Overheard this conversation on the bus this morning. I haven’t seen “The Hills” but I imagine this is what each episode consists of.
Here’s another reason why most Americans hate conservatives
This right-wing terrorist website is profiting from the sale of “hunting” stickers which encourage the murder of liberals. Is there any wonder why right-wing hate and violence is on the rise in this country and is encouraged by the likes of Rush Limbaugh, Bill O’Reilly and others? Disgusting.
America Has Never Been a Christian Nation
Newt Gingrich, Rush Limbaugh and Randall Terry would all like you to believe the United States was founded as, and continues to be, a Christian nation. They would like you to believe the rights we enjoy as Americans were granted by their god and only their god. These radical neoconservatives forget that freedom from religious oppression is one of the founding principles which led to the formation of the United States of America. And there are a few key moments in history they would rather you forget:
- In 1657 a group of early Americans signed a petition requesting the lifting of a ban on Quaker worship. The Flushing Remonstrance, as it is known, was the basis for the Constitution’s provision on freedom from religion in the Bill of Rights.
- In 1788, James Madison writes in Federalist No. 51: “In a free government, the security for civil rights must be the same as for religious rights.”
- Article Six of the Constitution states that “no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.”
- The First Amenedment to the Constitution states: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;”
- The Treaty of Tripoli, ratified by the Senate and signed by President John Adams in 1797, states in Article 11: “…the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion;”
- The doctrine of separation of church state, which can be attributed to Thomas Jefferson in a letter to the Danbury Baptists in 1802, has been cited by the U.S. Supreme Court numerous times in favor of this principle.
Those radical conservatives who follow a “you’re with us or against us” mentality are no different than those radical Islamists who flew jets into buildings and murdered 2,974 people on September 11, 2001. Those so-called patriots who claim to cherish the Constitution and our founding principles are the same ones who want to destroy everything America stands for: freedom, diversity and equality under the law. If the folks who worship Fox News had their way, we’d be living in the dark ages and reduced to nothing more than mindless subjects of a Christian theocracy. Thankfully a renewed sense of real patriotism in America will prevent that nightmare from becoming reality.
The Illogical Conservative
Newt Gingrich, Rush Limbaugh and a handful of right-wing extremists are calling on Judge Sonia Sotomayor to withdraw her nomination because of what they view are “racist” remarks (yes, ironic a Republican would be offended by a racist). This comes after their criticism of President Obama’s desire to find someone who is “empathetic” and with real world experience.
Conservatives claim empathy or any other personal feelings have no place when deciding the rule of law. So by their own logic wouldn’t racist views by a Supreme Court Justice be irrelevant? Aren’t conservatives simply looking for mindless robots to interpret our laws?
Fail.
Ten Things To Know About Judge Sonia Sotomayor
- Judge Sotomayor would bring more federal judicial experience to the bench than any Supreme Court justice in 100 years. Over her three-decade career, she has served in a wide variety of legal roles, including as a prosecutor, litigator, and judge.
- Judge Sotomayor is a trailblazer. She was the first Latina to serve on the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit and was the youngest member of the court when appointed to the District Court for the Southern District of New York. If confirmed, she will be the first Hispanic to sit on the U.S. Supreme Court.
- While on the bench, Judge Sotomayor has consistently protected the rights of working Americans, ruling in favor of health benefits and fair wages for workers in several cases.
- Judge Sotomayor has shown strong support for First Amendment rights, including in cases of religious expression and the rights to assembly and free speech.
- Judge Sotomayor has a strong record on civil rights cases, ruling for plaintiffs who had been discriminated against based on disability, sex and race.
- Judge Sotomayor embodies the American dream. Born to Puerto Rican parents, she grew up in a South Bronx housing project and was raised from age nine by a single mother, excelling in school and working her way to graduate summa cum laude from Princeton University and to become an editor of the Law Journal at Yale Law School.
- In 1995, Judge Sotomayor “saved baseball” when she stopped the owners from illegally changing their bargaining agreement with the players, thereby ending the longest professional sports walk-out in history.
- Judge Sotomayor ruled in favor of the environment in a case of protecting aquatic life in the vicinity of power plants in 2007, a decision that was overturned by the Roberts Supreme Court.
- In 1992, Judge Sotomayor was confirmed by the Senate without opposition after being appointed to the bench by George H.W. Bush.
- Judge Sotomayor is a widely respected legal figure, having been described as “…an outstanding colleague with a keen legal mind,” “highly qualified for any position in which wisdom, intelligence, collegiality and good character would be assets,” and “a role model of aspiration, discipline, commitment, intellectual prowess and integrity.”
