Month: February 2010

TerraSymps

by digby

For a bunch of fearsome lawnorder terrorist scourges, these Republicans sure have a hard time condemning Americans who attack government workers:

CAVUTO: We have a guy who is just ranting at the system, ranting at the IRS, ranting at big government, the need for health care, not the need for unions – I mean really crazy stuff. I would just be curious of your reaction to all that.

SCOTT BROWN: Well It’ s certainly tragic and I feel for the families obviously that are being effected by it. And I don’t know if its related but I can just sense not only in my election but since being here in Washington people are frustrated. They want transparency. They want their elected officials to be accountable and open and talk about the things effecting their daily lives. So I am not sure if there is a connection, I certainly hope not, but we need to do things better.

I guess he’s saying that the people who voted for him are likely to be domestic terrorists? It sounds like it. (He also added that nobody like paying taxes …)

But Brown isn’t the only one to express similar sentiments. Recall this one from Senator John Cornyn, in response to a spate of murders?

“I don’t know if there is a cause-and-effect connection, but we have seen some recent episodes of courthouse violence in this country. … And I wonder whether there may be some connection between the perception in some quarters, on some occasions, where judges are making political decisions yet are unaccountable to the public, that it builds up and builds up and builds up to the point where some people engage in, engage in violence…No one, including those judges, including the judges on the U.S. Supreme Court, should be surprised if one of us stands up and objects.”

Nobody should be surprised that the right wing doesn’t see anything wrong with nice white, anti-government lunatics try to kill people, that’s for sure. Their leaders certainly aren’t.

.

Scams

by digby

The TV is obsessed with the anti-tax nut who flew his plane into a building because he didn’t know how to account for a piano on his tax returns. Or something. from the looks of it, he’s a fairly typical anti-government crank whose incoherent combination of grievances sounds as if it would be perfectly at home at your average tea party.

But I was intrigued by his reference to an early affiliation with a group that held “tax code readings” in California because I had a vague recollection of some scam a friend of mine had been involved with. Here’s what this man wrote in his “manifesto”:

My introduction to the real American nightmare starts back in the early ‘80s. Unfortunately after more than 16 years of school, somewhere along the line I picked up the absurd, pompous notion that I could read and understand plain English. Some friends introduced me to a group of people who were having ‘tax code’ readings and discussions. In particular, zeroed in on a section relating to the wonderful “exemptions” that make institutions like the vulgar, corrupt Catholic Church so incredibly wealthy. We carefully studied the law (with the help of some of the “best”, high-paid, experienced tax lawyers in the business), and then began to do exactly what the “big boys” were doing (except that we weren’t steeling from our congregation or lying to the government about our massive profits in the name of God). We took a great deal of care to make it all visible, following all of the rules, exactly the way the law said it was to be done.

The intent of this exercise and our efforts was to bring about a much-needed re-evaluation of the laws that allow the monsters of organized religion to make such a mockery of people who earn an honest living. However, this is where I learned that there are two “interpretations” for every law; one for the very rich, and one for the rest of us… Oh, and the monsters are the very ones making and enforcing the laws; the inquisition is still alive and well today in this country.

That little lesson in patriotism cost me $40,000+, 10 years of my life, and set my retirement plans back to 0. It made me realize for the first time that I live in a country with an ideology that is based on a total and complete lie. It also made me realize, not only how naive I had been, but also the incredible stupidity of the American public; that they buy, hook, line, and sinker, the crap about their “freedom”… and that they continue to do so with eyes closed in the face of overwhelming evidence and all that keeps happening in front of them.

A little googling brought it back:

Tax protesters usually evade taxes and sometimes commit acts of violence, but a number of people involved in the tax protest movement have also engaged in a variety of scams and frauds designed to capitalize on the beliefs of other tax protesters and the greed of ordinary citizens. Though they generally believe in the anti-tax rhetoric they preach, a variety of groups and individuals have worked actively to defraud others through the marketing of bogus trusts, “untax” kits or other devices that would ostensibly allow people to avoid paying income taxes.

