Friday, February 28, 2014

No Pill’s Gonna Cure GOP Ill


Leo Gerard at Alternet.org posted an article about ten days ago, "No Pill’s Gonna Cure GOP Ill," and asks if the Conservative nastiness is "turning red hearts blue.":

"'Doctor, doctor, give me the news
I got a bad case of lovin' you
No pill's gonna cure my ill
I got a bad case of lovin' you
Whooaaa' ~ Robert Palmer, 1979, Bad Case of Loving You


"On this Valentine’s Day, as many as 4.4 million more Americans than on Feb. 14 last year could go to the doctor to get the news.

"That’s because the Affordable Care Act provided them with health insurance. So they can afford to have a physician diagnose their light headedness or aching hearts.

"The Republican response to that good news, as in the song made famous by Robert Palmer, is 'WHOOAAA.' They want to stop it. They want to reverse, revoke, rescind, retract the Affordable Care Act. They’ve tried it all. Nearly 50 times they voted to repeal the law that so far has given as many as 4.4 million more Americans health insurance in the past year and that will, over the next month or so, add a million more to that number. No pill’s gonna cure Republicans' ill. They got a bad case of hating Barack Obama. So bad that they’re intent on taking health insurance from millions of Americans in an attempt to wound the President.


"So far, Republicans have failed to repeal the Affordable Care Act. But 21 GOP-controlled states rejected the Act’s provision extending Medicaid to additional low-income people. They’ve refused to expand Medicaid coverage, even though this will cost their states tens of billions in federal aid and will cost untold numbers of their citizens their lives.

"The case of Israel Hilton is an example of the high price of hate. Hilton, 49, worked his whole life in customer service, a job he did well enough to earn an employee of the year award from K-Mart. But his employers didn’t provide health insurance. He earned too little to buy it himself and too much to qualify for Medicaid in his home state of Texas.

"Under the Affordable Care Act, Texas could extend Medicaid to cover the working poor like Hilton. The federal government would pay 100 percent of the cost for three years. After that, the feds would cover 90 percent. More than 1.5 million Texans would get health insurance. They could see doctors when they were ill. In addition, Texas taxpayers and premium payers would not subsidize so many costly emergency room visits by the uninsured.


"But Texas Republicans refused the federal money. And so, in Texas, there will be more stories like Israel Hilton’s. Last year, he suffered severe headaches and seizures. He went to an emergency room, a place that by federal law could not turn him away despite his lack of insurance. It’s not a place, however, most appropriate for determining the cause of seizures, and he was misdiagnosed. Without health insurance, he didn’t seek a second opinion. By the time he returned to the hospital and received the correct diagnosis of brain cancer, it was terminal.

"A study released last month shows what each state will lose in federal funding by rejecting the Medicaid expansion. Texas will forgo the most, according to the researchers at the Wagner Graduate School of Public Service at New York University, about $9.2 billion in 2022.

"No state that refused to expand Medicaid will save money, the researchers found. In addition, the study noted, residents of states like Texas will subsidize with their federal tax dollars the services provided in other states and denied in Texas. Earlier research showed the loss to Texas over a decade at $100 billion.

"That’s a bad case of hatin’ Barack Obama.


"And the prognosis for the Affordable Care Act is good – which, of course, is bad news for the GOP. Despite the bumpy Obamacare website roll out, it’s working now, and last month nearly 1.14 million people signed up for insurance through the exchanges, a number higher than projected. The so-called young invincibles, aged 18 to 35, bought insurance on the exchanges at a faster rate in January, so now it’s projected their participation will be high enough to keep rates from rising precipitously. And, the Gallop Poll found the percentage of Americans without insurance last month was the lowest in five years.

"Altogether, 3.3 million people bought private insurance on the state and federal exchanges from the time the enrollment period began Oct. 1 through Feb. 1. And more than 6.3 million people signed up for Medicaid just between October and December. Some of those people would have qualified for Medicaid without the Affordable Care Act, and the total number added as a result of the Medicaid expansion won’t be known until after the enrollment period ends March 31. But it’s estimated that at least 1.1 million were added through Medicaid expansion.

"It’s not perfect. The Congressional Budget Office now projects that 6 million people will sign up for coverage. That's 1 million fewer than originally projected.


"Republicans tried earlier this month to create some bad news from a Congressional Budget Office report that said the Affordable Care Act will enable 2.5 million Americans to leave the workforce by 2024. That doesn’t mean jobs will be lost. Instead, the Affordable Care Act gives workers the freedom to retire early or work part-time because they can buy insurance on the exchanges. Fewer will be forced by the need for health insurance coverage to work full-time at jobs they hate or can barely perform because of chronic illness or would like to leave to care for children.

"The GOP failed to persuade Americans that gaining more control of their lives is somehow a negative result of the Affordable Care Act.

"'I need you to soothe my head,' Robert Palmer croons in the song, 'Bad Case of Loving You,' continuing, 'Turn my blue heart to red.'


"What the GOP doesn’t understand is that its effort to deny millions of Americans access to doctors is turning red hearts to blue."

********************


"The high price of hate," we can only hope, is booting the Conservatives out of public office and out of our lives as people wonder at the Cons turning the red eyes of the sick and dying to blue.

The 2014 election should be a cakewalk for Democrats if they can explain to voters how Conservatism means misery, illness, and death for the People -- and then get out the vote.

It's either criminality, stupidity, nastiness, or insanity that drives the Conservatives - and we pick two of the four choices: criminality and hate.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it with religious
conviction."

Pascal.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Thursday, February 27, 2014

6 Signs of Psychosis From GOP Fringe This Week


The usual weekly roundup of Conservative hate, stupidity, lock-step Authoritarianism, and criminality from Janet Allon has been replaced this week by a fine article from Steven Rosenfeld at Alternet.org, "6 Signs of Psychosis From GOP Fringe This Week," or, "The Party of Bullies, Bigots And Blowhards Prays For A New Jim Crow":

"Last week was filled with more idiotic outbursts from right-wingers, except some of them went beyond infantile rants and raves to posing real-life harm. As is often the case on the fringe these days, the tone was set by the biggest bigot from the biggest state, Republican U.S. Senator Ted Cruz.

"1. Ted Cruz: Pray for discrimination.



"What is Texas’s Tea Party senator seeking now? This week Cruz called on supporters to 'simply pray' that LGBT Americans did not get equal legal rights because same-sex marriage was 'heartbreaking.' Yes, pray for a new Jim Crow.

