Wingnut Watch - Kristallnacht

Windows were shattered at four Democratic offices in New York, Arizona and Kansas and at least 10 members of Congress have reported some sort of threats: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100325/ap_on_re_us/us_health_care_threats

Wingnut Watch

Severed Gas Line Found at Home of Rep. Perriello Brother After Tea Party Activists Post Address Online: http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2010/03/24-9

They can't even get the right address. Activist, malicious and stupid, they've hit the trifecta.

Scary New GOPoll

Couple the crap in this poll with the teaparty chanting of "N&#$%^!, N&#$%^!, N&#$%^!, N&#$%^!, ..., their spitting on a Congressman and the explosion of right wing anti-government militia rascist groups and we are on a potential path to be torn apart by the ingnoramouses among us who increasingly represent the GOPster base.

A report on a new Harris Poll From the Daily Beast: http://news.yahoo.com/s/dailybeast/20100323/ts_dailybeast/7269_scarynewgoppoll

(Emphasis added)

57 percent of Republicans (32 percent overall) believe that Obama is a Muslim 45 percent of Republicans (25 percent overall) agree with the Birthers in their belief that Obama was "not born in the United States and so is not eligible to be president" 38 percent of Republicans (20 percent overall) say that Obama is "doing many of the things that Hitler did" Scariest of all, 24 percent of Republicans (14 percent overall) say that Obama "may be the Antichrist." These numbers all come from a brand-new Louis Harris poll, inspired in part by my new book Wingnuts. It demonstrates the cost of the campaign of fear and hate that has been pumped up in the service of hyper-partisanship over the past 15 months. We are playing with dynamite by demonizing our president and dividing the United States in the process. What might be good for ratings is bad for the country.

The poll, which surveyed 2,230 people right at the height of the health-care reform debate, also clearly shows that education is a barrier to extremism. Respondents without a college education are vastly more likely to believe such claims, while Americans with college degrees or better are less easily duped. It's a reminder of what the 19th-century educator Horace Mann once too-loftily said: "Ignorance breeds monsters to fill up the vacancies of the soul that are unoccupied by the verities of knowledge."

The full results of the poll, which will be released in greater detail tomorrow, are even more frightening: including news that high percentages of Republicans—and Americans overall—believe that President Obama is "racist," "anti-American" "wants the terrorists to win" and "wants to turn over the sovereignty of the United States to a one-world government." The "Hatriot" belief that Obama is a "domestic enemy" as set forth in the Constitution is also widely held—a sign of trouble yet to come. It's the same claim made by Marine Lance Corporal Kody Brittingham in his letter of intent to assassinate the President Obama.

This poll is the latest and most detailed evidence of the extent to which Wingnuts are hijacking our politics. It should be a wakeup call to all Americans and a collective reminder, as we move past health-care reform, that we need to stand up to extremism.

John Avlon's new book Wingnuts: How the Lunatic Fringe is Hijacking America is available now by Beast Books both on the Web and in paperback. He is also the author of Independent Nation: How Centrists Can Change American Politics. Previously, he served as chief speechwriter for New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani and was a columnist and associate editor for The New York Sun.

It's Waterloo All right: Theirs

It's very refreshing to hear a conservative (David From) speak plainly and truthfully not only about the new middle of the road healtchcare law passed by democrats alone, but also about the extremist GOPstructionist tactics of the GOPsters and the hyperbolic lies of the GOPropagandists in the wingnutti media and how it's all blown up their faces: http://www.frumforum.com/waterloo

From the Right: David Frum (Emphasis Added)

Conservatives and Republicans today suffered their most crushing legislative defeat since the 1960s.

It's hard to exaggerate the magnitude of the disaster. Conservatives may cheer themselves that they'll compensate for today's expected vote with a big win in the November 2010 elections. But:

(1) It's a good bet that conservatives are over-optimistic about November - by then the economy will have improved and the immediate goodies in the healthcare bill will be reaching key voting blocs.

(2) So what? Legislative majorities come and go. This healthcare bill is forever. A win in November is very poor compensation for this debacle now.