Perhaps the most famous such tax protest organization was the California-based Your Heritage Protection Association, which, at one point in the early 1980s, could boast nearly 19,000 members. Its leader, Armen Condo, taught followers how to file papers claiming they were exempt from income taxes and urged them to pay a portion of those taxes to his organization as dues. Condo collected around $2 million before being arrested and convicted of mail and tax fraud in 1982, after which YHPA gradually died off. However, the YHPA was followed by the Pilot Connection Society, founded by Phillip and Marlene Marsh of Fresno, California. The Society sold “untax” kits to members from all 50 states, collecting more than $10 million in fees and dues before the Marshes and five associates were arrested on a variety of charges in 1993 — with members in other states arrested subsequently

IIRC, this group was one of those “common law” groups that set up mirror governments and declared that the “sovereign” state of wherever didn’t have to abide by the US Constitution. They are also loosely affiliated with the Posse Comitatus white supremacists, militias and other garden variety Anti-government fringers. It’s all part of that great American wingnut tapestry.

Obviously, I’m just guessing that one or both of these scams are what this guy was referring to, but it fits. If it was, then this fellow was not only an anti-tax loon, he was a victim of anti-tax loons, which makes him a double dupe.

Update: A little bit more about the “Your Heritage Protection Association” scam.

.

So Cheney told CPAC today that Obama is a one term president.

I couldn’t help but be reminded of my Dad, who smugly insisted from June of 1993 to November 1996 that Clinton was “a one-termer.” He was very, very sure that the country was coming around to the fact that Clinton was illegitimate and that liberalism had been finally proven to be un-American. And subsequently he was excessively frustrated when Clinton won a second term. These folks tend to work themselves up into a frenzy of expectations that turn them rabidly angry when thwarted.

Not that it changes anything. But I’m just saying — if you think they are already out of their minds, just wait. It can get worse.

.

The Public Option Gambit

by digby

It’s looking more and more as if the Senate really is going to have a reconciliation vote on the Public Option. Whether this means they can get to 50 (and whether Biden would actually cast the deciding vote for it if necessary) remains to be seen. I’m guessing that at the very least they want to show good intentions, which means that base demoralization is on their minds. This is good. It should be on their minds. The mid-term depends upon it.

But I would warn them that if they think that building up the base’s hopes on this again only to fail to even get 50 out of 58 Democrats it isn’t going to work. If they are serious about rallying the base they need to deliver, period. No excuses. They have a majority. If they hold a vote that only requires 51, they need to win it.

I’m just praying they aren’t going to have a spirited losing debate on the floor and then go the Evan Bayh route yesterday when he was on TV, righteously blaming the Republicans for being obstructionists (good) but also blaming Democrats for making the “perfect the enemy of the good”. One more lecture about this and I’m going to put my foot through the TV. The truth of the matter is that liberals have been accommodating every damned step of the way, forced to eat dirt from backstabbers like Joe Lieberman and have been far more compromising than jackasses like Bart Stupak and Ben Nelson. It pays to remember that if liberals had their way we would be talking about a national, cradle to grave universal health care plan (Medicare for all) instead of this Rube Goldberg contraption that’s been put together with toothpicks and ear wax. So lectures about demanding perfection really need to be aimed at the vaunted “centrists” and the conservatives, who made this mess a necessary requirement for passage.

The activists at the PCCC who are working on this deserve a lot of credit for plugging away and getting it back on the reconciliation agenda long after everyone else had pretty much thrown in the towel. It makes sense both politically and fiscally to do it and there’s really no good reason that they can’t muster a majority. It’s even possible that the congress has finally realized this.

But if they are running the same game they ran before I can’t imagine how much worse they are making it for themselves. They need to be very, very serious about passing it. This Charlie Brown with the football routine is what’s killing them with the base. They just can’t afford to do it again.

.

Whose Constitution Is It Anyway?

by digby

I wonder how these bold new “constitutional conservatives” are going to handle questions like this:

Can a U.S. senator be removed from office by popular vote — through the procedure known as recall? That question is now being hotly debated in New Jersey, where the Sussex County Tea Party is pushing a recall of Sen. Robert Menendez, a Democrat and head of the Democrats’ Senate political arm, the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, or DSCC. “He has voted for unconstitutional bills, including health care and cap and trade,” the group says. “He also has consistently voted for legislation favoring illegal immigration and irresponsible fiscal spending.”