From MoveOn.org
The Constitution vs. the Bible: What Happens When Conservative Ideology Conflicts With Religious Hypocrisy?
There are two schools of thought on how the United States Constitution should be read. On one hand, you have those who interpret the Constitution quite literally. These people – usually conservative in ideology – argue we should view this document as our Founding Fathers intended: word-by-word, literal and with little room for interpretation. On the other side, there are those who view the Constitution as a living document, flexible enough to change as society progresses. Usually liberal in ideology, these people point to changes that reflect an evolution in views: the 19th Amendment which guarantees women the right to vote, for example (seems utterly ridiculous this needs to be enumerated on paper, doesn’t it?). Those who interpret the Constitution as written are usually called “strict Constitutionalists.” And those who use common sense and logic to interpret what was masterfully written over 200 years ago are labeled “activist” by conservatives.
In my many conversations with those far right Christian conservatives who see no room for interpretation of the Constitution (guns for everyone, at any time, in any situation, with zero restrictions), I find it ironic that their views on the writings of the Bible are quite different. On one hand, we have a document that was drafted on September 17, 1787, by men who were well aware of how the hard hand of government could negatively affect personal freedoms. They were smart, educated, worldly and diverse. They were scholars, farmers and pioneers. To argue they lacked foresight as to how this great nation would grow and evolve is insulting.
Then we have a fantastic book of stories that has been interpreted and reinterpreted for centuries by men who claim to have the email address of Jesus Christ. The Bible retells the teachings of a great prophet who talks of love, forgiveness, selflessness and compassion. Jesus walks with the poor. He extends a hand and heals the leper. He goes postal on those who embrace greed and materialism. In short, Jesus Christ was the ultimate liberal.
However, there’s a deliciously dark side to the Bible that any Sith Lord would completely embrace. First, there’s human sacrifice:
Take your son, your only son – yes, Isaac, whom you love so much – and go to the land of Moriah. Sacrifice him there as a burnt offering on one of the mountains, which I will point out to you. (Genesis 22:1-18)
Abraham takes his own son up on a mountain and builds an altar upon which to burn him. He lies to him and has him help build the altar. Then Abraham ties his son to the altar and puts a knife to his throat. He then hears God tell him this was just a test of his faith. Even though Abraham didn’t kill his son, it seems to be a cruel and unusual punishment that would warrant an extended jail sentence. A Christian act?
Then the Bible talks about murder, rape and pillage:
As you approach a town to attack it, first offer its people terms for peace. If they accept your terms and open the gates to you, then all the people inside will serve you in forced labor. But if they refuse to make peace and prepare to fight, you must attack the town. When the LORD your God hands it over to you, kill every man in the town. But you may keep for yourselves all the women, children, livestock, and other plunder. You may enjoy the spoils of your enemies that the LORD your God has given you. (Deuteronomy 20:10-14).
And the last example is of slavery:
However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way. (Leviticus 25:44-46).
What kind of God approves of murder, rape, and slavery?
So what does this all mean and how does it relate to conservatives and the Constitution? In just about every conversation I’ve had with a Christian conservative, they forcefully assert the Constitution is a document written in stone, with no room for interpretation; what happened over 200 years ago applies today. Yet when I innocently point out some of the aforementioned passages in the book they embrace tighter than a Texas teen embraces a Jonas Brothers CD, they tell me I’m reading it incorrectly. “Eric,” they say, “the Old Testament is for the Jews and the New Testament is for the rest of us. Well, except for the Seven Laws of Noah in the Old Testament which apply to everyone.” More twists than “Lost.”
So we have a document that was written relatively recently - one in which we can look at various supporting documents for justification and interpretation that has no room for interpretation or growth. And we have a collection of stories that has been rewritten for centuries and is very explicit in its teachings that is subject for interpretation? One is derived from common sense; the other supposedly from divine intervention.
Now that you’ve indulged me, you’re probably waiting for the point. So here it is: religious conservatives have a double standard. They view the United States Constitution as a end-all be-all set of rules for how this nation should operate. Yet, the Word of God, as they believe, is somehow open for interpretation. Complete freedom from government, good. Gay marriage, bad. Death penalty and torture good. Abortion bad.
Humans evolve. Opinions change and society progresses. If in fact there was a superior power who created us in His superior image, one has to believe it would be cruel to think that image doesn’t have the capacity to grow, flourish and change. Karl Friedrich Benz created the first automobile powered by an internal combustion engine 124 years ago. Today we’re reading Tweets from humans orbiting the earth. We have great potential to evolve and grow and the only thing that prevents us from moving forward is fear.