So far, I think a lot of conservatives will agree with me. Now comes the hard lesson:

A huge part of the blame for today's disaster attaches to conservatives and Republicans ourselves.

At the beginning of this process we made a strategic decision: unlike, say, Democrats in 2001 when President Bush proposed his first tax cut, we would make no deal with the administration. No negotiations, no compromise, nothing. We were going for all the marbles. This would be Obama's Waterloo - just as healthcare was Clinton's in 1994.

Only, the hardliners overlooked a few key facts: Obama was elected with 53% of the vote, not Clinton's 42%. The liberal block within the Democratic congressional caucus is bigger and stronger than it was in 1993-94. And of course the Democrats also remember their history, and also remember the consequences of their 1994 failure.

This time, when we went for all the marbles, we ended with none.

Could a deal have been reached? Who knows? But we do know that the gap between this plan and traditional Republican ideas is not very big. The Obama plan has a broad family resemblance to Mitt Romney's Massachusetts plan. It builds on ideas developed at the Heritage Foundation in the early 1990s that formed the basis for Republican counter-proposals to Clintoncare in 1993-1994.

Barack Obama badly wanted Republican votes for his plan. Could we have leveraged his desire to align the plan more closely with conservative views? To finance it without redistributive taxes on productive enterprise - without weighing so heavily on small business - without expanding Medicaid? Too late now. They are all the law.

No illusions please: This bill will not be repealed. Even if Republicans scored a 1994 style landslide in November, how many votes could we muster to re-open the "doughnut hole" and charge seniors more for prescription drugs? How many votes to re-allow insurers to rescind policies when they discover a pre-existing condition? How many votes to banish 25 year olds from their parents' insurance coverage? And even if the votes were there - would President Obama sign such a repeal?

We followed the most radical voices in the party and the movement, and they led us to abject and irreversible defeat.

There were leaders who knew better, who would have liked to deal. But they were trapped. Conservative talkers on Fox and talk radio had whipped the Republican voting base into such a frenzy that deal-making was rendered impossible. How do you negotiate with somebody who wants to murder your grandmother? Or - more exactly - with somebody whom your voters have been persuaded to believe wants to murder their grandmother?

I've been on a soapbox for months now about the harm that our overheated talk is doing to us. Yes it mobilizes supporters - but by mobilizing them with hysterical accusations and pseudo-information, overheated talk has made it impossible for representatives to represent and elected leaders to lead. The real leaders are on TV and radio, and they have very different imperatives from people in government. Talk radio thrives on confrontation and recrimination. When Rush Limbaugh said that he wanted President Obama to fail, he was intelligently explaining his own interests. What he omitted to say - but what is equally true - is that he also wants Republicans to fail. If Republicans succeed - if they govern successfully in office and negotiate attractive compromises out of office - Rush's listeners get less angry. And if they are less angry, they listen to the radio less, and hear fewer ads for Sleepnumber beds.

So today's defeat for free-market economics and Republican values is a huge win for the conservative entertainment industry. Their listeners and viewers will now be even more enraged, even more frustrated, even more disappointed in everybody except the responsibility-free talkers on television and radio. For them, it's mission accomplished. For the cause they purport to represent, it's Waterloo all right: ours.

Study Finds Liberals are Smarter

The evolutionary reasons discussed in this article that may be behind this phenomenon are interesting and give me some hope that we're continuing to move forward as a species: http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/02/26/liberals.atheists.sex.intelligence/

"The adoption of some evolutionarily novel ideas makes some sense in terms of moving the species forward," said George Washington University leadership professor James Bailey, who was not involved in the study. "It also makes perfect sense that more intelligent people -- people with, sort of, more intellectual firepower -- are likely to be the ones to do that."

I think that in focusing too much on what benefits individuals from an evolutionary standpoint the scientists quoted might be missing something that liberals inherently understand. That as social animals what benefits the whole group advantages both the group and the individuals in the group for better survival and reproduction. Humans have survived and flourished because we're social animals so it's a mistake to focus too much on natural selection at the indvidual level to the exclusion of social group that the species thrives in which has progressed from small tribes to nations to countries like America for which the term "nation" is really a misnomer and with hope eventually to the whole planet. If we can't make this next leap to a global society, I'm not sure we'll be around long.

