represent literal interpretation of the Constitution and the Bible, but in reality they actually pick and choose. Goodness knows they seem to completely ignore Jesus Sermon on the Mount. For even a peculiar brand of Christianity it is odd how much they love the blood, guts, violence and revenge of the Old Testament. When it comes to the Constitution they also pick what they like   - free speech for them and no one else. Freedom of religion for them and no one else.

Why Does Eric Cantor (R-VA) Hate America

Why Does Eric Cantor (R-VA) Hate America

Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-VA) voted for over $120 billion to rebuild Iraq and Afghanistan, funds that were used to construct and repair schools, roads, bridges, and other critical infrastructure.

Now, Cantor is opposing President Obama’s proposal to spend $30 billion to modernize 35,000 American schools. Reuters has the story:

    U.S. House Republican Leader Eric Cantor said on Monday he will not support President Barack Obama’s proposal to renovate U.S. schools as part of the administration’s bill to spur job growth.

    He added that Obama should focus instead on cutting federal regulations that he says kill U.S. jobs…

The president’s proposal is a modest effort. The total maintenance and repair backlog at U.S. schools is estimated at $270 billion to $500 billion. While the funding Obama is proposing is fully offset, Cantor voted to build schools in Iraq and Afghanistan with deficit spending.

Construction and building projects generally create about 10,000 jobs per billion spent. At a time of high unemployment, the funding that Cantor opposes would create about 300,000 jobs. Economist Jared Berstein explains that funding to modernize schools is “a smart way to get a lot of people who really need jobs back to work, fix a critical part of our institutional infrastructure, save energy costs, provide kids with a better, healthier learning environment, and do so in way that everyone can see and feel good about each morning when they drop their kids at school.”

Please do not be fooled by their flag waving fake patriotism, conservative Republicans are the rot eating away at he basic values that make America a democratic republic.

Republican Wuss of the Week - Why is House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan (R-WI) Afraid of His Constituents

Republican Wuss of the Week - Why is House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan (R-WI) Afraid of His Constituents

House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan (R-WI), the author of the House GOP plan to phase out Medicare, does not like it when constituents publicly challenge him. In fact, people who disagree with Ryan have a habit of getting arrested for it. A few weeks ago, several of Ryan’s unemployed constituents staged a peaceful sit-in at his Kenosha, Wisconsin office to protest his unpopular decision not to hold any free public town halls during the August recess. These constituents didn’t think they should have to pay to ask their elected representative a question. Instead of meeting with them, Ryan’s staff called the police.

So it should come as no surprise that this week, three people who paid to see Ryan speak were arrested and charged with trespassing for protesting the event. One constituent, a 71-year-old retired plumber from Kenosha, Wisconsin, was handcuffed and pushed to the ground by security:

    Video footage taken by an attendee at the event shows that one of them, Tom Nielsen, received particularly harsh treatment — he was pushed to the ground and handcuffed. Nielsen received an additional charge of resisting arrest.

    Ryan was speaking Tuesday afternoon at the Whitnall Park Rotary Club. Protesters gathered both outside his event and inside, standing up and disrupting the congressman’s remarks.

    According to Oak Creek Patch, as many as a dozen protesters were escorted out of the event. Another dozen or so left willingly.

Ryan seemed supremely undisturbed that a senior citizen worried about receiving the Medicare he’s paid into his whole life was treated so brutally. Indeed, Ryan made light of the arrest and quipped to the audience, “I hope he’s taking his blood pressure medication.”

Watch it, courtesy of Wisconsin Jobs Now:

Another woman was shown the door when she challenged Ryan’s claim that the jobs crisis is directly related to the debt crisis. “Our debt is out of control because of the tax cuts you’re giving,” she said. “Our unemployment in 2003 was 6.2% before the tax cuts went through. Now our unemployment rate is 9.1%. What are you doing to create jobs, Congressman?” Another woman was escorted out when she stood up while Ryan was speaking and said, “You won’t talk to us. How can we give our opinions when you refuse to talk to us?”

Ryan has consistently faced angry constituents at his events since his Medicare-killing budget became a top GOP priority. Tired of being publicly embarrassed by constituents who voice their disagreement and say his policies are hurting them, Ryan has resorted to increasingly harsh responses to deal with people who have the audacity to speak up at his events.

I do have a question for the local police. I'm sure you're good folks but why are you acting as strong-arm bullies for this wussball Congress critter. That really is not your job. If one of them tries to physically attack Ryan that is another story. This people are just trying to get straight answers.

