Ms Mitt sat by the window, her head thrown back defiantly in defeat. One of her two legs stretched across floorboard. If she expected Mitt to be aroused, she was sorely disappointed.The window frame trembled with the speed of motion despite the fact that the speed limit was posted --20 MPH. The window pane hung over empty darkness, and dots of light slashed across the glass as luminous streaks, once in a while, not often, and even then not worth mentioning. She was disappointed to learn that they were only fireflies.Mitt --for just about one second and a half --considered surrender, completely, utterly! That did not last long. Even as he tried to forget everything, he suddenly remembered it all. 'Darn it', he said aloud! 'Frap! Why can't I just permit myself to feel? Let go—drop the controls—this is it.'Then --as if awakening from hypnosis --he remembered the dog! The dog! But just as suddenly, he forgot the dog. He remembered the suffocating airplane trip, nearly choking, banging on the un-openable, the window, the CLOSED window, the window he could never open.Then he remembered being humiliated in public debates. He remembered being laughed at when his pants fell down. In his nightmares, he fled the scene in 'official' Mormon Doodiepants and photographed by vermin: photographers and reporters! Reporters! Reporters! Then he broke out in a sweat! He was never certain that the empty chair did not talk back to Clint. Somewhere on the edge of his mind, under the sounds of Lawrence Welch and his All Mormon Orchestra, he heard the sound of train wheels. They knocked in an even rhythm, like a good mormon orchestra --boring! Bored --he could relax now. He heard the wheels and was, therefore, reasonably sure that the car was still moving forward. But 'why?', he wondered. Why? Surely, he thought, the warranty had run out on the tires.
Showing posts with label Romney. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Romney. Show all posts
Sunday, November 11, 2012
Romney Shirked
by Len Hart, The Existentialist CowboyIt was a dark and stormy night. Having strapped the dog atop the car, the Romney family embarked upon the long road to oblivion and mormons. The trip itself was uneventful, disturbed only by the flapping of dog ears in the lonely wind! It was, of course, fate. Fate! Fate to which Mitt would never submit or acknowledge. Mitt had to make this trip by car. As a matter of principle, he would never allow his dog or family aboard a craft that did not have roll down windows!
Ms Mitt sat by the window, her head thrown back defiantly in defeat. One of her two legs stretched across floorboard. If she expected Mitt to be aroused, she was sorely disappointed.The window frame trembled with the speed of motion despite the fact that the speed limit was posted --20 MPH. The window pane hung over empty darkness, and dots of light slashed across the glass as luminous streaks, once in a while, not often, and even then not worth mentioning. She was disappointed to learn that they were only fireflies.Mitt --for just about one second and a half --considered surrender, completely, utterly! That did not last long. Even as he tried to forget everything, he suddenly remembered it all. 'Darn it', he said aloud! 'Frap! Why can't I just permit myself to feel? Let go—drop the controls—this is it.'Then --as if awakening from hypnosis --he remembered the dog! The dog! But just as suddenly, he forgot the dog. He remembered the suffocating airplane trip, nearly choking, banging on the un-openable, the window, the CLOSED window, the window he could never open.Then he remembered being humiliated in public debates. He remembered being laughed at when his pants fell down. In his nightmares, he fled the scene in 'official' Mormon Doodiepants and photographed by vermin: photographers and reporters! Reporters! Reporters! Then he broke out in a sweat! He was never certain that the empty chair did not talk back to Clint. Somewhere on the edge of his mind, under the sounds of Lawrence Welch and his All Mormon Orchestra, he heard the sound of train wheels. They knocked in an even rhythm, like a good mormon orchestra --boring! Bored --he could relax now. He heard the wheels and was, therefore, reasonably sure that the car was still moving forward. But 'why?', he wondered. Why? Surely, he thought, the warranty had run out on the tires.
Ms Mitt sat by the window, her head thrown back defiantly in defeat. One of her two legs stretched across floorboard. If she expected Mitt to be aroused, she was sorely disappointed.The window frame trembled with the speed of motion despite the fact that the speed limit was posted --20 MPH. The window pane hung over empty darkness, and dots of light slashed across the glass as luminous streaks, once in a while, not often, and even then not worth mentioning. She was disappointed to learn that they were only fireflies.Mitt --for just about one second and a half --considered surrender, completely, utterly! That did not last long. Even as he tried to forget everything, he suddenly remembered it all. 'Darn it', he said aloud! 'Frap! Why can't I just permit myself to feel? Let go—drop the controls—this is it.'Then --as if awakening from hypnosis --he remembered the dog! The dog! But just as suddenly, he forgot the dog. He remembered the suffocating airplane trip, nearly choking, banging on the un-openable, the window, the CLOSED window, the window he could never open.Then he remembered being humiliated in public debates. He remembered being laughed at when his pants fell down. In his nightmares, he fled the scene in 'official' Mormon Doodiepants and photographed by vermin: photographers and reporters! Reporters! Reporters! Then he broke out in a sweat! He was never certain that the empty chair did not talk back to Clint. Somewhere on the edge of his mind, under the sounds of Lawrence Welch and his All Mormon Orchestra, he heard the sound of train wheels. They knocked in an even rhythm, like a good mormon orchestra --boring! Bored --he could relax now. He heard the wheels and was, therefore, reasonably sure that the car was still moving forward. But 'why?', he wondered. Why? Surely, he thought, the warranty had run out on the tires.