Democrats Do It Better
The truth is, since 1900 Democratic presidents have dominated on every economic front.
Let’s do a quick rundown of the presidential scorecard. The dissection of more than a hundred years of White House economic polciy reveals some startling if not unexpected numbers:
- Since 1900, Democrats saw a 12.3% return on the S&P 500 to the Republicans’ 8%
- Since 1930, Democrats created 5.4% GDP growth. Republicans rang in with only 1.6% (source: Business Wire, August 16, 2007)
Now for some facts from the Los Angeles Times, the Washington Monthly and Princeton University In April 2005, Michael Kinsley did a quick rundown of spending, deficit, GDP and unemployment for the Los Angeles Times. Kinsley started with the 1960 Economic Report and used 45 years of economic history to debunk the Republicans’ claim to smaller government:
Consider federal spending (a.k.a. “big government”). It has gone up an average f about $50 billion a year under presidents of both parties. But that breaks down as $35 billion a year under Democratis presidents and $60 billion under Republicans. If you assume that it takes a year for a president’s policies to take effect, Democrats have raised spending by $40 billion a year and Republicans by $55 billion. (source)
Then, in May 2005, Kevin Drum followed up on Kinsley’s math in the Washington Monthly. Drum’s conclusion was essential “spike the ball.” It’s done. Game, set, match. He wrote:
The results are simple: Democratic presidents have consistently higher economic growth and consistently lower unemployment than Republican presidents. If you add in a time lag, you will get the same result. If you eliminate the best and worst presidents, you get the same result. If you take a look at other economic indicators, you get the same result. There’s just no way around it: Democratic administrations are better for the economy than Republican administrations. (source)
Macroeconomic Performance Under
Democratic and Republican Presidents, 1948-2005
Democrats are also indisputably better for social justice. Two words for you: income inequality.
Under Democrats, income inequality declines. Under Republicans, it grows. Back in 2004, Bartles wrote, “My projections suggest that income inequality…would actually have declined slightly over the past 30 years had the patterns of income growth actually observed during Democratic administrations been in effect throughout that period; conversely, continuous application of the patterns of income growth actually observed during periods of Republican control would have produced an even greater divergence in the economic fortunes of rich and poor.” (source) Republican policies would create what Bartles calls a “Platinum-Gilded Age.” (source: Larry Bartels, Unequal Democracy, p. 31)
This is an excerpt from 40 More Years: How the Democrats Will Rule the Next Generation by James Carville and Rebecca Buckwalter-Poza.
How to be a Republican in Ten Easy Steps
1. Always act superior, even when your opponent clearly outclasses you intellectually (this will happen frequently).
2. Demand that your opponent provide evidence to prove their point, then dismiss the evidence based on its source when they do, no matter how widely-accepted or valid that source happens to be. If you can’t do that, lie and deny that you said what you said, or lie and say your opponent misinterpreted your statement and is now off topic. Failing those tactics: Change the subject.
3. Lie about all scientific and historical facts when they can’t be ignored; facts often get in the way of right-wing ideology. And don’t forget: No lie is too outrageous. Repeat the same lies loudly and often.
4. Project. A lot.
5. Take many, many cheap shots at prominent Democrats and your opponents, then decry the lack of civility in political discourse.
6. Be proud of your hypocrisy; being a hypocrite is essential to being a right-winger — and a troll. However, don’t acknowledge being a hypocrite. Instead, characterize yourself as being “principled” and try to rationalize your hypocrisy. Also, try to ignore that pesky cognitive dissonance!
7. Blame Bill Clinton, Barack Obama, and the Democratic Party for everything. EVERYTHING. The Huronian glaciation? Clinton’s fault. The Lindbergh kidnapping? Obama. The eventual supernova of Earth’s Sun billions of years from now? Nancy Pelosi and Russ Feingold. Nothing, absolutely NOTHING, is the fault of a Republican, even when it is.
8. Continually initiate contact with your opponents and, whenever they respond, falsely accuse them of cyberstalking you.
9. Abandon well-known Republicans (i.e. George W. Bush and Dick Cheney) when they become incredibly unpopular, and claim that they aren’t “real” conservatives while ignoring that they’re so far-right they make white supremacists look like members of the ACLU.
10. Secretly accept that you’re a minority and let yourself be consumed by your deep and abiding hatred of everyone and everything that doesn’t conform to your worldview (currently 99.99% of reality).
Source: Alexander Ryking