Conservative and Traitor Dick Cheney Writes Dishonest Book of Revisionism

Conservative and Traitor Dick Cheney Writes Dishonest Book of Revisionism

Former Vice President Dick Cheney was given a multi-million contract to write a book about his political career. According to Cheney’s media hype, the book, called In My Time, will have “heads exploding all over Washington.” The Darth Vader of the Bush administration offers no apologies and feels no remorse. But peace activists around the country are stealthily gearing up to visit bookstores, grab a stack of books, and deposit them where they belong—the Crime Section.

Here are ten of Cheney’s many offenses to inspire you to move Cheney’s book, and to insert these bookmarks explaining why the author of In My Time should be “doin’ time.”

1. Cheney lied; Iraqis and U.S. soldiers died. As Vice President, Cheney lied about (nonexistent) weapons of mass destruction and Saddam Hussein’s (nonexistent) ties to the 9/11 attack as a way to justify a war with a country that never attacked us. Thanks to Cheney and company, hundreds of thousands of Iraqis and over 4,000 American soldiers perished in a war that should never have been fought.

2. Committing War Crimes in Iraq. During the course of the Iraq war, the Bush/Cheney administration violated the Geneva Conventions by targeting civilians, journalists, hospitals, and ambulances, and using illegal weapons, including white phosphorous, depleted uranium, and a new type of napalm.

3. War profiteering. U.S. taxpayers shelled out about three trillion dollars for the Bush/Cheney wars in Iraq and Afghanistan—a major factor in our nation’s present economic meltdown. But Cheney and his cronies at Halliburton made out like bandits, getting billions in contracts for everything from feeding troops in Iraq to constructing the U.S. Embassy in Afghanistan to building the infamous Guantanamo prison. Cheney was CEO of Halliburton from 1995-2000, leaving for the VP position with a $20 million retirement package, plus millions in stock options and deferred salary. Before the Iraq War began, Halliburton was 19th on the U.S. Army's list of top contractors; with Cheney’s help, by 2003 it was number one—increasing the value of Cheney’s stocks by over 3,000%.

4. Violating basic rights. Cheney shares responsibility for holding thousands of prisoners without charges and without the fundamental right to the writ of habeas corpus, and for keeping prisoners hidden from the International Committee of the Red Cross. He sanctioned kidnapping people and simply rendering them to secret overseas prisons. His authorization of the arbitrary detention of Americans, legal residents, and non-Americans--without due process, without charges, and without access to counsel--was in gross violation of U.S. and international law. A fan of indefinite detention in Guantanamo, Cheney writes in his book that he has been “happy to note” that President Obama failed to honor his pledge to close the Guantánamo prison.

5. Advocating torture. Cheney was a prime mover behind the Bush administration's decision to violate the Geneva Conventions and the U.N. Convention Against Torture and to break with decades of past practice by the U.S. military by supporting “enhanced interrogation techniques.” This led to hundreds of documented cases in Iraq and Afghanistan of abuse, torture and homicide. The torture included the practice known as "water-boarding," a form of simulated drowning. After World War II, Japanese soldiers were tried and convicted of war crimes in US courts for water-boarding. The sanctioning of abuses from the top trickled down, as the whole world saw in the photos from Abu Ghraib, becoming a recruiting tool for Al Qaeda and sullying the reputation of our nation.

6. Trying to prolong the Afghan war. Not content with the damage he caused as VP, Cheney continues to encourage more grist for the war machine. In his book he criticizes President Obama’s decision to withdraw, by September 2012, the 33,000 additional troops Obama sent to Afghanistan in 2009. He has also cautioned Obama not to pull out all the troops from Afghanistan at the planned date of 2014. “I don't think we need to run for the exits,” he told Fox News Sunday" host Chris Wallace.

7. Abusing executive privilege: Cheney used executive privilege to refuse to comply with over a dozen Congressional subpoenas related to improper firing of Federal attorneys, torture, election violations and exposing—for political retribution--the identity of Valerie Plame, a covert CIA operative working on sensitive WMD proliferation.

8. Spying on us. Cheney was the mastermind behind the National Security Agency’s warrantless wiretapping program that spied on thousands, perhaps millions of American citizens on American soil. This massive government interference with personal phone calls and emails was in violation of FISA (the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act), the Federal Telecommunications Act, and 4th Amendment of the Constitution.