Monday, October 22, 2012
The GOP's 'Blame Game' Exposed
"There is a collective responsibility in an authoritarian regime." --Albert Speer, testinony at Nuremberg War Crimes TrialsI am fed up with the right wing blame game! And you should be as well. The U.S. right wing has more scapegoats than A. Hitler's wet dreams! Jean-Paul Sartre said:
"A man is nothing else but what he makes of himself!"And it was Bertolt Brecht who summed up right wing crookery:
"A man who does not know the truth is just an idiot but a man who knows the truth and calls it a lie is a CROOK!"The GOP has made of themselves CROOKS and MORONS and MORON CROOKS. Conan Doyle provided some bullet-proof logic:
"When you have eliminated the impossible whatever remains, however implausible, MUST be the truth!"--Sir Arthur Conan DoyleDoyle has never been more relevant. The GOP is defined by the utter BS that they espouse. That would be bad enough but, in fact, they expect you to buy into their ideology, propaganda, nonsense. The GOP is often threatening but that's typical of their psychopathic ilk. Don't buy it.The only option is that people must think for themselves and demand proof of the lies and mythology that makes up the GOP's 'alternate reality'. The best and most obvious examples are the many ways in which the party favors the ruling elite and helps to enrich them even further. The most egregious example is 'supply-side' economics, often called 'trickle down theory'. It's all ---or worse! Wealth has never, ever 'trickled down' (at any speed or manner) as a result of GOP tax cuts which are designed to enrich those already filthy rich, those already amogn the RULING ONE PERCENT. This tiny (and shrinking) segment of the population owns more than the rest of us combined. GOP 'economics' creates a very, very steep curve. Think for yourself. GOP ideology with respect to the economy is most easilly debunked with OFFICIAL STATS from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the U. S. Census Bureau, and the U.S. Commerce Dept -B.E.A. among many university and various 'think tank' studies. The GOP is dead wrong about almost EVERYTHING. Secondly, don't buy GOP platitudes that simply cannot be proven one way or the other. That's a Nazi tactic that was exposed by Hitler's confidant: Herr Albert Speer.Food for though; wealth has never, ever trickled down nor has GOP policiy ever enriched or benefited any person who is NOT among the very wealthiest people in America if not the world. If you are not a billionaire, you are nuts to vote GOP.
Friday, October 05, 2012
The Price We Paid for the GOP's Free Lunch with Ruling Elites
by Len Hart, The Existentialist Cowboy
I am in a cranky mood!
C'mon Obama! Take the gloves off! Obama did not mention several issues that may be found in his own ads. Why not hit Romney with the infamous '47 percent'? Obama could have beaten Romney with his own words. Obama could have held Romney to his his own failed 'standard'.
Obama might have, could have disproved the utter and often meaningless crap that passes for speech these days. Obama might have hit Romney on the issue of the many jobs Romney cut at Bain. Will Democrats never learn this lesson: put the GOP on the ropes or let them hang themselves with GOP absurdities, lies and significant omissions?
Whomever really 'won' the first debate no longer matters. The issue is about the effect it's had on Romney's billionaire buddies who are now prepared to BUY the office for a moron and co-conspirator.
Romney is reported to be collecting money from his millionaire donors "hand over fist". Unless Democrats reach down deep, the race could turn around and elect an UN-ABASHED SHILL for the ruling elites. Latest polls put Romney within one point in Florida (47-46) and just two in Virginia (48-46s).
It would not be this close but for the money factor. Until that issue is addressed, Americans must live under an oligarchy at best, a dictatorship of the 1 percent at the very worst.
While the GOP, kowtowing to the desires of the ruling 1 percent of its creation, poses a clear and present danger to the rule of law, the rights enumerated in our Bill of Rights, the rights of everyone who must, of necessity, work for a living, the rights of those would dissent and protest the right wing destruction of the values of our founding.
The rights of those who wish to work honestly for their living are likewise threatened by the documentable export of jobs during every GOP administration, the export of jobs that are, in fact, the RESULT of GOP policies. And --no --assertions that there are no differences between the parties is (politely) uninformed; and less politely, it's stupid. Democrats who stay at home believing Obama is at fault might as well wait in vain for a Messiah to come again or a Klaato to beam down out of a space craft. Rather than waiting for a 'bailout', I urge Democrats and/or progressives to assume some responsibility and, at the very least, show some initiative.
In the meantime, the American people are brainwashed by big media. That's by design. Why do you suppose the Reagan administration worked tirelessly to abolish, perhaps erase the memory of the FAIRNESS DOCTRINE?
Why do you suppose that the ownership of media is concentrated in the hands of some five or six huge conglomerates? Was this decreed by God? Is this the result of 'natural selection', good genes, or is it a product of the Big Bang. No --it was the planned result of the Reagan attack on the Fairness Doctrine specifically and, in general, every provision of the Communications Act of 1934.
The internet has proven NOT to have been effective in countering the well-oiled, well-heeled right wing money and propaganda MACHINES.
I am in a cranky mood!
C'mon Obama! Take the gloves off! Obama did not mention several issues that may be found in his own ads. Why not hit Romney with the infamous '47 percent'? Obama could have beaten Romney with his own words. Obama could have held Romney to his his own failed 'standard'.
Whomever really 'won' the first debate no longer matters. The issue is about the effect it's had on Romney's billionaire buddies who are now prepared to BUY the office for a moron and co-conspirator.