"In an interview with conservative radio host Janet Mefferd, Cruz started by saying that he introduced the 'State Marriage Defense Act' to undo the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision striking down parts of the federal government’s ban on marriage equality. He accused liberal groups of using 'brute power' to wage an assault and 'subvert our democratic system.' Then the Harvard Law School graduate, who forgets that an elite Republican lawyer argued for expanding gay rights before the court, issued his hateful hope.

"Cruz said that gay marriage threatened liberty and he urged people to pray to God that gays and lesbians don’t get equal marriage rights. 'I think the most important thing your listeners can do is simply pray, because we need a great deal of prayer,' he said. 'Because marriage is really, really being undermined by a concerted effort. And it’s causing significant harm.'

"When right-wingers like Cruz pray for discrimination, a curious thing happens. God doesn’t RSVP ASAP. But other right-wingers do.

"2. Answering Ted’s hateful prayers, exhibit A.



"A day after Cruz prayed for discriminatory divine intervention, the heavens—or rather the AM broadcasting spectrum—replied. Wrath-filled right-wing radio host Mark Levin didn’t like a libertarian caller’s opinion that LBGT Americans deserved equal legal rights and he disagreed that evangelizing moralists should stay out of people’s sex lives.

"What about women in polygamist marriages, Levin replied, saying they don’t have equal legal rights. (Umm, polygamy is illegal in most states.) Then Levin, ever the AM loudmouth, unleashed a torrent about needed moral lines. 'I’ll give you an example to be as clear as I can,' he said. 'What if an individual decides to have sex with a close relative? And what if it’s both agreed to, they both agree to it?'

"Ted Cruz prays for discrimination and Mark Levin answers by saying gay marriage is like father-daugher incest. Levin doesn’t need a microphone, he needs a psychiatrist.

"3. Answering Cruz: Exhibit B, the other Ted.



"Not to be upstaged, another foul-mouthed Ted—dinosaur rocker Ted Nugent—sprang up on the Texas campaign trail on Tuesday and spewed more predictable right-wing filth to boost Republican Attorney General Gregg Abbott’s bid for governor. The Detroit-born Ted answered Texas Ted’s prayer for discrimination by calling President Obama a 'subhuman mongrel,' among other things. It wasn’t the first time he’s said it. However, this time the national media took note.

"Abbott replied with the political equivalent of a shrug and a sly smile. Democrats quickly pointed out that the messenger was a mess, a known sexual predator for underage girls. Anyone who has followed Abbott’s antics as AG could hardly be surprised. This is the lawman who sent Texas Rangers to arrest Latino grandmothers—one while taking a shower—for registering voters, marching past local drug dealers and crack houses.

"CNN’s Wolf Blitzer had the right take, noting on-air that Nugent’s hate speech was almost identical to one of the slurs used by Nazis against Jews. That point—and sense of history, of how hate speech can incite real racial violence—was lost on Nugent, who abruptly canceled his appearance on CNN afterward. Nugent, another right-wing crybaby who is afraid to stand by his words in unfriendly forums, turned to Twitter and lashed out, comparing CNN and Blitzer to the Nazi’s propaganda wing.

"Then Sarah Palin chimed in, endorsing Abbott on Facebook. 'If he is good enough for Ted Nugent, he is good enough for me!'

"4. More rock-ribbed Republicans with thin skins.


Mrs. Wilson's little boy, Jerry...

"Too bad we can’t give Texas back to Mexico. There’s more poisonous political behavior from the Lone Star state. (That’s one star on a scale of one to five.) What is in the water that creates deluded self-appointed patriots who can dish it out but can’t take it?

"Orange County, Texas, population 81,837, lies in the state’s swampy southeastern corner. This week, Jerry Wilson, age 70, a candidate for county GOP chairman, showed us that the GOP is the party of angry white men. On Tuesday, he became enraged when he saw a volunteer from another campaign removing his signs and replacing them with one calling him a RINO, which means Republicans In Name Only. RawStory.com reports what happened next:
"'I [Wilson] walked over to him and said "you’re pulling up my signs and destroying them." He said, "What are you going to do about it?" It was a fight. He was landing punches, too. I can tell you this. He will remember the day. Whatever my punishment is, I’ll take it. If I had to do it over again I don’t think I’d change one thing. He deserved what he got.'
"Wilson was arrested on a misdemeanor assault charge for his senior moment and released on a $1,000 bail.

"On Friday, Nugent half apologized. Gregg Abbott hasn’t said a thing. And Sarah? Well, that uppidy Minnesota congresswoman Michele Bachmann bounced her out of the spotlight, saying Hillary Clinton would never be president because there isn’t a 'pent-up desire for a woman president.' She added, 'There was a cachet about having an African-American president because of guilt. People don’t hold guilt for a woman.'

"Yup, the country wasn’t ready for Bachmann when she ran for president in 2012, and that’s why Obama was relected twice—tidal waves of electoral guilt.

"5. Bitten by one’s own words.



"Speaking of guilt, another leading Republican who looks in the mirror and sees a saint is watching his presidential prospects crumble. Like his fellow Republican bully colleague, New Jersey’s Gov. Chris Christie, Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker has been trapped by his own lies. An email trove released this week in the midst of an independent prosecutor’s political corruption inquiry confirmed that Walker was running parts of his campaign for governor out of the Milwaukee County executive’s office, his prior job. That’s a big no-no under state election law that bars electioneering from public offices.

"But the trove revealed something far more interesting than these election law denials. Emails revealed how Walker and his staff were bullies and creeps with capital Bs and Cs. Like New Jersey’s Christie, Walker’s top aides took glee in bullying and mocking. The man-who-would-be-Wisconsin-governor burnished his uptight white guy credentials by firing a county-employed female doctor who modeled thongs on the side. His ex-deputy chief of staff replied to an email comparing non-white welfare recipients to dogs, saying, 'That is so hilarious and so true.' Another email among top staffers described a nightmare in which someone wakes up as a 'black disabled Jewish homosexual with a Mexican boyfriend.' The person ends up being a Democrat.

"6. Even more right-wing fantasies.


"With Republican friends like these, who wouldn’t want to be a Democrat? But snarkiness aside, the right-wing political ayslum is a dangerous nuthouse. Witness the latest bit from inmate Tom Delay, who says people forget that God wrote the U.S. Constitution. That’s the treatise that protects religious freedom and keeps it out of government, needless to say. Yet dangerous things can happen when these members of the American Taliban become blinded by their faith and burning desire to believe anything they say.