At least we now know the reasons our arguments are more soundly constructed and reasoned. Yet there must be room for improvement In my case I've got the liberal monogamous male thing going, but I guess I'm not quite smart enough to be an atheist. It just escapes me how claiming to know the unknowable is smart.

BTW, I figured something out about the haloscan comments. If you cut and paste something in, you'll often get an error that you've exceeded the 3000 character limit, even if you not even close. It's due to the formating from the source document. But if you first paste it into the Notepad program, which at least on my computer is under Accessories, that will remove all formating and solve the problem . . . unless, that is, if you really do have over 3000.

Paul Ryan Can't Have it Both Ways

On the eve of tomorrow's healthcare summit where it will be made plain for all to see that GOPstructionist party has no real solutions, our company has received word that our health insurance premiums will rise by 22% again this year. I suppose we should be thankful that this broken system isn't delivering the 39% skyrocket attempted by the profiteers in California, yet. Yet our cost has doubled twice in the last 8 years even with more out of pocket costs, and at 22% it will double again in 4 years. this is unsustainable and somethings got to give, so far it's us. Well of course even more so the 30,000 Americans who die annually due to lack of health coverage while the party of "right to life" dithers and obfuscates for their corporate masters.

Meanwhile the GOPsters are talking out of both sides of their face, with Paully "wanna-cracker" Ryan, such a pretty boy ahhhhhhk, parroting the talking points puffed out in his finest plumage. Below is an insightful piece authored by Kelly Gallaher which was posted on Yes We CA Racine and run in the Racine Journal times.

The past few weeks have been very exciting for Congressman Paul Ryan(R-WI). On January 29, the Congressman had the opportunity to spar with President Obama at the televised GOP retreat in Baltimore in front of thenational press. The attention continued with the unveiling of his budget plancalled “A Roadmap for America’s Future 2.0.” Ryan’s budget was initially regarded as a serious effort to propose a counterpoint to the Administration’s 2010 budget. That is, until people read it.

Congressman Ryan’s limelight became a glaring spotlight when closer examination revealed the Roadmap for America’s Future sought to radically dismantle Medicare by replacing the current system with vouchers andreplace a traditional safety net with a sweeping effort to privatize SocialSecurity for Americans under 55 years old. His plan would undermine the securityof these programs for millions of Americans and subject them to the volatilityof Wall Street and unabated greed of corporate health care. Nobel Prizee conomist Paul Krugman called it a “breathtaking act of staggering hypocrisy.”GOP members staking their future campaigns on protecting Medicare and Social Security scattered.

Then came the Wall Street Journal that singled out Ryan this past week for his hypocrisy in slamming the stimulus plan, known as the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. Ryan called the stimulus a"wasteful spending spree" while requesting these same funds last October from the Department of Labor saying “I support the Energy Center of Wisconsin’s grant application for the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 Energy Training and Partnership Grants.” He went further in his request tosay the grant “would make effective use of the funds they would receive. ”

How does a program like the stimulus that "misses the mark on all counts” and “hasn’t created the jobs” also manage to “propose to develop an industry-driven training and placement agenda that intends to place 1,000 workers in green jobs” as he stated in his stimulus request? Easy, it’s called dishonesty. It is dishonest to say the stimulus doesn’t create jobs atthe same time you ask for stimulus money to create jobs. In December, Ryan called for the repeal of the Recovery Act even though his own hometown of Janesville had received more than $4 million of stimulus money for jobs and newprograms.

Erroneously characterized as a “deficit hawk,” Paul Ryan’s public profile completely contradicts the way he votes. Ryan voted for record spending, unfunded tax cuts for the wealthiest, the bank bailouts and trilliondollar wars which created our deficit nightmare. Also called a policy “wonk;”Ryan championed unsustainable expansions of Medicare Advantage resulting inbillions of overpayments while he seeks to create a policy to dismantle Medicare and Social Security for Americans long after he’s gone from office.