Romney is reported to be collecting money from his millionaire donors "hand over fist". Unless Democrats reach down deep, the race could turn around and elect an UN-ABASHED SHILL for the ruling elites. Latest polls put Romney within one point in Florida (47-46) and just two in Virginia (48-46s).
It would not be this close but for the money factor. Until that issue is addressed, Americans must live under an oligarchy at best, a dictatorship of the 1 percent at the very worst.
While the GOP, kowtowing to the desires of the ruling 1 percent of its creation, poses a clear and present danger to the rule of law, the rights enumerated in our Bill of Rights, the rights of everyone who must, of necessity, work for a living, the rights of those would dissent and protest the right wing destruction of the values of our founding.
The rights of those who wish to work honestly for their living are likewise threatened by the documentable export of jobs during every GOP administration, the export of jobs that are, in fact, the RESULT of GOP policies. And --no --assertions that there are no differences between the parties is (politely) uninformed; and less politely, it's stupid. Democrats who stay at home believing Obama is at fault might as well wait in vain for a Messiah to come again or a Klaato to beam down out of a space craft. Rather than waiting for a 'bailout', I urge Democrats and/or progressives to assume some responsibility and, at the very least, show some initiative.
This is, in a nutshell, the core problem facing liberals. Those who wish to become activists need to direct their energies to dismantling the corporate special interest system and restoring greater equality of income.
If the GOP did not invent the sellout, this ongoing auction of the U.S. to the ruling elites, they might as well have. This 'sellout' has enslaved U.S. citizens and, at the same time expects them to pick up the tab for their military adventures on behalf of the obscenely wealthy.
--Steve Kangas, The Origins of the Overclass
In the meantime, the American people are brainwashed by big media. That's by design. Why do you suppose the Reagan administration worked tirelessly to abolish, perhaps erase the memory of the FAIRNESS DOCTRINE?
Why do you suppose that the ownership of media is concentrated in the hands of some five or six huge conglomerates? Was this decreed by God? Is this the result of 'natural selection', good genes, or is it a product of the Big Bang. No --it was the planned result of the Reagan attack on the Fairness Doctrine specifically and, in general, every provision of the Communications Act of 1934.
The internet has proven NOT to have been effective in countering the well-oiled, well-heeled right wing money and propaganda MACHINES.
Sunday, July 22, 2012
Mitt is Either WRONG or LYING; Corporations are NOT People and SCOTUS Cannot 'Create' Them People!
by Len Hart, The Existentialist Cowboy
Mitt Romney seemed very precise: "Of course, corporations are people, my friend!" His argument is as follows: corporations are made up of people; ergo: they ARE persons themselves. That's not only fallacious (of course), a BAD RE-WRITE of Thomas Hobbes who described a Leviathan --a state comprised of the people in it. Not even Hobbes would have dared to say that the state IS a person! Being comprised of people is not the same thing as being a person. The philosophical literature with respect to class theory, symbolic logic, logical positivism, et al, et al is venerable. It consists of great and classical works from Plato to Russell, from Aristotle to Wittgenstein, Hobbes to Ayer. None of them confused a "class" with its members. None of them confused the passengers with the bus that carries them! As a person, I am made up of millions of cells, each of which replicate my DNA to some degree. But to say that EACH cell IS "ME" is absurd, if not insane! What if I should prick my finger and I lose some blood? Have several hundred thousand people died? Of course not!Romney defends his implications because money "...gets into people's pockets" by way of companies. So what? That does not make them people! But more importantly, his argument is the crude inverse of the "labor theory of value" which is espoused by most (if not all) legitimate economists. The issue is ultimately: who creates value? What about those people not employed by the corporations about which Romney spoke? Are they NOT people? In Romney's view, taken to its logical conclusions, one must work or indenture him/herself to a corporation in order to be a person! Absurd! If Romney's logic were valid, LABOR UNIONS would be people because "people" belong to it! Wager: Romney will make a convenient exception. He will deny that LABOR UNIONS are people though the case on behalf of labor unions is a much better than than Mitt's case for "corporations". [See: If Corporations are people, then, perhaps Labor Should Become a 'Person'] I know of no law that would prohibit any organization from "incorporating". I suggest that labor unions "incorporate". If that is done, then corporations would have no choice but to recognize the union. Let's consider Mitt's analogy in this way: if it were true that every cell in my body is a 'person', anyone cutting off my finger is not only guilty of assault and battery but the COLD BLOODED murder of millions of little, micropscopic 'ME's". Being a 'person' occurs by virtue of being born of two members of the species: homo sapien! That is not the case with a corporation, any corporation, a corporation of any type! Simply, real persons are, by definition, born of other 'persons'! By contrast, a corporation is, by definition, a charter, filed with a Secretary of State (most often Delaware); the charter outlines the corporate structure, lists the major officers and describes the 'type' of 'incorporation in legal terms. It is a NOT a person but simply a contract listing the major stockholders, summarizing the management and delegating various responsibilities. When a corporation is given birth to by a woman as a result of her doing what human beings (persons) have done for thousands of years, then I might concur that corporations are persons. That will happn when pigs fly. And pigs WILL fly when I vote for a moron like Mitt Romney. In the meantime, I suggest Mitt...
- go back to school
- take a biology course
- take two semesters of philosophy
- take two semesters of symbolic logic and one INTRO to the "Philosophy of Logical Analysis".