"When you start with praying for discrimination, preach intolerance on national airwaves, spew hate-filled rants on the campaign trail, and don’t have thick enough skin to dish it out but not take it, and enjoy bullying and jokes based on racial stereotypes, what does that yield? A spectrum of bad to psychotic behavior.

"Witness the week’s other news, such as a noose found around the neck of a statue of the first black man to attend the University of Mississippi, or an all-white high school wrestling team from New Jersey posing in a mock lynching photograph with a black dummy. In Ted Nugent’s world, this is America—get over it.

"But repugnant beliefs—not mere distortions—have a way of infiltrating politics, and that is where Ted Cruz’s prayer to God for anti-LGBT discrimination gets serious. Take what happened in Arizona this week. Its legislature passed a bill that would allow businesses to refuse to serve anyone—the target was same-sex couples—if it violated their personal religious beliefs. Republican Gov. Jan Brewer has not yet signed it.

"God may not be answering Cruz’s prayer for discrimination, but other Republicans are."

(Steven Rosenfeld covers democracy issues for AlterNet and is the author of 'Count My Vote: A Citizen's Guide to Voting,' AlterNet Books, 2008.)


********************


Hate, stupidity, lock-step Authoritarianism, and criminality are the earmarks of Conservatism and we've struck out looking for a similar site for showing the weekly depredations or lies of liberal politicians and propagandists...probably because it doesn't happen.

Hate is the result of fear and lying is the first line defense against criminality, but scientists have yet to cure stupidity or hate -- and the results are sitting on the right side of the aisle in Congress and in our legislatures.

The last battle against Conservatism has more to do with demographics than the publics' distaste for hateful and stupid criminals, but the only way to stop the Conservative menace from ushering in the New Conservative Age of Feudalism, an age that will be impoverishing and killing even more of  us for the entertainment and comfort of the greediest among us, is to criminalize Conservatism before it's too late.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it with
religious conviction."

Pascal.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Wednesday, February 26, 2014

Pat Buchanan: Repeal All U.S. Civil Rights Laws


Everyone's favorite jolly Conservative, former Nixon assistant and candidate for president Pat Buchanan, shows his lily white Conservative beliefs in a short article by Miranda Blue at Alternet.org, "Pat Buchanan: Repeal All U.S. Civil Rights Laws."

Subtitled, "The right-wing pundit insists that racism is no longer an issue, and suggests segregating LGBT people in Arizona," harmless old Uncle Pat shows us what a Conservative paradise looks like -- if we let him lead us to it:


"Conservative pundit and former Republican presidential candidate Pat Buchanan suggests in his column today that the U.S. repeal all civil rights laws.

"'A radical idea: Suppose we repealed the civil rights laws and fired all the bureaucrats enforcing these laws,' Buchanan writes. 'Does anyone think hotels, motels and restaurants across Dixie, from D.C. to Texas, would stop serving black customers? Does anyone think there would again be signs sprouting up reading "whites" and "colored" on drinking foundations and restrooms?'

"Buchanan is particularly upset by laws that prevent discrimination against LGBT people, but also claims that laws prohibiting discrimination on the basis of race and ethnicity are no longer needed. The work of civil rights laws 'is done,' he writes, and enforcement mechanisms 'exist to validate the slander that America is a racist, sexist, homophobic xenophobic country which would revert to massive discrimination were it not for heroic progressives standing guard.'


"We’ll just note that Pat Buchanan might not be the most convincing person to put forward the argument that institutionalized racism no longer exists in the United States.

"Consider how far we have come.

"Virtually all decisions to hire, fire, promote or punish employees, to oversee the sale and rental of housing, to ensure that all minorities have access to all restaurants, hotels and motels, are under the jurisdiction of these minions who are right out of Orwell's '1984.'

"Scores of thousands of bureaucrats -- academic, corporate, government -- are on watch, overseeing our economy, patrolling our society, monitoring our behavior.

"A radical idea: Suppose we repealed the civil rights laws and fired all the bureaucrats enforcing these laws.

"Does anyone think hotels, motels and restaurants across Dixie, from D.C. to Texas, would stop serving black customers? Does anyone think there would again be signs sprouting up reading "whites" and "colored" on drinking foundations and restrooms?

"Does anyone think restrictive covenants against Jews would be rewritten into contracts on houses? Does anything think that bars and hotels would stop serving blacks and Hispanics?

"In his indictment of George III, Jefferson wrote of the king: 'He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people, and eat out their substance.'

We'll just call it "Lincoln's War."

"Is that not what we have today in spades?

"Why do we need this vast army of bureaucrats?

"They exist to validate the slander that America is a racist, sexist, homophobic and xenophobic country which would revert to massive discrimination were it not for heroic progressives standing guard.

"And, indeed, some bigots might revert to type. But so what?

"Cannot a free people deal with social misconduct with social sanctions?

"And isn't this what freedom is all about? The freedom of others to say things we disagree with, to publish ideas we disbelieve in, even to engage in behavior we dislike?

"As for the Christians of Arizona and same-sex unions in Arizona, if they don't like each other, can they not just avoid each other? After all, it's a big state.

"Why will we not see the lapsing or repeal of civil rights laws whose work is done? That would mean cracking the rice bowls of hundreds of thousands of diversicrats who would then have to apply for jobs from folks they have spent their lives harassing.

"Last year, the Supreme Court struck down the preclearance provision of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Yet, somehow, Mississippi still has more black elected officials than any other state.

"If the conditions that called for the laws of the 1960s have ceased to exist, why do those laws still exist?"


********************

Many of you may have missed the five broken links in the fourth paragraph of the article, so here's a breakdown - don't miss them!

Twelve Pretty Racist Or Just Crazy Quotes From Pat Buchanan's New Book

Pat Buchanan Touts 'Timeout On All Immigration,' Lauds European Far-Right As Model For US

Pat Buchanan Panics at News of 'Demographic Winter of White America'

Pat Buchanan Reminisces About The Segregation Era

Buchanan Calls for Renewed Southern Strategy, This Time Against Immigrants



Such a jolly good natured old elf, what a card - and what a danger to democracy.  For those of you who have a favorite uncle like Mr. Buchanan, this is really how he thinks, how typical Conservatives "think" when talking about their paranoid, xenophobic, authoritarian, and racist beliefs.

And somehow we think we've heard this message before...


Too bad your aunt couldn't have married someone without the Conservative criminality and the anti-American attitudes.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


"When great changes occur in history, when great principles are involved, as a
rule the majority are wrong."