Democrats are not the only people who have questions about Ryan and his agenda. He has mystified conservatives as well. In response to his votes in favor of the auto bailout and the AIG confiscatory bonus tax even conservativepundit Michelle Malkin was moved to scold him to “practice what you preach when itmatters. Not after the fact.” Perhaps Wisconsinites could take comfort that his vote was in support of workers. Sadly this was not the case. When questioned about his vote on the auto bailout just last week to Daily Beast writer, Benjamin Sarlin, Ryan confessed he was moved to vote for it not to keep autoworkers employed, but because he believed “that a second Depression would threaten capitalism—and rescue Obama's presidency.”

Congressman Ryan has been practicing the most cynical kind of political hypocrisy and hoping we would not notice. In this age of internet communication, that kind of pretense is no longer possible, and hisconstituents must hold him accountable. Ryan deserves credit for having an idea; not many of his colleagues have shown the same initiative. However, it has alsogiven us the opportunity to look deeper in to what the future would look like if many in the GOP had their way. Ryan perhaps said it best in a recentinterview with the New York Times, “I’m worried that if we get the majority back by default, we’ll screw up again.” On that, we can both agree.

Kelly Gallaher

Stamp Out Socialistic Fire Fighters!

1 Million Strong Against our SOCIALIST Fire DepartmentsCategory:
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?v=info&gid=111256528714


For too long now, fire departments across the United States have been SOCIALIST organizations, resulting in TAXES on the American people.

FACT: Most Americans never use the socialized services of the fire department. We have the best fire departments in the world in the US, but that doesn't mean that anyone (even non-US citizens) should be able to dial up and have fires put out, etc. There are private companies (Halliburtion, Etc.) who could step in tomorrow and take over every fire department in America and charge the consumer directly.

This is AMERICA. NO FREE FIRE SAFETY.

"When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in asbestos and carrying a fire hose."

This is THE new political movement in America. The Birther movement and The Teabagger movement have FAILED. We are The Flamer movement, and we are succeeding at tearing down ALL forms Socialism - starting with our Fire Departments.

Please tell everyone you know about this group.

When it comes to ObamaFireCare, remember, we are: Taxed Enough Already For American Red Truck Socialism.

"This is America. Pay to Spray."
- Member Susan Weinberg

Real Conservatism v Activist Reactionary Ideologues

Milwaukee native William Rehnquist was appointed to the Supreme Court by Richard Nixon and elevated to Chief Justice by Ronald Reagan. As a true conservative, he stands out from and head and shoulders above the ideologues whose radical activism has swept away 100 years of legislation and judicial precedent at both the federal level and in the states and confered the rights of personhood on legal entities created soley by the laws of those states.

Below is Rehnquist's well reasoned dissent against a decision made by the "liberal" justices on the court, that overturned both state law and a ruling by a state Supreme Court with regard to the rights of corporations. It should be noted that the Supreme Judicial Court whose judgment Justice Rehnquist is affirming below is the Massachusetts Supreme Court. I bid you, read the words and know the mind a REAL conservative instead of a robed judicial royalist (emphasis added below).

Case Argued November 9, 1977 Decided April 26, 1978Case # 435 U.S. 765 Justice Powell delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Justices Burger, Stewart, Blackmun, and Stevens, joined. Justice Burger also filed a concurring opinion. Justice White filed a dissenting opinion, in which Brennan and Marshall joined. Justice Rehnquist filed a separate dissenting opinion.

Mr. Justice Rehnquist, dissenting.

This Court decided at an early date, with neither argument nor discussion, that a business corporation is a "person" entitled to the protection of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific R. Co., (1886). Likewise, it soon became accepted that the property of a corporation was protected under the Due Process Clause of that same Amendment. See, e. g., Smyth v. Ames, (1898). Nevertheless, we concluded soon thereafter that the liberty protected by that Amendment "is the liberty of natural, not artificial persons." Northwestern Nat. Life Ins. Co. v. Riggs, (1906).