Wednesday, March 21, 2012
Support the Proposed Amendment that Would ABOLISH 'Corporate Personhood'
by Len Hart, The Existentialist CowboyI fully support a movement to enact a 28th amendment to the U.S. Constitution that rejects and will undo the recent SCOTUS decision 'creating people' of 'legal abstractions', i.e, corporations. The idea that corporations are people is insidious, seditious; it endangers American Democracy. While 'real people' are held to the letter of the law and often imprisoned for wrong doing, corporations, as 'persons; will be, in practice, 'above the laws'.
In fact, these newly created 'people' i.e, corporations will be (if not already) placed'above the laws' that apply to mere folk! As has been said:
"I will believe that corporations are persons when Texas EXECUTES one of them!A proposed amendment would reverse the decision of the high court with respect to Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. In a 5-to-4 vote, SCOTUS 'created' real people of mere corporations declaring that corporations have, among every Constitutional right, a right of 'free speech' under the First Amendment. It was declared that the government may not 'impose restrictions' on the political speech that corporations may indulge. But, not being persons in fact, corporations have no such right! That is a right our founders believed were inherent rights of people, REAL people!
As a result of this pernicious decision, corporations and other special interest groups are now given license to spend "unlimited amounts of money on elections." They may 'buy' an election openly whereas, in the past, it was necessary to hide the evil deed from public scrunity! A 'real' person cannot do this! Therefore, 'corporate personhood' is, on its face, a violation of the Fourth Amendment!
The decision is a green light to corporations: buy and/or support any candidate with as much money as you want to spend! The decision could not have been a bigger afront to Democracy, i.e, government of the people. Free speech is a right of people as affirmed by our founders. That corporations may now claim that right is simply fascism. It makes of our nation a 'fascist' state ---pure and simple!
The ORIGIN of 'corporate personhood' is found in an informal note from a CLERK: "The defendant Corporations are persons within the intent of the clause in section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which forbids a State to deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." To apply this to 'corporations' requires that one must first assume that the entity is a 'person'! That is called a 'circulus en probando' fallacy. In the vernacular, it's 'backward thinking'; it assumes facts not in evidence. It is a conclusion cited to support a premise.
And --no, Mitt --corporations are NOT people and you, sir, are NOT my friend!
The Equal Protection Clause, part of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, provides that "no state shall ... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."[1] Prior to this mere clerk's mere note, NO ONE had believed that the 14th amendment applied to anyone but real people. Nor does it now! Scalia's court blew it again! If Scalia had a last remaining vestige of conscience, he would confess that he:
- BLEW IT;
- ADMIT that he is a bought and paid for tool;
- RESIGN!
Sunday, August 14, 2011
Deluded Mitt Romney says: 'Corporations are people' too!
by Len Hart, The Existentialist CowboyHere's what Mitt recently puked up:
"Corporations are people, my friend... of course they are. Everything corporations earn ultimately goes to the people. Where do you think it goes? Whose pockets? Whose pockets? People's pockets. Human beings, my friend."
--Mitt Romney, aka 'The Compleat Cockroach'Like every other GOPPER, Mitt claims privileges for corporations because, '...they are people''! The 'privileges' he claims for corporation are denied to 'real people' simply because they are real people and corporations are not! Neither Mitt nor the GOP can have it both ways.
In fact, corporations are not taxed as much or even in the same way as are real people. That is by design --GOP design! I say TAX the corporations! But, of course, the corporations themselves will oppose effort to tax them fairly or in the same ways as real persons are taxed. Nevertheless, corporations must be compelled to pay their fair share to support the legitimate functions of government with respect to the 'real' real people who are, by law, the source of all governmental 'sovereignty'.
Funny thing is, Romney's questioner wasn't asking him about corporate personhood. He was asking why Romney wants to cut Social Security but while preserving corporate tax breaks. It seemed as if Romney had already memorized this little speech and was looking for a chance to trot it out. He probably had.--Truthout, Shiny Happy Corporate PeopleCorporations and the ruling elite which runs them can, in many cases, can avoid paying taxes entirely. In practice, however, the 'ruling elite' (now just 1 percent of the total population) pay less and less as a portion of their total income than do middle and lower class individuals. For us, the government's cut is a much, much larger percentage of our income than are the nominal taxes levied the ruling elite.
Why are not corporations locked up when committing crimes that would land real people in a Texas gulag hell-hole? As Truth Out put it: Romney and the GOP at large would ask: "Are you crazy? We're talking about corporations here, not people."
Corporations are often left off the hook entirely when sued for negligence or 'criminal manslaughter'. How many real people are housed in Texas prisons for those crimes? How many corporations are housed in TX gulags for precisely the same crimes? I will tell you: NONE!!!! In practice, perhaps in law, corporations are placed above the law, treated differently, given privileges and exemptions that real people have never had and will never have.
Why is the GOP so eager to bestow upon corporations --a collective abstraction --the status of 'personhood'? The answer is simple: the GOP are 'collectivists'; the GOP is anti-individual! The GOP seeks to establish a 'collectivist' dictatorship in which wealth --created by labor --is shared but only among the ruling elite which did not create it and have not earned a penny of it. Every one else in the GOP vision of AmeriKa is reduced to slavery if we have not been already.
REPUBLICANS: ARE THEY ABOVE THE LAW OR JUST OUTLAWS?
Republicans may say what they want of corporations as people, but, in fact, corporations have none of characterisics of real people, none of the responsibilities. They do not vote as people; they don't have to. They OWN the government! They benefit from its largesse as real people have never benefited and never will!