But do a state’s residents have the power to vote a senator out of office? Yes, New Jersey law explicitly says. “The people of this state shall have the power to recall … any United States senator or representative elected from this state,” a state law provides, written to conform with a similar provision in New Jersey’s constitution. But throughout U.S. history, no U.S. senator or representative has ever been recalled, and many legal scholars believe such an effort would be unconstitutional. They note that the U.S. Constitution provides for removing a senator or congressman only by vote of a member’s peers — through expulsion. “The recall of members was considered at the time of the drafting of the federal constitution in 1787, but no such provisions were included in the final version,” says a 2003 report by the Congressional Research Service. It’s that very silence that the Sussex County Tea Party believes provides an opening. Powers not specifically spelled out in the U.S. Constitution for the federal government are reserved to the states, including the recall authority, they argue. The U.S. Supreme Court has never squarely decided the question, but has suggested in other rulings that states have no power over positions created by the federal government, such as senators and congressmen. For now, the group is fighting in state court over a more fundamental issue — the legal right to gather signatures on a petition seeking the recall vote. Last month, New Jersey’s secretary of state said any such petition could not be accepted because a recall effort would violate the federal Constitution. “This is a matter of free speech,” says Dan Silberstein, a lawyer for the Tea Party group. “Gathering signatures on a petition is core political expression.” On Feb. 26th, a state appeals court will hear oral arguments on the petition issue. If the courts allow the Sussex County Tea Party to gather signatures, the group would then face the bigger legal battle, testing whether the voters actually have the power, under the U.S. Constitution, to recall a U.S. senator.

How about this:

Is there a right to secede from the Union, or did the Civil War settle that? Certain Tea Partiers have raised the possibility .. Enter a New York personal injury lawyer, and Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia. The lawyer, Eric Turkewitz, says his brother Dan, a screenwriter, put just such a question to all of the Supreme Court justices in 2006 — he was working on an idea about Maine leaving the U.S.and a big showdown at the Supreme Court — and Scalia responded. His answer was no: “I am afraid I cannot be of much help with your problem, principally because I cannot imagine that such a question could ever reach the Supreme Court. To begin with, the answer is clear. If there was any constitutional issue resolved by the Civil War, it is that there is no right to secede. (Hence, in the Pledge of Allegiance, “one Nation, indivisible.”) Secondly, I find it difficult to envision who the parties to this lawsuit might be. Is the State suing the United States for a declaratory judgment? But the United States cannot be sued without its consent, and it has not consented to this sort of suit.

That’s not likely to sit well with Wolf Blitzer’s BFF, Eric Erickkson, who, while explaining the Mt Vernon manifesto, said this:

BLITZER: But the point that I’m trying to make is, isn’t the — the Supreme Court the final decision maker when it comes to whether or not the legislative branch or the executive branch goes too far?

ERICKSON: No. I don’t think the Supreme Court is. And I don’t think the founders of the Constitution did. We live in a day where we think when the Supreme Court says something is so, that’s the case. But the Supreme Court changes its mind. It’s not infallible.

Now, Antonin Scalia may think that as a Supreme Court justice he is the designated channeler of the founders’ original intent, but Eric Erickson begs to disagree. I guess that he believes the founders intended that right wing bloggers and ancient conservative movement functionaries to be the one’s to do it. I keep looking for that clause in the constitution and I can’t find it. Anybody?

.

Looking For A Reaction

by digby

They’re getting cocky:

At CPAC this morning, Young America’s Foundation spokesman Jason Mattera kicked off his speech by suggesting progressives are ugly, rambling, druggies:

MATTERA: It’s always a delight to participate in CPAC. This is like our Woodstock. Except, unlike the left gathering, our women are beautiful, we speak in complete sentences, and our notion of freedom doesn’t consist of snorting cocaine…which is certainly one thing that separates us from Barack Obama.

For some reason, I find the assertion that they speak in complete sentences to be the funniest part of that.

.

Meanwhile, In Our Alternate Universe

by digby

Have you heard that Bill Clinton was directing a clandestine counter-tea party operation while he was getting stents put in his heart? Neither have I.