Before today, our only considered and explicit departures from that holding have been that a corporation engaged in the business of publishing or broadcasting enjoys the same liberty of the press as is enjoyed by natural persons, Grosjean v. American Press Co., (1936), and that a nonprofit membership corporation organized for the purpose of "achieving . . . equality of treatment by all government, federal, state and local, for the members of the Negro community" enjoys certain liberties of political expression. NAACP v. Button, (1963).

The question presented today, whether business corporations have a constitutionally protected liberty to engage in political activities, has never been squarely addressed by any previous decision of this Court. 1 However, the General Court of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, the Congress of the United States, and the legislatures of 30 other States of this Republic have considered the matter, and have concluded that restrictions upon the political activity of business corporations are both politically desirable and constitutionally permissible. The judgment of such a broad consensus of governmental bodies expressed over a period of many decades is entitled to considerable deference from this Court. I think it quite probable that their judgment may properly be reconciled with our controlling precedents, but I am certain that under my views of the limited application of the First Amendment to the States, which I share with the two immediately preceding occupants of my seat on the Court, but not with my present colleagues, the judgment of the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts should be affirmed.

Early in our history, Mr. Chief Justice Marshall described the status of a corporation in the eyes of federal law:"A corporation is an artificial being, invisible, intangible, and existing only in contemplation of law. Being the mere creature of law, it possesses only those properties which the charter of creation confers upon it, either expressly, or as incidental to its very existence. These are such as are supposed best calculated to effect the object for which it was created." Dartmouth College v. Woodward, 4 Wheat. 518, 636 (1819).

The appellants herein either were created by the Commonwealth or were admitted into the Commonwealth only for the limited purposes described in their charters and regulated by state law. 2 Since it cannot be disputed that the mere creation of a corporation does not invest it with all the liberties enjoyed by natural persons, United States v. White, (1944) (corporations do not enjoy the privilege against self-incrimination), our inquiry must seek to determine which constitutional protections are "incidental to its very existence." Dartmouth College, supra, at 636.

There can be little doubt that when a State creates a corporation with the power to acquire and utilize property, it necessarily and implicitly guarantees that the corporation will not be deprived of that property absent due process of law. Likewise, when a State charters a corporation for the purpose of publishing a newspaper, it necessarily assumes that the corporation is entitled to the liberty of the press essential to the conduct of its business. 3 Grosjean so held, and our subsequent cases have so assumed. E. g., Time, Inc. v. Firestone, (1976); New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, (1964). 4

Until recently, it was not thought that any persons, natural or artificial, had any protected right to engage in commercial speech. See Virginia State Board of Pharmacy v. Virginia Citizens Consumer Council, (1976). Although the Court has never explicitly recognized a corporation's right of commercial speech, such a right might be considered necessarily incidental to the business of a commercial corporation.

It cannot be so readily concluded that the right of political expression is equally necessary to carry out the functions of a corporation organized for commercial purposes. 5 A State grants to a business corporation the blessings of potentially perpetual life and limited liability to enhance its efficiency as an economic entity. It might reasonably be concluded that those properties, so beneficial in the economic sphere, pose special dangers in the political sphere.

Furthermore, it might be argued that liberties of political expression are not at all necessary to effectuate the purposes for which States permit commercial corporations to exist. So long as the Judicial Branches of the State and Federal Governments remain open to protect the corporation's interest in its property, it has no need, though it may have the desire, to petition the political branches for similar protection. Indeed, the States might reasonably fear that the corporation would use its economic power to obtain further benefits beyond those already bestowed. 6 I would think that any particular form of organization upon which the State confers special privileges or immunities different from those of natural persons would be subject to like regulation, whether the organization is a labor union, a partnership, a trade association, or a corporation.

One need not adopt such a restrictive view of the political liberties of business corporations to affirm the judgment of the Supreme Judicial Court in this case. That court reasoned that this Court's decisions entitling the property of a corporation to constitutional protection should be construed as recognizing the liberty of a corporation to express itself on political matters concerning that property. Thus, the Court construed the statute in question not to forbid political expression by a corporation "when a general political issue materially affects a corporation's business, property or assets." (1977).