Eugene Debs.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Tuesday, February 25, 2014

Reagan’s Christian Revolt: How Conservatives Hijacked American Religion


For those of us old enough to remember when abortion was "just a Catholic issue," and wonder how America turned into an extremist nation, George M. Marsden's article at Salon.com, "Reagan’s Christian Revolt: How Conservatives Hijacked American Religion,"explains how and he starts off by noting that, "Once upon a time, America's religious communities were politically moderate. Then along came the evangelicals:"

(Excerpted from "The Twilight of the American Enlightenment: The 1950s and the Crisis of Liberal Belief")

Ronald Reagan and Jerry Falwell at the Baptist Fundamentalism '84 conference, April 13, 1984 in Washington. (Credit: AP/Ira Schwarz)
"As late as 1976, the political sensibilities of revivalist evangelicals were still unformed when many of them voted Democratic for Jimmy Carter, largely on the basis that he had declared himself 'born again.' Prior to 1976, 'born again' was not a familiar phrase in mainstream public discourse. Moreover, the term 'evangelical' was seldom used, at least not in connection to politics. When Newsweek declared 1976 to be 'The Year of the Evangelical,' the publicity helped to create a sense of potential among evangelicals, who began to think of themselves as a political force. Conservative evangelical and Catholic leaders, however, soon became disillusioned with President Carter. He supported the Equal Rights Amendment, he did not take a stand against abortion, and he was friendly to the Democratic Party agenda to guarantee rights for homosexuals and to broaden the definition of the family. In that context, in 1979 fundamentalist Jerry Falwell founded the Moral Majority, a political-action organization to mobilize religious conservatives. Revivalist evangelicalism had suddenly emerged as a conspicuous player in national politics.

"The government was not, of course, the only force in furthering the sexual revolution. Rather, the courts and governmental agencies were responding to much larger social trends and agendas that were energized by vigorous movements and lobbies and supported by most of the media and the intellectual community. The mainstream media and commercial interests often supported the new permissiveness. Nonetheless, for those alarmed by the sexual revolution, the government’s role in permitting and promoting it was sufficient to provoke a political response, even among evangelicals who traditionally had warned against political involvements.

"One of the factors evident in the support for Ronald Reagan in 1980 was nostalgia for the 1950s. Many conservative Americans had been alarmed by the cultural changes unleashed by the counterculture and antiwar movements of the 1960s and felt that something essential about the culture was fast slipping away. Reagan himself cultivated his image as a champion of traditional values. Just one of many examples was a 'Morning in America' series of TV ads in his 1984 campaign depicting the small-town America of more peaceful and ordered days. Unquestionably, Reagan’s staunch anticommunism also evoked an image of the 1950s, a time when Americans were proud to be united by their flag-waving patriotism. Newly politicized revivalist evangelicals were no doubt attracted by this nostalgia, as were many other Republican voters, but they added their own variation on the theme. They were not simply proposing to bring America back to a time when traditional family values, respect for authority, and unquestioning love of nation were intact. Rather, they were blending such Reaganesque images with something more basic: America, they said, needed to return to its 'Christian foundations.' And understanding what revivalist evangelicals had in mind by such rhetoric is one key to understanding the cultural wars and revivalist evangelicalism’s part in them.

"The formulations of Francis Schaeffer, the most influential theorist of the evangelical side of the religious right, offer an illuminating window into some of the issues involved. Schaeffer was an American evangelist who spent most of his career ministering to young people at his chalet, called L’Abri, in Switzerland. During the late 1960s he became famous in American evangelical circles for a series of small popular books that provided critiques of Western cultural trends, arguing that Christianity was the only viable alternative to the emptiness and the relativism of modern thought. He was also an important influence in convincing many younger fundamentalists and evangelicals to engage with the arts, literature, and philosophy. In these early cultural analyses, he almost never mentioned politics, past or present. That changed dramatically in the mid-1970s. Not long after Roe v. Wade, while Schaeffer and his son Frank were working on a film series of his cultural critique, Frank argued that they should highlight abortion on demand as evidence of how America had gone wrong. At first the elder Schaeffer strongly resisted this suggestion, on the grounds that abortion was seen mostly as a 'Catholic issue' and that he did not want to get into politics. He eventually changed his mind and decided to include it. A critique of the abortion decision became the culminating feature of the series, called 'How Should We Then Live?' and the accompanying book by the same title. He and Frank also made the abortion issue the centerpiece of a second series that they developed with Dr. C. Everett Koop (later US surgeon general under Ronald Reagan), called 'Whatever Happened to the Human Race?'


"In addition to being a major force in raising consciousness among fundamentalists and many other evangelicals regarding the necessity of opposing legalized abortion, Schaeffer provided what became the most influential analyses of what he believed was the larger issue at the heart of the new culture wars. The choice for America, he proclaimed, was simply between a return to Christianity or a takeover by secular humanism and eventually authoritarianism. In 'How Should We Then Live?' he wrote that humanists were determined to destroy Christianity and hence they would leave the culture with no adequate basis on which to maintain its values. But, he declared, 'society cannot stand chaos.' Echoing Erich Fromm’s classic account of totalitarianism, Schaeffer continued: 'Some group or person will fill the vacuum. An elite will offer us arbitrary absolutes and who will stand in its way?' Schaeffer intimated that this takeover could involve some cooperation with international movements, but he put most of his emphasis on the role of secular humanists in America itself. That formula quickly took root among American fundamentalists. Simple dichotomized choices were the stock in trade of fundamentalists, and Schaeffer, who had fundamentalist roots, was a master at dichotomizing. Moral Majority founder Jerry Falwell often repeated the Christianity-versus-secular-humanism formula, and Tim LaHaye elaborated on it in his very popular 1980 book 'The Battle for the Mind.'

"Schaeffer himself developed the theme in his most influential call to action, 'A Christian Manifesto,' a 1981 book that Falwell described as 'probably the most important piece of literature in America today.' As in his other recent works, Schaeffer stressed the inevitability of an authoritarian takeover if Bible-believing Christians remained indifferent to politics and failed to take a stand. He believed that the election of Ronald Reagan in 1980 might represent a window of opportunity to reassert Christian values. But he also warned that the power of relativistic secular humanism was so strong in the government, in the courts, and in the schools that it soon might be necessary for Christians to resist through civil disobedience—and even with violence—much as the United States had resisted British tyranny at the time of the American Revolution. Christianity and secular humanism, he emphasized, were opposites. 'These two world views stand as totals in complete antithesis to each other,' he declared. 'It is not too strong to say that we are at war, and there are no neutral parties in the struggle.'