9. Bomb, bomb, bomb Iran. When Cheney was CEO of Halliburton, the company skirted the law against investing in Iran by using a phony offshore subsidiary. Once VP, however, Cheney advocated bombing Iran. "I was probably a bigger advocate of military action than any of my colleagues," Cheney said in response to questions about whether the Bush administration should have launched a pre-emptive attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities prior to handing over the White House to Barack Obama. Cheney thinks Obama is too soft on Iran, and has said that the only way for diplomacy with Iran to work is if Obama also threatens to bomb the country. Negotiations are “bound to fail unless we are perceived as very credible” in threatening military action against Iran, he said. It seems that wars with Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya, plus drone attacks in Pakistan and Yemen, are not enough to satisfy Cheney’s war addiction. But wait, there’s more….

10. Favored bombing Syria—and North Korea—instead of negotiating. One of the key anecdotes in Cheney’s memoir is his recollection of a session with the National Security Council in 2007, when he advised Bush to bomb a suspected Syrian nuclear reactor site. “After I finished,” he writes, “the president asked, ‘Does anyone here agree with the vice president?’ Not a single hand went up around the room.” Luckily, Cheney's advice was dismissed in favor of a diplomatic approach (although the Israelis bombed the site in September 2007). As for North Korea, in his book, Cheney calls former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice naive for trying to forge a nuclear weapons agreement with North Korea.

Conservatives like Cheney better at the very least give lip service to loving America. In most of the civilized world he would have tried and hung for treason. Yes, when you lie a nation into war and get thousands of Americans killed, maimed and crippled that makes you a traitor.

America Hating Conservative Koch Brothers Puts Over 4 Million Americans in Danger

America Hating Conservative Koch Brothers Puts Over 4 Million Americans in Danger

Recent Greenpeace analysis of lobbying disclosure records reveals that since 2005, Koch Industries has hired more lobbyists than Dow and Dupont to fight legislation that could protect over 100 million Americans from what national security experts say is a catastrophic risk from the bulk storage of poison gasses at dangerous chemical facilities such as oil refineries, chemical manufacturing facilities, and water treatment plants. Koch lobbyists even outnumber those at trade associations including the Chamber of Commerce and American Petroleum Institute. Only the American Chemistry Council deployed more.

In 2010 Koch Industries and the billionaire brothers who run it were first exposed as a major funder of front groups spreading denial of global warming in a Greenpeace report, which sparked an expose in the New Yorker. Since then, the brothers have been further exposed as a key backer of efforts to roll back environmental, labor, and health protections at the state and federal levels. Through enormous campaign contributions, an army of lobbyists, and funding of think tanks and front groups, David and Charles Koch push their agenda of a world in which their company can operate without regard for the risks they pose to communities, workers, or our environment.

Today, in a new expose, Greenpeace has shown how Koch Industries has quietly played a key role in blocking yet another effort to protect workers and vulnerable communities - comprehensive chemical security legislation. The Report is called "Toxic Koch: Keeping Americans at risk of a Poison Gas Disaster."

Since before the September 11, 2001 attacks, security experts have warned of the catastrophic risk that nearly every major American city faces from the bulk storage of poison gasses at dangerous chemical facilities such as oil refineries, chemical manufacturing facilities, and water treatment plants. Nevertheless, ten years later, thousands of facilities still put more than 100 million Americans at risk of a chemical disaster. According to the company's own reports to the EPA, Koch Industries and its subsidiaries Invista, Flint Hills, and Georgia Pacific operate 57 dangerous chemical facilities in the United States that together put 4.4 million people at risk.

But wait a minute these people run a business and employy people shouldn't they be able to do anything they want. In America we punish people who hurt other people, especially killers. The Koch brothers and their philsophy of conservatism says that killing some people is OK in the name of unregulated capitalism. Running a safe business might mean the Koch brothers might be worth 800 or 950 million instead of being billionaires. So not in the name of business or capitalism, but in the name of greed let them kill some Americans. Regular Americans would prefer the kind of good capitalism where greedy bastards like the Koch brothers make a few dollars less.