I can see no basis for concluding that the liberty of a corporation to engage in political activity with regard to matters having no material effect on its business is necessarily incidental to the purposes for which the Commonwealth permitted these corporations to be organized or admitted within its boundaries. Nor can I disagree with the Supreme Judicial Court's factual finding that no such effect has been shown by these appellants. Because the statute as construed provides at least as much protection as the Fourteenth Amendment requires, I believe it is constitutionally valid.

It is true, as the Court points out, ante, at 781-783, that recent decisions of this Court have emphasized the interest of the public in receiving the information offered by the speaker seeking protection. The free flow of information is in no way diminished by the Commonwealth's decision to permit the operation of business corporations with limited rights of political expression. All natural persons, who owe their existence to a higher sovereign than the Commonwealth, remain as free as before to engage in political activity. Cf. Maher v. Roe, (1977).

I would affirm the judgment of the Supreme Judicial Court.

It should be noted that the Supreme Judicial Court whose judgment Justice Rehnquist is affirming is the Massachusetts Supreme Court.

American "People" Hostile to Corporate Serfdom

8 out of 10 Americans are opposed to the Extreme Court ruling endowing inalienable rights on corporations and other artificial "persons" and allowing them to make unfettered purchases of campaign advertising during elections, a Washington Post-ABC News poll found: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/17/AR2010021701151.html

In fact 65% of Americans are STRONGLY OPPOSED!

72% of the American Citizenry favor Congressional action to curb the ruling!

Furthermore, this opposition to the theft of OUR democracy crosses partisan lines with Democrats (85 %), Republicans (76 %) and independents (81 %) opposed.

3/4 of conservatives are opposed and most of them are strongly opposed.

2/3 of conservative Republicans favor Congressional action to curb corporate and union spending on elections.

Looks like there's still at least one thing that most rational Americans can agree on, we don't want more special interest influence in our politics.

How to Steal Elections and Influence the People

Benito Mussolini the father of fascism which he also called corporatism must be grinning from the grave through his scrotum clenching teeth as America, who defeated him, now follows in his footsteps. In fascist Italy the legislative body, the Camera dei Fasci e delle Corporazioni (Chamber of the Fascists and the Corporations) was made up completely of representatives of Italy's corporations. With Extreme Court's ruling the creeping fascism of the last decade has quickened to a head-long run. Some clues about how the final steps of the corporate takeover of OUR government and OUR representation are to be found below.

A DC lobbying firm has posted advice to it's corporate clientel on it's website:
http://www.klgates.com/newsstand/Detail.aspx?publication=6214
on how to warp OUR democracy and steal OUR elections. Not only that, they're telling the corporatists how to do it as anomymously and as under the radar as possible as evidenced by the following passage:

10) How will corporations likely take advantage of their opportunity to make independent political expenditures?

Just because a corporation may make an independent direct advocacy expenditure doesn't mean that it should. Since the entity or entities financing independent expenditures must be disclosed, a corporation leading the way against a particular candidate risks alienating a significant block of its potential customer or shareholder base. Moreover, upon the first major corporate-funded public communications airing, media coverage is likely to focus on the corporation's involvement in the campaign rather than the content of any advocacy.

Therefore, most corporations will probably proceed cautiously. If such independent expenditures are made, groups of corporations within an industry may form coalitions or use existing trade associations to support candidates favorable to policy positions that affect the group as a whole. While corporations that contribute to these expenditures might still be disclosed, this indirect approach can provide sufficient cover such that no single contributing entity receives the bulk of public scrutiny.

Corporations could further lower their profile in such cases by not making contributions specific to a particular expenditure by that third-party corporation. Such independent expenditures can also take the form of advertisements in "under-the radar" sources, such as ideologically-based talk radio, web-based ads or phone banks. Since state and local laws preventing corporate political expenditures will also likely be repealed as a result of Citizens United, small corporations may also become involved in state and local races through regional media.

They also advise their clients that they needn't be excluded just because they are U.S. subsidiaries of foreign corps as follows

2) Will U.S. subsidiaries of foreign corporations be exempt? (from the ban on foreign nationals contributing to elections).