"Part of Schaeffer’s appeal was that he repeatedly reminded his audiences that the loss of what he called America’s 'Christian consensus' had taken place only within living memory. 'It is a horrible thing,' he wrote in his final book, 'The Great Evangelical Disaster,' published in 1984, 'for a man like myself to see my country and my culture go down the drain in my lifetime.' He remembered a time when the Christian consensus still prevailed. By a 'Christian consensus,' he did not mean that everybody was Christian, but rather, that 'the Christian worldview, and biblical knowledge in particular, were widely disseminated throughout the culture and were a decisive influence in giving shape to the culture.' Such outlooks were characteristic, he said, of 'Reformation countries and in our own country until the last forty to sixty years,' when 'most people believed these things—albeit sometimes only in a vague way.' Schaeffer’s audiences, at least in many regions of the country, especially across the South and in some areas of the Midwest, may have recalled the 1950s as the sort of time he was evoking, when evangelical Christianity was virtually the default religion. Schaeffer himself was from the Northeast, where the changes had come earlier; in the 1950s, he had already been a separatist fundamentalist attacking the mainstream culture and its churches. So he set the date of the end of the Christian consensus further back, to the 1930s.

Schaeffer combined nostalgia for more Christian-friendly times with his own version of an argument that was reemerging in popularity among fundamentalistic evangelicals around the bicentennial year of 1976: that America had been founded as a Christian nation. Schaeffer emphasized that the American nation was based on a Christian consensus inherited specifically from the Reformation. He argued that the principles on which the United States was founded, especially the idea that higher law applied even to kings, came from Scottish Protestantism at the time of the English Civil Wars of the mid-1600s. Even though Schaeffer acknowledged that most of the American founders were not born-again Christians, and that they had their blind spots (as regarding slavery), he nonetheless insisted that they still operated on the Reformation 'Christian base.' Those principles, he believed, dominated American culture until recent decades. Secular humanism was destroying those principles and would inevitably lead to total relativism, chaos, and then totalitarianism. To remain neutral, as so many fundamentalist and evangelical Christians had tried to do at midcentury, would be to capitulate to government enforcement of a worldview that was the opposite of Christianity. As Schaeffer put it, 'Here is a sentence to memorize: "To make no decision in regard to the growth of authoritarian government is already a decision for it."'


"Francis Schaeffer, of course, does not represent the whole of the religious right—he had, for instance, little connection with the important conservative Catholic part of the movement—but his outlook serves to illustrate some significant dimensions of the fundamentalistic evangelical wing of that movement. Viewed in relation to the mainstream American outlooks of the 1950s, one feature of the movement was its strong reaction against pragmatic liberalism, which it now understood in Schaeffer’s framework as part of the 'secular humanism' that had led to the moral relativism evident in America since the late 1960s. Schaeffer added the motif, reminiscent of Erich Fromm, that if a society lost its moral moorings, totalitarianism would fill the vacuum. So pragmatic liberalism, which to its proponents in the 1950s seemed the best defense against ideological extremes, now could be seen as opening the door to totalitarianism. Even if Communists were rare on the home front in the 1980s, secular humanists were everywhere, and only a stance of cultural warfare could stop their destruction of American liberties. Schaeffer repeatedly called for reestablishing a Christian consensus, but ironically, 'consensus' had become a fighting word. He depicted the cultural crises in the most urgent terms as he issued calls to arms. So he wrote in 1982 with typical hyperbole in a foreword to his associate John Whitehead’s 'The Second American Revolution': 'If there is still an entity known as "the Christian church" by the end of the century, operating with any semblance of liberty . . . it will probably have John Whitehead and his book to thank.' The book, he went on, 'lays the foundation and framework for fighting the tyrannical, secularist, humanistic power.' Like the early American patriots, Christians would have to be ready to fight for their liberties. Restoring America’s 'Christian base' would require enlisting in America’s culture wars.

"Granting that there were and are many highly significant issues involved in these political concerns that deserve consideration on their merits, it is also important to recognize that once the matters are framed in terms of warfare and simple either-or choices it becomes virtually impossible to negotiate those issues in a pluralistic society. That is especially the case when the issues are framed in terms of returning America to its Christian roots, as is standard fare in the outlooks of the fundamentalist-evangelical political right. Partly the problem is rhetorical. Typically, evangelicals speak of their views as shaped by 'the Bible alone.' The more fundamentalistic or militant they are, the more they divide reality into simple dichotomies, such as 'Christian' and 'non-Christian.' That leaves little room for making other distinctions. So when they talk about reinstituting America’s Christian basis, it sounds as though they are proposing a return to something like the early New England Puritan order of the 1600s, when the government was based on explicitly biblical principles, and discrimination against non-Christians was taken for granted.

"Even though the rhetoric sounds authoritarian, as though the nation would be redefined as exclusively Christian and its law would be based on the Bible, the vast majority of fundamentalists and evangelicals of the religious right were—and are—in fact committed to religious liberty. Many are Baptists, whose forebears were in the forefront of the campaign for religious freedom at the time of the American Revolution. More broadly, despite their exclusive-sounding 'Christian' rhetoric, they are also deeply committed to the principles embodied in the nation’s founding documents. They are heirs to the synthesis of Protestant and more secular principles that were characteristic of what is here being called the American enlightenment. Once again, they need to be understood as deeply ambivalent toward the American heritage. On the one hand, they often speak as prophetic outsiders proclaiming that the nation is under judgment for its many failings. On the other hand, they also speak as the true insiders who are preserving an eighteenth-century national heritage that was essentially 'Christian.'

"Fundamentalists and evangelicals of the religious right often have difficulty recognizing their own mix of biblical and more secular principles because they typically use only two categories in their analyses: Christian and non-Christian. That limitation can be best illustrated in the outpouring of books in recent decades claiming to prove that the founding fathers were Christians. In their own ministries, the authors of these books insist that only the 'born again' will enter the kingdom of heaven. Yet when it comes to the nation’s founders, most of whom were not orthodox evangelical Christians, these very conservative biblicists end up endorsing a remarkably broad definition of 'Christian.' Perhaps the most telling of the many examples that could be cited is that in 2012, David Barton, the most popular and influential writer on America’s Christian origins, published a book celebrating Thomas Jefferson’s faith. The fact of the matter is that Jefferson was openly and sometimes militantly anti-orthodox and anti-evangelical. During the election of 1800, many orthodox Protestants strongly opposed him for his unconventional religious views. Barton’s zeal to claim Jefferson as a Christian believer led to so many distortions that, when these were documented, his publisher, Thomas Nelson, ceased publication.