Who Is To Blame For The National Debt and Debt Ceiling Debacle

Who Is To Blame For The National Debt and Debt Ceiling Debacle

Over the past weekend more than 35,000 protesters turned out to organize against the incumbent Governor of New Jersey. That's a medium sized protest by anyone's count. Nothing to scoff at. I suppose you could say that's a lot of tea baggers in one place protesting Democrats, right? Wrong. The protesters weren't tea baggers or even people purportedly against government spending. They were mainly school teachers and their supporters protesting cuts made by Republican Chris Christie. The Saturday protest quickly turned into one of the largest in New Jersey's history. Yes, substantially larger than the tea bagger protest that drew about 400 people earlier in the month.

Which protest do you think Fox News covered and helped promote? Well the Patriotic Freedom Fighters who shaved their nuts and showed up en masse to protest the very government services they so receive. Of course Fox News would. Whatever supposedly helps the Republican cause is what they are for.

To demonstrate just how much Fox loves the tea baggers, they are once again today promoting them on their front page.

Frustration with the growing debt crisis? They are a deranged people supported by a psychotic media organization. It's worth noting the $13 trillion debt Fox and the tea baggers are now so concerned about is largely the result of Republican Ronald Reagan, Republican George H. W. Bush and Republican George W. Bush. The three fiscally conservative Republicans account for 80% of the national debt. The "growing debt crisis" didn't by any stretch of the imagination just now begin. And no where throughout the history of the last 30 years was there a single tea bagger in the street or any concern from Fox News until now.

I'll try to make it slightly easier for Republicans to understand. 8 years of Reagan the debt increased by $2.7 trillion. 4 years of King George I the debt increased by 1.5 trillion. 8 years of King George II the debt increased by $6.2 trillion. Compare that to 9.5 years of Clinton and Obama the debt increased by $2.6 trillion combined. The combined total of two Democrats doesn't even equal Reagan, the Republican poster boy for "fiscal conservatism."

Just like how 400 people protesting is worthy of their promotions but 35,000 doesn't get a single mention, running up $10 trillion of debt by Republicans never garnered a single second of attention by Fox News or the tea baggers. Now that Republicans aren't in control anymore, Fox News and the tea baggers have them some concerns. Lying about it, of course, isn't one of them.

We as a nation are past irony or just so deep in it we do not recognize it. Conservatives have run up debts whenever they have had the power to do so. They would not enforce financial regulations just because they hate regulations; this is what largely caused the Great Recession. Now President Obama has proposed a super conservative budget that is to the Right of Saint Reagan and the tea baggers have rejected it. Completely unwilling to compromise for the good of the country. That sounds about like the wacky conservatives we have all come to know.

South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley(R) Signs On To Republican Plan to Destroy Democracy One Step At a Time

South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley(R) Signs On To Republican Plan to Destroy Democracy One Step At a Time

South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley(R) has a unique solution to the problem she created by signing a law in May that will require voters to present a government-issued photo ID at the polls — she will personally drive you to the DMV. As with any voter ID requirement, Haley’s law could have the effect of suppressing the vote of thousands of people who don’t currently have South Carolina IDs, especially minorities, college students, rural voters, and the elderly. For these people, it is often difficult or impossible to travel to the DMV to obtain a license, so many wind up not being able to cast a ballot come Election Day.

But Haley isn’t worried because she has a plan. “Find me those people that think that this is invading their rights,” she told a local Fox affiliate, “And I will go take them to the DMV myself and help them get that picture ID.”

So, assuming Haley’s offer is genuine, how many rides will the governor be giving? South Carolina’s election commission estimates that 178,000 of the state’s voters lack the ID necessary to allow them to exercise their right to vote. Google Maps estimates that it will take 11 minutes for Nikki Haley to drive from the governor’s mansion to the nearest branch of the state DMV:

That DMV branch is open five days a week for 8.5 hours a day. Assuming Haley wants to save some time and gas, we’ll assume that her car can fit four passengers. That means that if every single one of these 178,000 voters were to present themselves to the governor’s mansion and request the free ride Haley just offered them, it would take just over 7 years, 4 months, 3 weeks and 5 days if she spends every single minute that the DMV is open doing nothing but playing taxi driver. That’s nearly two full terms — assuming there’s no traffic.

A simpler solution: Don’t jeopardize peoples’ right to vote in the first place.

Haley belongs to the correct party. She is neck deep in corruption and along with the South Carolina's conservative legislature is determined to have government by and for the elite and special interests.

The Ultra Conservative Republican Honeymoon is Over

The Ultra Conservative Republican Honeymoon is Over

Across America voters are having buyers regret.