Taylor Marsh caught this:

Big Government has learned that Clintonistas are plotting a “push/pull” strategy. They plan to identify 7-8 national figures active in the tea party movement and engage in deep opposition research on them. If possible, they will identify one or two they can perhaps ‘turn’, either with money or threats, to create a mole in the movement. The others will be subjected to a full-on smear campaign. (Has MSNBC already been notified?)

Big Government has also learned that James Carville will head up the effort.

Obviously, there is no love lost between Obama and the Clinton machine. It may at first seem odd that Clinton would rush to Obama’s defense, but the tea party movement poses a threat far beyond the immediate goals of the Obama Administration.

Right. Bill Clinton sees the fearsome teabagging threat and is assembling his army of socialist street thugs to counteract it. This is because:

The tea party movement could evolve into a new political realignment, one founded on a belief in limited government and less government interference in the economy. The Progressive agenda, which has been painstakingly built up over the last three decades, could be left in tatters.

This bold new idea of limited government is taking the country by storm. Why has no one ever thought of such a thing before?! The sheer creativity of it is mind boggling. Why the next thing you know they’ll be promising lower taxes and a strong national defense and then where will we be?

This is just going to kill our decades-in-the-making huge government socialist utopia. Thank God our Dear Leader Bill Clinton is on the case.

.

Randy Randies

by digby

About 20 people sent me this today, knowing that I have a particular interest in Ayn Rand and her bodice ripping yarn, Atlas Shrugged. It’s a good one.

But I was almost hurt to find out that over all the years I’ve been ranking on Rand, until Batocchio sent this in nobody ever thought to send me this little slice of perfection:

An excerpt:

“What in capitalism’s name is going on here,” Hank yelled with bursting anger from the bottom of his manly lungs as he lunged through the door. It wasn’t as perfect as Francisco’s mockery, no man could touch that, but it was with the kind of power only a capitalist could muster. Dagny fluttered with lust.

“What the hell are you all doing in my office,” Jim demanded weekly, the only way a socialist could demand. “Hank, we must talk,” Francisco said in a softly mocking way. Hank’s heart fluttered with love he suddenly felt for the man. Even if he was a slacker, could my heart be wrong, Hank asked himself. He reached for Francisco’s hand, wanting to hold him close. “No,” Dagny screamed with indignation and a pointed finger. “Please, I want him to take me and show me what a weak little girl I really am! That’s what all women want!” Hank looked torn. “Hey everybody,” said a quiet voice from behind Hank. Hank took up most of the doorway with his manly capitalistic bulk. The crowd parted like the sea and a well groomed handsome man with a shock of boyish blond hair stood at the foot of it. “John, you’re not supposed to show up for eight-hundred more pages,” Francisco said mockingly. “Well, I got bored with the wait and figured what the hell. So… who wants to know what this is all about?” John smiled and every man’s heart in the room melted. Dagny felt the overwhelming urge to become his servant and to clean up after him. That’s what all women wanted after all, she figured.

If you haven’t waded through the book, this will save you a whole lot of wasted time.

.

Over Before It Began

by digby

Wolf Blitzer just wondered if this “Mt Vernon Statement” will launch” a new era of conservative ascendance.” I thought, already? Did the era of liberal ascendance come and go when I popped out to Starbucks for a cappuccino?

In case you were wondering what this bold, new conservative manifesto contains, here it is. My God, what ever will we do in the face of this fresh, exciting breakthrough?

The Mount Vernon Statement

Constitutional Conservatism: A Statement for the 21st Century

We recommit ourselves to the ideas of the American Founding. Through the Constitution, the Founders created an enduring framework of limited government based on the rule of law. They sought to secure national independence, provide for economic opportunity, establish true religious liberty and maintain a flourishing society of republican self-government.

These principles define us as a country and inspire us as a people. They are responsible for a prosperous, just nation unlike any other in the world. They are our highest achievements, serving not only as powerful beacons to all who strive for freedom and seek self-government, but as warnings to tyrants and despots everywhere.