"Francis Schaeffer, who recognized the unorthodoxy of most of the founders, tried to solve the problem by attributing their views regarding rights and freedom to the Reformation. In fact, though, the early Protestant governments of the Reformation period were not concerned about protecting liberties in the same way that the founders later were in the American republic. Those ideals developed in the British enlightenment in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. They did have a discernibly Protestant lineage, such as in concerns about the sanctity of conscience, but the founders’ ideals were also shaped by factors beyond the Protestant principle of 'the Bible alone.' These influences included classical political principles, classical and Christian natural-law traditions, modern scientific empiricism, the growing trust in the authority of common rationality, emerging ideals that individuals should be self-determining, and practical self-interested concern regarding political and economic freedoms. It is one thing to say that some versions of the resulting mix were 'Christian,' in the sense of being compatible with biblical or church teachings. Yet, historically speaking, the actual mix was far from being simply Christian or Protestant, even if it included significant Christian elements.

"The complex heritage of the evangelical religious right, as shaped, among other things, both by biblicist bornagain revivalism and broader principles developed during the eighteenth-century American enlightenment, helps to explain some of its paradoxes, apparent contradictions, and blind spots. The biblicist side is often absolutist and militant, invoking stark choices between serving the Lord of Hosts or the Baal of secular humanism. The enlightenment heritage allows militantly conservative fundamentalists to in fact affiliate with the wide coalition represented in the Republican Party and to participate in the give-and-take of practical politics, despite all the compromises that inevitably requires. In the strict biblicist view, the American nation can be seen as having forfeited any claim to God’s blessings and as being under judgment for its open sins, so that the only hope is to trust in Jesus to return to set things right. But the enlightenment heritage tells the evangelical religious right that the American principles of civil freedom, self-determination, and free enterprise are the best there are, and that evangelicals can therefore unreservedly embrace the American civil religion and condemn anyone who questions that America has a special place in God’s plan. The strictly biblicist heritage fosters a rhetoric that sounds theocratic and culturally imperialist, and in which a Christian consensus would seem to allow little room for secularists or their rights. The enlightenment heritage means that the leading motif in their politics is the necessity of protecting freedoms, especially the personal and economic freedoms of the classically liberal tradition. So when members of the evangelical religious right speaks about returning to a 'Christian' America, they may sound as though they would return to days of the early Puritans; yet, practically speaking, the ideal they are invoking is tempered by the American enlightenment and is reminiscent of the days of the informal Protestant establishment, when Christianity was respected, but most of the culture operated on more secular terms.

"Even though the populist religious right is marked by paradoxical features, it should also be given credit for drawing attention to important questions about the role of religion in American public life. After the decline of the mainline Protestant establishment, the society was left with no real provision as to how religious viewpoints would be represented in the public sphere, such as in politics or education. At the same time, an immense revolution in mores had been accelerated by the upheavals of the late 1960s. Many prevailing moral standards promoted in popular culture, in commercial culture, by the government, and in public education were at odds with the traditional religious teachings not only of conservative Protestants but also of many of the other traditionalist religious groups across the country. An important question was how such conservative religious viewpoints, which were largely minority viewpoints, might be represented and protected in the public domain. Advocates of the religious right were rightly concerned to guard their own freedoms of religious expression and action. Yet they seldom had a theory of how to do the same unto others as they would have done unto themselves—that is, they rarely spoke of how to provide equal protection for religious and secular viewpoints with which they did not agree."


(Excerpted from “The Twilight of the American Enlightenment: The 1950s and the Crisis of Liberal Belief,” by George M. Marsden. Copyright © 2014 by George M. Marsden. Reprinted by arrangement with Basic Books, a member of the Perseus Books Group. All rights reserved.  MORE GEORGE M. MARSDEN.)

********************


After Schaeffer hijacked the Authoritarian concept as well as Erich Fromm's writings on totalitarianism - two concepts that liberals had previously branded Conservatives with - and applied it to the Conservative fundamentalist evangelical wing, all that was needed was the election of a mean, senile old man to the White House to start the country down the road to secular heaven.  As the piece notes, "...the election of Ronald Reagan in 1980 might represent a window of opportunity to reassert Christian values,"  and the rest is not only history but a flash back to the Middle Ages.

The paragraph that stood out for us was, "Even though the rhetoric sounds authoritarian, as though the nation would be redefined as exclusively Christian and its law would be based on the Bible, the vast majority of fundamentalists and evangelicals of the religious right were—and are—in fact committed to religious liberty," and we find it a little misleading without reading the whole excerpt.

If the Bible thumpers views are derived from "the Bible alone," they have no room in a democratic society based on the Separation of Church and State.

And if, as Schaeffer says, "...we are at war, and there are no neutral parties in the struggle,"  then it is high time that we finish that war, by criminalizing Conservatism, taxing the churches, banning public "worship," and thus squelching all the false issues that the Conservatives come up with, including the abortion issue, states' rights, individual liberty, and all of the other hot buttons that set the Sheeplets groins on fire.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


“Do you have blacks, too?”

George W. Bush to Brazilian President Fernando Henrique Cardoso.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Monday, February 24, 2014

From Reagan to Bush, how the GOP has broken the American dream


Robert Sorbel writing from the Orlando Liberal Examiner posted an article for the Examiner.com, "From Reagan to Bush, how the GOP has broken the American dream," that shows us exactly what happened to our country from a tax perspective when we weren't looking - the Conservatives' Battle Against The Middle Class was over without a shot being fired :

"For over thirty years, the growing gap between the rich and poor in the United States has widened at an alarming rate. The once proud and strong middle class has deteriorated over the last three decades and if the American dream is to be achieved again, the country needs to drastically change.

"When Ronald Reagan was elected president, he started the United States down a path of economical and social destruction. In his first four years in office, from 1981 to 1985, Reagan lowered the top income tax bracket from 70% to 50%. Over the next four years, Reagan took the top bracket from 50% and cut it down to only 28%. With the lack of revenue coming into the federal government, the national debt tripled and to make up for the loss, Reagan raided the Social Security trust fund and went on to raise taxes eleven times, primarily on working Americans.