The only pockets lined by GOP largesse (pork) are the pockets of an increasingly tiny ruling elite now just 1 percent of the total population. The official stats prove my assertions; those numbers can be found by anyone with an internet connection at the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the U.S. Census Bureau and the U.S. Commerce Dept-B.E.A. Look 'em up! Be prepared to see proof that the GOP and Mitt are lying, distorting the effects of every GOP tax cut in U.S. history.
In each case, the cut --having enriched only the upper 1 percent --has been followed by a recession/depression. ERGO: GOP tax cuts do not have have never stimulated the economy, have never created a single fucking job! NOT ONE!
In fact, job creation has declined after every GOP tax cut; and every recession/depression since 1900 has been the result of either GOP incompetence or crookedness or both.
The Reagan depression of some two years is a specimen typical of the recurring problem. Under Reagan, jobs declined, investment declined, millions were thrown out of work, lost their homes and were forced to live in tent cities, under bridges! Ironically, this was the case in 'boomtown' Houston which had been called the 'Golden Buckle of the Sunbelt'. Every such depression/recession has been the result of similar incompetence by previous GOP regimes at least since 1900.
Here's the story that puts all this in perspective: Romney wants to cut Social Security while preserving corporate tax breaks. In other words, MITT ROMNEY --a typical GOP seed pod --wants to enrich those who are already rich upon the backs of those who were never rich, those who can least afford it. Romney wants to rob retirees and literally GIVE that wealth to mere 'legal abstractions' --corporations!
The Reagan depression of some two years is a specimen typical of the recurring problem. Under Reagan, jobs declined, investment declined, millions were thrown out of work, lost their homes and were forced to live in tent cities, under bridges! Ironically, this was the case in 'boomtown' Houston which had been called the 'Golden Buckle of the Sunbelt'. Every such depression/recession has been the result of similar incompetence by previous GOP regimes at least since 1900.
Here's the story that puts all this in perspective: Romney wants to cut Social Security while preserving corporate tax breaks. In other words, MITT ROMNEY --a typical GOP seed pod --wants to enrich those who are already rich upon the backs of those who were never rich, those who can least afford it. Romney wants to rob retirees and literally GIVE that wealth to mere 'legal abstractions' --corporations!
Romney's ideas will most certainly result in a contraction of wealth as 'money' (in varrious forms) will follow the well-rehearsed GOP SCRIPT! In other words, this 'wealth' will wind up in various offshore bank accounts where it creates no jobs and --significantly --does not 'trickle down'! As was the case wtih the Reagan tax cut, a depression, a massive loss of jobs, a contraction of the economy will result. It always has!
THE GOP MODUS OPERANDI
Check the official stats at Bureau of Labor Statistics, the U.S. Commerce Deptartment-B.E.A., the U.S. Census Bureau. Following EVERY GOP tax cut at least since Reagan has been a recession/depression [negative growth] defined by the millions of Americans that were suddenly jobless, homeless and living in tent cities, under bridges, as was the case in fact in 'boomtown' Houston.
The REAGAN YEARS SUCKED!
[see Cheney's nose at right]
And they sucked because GOP economics have never, ever worked as advertised! GOP economic 'theory' is a fraud, a scam, a conjob. It does precisely what the GOP wants it to do: it enriches the GOP base! It's a laundered payoff for their continued support. As a result of GOP policies, just 1 percent of the total population owns more than the rest of us combined.
THE GOP MODUS OPERANDI
Check the official stats at Bureau of Labor Statistics, the U.S. Commerce Deptartment-B.E.A., the U.S. Census Bureau. Following EVERY GOP tax cut at least since Reagan has been a recession/depression [negative growth] defined by the millions of Americans that were suddenly jobless, homeless and living in tent cities, under bridges, as was the case in fact in 'boomtown' Houston.
The REAGAN YEARS SUCKED!
[see Cheney's nose at right]And they sucked because GOP economics have never, ever worked as advertised! GOP economic 'theory' is a fraud, a scam, a conjob. It does precisely what the GOP wants it to do: it enriches the GOP base! It's a laundered payoff for their continued support. As a result of GOP policies, just 1 percent of the total population owns more than the rest of us combined.
Instead of listening to Mitt, we should be restoring the nation's prosperity by taxing the rich and the even richer corporations FAIRLY! In other words, they should be taxed as was the case until Ronald Reagan wrecked the economy and impoverished everyone but the very, very, very rich who have had the 'bad manners' of investing their ill-gotten booty in offshore bank accounts.
The EXODUS of wealth following every GOP tax cuts is commonly called 'recession' or 'depression'. Look them up at the U.S. Commerce Dept B.E.A. the Census Bureau or the Bureau of Labor Stats. The GOP record of tax cuts followed by recession is there in black and white for anyone curious enough to learn the truth!
Friday, December 07, 2007
The Right Wing Threat of Theocracy
Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee are misrepresenting if not lying about their theocratic tendencies. Contrary to what both candidates will tell you, the founders believed in a "wall of separations" between church and state. The US, in George Washington's words is "in no way founded upon the Christian religion".The founders were, in fact, not very religious at all, and fewer still espoused the Christian religion. Thought Mitt Romney tries to brush it all off, there are very real concerns about the kind of regime either candidate would try to effect. There are valid concerns about both men's public religiosity, concerns about what Thomas Jefferson called a "wall of separation" between church and state.