Republicans swept last year's elections. The GOP captured more than 675 state legislative seats, flipped 10 governor's mansions, gained control of over 20 state legislative chambers, and won more than 60 seats in Congress previously occupied by Democrats.

Elections this lopsided have consequences for the victors and vanquished alike. Usually these consequences come in the form of a honeymoon, with the winning party able to pursue its ideological agenda.

But now, almost before it started, the honeymoon is over. Voters — Democrats, independents, and yes, growing numbers of Republicans — are concerned about tax breaks for corporations and the wealthiest Americans while working and middle-income Americans struggle to make ends meet.

In Florida, police officers in Broward County are planning a mass rally on July 16 to officially switch their party registration from Republican to Democrat. They are tired of Gov. Rick Scott's attacks on workers.

In Maine, Democrats and some Republican legislators are pushing back against an overreaching tea party governor who has insulted labor and minorities and signed bills rolling back health care reform and eliminating the state’s 38-year-old law allowing people to register to vote on Election Day. In New Hampshire, after the Democratic governor vetoed an anti-union, anti-worker bill, Republicans are working furiously to try to corral the two-thirds majority needed for an override.

In Arizona, Republican Gov. Jan Brewer has pushed back against Republican efforts to deny benefits to unemployed workers. "You don't balance the federal budget by turning your back on Arizonans in their time of need," she said. "That's not principled fiscal conservatism. It's just cruel. And we are better than this."

And in a number of key electoral battleground states, GOP governors are suffering from dismal approval ratings. Florida's Scott stands at 29 percent. Michigan's Rick Snyder and Ohio's John Kasich each top out at 33 percent. Wisconsin's Scott Walker's 43 percent, while slightly higher, is still lackluster and incredibly polarized. His approval rating from Republicans is 87 percent and just 9 percent from Democrats.

So why has the public lost that loving feeling? And where do we go from here?

The reason behind the disenchantment is clear. The GOP has not only attacked essential services popular with the public, like public education, Medicare, and Medicaid. Republican politicians have also made scapegoats of the public employees who provide these services. Yet every one of us knows someone who works in the public sector — the police officer or firefighter risking his life to protect us, the schoolteacher grappling with crowded classrooms, the public nurse in fear of losing her job. And we don't like seeing our family, friends, and neighbors attacked. Voters across the country are demanding an annulment from the GOP.

The good news? Across the country, people are fighting back. This July, activists are organizing more than 1,000 "house meetings" that will focus attention on the economy and the need for job creation. These "Rebuild the Dream" house meetings are being organized by national groups like Center for Community Change, MoveOn, and USAction. But the force driving them will be local, in places from Peoria, Illinois to Kalamazoo, Michigan.

Other activists plan to mark the July 30th anniversary of Medicare and Medicaid and to attend congressional recess town hall events in August. Still others will turn out for a nationwide "jobs tour" sponsored by ProgressiveCongress.org.

To be sure, we face difficult choices as we figure out how to rebuild our economy, spread the necessary burden of taxation, and avoid debilitating cuts to the important services our families and communities depend on.

But Americans of all ideologies and political parties know the way forward. Instead of rewarding companies for shipping good jobs overseas, Americans want to close corporate loopholes and invest in good jobs right here in the USA. Instead of slashing Medicare and Medicaid, Americans want the rich to pay their fair share of taxes. Instead of attacking and scapegoating workers, Americans want working and middle-income families to be able to bargain for good American wages and benefits.

That's what we're organizing for this summer. This is a fight to take back our country and rebuild the American dream — good jobs and strong communities, with liberty and justice for all. Our country deserves no less.


David Elliot is communications director for USAction, a grassroots advocacy group with affiliates and partners in 24 states.

What happened in 2010 is not difficult to figure out. Republicans went into full fanatic mode - spreading lies about how health care reform was going to kill grandma, Obama was going to go house to house and take everyone's gun, the country was slipping into a Marxist state. It did not matter how big or ridiculous the lie conservatives told them over and over again as loudly as possible. Some of the tea baggers at health care reform town hall meetings looked like they were going to give themselves a heart attack. Now they have had a chance to show their agenda and America says that agenda sucks. They have created tax cuts for corporations making millions in profits and paying little to no taxes already, then turned around and cut bargaining rights for workers and cut jobs for teachers. It turns out the tea baggers had their grass roots lips firmly glued to the backsides of billionaires and corporate special interests. America wants government for the people not greedy plutocrats like the Koch brothers, for whom billions are not enough.