"Ronald Reagan isn't the only one who is to blame for the shrinking middle class. One major source of revenue that isn't talked about is capital gains. The capital gains tax is the tax put on the wealth that an individual has that is not part of their regular income. Stocks, bonds and real estate are prime examples of what is considered capital gains. While Reagan did lower the top capital gains rate from 28% in 1980 down to 20% by 1986, he did feel the pressure of the debt crisis and brought it back up to 28% by the time he left office. The two big cuts that followed were disastrous.

"In his first term, President Bill Clinton raised the top tax rate slightly to 29%, but in his second term, with a conservative congress at his throat, the rate was lowered down to 21%. The economy was doing well, mainly because of the dot-com bubble and President Clinton raising the top tax rates for the highest earners, but things did change once he left office. As part of the Bush tax cuts, he lowered the top tax rate down to 35%, but took the capital gains rate down to its lowest level since the start of the Great Depression, taxing investment income at only 15%.

"At the low rate of only 15%, the wealthiest Americans pay the same tax rate as a greater at Walmart. The Republican reasoning is that if you give the wealthy tax breaks, they will then create jobs and strengthen the economy. The problem with this logic is that it doesn't work, at least not in the way conservatives say. The wealthy use their tax cuts to either create jobs outside the United States or take advantage of the low capital gains rate through investments. Under the current tax code, many companies actually get tax breaks for creating jobs in other countries, something the president is trying to end.


"In President Obama's American Jobs Act, he had called for an end to corporate loopholes and an increase in the top tax rates. Even the 'Buffett Rule' targets capital gains in an attempt to even the playing field in the tax game. President Obama has offered many tax cuts, but unlike the cuts offered by Republicans, they're tax cuts and credits that will be put into the hands of people who will invest and create jobs, the middle class and small businesses.

"While the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, or the stimulus bill, put a cork into a sinking economy, it didn't fix the problem. The Recovery Act prevented unemployment from reaching record levels and it did create and save over 3 million jobs that otherwise would have been lost. The president understands that the country wants investment, but also that the American people want to see that investment paid for and not just put on the country's credit card.

"If the tax rate is increased on the highest earners, including the capital gains rate, the United States will have the revenue to truly get back on track. What conservative voters don't seem to understand is that the best way to chop away at the debt is to put Americans back to work. Creating an economic agenda that enhances the workforce and increases wages, in the long run, will get the national debt down to a manageable number. The American dream was once something that seemed attainable through hard work, but that dream is fading in today's America. There is an old saying, 'you have to spend money to make money,' and that's exactly what the country needs to do today."


********************

There's another old saying that says you can't make an omelette without breaking eggs, and this fits our current situation perfectly if you substitute "free country" for omelette and "Conservative" for eggs.

What would the country look like if Eisenhower, Nixon, Reagan, and the Bush Boys had never been elected  (We'll toss in Gerald Ford with his daily dose of obstructions in the form of vetoes, even though he was never elected)?


Up to Eisenhower's election, the GOP feared that they would never occupy the White House again after the Republican-caused Depression took hold after the Republican-caused Crash of 1929, but astute public relations experts were the answer for their soiled reputation as the first appearance of paid political consultants made their appearance.

Nixon was probably the first to make effective use of these slimeballs, and it's no coincidence that he remains the best example of Conservative criminality in politics in American history.

Without lies, October Surprises, treason, "second rate burglaries," and other assorted felonies it's difficult to elect Republicans, no matter how they hide their true Conservative colors....and the key to remembering the difference between Conservatives and criminality is the word "Conservatism."

There oughta be a law.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


"Just as the financial crisis has created toxic assets and 'zombie' financial
institutions, so has it transformed conservatism into a movement of the living dead."

Thomas Frank. (American political analyst, historian, journalist and columnist for
Harper's Magazine. Born March 21, 1965.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sunday, February 23, 2014

Missouri GOP Still Wants Kids To Be Stupid, Introduces Anti-Science Bill


Conservatives in Texas eliminate Critical Thinking course requirements, Missouri kids are kept away from learning actual science, and Conservatives push for anti-evolution teachings in every State - you'd think they wanted our kids to be stupid, and we find out for sure in Stephen D. Foster Jr.'s article in Addictinginfo.org, "Missouri GOP Still Wants Kids To Be Stupid, Introduces Anti-Science Bill.":

"Republicans refuse to take no for an answer. Time and time again, anti-science bills aimed at killing biology in schools have failed. But Christian conservatives are trying again anyway with a new bill.


"Missouri Republicans introduced a bill to let parents keep their kids from learning scientific facts.

"Missouri Republicans led by state rep. Rick Brattin have introduced House Bill 1472 in an attempt to keep kids ignorant about the science of evolution.

"The Kansas City Star reports that the bill would force schools to notify parents before teaching any lessons that involve evolution. Parents can then opt to pull their kids from the class so that they don’t learn the scientifically proven biological process. In short, Missouri’s GOP wants to give parents the ability to make their kids stupid.

"Brattin claims that teaching such materials is 'an absolute infringement on people’s beliefs.' He then goes on to say that because religion is a crock, evolution shouldn’t be taught.
"'Even though what’s being taught is just as much faith and, you know, just as much pulled out of the air as, say, any religion,' Brattin said. 

"Evolution, unlike religion, is supported by a multitude of evidence.

"Did you hear what he said? Religion is 'pulled out of the air' so we should teach that in science class alongside evolution or not teach them at all. Except that evolution has a multitude of physical scientific proof that makes it a concrete fact rather than something pulled out of thin air like religion.

"Brattin has tried to assault science education in Missouri for years.

"Year after year, Republicans in Missouri have made multiple attempts to replace evolution science with crackpot creationism. Just last year, Brattin sponsored a bill to force science educators to teach the biblical story of creation in class. Thankfully, reason prevailed and the bill failed.

"GOP attacks on science have hurt Americans internationally.

"The Missouri GOP’s bill is the latest in a series of attacks on science and evolution. They will continue from the Right until American kids are all tragically ignorant or voters toss Republicans out of office. A recent poll found that the GOP is even more anti-science than ever before. Furthermore, the statistics show that science has become a partisan issue. Republicans reject it while Democrats embrace it. Sadly, the GOP’s assault on science has already damaged our place among other nations in the world. Four years ago, American teens placed 17th in the world in science scores. Today, we rank 21st, a slip of four spots since the GOP began a vicious partisan campaign to eliminate evolution from science classrooms in states across the country.


"Anti-science legislation should be seen as child abuse and an assault on America.