Romney wants to have it both ways. Even as he claims that his status inside the cult of Mormonism will not influence "his" Presidency, he implied that the founders were Christians, that the US was, in fact, founded upon the principles of "Christian religion". Romney's position is absolutely wrong. It is at best a mistaken view of our history, at worst, it is a deliberate lie.
It was Thomas Jefferson, though not a "founder", who described a "wall of separation" between church and state. George Washington, a founder who presided over the Constitutional Convention, stated that the US "was, in no way, founded upon the Christian religion". [click the pic for Kevin Phillips' "American Theocracy"]Of the many assaults on US liberty, the religious assault is the most pernicious. It is an evil influence cloaked in Godliness, premised as it is upon a pack of malicious lies about our history. First things first --the founders were those delegates to Philadelphia who drafted the US Constitution at the Philadelphia Convention. "Christians" almost always get this wrong. Most statements made by religious folk lump all the past and famous folk into one bag: founders. This, like almost every other thing they say, is just wrong and wrong headed. Those not present at the convention and who did not participate in the drafting of the Constitution are not founders. Thomas Jefferson, who was in France, was suspicious of what he characterized as an assembly of demigods. John Adams, likewise, was absent. Patrick Henry also did not attend and said of the convention that he "smelled a rat!" Nevertheless, James Madison, our charter's "architect", drafted a workable, secular government, and later, the legal framework for individual liberty: the Bill of Rights.
We are less free than our 18th Century forebears. George W. Bush represents a powerful fascist threat to US democracy. He ignores Congress, he re-writes the laws, he has abrogated habeas corpus, he has dismantled the separation of powers, he is, in fact, ruling by decree. He is a tyrant by any definition of the term. His has the potential to be the most harmful, the most damaging, the most pernicious dictatorship in world history. When the US House passed the "Defense of the Ten Commandments" amendment to the juvenile justice bill, zealots of the Religious Right chanted the mantra: the USA is a Christian Nation! A press conference was attended by Gary Bauer and Rep. Robert Aderholt (R, Alabama), the sponsor of the amendment. Aderhold said:
The Ten Commandments represent the very cornerstone of the values this nation was built upon, and the basis of our legal system here in America".Nonsense! And on various message boards, a chant, a mantra was taken up:
The legal foundation of this nation is the Ten CommandmentsThat is simply not true. In a single sentence, the founders put to rest any claim that this nation was, in any way, founded upon any religious principle of any type at any time.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.I suggest radical fundamentalists read the Constitution, count the number of times the word "God" is used! As E.L. Doctorow so accurately pointed out in his essay, Jack London, Hemingway and the Constitution, the word God is not used once. Nor are the names of any deities used. There is, in fact, no reference to any deity of any religion, no reference to a source of supernatural power, no reference to a transcendent being, a primordial force, a first cause, an elan vital, a non-temporal, non-spatial Platonic ideal, an unmoved mover. The framers were having none of that. This is not merely significant from a legal standpoint. Bluntly, with Faith-Based initiatives, Bush has robbed you in the name of God.--US Constitution, First Amendment
Opposition to Bush's faith-based initiatives has come from organizations including the American Civil Liberties Union and Americans United for Separation of Church and State. Both organizations have stated that the initiative represents an unconstitutional merging of church and state.
In constitutional terms, charitable choice boils down to this: religious organizations can receive government money to provide public services without sacrificing their religious character provided (1) the funding scheme does not somehow give bonus points to organizations simply because they are religious, and (2) individual users of the services have meaningful choices among providers and are only exposed to religious providers voluntarily. It’s an approach to First Amendment interpretation that over the last two decades has been gaining ground at the Supreme Court, evidenced most dramatically by this summer’s landmark decision blessing the use of education vouchers at religious schools.It is doubtful that any of Bush's "faith based initiatives" money has gone to Jewish, Islamic, or, indeed, any organization but Evangelical Christian organizations!- Dennis R. Hoover, Faith Based Administration
"Bush's faith-based initiative also privileges Christianity above all other religions. After sifting through every grant announcement I could get my hands on from Bush's faith-based offices, I couldn't find a single grant issued to a religious charity that wasn't Christian -- no Jewish charities, no Muslim charities, nothing. And when I spoke with Jim Towey, director of the White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives, he confirmed that no direct federal grants from his program had gone to a non-Christian religious group. This kind of religious favoritism is exactly what the Constitution's establishment clause was put in place to prevent."This is highway robbery. Your tax money finding its way into the coffers of Evangelical Christian organizations with which you most certainly disagree is most certainly theft!! You have been robbed. Like the Military/Industrial complex itself, Bush's axis of ideology is a racket designed to enrich his fundamentalist base.
"We will rid the world of evil doers"The world would be better off now had Bush started with himself! The Bush administration represents an insidious, dangerous sea change in how this nation has viewed its own history. Right wing attempts to rewrite our history are insidious and Orwellian. The US, it must be repeated, is not a theocracy. The founders have cited no other authority for their work but the people themselves. God does not get even a footnote.--George W. Bush
The US Constitution is not a "Ten Commandants" handed down by God. The US Constitution is the work of men, a convention of elected delegates to Philadelphia in 1787. If the Constitution should prove faulty, unworkable, or, in any other way, impractical, the people themselves bear the responsibility. It is no use blaming God.