Each one of these founding ideas is presently under sustained attack. In recent decades, America’s principles have been undermined and redefined in our culture, our universities and our politics. The selfevident truths of 1776 have been supplanted by the notion that no such truths exist. The federal government today ignores the limits of the Constitution, which is increasingly dismissed as obsolete and irrelevant. Some insist that America must change, cast off the old and put on the new. But where would this lead — forward or backward, up or down? Isn’t this idea of change an empty promise or even a dangerous deception? The change we urgently need, a change consistent with the American ideal, is not movement away from but toward our founding principles. At this important time, we need a restatement of Constitutional conservatism grounded in the priceless principle of ordered liberty articulated in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. The conservatism of the Declaration asserts self-evident truths based on the laws of nature and nature’s God. It defends life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. It traces authority to the consent of the governed. It recognizes man’s self-interest but also his capacity for virtue. The conservatism of the Constitution limits government’s powers but ensures that government performs its proper job effectively. It refines popular will through the filter of representation. It provides checks and balances through the several branches of government and a federal republic.

A Constitutional conservatism unites all conservatives through the natural fusion provided by American principles. It reminds economic conservatives that morality is essential to limited government, social conservatives that unlimited government is a threat to moral self-government, and national security conservatives that energetic but responsible government is the key to America’s safety and leadership role in the world.

A Constitutional conservatism based on first principles provides the framework for a consistent and meaningful policy agenda.

• It applies the principle of limited government based on the
  rule of law to every proposal.
• It honors the central place of individual liberty in American
  politics and life.
• It encourages free enterprise, the individual entrepreneur, and
  economic reforms grounded in market solutions.
• It supports America’s national interest in advancing freedom
  and opposing tyranny in the world and prudently considers what we can and should do to that
  end.
• It informs conservatism’s firm defense of family, neighborhood,
  community, and faith.

If we are to succeed in the critical political and policy battles ahead, we must be certain of our purpose. We must begin by retaking and resolutely defending the high ground of America’s founding principles. February 17, 2010

Edwin Meese, former U.S. Attorney General under President Reagan Wendy Wright, president of Concerned Women for America Edwin Feulner, Jr., president of the Heritage Foundation Lee Edwards, Distinguished Fellow in Conservative Thought at the Heritage Foundation, was present at the Sharon Statement signing. Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council Becky Norton Dunlop, president of the Council for National Policy Brent Bozell, president of the Media Research Center Alfred Regnery, publisher of the American Spectator David Keene, president of the American Conservative Union David McIntosh, co-founder of the Federalist Society T. Kenneth Cribb, former domestic policy adviser to President Reagan Grover Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform William Wilson, President, Americans for Limited Government Elaine Donnelly, Center for Military Readiness Richard Viguerie, Chairman, ConservativeHQ.com Kenneth Blackwell, Coalition for a Conservative Majority Colin Hanna, President, Let Freedom Ring Kathryn J. Lopez, National Review

Eric Erickson of Red State was just on Blitzer to explain this and Blitzer was very impressed, called him a “good guy.”

So, I guess that’s it. The era of liberalism that apparently started 2:30 this afternoon ended at approximately 3:15. Good to know.

.

Tired

by digby

This is an obvious ploy to make liberals like me get all offended and then laugh in my face:

Conservative Political Action Conference “CPAC” begins Thursday here in D.C. There will be a conservative-themed party Friday evening not sponsored by CPAC, where guests will have the opportunity to whack a Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) pinata.

Three famous D.C. residents will be taking a turn as guest “whackers” at the pinata during the annual Conservative Political Action Conference, which starts on Thursday. The guest “whackers” will be at the party, to be held at George in Georgetown.

Mary Christopher, outreach coordinator for CivicForumPAC, said the Pelosi piñata will be filled with favorite Pelosi sayings, bills and candy. The party hopes to invite the well-known D.C. residents to smash the piñata first, before others in attendance will be invited to try to take the Speaker down.

“We’re hoping to have the females whack the piñata and males try their hand at a Harry Reid punching bag,” Christopher said.

I don’t know why they want that. It’s much more fun to specifically piss off feminists. Maybe they’re losing their touch.

This is typical juvenile wingnut behavior and it works very well with their snickering fratboy base. What I’m not sure of is whether or not it’s going to fly in the country at large when the problems are big and the issues are serious. I suppose it could, but it’s riskier than it was during good times.

Of course, the media are currently entranced by a bunch of screaming weirdos wearing tri-corner hats carrying posters of Auschwitz, so perhaps I’m misjudging the public mood. They’re the experts, right?

.