"The current Missouri legislation is tantamount to legalizing child abuse. Instead of letting children learn the facts from a qualified teacher, the bill would give parents the ability to pull their children from participating in the lessons. Parents already have the ability to take their kids to church if they want them to learn about creationism. They shouldn’t be able to prevent them from learning science. It not only holds children back in their education, it holds America back as a whole. The GOP war on science is designed to poison the minds of children in an effort to indoctrinate them into their hateful brand of Christianity. Factual proof of all kinds exist to validate biological evolution. The same cannot be said for religion, which Brattin admits is something 'pulled out of the air.' Science belongs in schools and in our government. Religion does not belong in either."


Author: Stephen D. Foster Jr.



********************



"An educated citizenry is a vital requisite for our survival as a free people."

If you think that Conservatives don't know about this quote from Thomas Jefferson about democracy and education, we've got a bridge in New Jersey for sale.

If a fly on the wall could record conversations from Conservatives about dumbing down our children, a trial for conspiracy would be a slam dunk, and while this is a simple example of Conservative criminality, it is one of the most dangerous ones for the country.

"The current Missouri legislation is tantamount to legalizing child abuse," and Conservatives like Brattin will have to face the music like any perpetrator of child abuse when Conservatism is criminalized.

Now we know why Conservative Sheeplets deny man-made Climate Change: they've been dumbed down by their own people.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


"Platitude: an idea (a) that is admitted to be true by everyone, and (b) that is not
true."

H.L. Mencken.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Saturday, February 22, 2014

How Lincoln’s Republicans Became Franklin Roosevelt’s Democrats


While Conservatives try to make Lincoln one of their own, "Guest Writer's" brief article at Addictinginfo.org, "How Lincoln’s Republicans Became Franklin Roosevelt’s Democrats," says otherwise:

"History truly does repeat itself. Sometimes in frighteningly similar ways.

How Lincoln’s Republicans became Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s Democrats. History truly does repeat itself. Sometimes in frighteningly similar ways.
"We all know how the Republican Party started out as the Party of Lincoln, the Great Emancipator who took a political 'states-rights' issue and raised the ante to set America on the moral high ground with a bloody civil war that ended legalized slavery of African-Americans. Blacks were forever indebted to Mr. Lincoln and his Republican Party for its commitment to their freedom.But, that all changed with another Republican, Herbert Hoover. In the 1920s, Hoover was the Secretary of Commerce under Republican Calvin Coolidge. Hoover was to Coolidge as 'Brownie' was to George W. Bush. And just like the Bush Administration, Coolidge’s Admin had to handle a natural catastrophe similar in scope to Katrina. Fortunately, Hoover was a smarter administrator than Brownie and managed the relief work admirably. Unfortunately he was a lying, manipulative, power-hungry Republican that would have made Dick Cheney proud.

"The story of how Lincoln’s Republicans became FDR’s Democrats.


"The Great Mississippi Flood of 1927 broke the banks and levees of the lower Mississippi River in early 1927, resulting in flooding of millions of acres and leaving one and a half million people displaced from their homes. Although such a disaster did not fall under the duties of the Commerce Department, the governors of six states along the Mississippi specifically asked for Herbert Hoover in the emergency. President Calvin Coolidge sent Hoover to mobilize state and local authorities, militia, army engineers, the Coast Guard, and the American Red Cross.

"With a grant from the Rockefeller Foundation, Hoover set up health units to work in the flooded regions for a year. These workers stamped out malaria, pellagra, and typhoid fever from many areas. His work during the flood brought Herbert Hoover to the front page of newspapers almost everywhere, and he gained new accolades as a humanitarian. The great victory of his relief work, he stressed, was not that the government rushed in and provided all assistance; it was that much of the assistance available was provided by private citizens and organizations in response to his appeals.
“'I suppose I could have called in the Army to help,' he said, 'but why should I, when I only had to call upon Main Street.'
"The horrible treatment of African Americans during the disaster, however, endangered Hoover’s reputation as a humanitarian. Local officials brutalized blacks and prevented them from leaving relief camps, aid meant for African-American sharecroppers was often given to the landowners instead, and many times black males were conscripted by locals into forced labor, sometimes at gun point. Knowing the potential ramifications on his presidential aspirations if such knowledge became public, Hoover struck a deal with Robert Moton, the prominent African-American successor to Booker T. Washington as president of the Tuskegee Institute.

"In exchange for keeping the suffering of African Americans out of the public eye, Hoover promised unprecedented influence for African Americans if he was elected president. Moton agreed, and consistent with the accommodationist philosophy of Washington, worked actively to suppress information about mistreatment of blacks from being revealed to the media. Following election, Hoover broke his promises. This led to an African-American backlash in the 1932 election that shifted allegiance from the Republican party to the Democrats. That was the year, of course, that American first elected Democrat Franklin D. Roosevelt.

"The original 'Southern Strategy.'

"Thanks for the great idea, Herb!"

"To gain Republican votes in Southern states, Hoover pioneered an electoral tactic later known as the 'Southern Strategy.' Hoover ousted many African American leaders in the Republican party, and replaced them with whites. Hoover’s appeal to white voters yielded substantial results, including Republican victories in Tennessee, North Carolina, Florida, Virginia, and Texas. It marked the first time a Republican candidate for president carried Texas.

"This outraged the black leadership, which largely broke from the Republican Party, and began seeking candidates who supported civil rights within the Democratic Party.

"This 'Southern Strategy' would be used again by Republicans in the 1950s & 1960s to drive a racial wedge between black and white Democrats during the struggle for civil rights and desegregation. Republicans never unite….they ALWAYS divide to conquer."

********************


Middle school students may know how  incompetent and pro-business Hoover was, but few knew about his racism.

We pointed out that ugly historical fact in our article just a year ago, "Hoover's Switch: Conservatives And Racism," and a short quote from an article at Nathannewman.org, "Hoover And The Roots of GOP Racist Politics," hits the nail firmly on the head by noting that "...the myth that the 'southern strategy' of 1968 was something radically new for the Republican Party. In fact, the GOP has spent most of the 20th century abandoning its origins at the party of Lincoln to build itself on the rock of southern racism."

Many thought that racism was dying out in the Sixties and that the racist South was now the "New South," but the Tea Party groupies still gulp down their racist teacup of hate while they admire the criminality of the Conservative leadership and their paid propagandists.

Nothing has changed with the Johnny Rebs.











--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


“I get speaker’s fees from time to time, but not very much.”

Mitt Romney, who earned $374,000 in speaking fees in one year according to his
personal financial disclosure (January 2012).

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------