The US Constitution is an existentialist document, a deliberate choice made by a people facing up to the facts of their founding, a people willing to take responsibility for a future they believed they could create, were free to create and adult enough to be responsible for. If God was to be summoned, it would be done by individuals free to act alone and within the dictates of their consciences. It would not be done by a theocracy; it would not be done by an act of Congress; it would not be done by a single article or phrase in the new charter; it would not be done by a GOP police state. The US Constitution is significant by what it does not do. It does not cite a transcendent being as its source of authority. It does not favor the Christian religion, nor any religion, in any language. It does not cite or reference the works of theologians, saints, or prophets of any religion. It does not anoint a "King" who, in turn, cites a "divine right" to rule. The word "Christian" is not used once. Nor "Muslim", nor "Buddhist", "nor "Hindu". No article mandates a liturgy. No article mandates a day of worship. The names of deities, religions or sects are not mentioned.
The word "myth" is too kind for latter day ideologues who persist in trying to rewrite our nation's history. Assertions that our legal system is founded on the Christian Bible are more than mythical. They are deliberate lies manufactured and perpetrated by American fundamentalists like Pat Robertson and other evangelists who make big bucks in the God business, exploiting irrational belief systems, misconceptions, deliberate lies, and naive myths.
Neither a State nor the Federal Government can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another. Neither a State nor the Federal Government, openly or secretly, can participate in the affairs of any religious organization and vice versa. "In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect `a wall of separation between church and State.' " Everson, 330 U. S., at 16, quoting Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. 145, 164 (1879). The dissenters agreed: "The Amendment's purpose . . . was to create a complete and permanent separation of the spheres of religious activity and civil authority by comprehensively forbidding every form of public aid or support for religion." 330 U.S., at 31-32 (Rutledge, J., dissenting, joined by Frankfurter, Jackson, and Burton, JJ.).Following is the quote by Jefferson, referenced by the Justices, in which Jefferson referred to the "wall of separation" between church and state:
"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God; that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship; that the legislative powers of the government reach actions only, and 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 and State."The justices have simply buttoned it all up. There is no ambiguity in the decision itself. There is most certainly none in Jefferson's phrase "wall of separation." We may dispense with the persistent myths about our "Christian" founders. For a start, few of them were Christian, if any. Many were deists. Others were, we suspect, atheists.-- Thomas Jefferson's Letter to the Danbury Baptists, January 1, 1802
Deism is a religious philosophy and movement that became prominent in England, France, and the United States in the 17th and 18th centuries. Deists typically reject supernatural events (prophecy, miracles) and divine revelation prominent in organized religion, along with holy books and revealed religions that assert the existence of such things. Instead, deists hold that religious beliefs must be founded on human reason and observed features of the natural world, and that these sources reveal the existence of one God or supreme being.Thomas Paine did say:- Wikipedia entry for "Deism"
"I believe in one God, and no more; and I hope for happiness beyond this life.But Thomas Paine was not a delegate to the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia. He was not a founder however great his treatise: Common Sense. Then, of course, there is the opinion of the man who has was and is called the Father of his Country, George Washington:
"The United States is in no sense founded upon the Christian doctrine."This sentiment would be echoed in the Treaty of Tripoli of 1797:
Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.About that, Tom Peters writes:
Does the 1797 Treaty of Tripoli say that "The Government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion?" YES!...This debate should be over, the case should be closed. By law, the separation of church and state is complete. But, as we have learned, the rule of law, under Bush, means nothing. As is typical of dictatorship in general, the "decrees" of George W. Bush replace the law itself.More generally, we can't imagine how the absence of Article 11 in the Arabic version effects [sic] the separationist argument. It was the English version of the treaty that was approved by President Adams and Secretary Pickering, and this version unquestionably contained Article 11. Similarly, when the Senate ratified the treaty, they did so knowing full well that the English version declared that the United States was not a Christian nation. The separationist implications of the treaty can't be escaped by arguing that the Arabic version may not have contained Article 11; the President, Secretary of State, and Senate thought it did, but approved the treaty anyway.
...--Tom Peters, 1797 TREATY WITH TRIPOLI
To bolster their case, accommodationists have produced reams of quotations from famous early Americans to the effect that religion is important to public life, or that the founders themselves were religious men. As we demonstrate elsewhere, some of these quotes are either fabricated or taken out of context. Others (as we suggest in this section) are taken from people who were either opponents of the Constitution (eg., Patrick Henry), or who played no role in the framing of the Constitution or other important American documents (eg., Daniel Webster). Finally, we argue that the overwhelming majority of these quotations are irrelevant to what's at issue in the separation debate: one can be religious, and even believe that religion is important for public life, without believing that the state should have the power to aid religion, either preferentially or non-preferentially. -Fundamentalists have lately tried a different tact, arguing that the "wall" is "one way". In other words, government may not prohibit or, in any way, interfere with religion but that religion may interfere with the functions of government. But which religion? I wonder. Islam? Hindu? Certainly, America's Religious Right would confine such "interference" to Christianity. The late Steve Kangas argued that if the Founders had intended that our nation be a Christian Republic, they would have done so in the Constitution. They would not have separated Church and State.
Many of the founders, the authors of our Constitution, were Deists or atheists, not Christians; it would have been uncharacteristic, hypocritical, indeed, impossible for them to have intended a Christian Republic. By definition, religious control i.e, "interference" with the "state" infringes upon the rights of other sects, atheists, deists, or agnostics. The best refutation, however, is found in a decision of the US Supreme Court:
Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect 'a wall of separation between Church and State."The Religious Right will often cite certain isolated professions of faith. In themselves, the quotes fall far short of proving that the founders had in mind founding the nation upon the Christian religion, indeed, creating a Christian theocracy. Worth repeating: the assertion that the US was founded upon the Christian religion is a pernicious, evil, destructive lie. And I happen to believe that facts are preferable to falsehoods. Facts are better than opinions. Facts are better than destructive myths.
Jefferson, moreover, backed up with deeds his belief that there should be a "wall of separation" between church and state. When Patrick Henry proposed to tax the citizens of Virginia in order to support "some form of Christian worship", Jefferson opposed it. He designed a bill for Religious Freedom which completely separated religion from government in Virginia. His bill passed while none of Henry's "theocratic" ideas were even introduced in either Virginia or US government. The right, however, will cite other aspects of American history, the Pledge of Allegiance, for example. It must be pointed out, however, that the original pledge, authored by Francis Bellamy in 1892, did not contain the words "under God". I remember well when those were words introduced having first learned the original version. Moreover, it was not until after the Civil War that US currency had printed on it the words: "In God We Trust". Nor can fundamentalists find a principle of law in a SCOTUS decision of 1892. In the case of Holy Trinity Church vs. United States, Justice David Brewer wrote that "this is a Christian nation." But Brewer wrote this in dicta i.e., a personal opinion. As a personal opinion so qualified by the justice himself, it does not establish case law. It is not a legal pronouncement. It does not have the force of law. Feeling obliged to explain, Brewer himself stated:
But in what sense can [the United States] be called a Christian nation? Not in the sense that Christianity is the established religion or the people are compelled in any manner to support it. On the contrary, the Constitution specifically provides that 'Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.' Neither is it Christian in the sense that all its citizens are either in fact or in name Christians. On the contrary, all religions have free scope within its borders. Numbers of our people profess other religions, and many reject all.It may be left to the scrappy John Adams to close the book on the absurd assertions of religious folk.-
"The United States of America have exhibited, perhaps, the first example of governments erected on the simple principles of nature; and if men are now sufficiently enlightened to disabuse themselves of artifice, imposture, hypocrisy, and superstition, they will consider this event as an era in their history. Although the detail of the formation of the American governments is at present little known or regarded either in Europe or in America, it may hereafter become an object of curiosity. It will never be pretended that any persons employed in that service had interviews with the gods, or were in any degree under the influence of Heaven, more than those at work upon ships or houses, or laboring in merchandise or agriculture; it will forever be acknowledged that these governments were contrived merely by the use of reason and the senses.Though he had hopes that "...men are now sufficiently enlightened to disabuse themselves of artifice", he foresaw the present debate. In doing so, he gave us the best ammunition against them. Reason! I love his line "...it will never be pretended that any persons ... had interviews with the gods ..." Isn't it interesting that the 21st Century is in danger of slipping into a new dark age. It is equally interesting that the antidote is found in the lucid minds of 18th Century statesmen - Jefferson, Washington, Adams et al. It is time to put aside the campaign of lies by the Religious Right! Mixing governance with religion is a bad and discredited idea as evidenced by those who espouse it.--John Adams, "A Defence of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of America" [1787-1788],
"The national government ... will maintain and defend the foundations on which the power of our nation rests. It will offer strong protection to Christianity as the very basis of our collective morality."Have not similar statements issued from the likes of Falwell, Robertson, Ashcroft, or George W. Bush and the American Taliban of John Ashcroft, Pat Robertson, and Gary Bauer?--Adolf Hitler
At last, I refer interested readers to Joseph Storey's Commentaries on the Constitution - especially the significance he attributes to the Preamble which states:
"We the People of the United States, ... do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."Significantly, the Preamble does not state that God ordained it, nor, indeed, any lawgiver but the people themselves. Nor is the Constitution based - as Gary Bauer had said - on the Ten Commandments. The "Ten Commandants" are not cited anywhere in the Constitution. Though it has the tone and voice of "Sacred Text" [See E.L Doctorow previously cited], the only authority cited by the Constitution is that of the people themselves. That is important. According to Joseph Story, a preamble may not enlarge or confer power that is not found in the body of the document:
§ 459. The importance of examining the preamble, for the purpose of expounding the language of a statute, has been long felt, and universally conceded in all juridical discussions. It is an admitted maxim in the ordinary course of the administration of justice, that the preamble of a statute is a key to open the mind of the makers, as to the mischiefs, which are to be remedied, and the objects, which are to be accomplished by the provisions of the statute.But until he is impeached, removed, tried, convicted and imprisoned, Bush conducts daily "interviews" with God. He has always implied a special relationship between him and a deity of his imagining. It is the basis of his dictatorship! It means that you are always wrong, Bush is always right. He's on a mission from God. He's not just a run of the mill, banana republic, tin horn dictator. He is infallible. He is the Pope!. . . . .
§ 462. And, here, we must guard ourselves against an error, which is too often allowed to creep into the discussions upon this subject. The preamble never can be resorted to, to enlarge the powers confided to the general government, or any of its departments. It cannot confer any power per se; it can never amount, by implication, to an enlargement of any power expressly given. It can never be the legitimate source of any impliedd power, when otherwise withdrawn from the constitution. Its true office is to expound the nature, and extent, and application of the powers actually conferred by the constitution, and not substantively to create them.- Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution, 1833
Naomi Wolf Celebrated Author of "The End of America"
Nessun Dorma by Pavrotti
Paul Potts Who Just Came to "Sing Opera"
GOP
Theocracy
Romney
Spread the word:
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)