Yes. The definition of "foreign national" exempts any person that is "not an individual and is organized under or created by the laws of the United States or of any State or other place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States and has its principal place of business within the United States." 22 U.S.C. § 611(b)(2). The Federal Election Commission ("FEC") has determined that this exemption includes a U.S. corporation that is a subsidiary of a foreign corporation, so long as the foreign parent does not finance U.S. political activities and no foreign national participates in any decision to make expenditures. Many of the legislative proposals that "respond" to Citizens United seek to tighten or close this exemption.

So Obama was right and Alito in his flow robes of political hackery was either wrong or disengenous when he shook his head at the State of the Union address.

"Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power." - Benito Mussolini, the father of fascism

"When Fascism comes to America it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying the cross." - Sinclair Lewis

America, it was nice while it lasted.

Sean Cranley - Corporate Serf No. 387-22-0812

Super-Persons Coming to an Election Near YOU!

Joe Camel for Senator!

The inalienable right to free speech was endowed on We The (mere mortal) People by our Creator. But in the most arrogant example of judicial activism ever, Chief Judicial Activist John “Benedict Arnold” Roberts and his merry band of royalist robed reactionary ramblers have both betrayed the founders vision of democracy and bestowed this right on corporations based on the notion that corporations are “persons” something any four year old would immediately recognize as foolishness. Corporations are not people. Did you go to school with any corporations; have you ever seen one walking down the street? Now don’t get me wrong, I’m not against corporations, I’m a VP at one and we derive our livelihood from our clients, most of which are also corporations. I just don’t want to be ruled by corporations, for people governed in the interest of others cannot remain truly free.

Yes, I said royalists, you know aristocrats, which our founders fought a revolution against to throw off our backs! Thomas Jefferson warned America to, “crush in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength and bid defiance to the laws of our country.” After all, the Boston Tea Party was as much about the corporate stranglehold that the monopolistic and transnational East India Company sought to place on the colonist’s livelihoods as it was about defiance of the despotic British monarch.

The extreme court could have simply ruled on the merits of the Citizens United v FEC case, they chose activism, expanding the breadth of the ruling and sweeping away 100 years of state and federal legislation and legal precedent from Teddy “Trust Bustin” Roosevelt to McCain-Feingold. Progressive Republican Teddy Roosevelt recognized the threat to democracy that large corporations posed in the last gilded age when he proposed public funding of all elections and said, “All contributions by corporations to any political committee for any political purpose should be forbidden by law.” But the five corporatist appointees on the bench did their master’s bidding and loosed the floodgates of the corporate ownership’s cash on our elections, allowing unlimited advertising during election campaigns for political propaganda. Injustices Roberts and Alito should be impeached for lying under oath since both provided sworn testimony during their confirmation hearings that they would respect existing law and uphold established precedent. Priestly robes aside, these were either exhibitions of very poor judgment by Roberts and Alito or worse, outright lies.

Ask yourself, what is an American Corporation? Corporations aren’t born, they’re not naturalized, and don’t get to vote when they turn 18, they are not citizens. Saudi Arabia’s or China’s government owned oil companies ARAMCO or PetroChina, respectively can incorporate in Delaware for $20 making them legal “American” Corporations. Transnational and foreign corporations with American subsidiaries will be able to use unlimited funds to fill the airwaves with slanted information and outright lies during elections from Dog Catcher to President. Once corporations have successfully used legalized blackmail to cow a couple of our representatives or bribery to install their representatives to replace ours, the rest will dutifully fall in line for free out of fear of the corporate funds, yielding a tremendous return on their investment.

Imagine a corporation approaching a lawmaker with positions in the public interest, but not theirs and making it known that they are prepared to launch a media blitz smearing him or her in the last weeks of their campaign. Or a corporation buttonholing a sympathetic, attractive person and telling them, you don’t need to raise funds from the citizen constituents of the office we’ve selected you for, we will run all your campaign ads for you, oh and here is a list your positions on the issues. Heck, why not just cut to the chase and introduce the altruistic representative from the Altria Group, Senator Joe Camel?

This anti-democratic atrocity must not go unchallenged. Laws must be enacted to restrain this aggregated corporate power, because when profits are involved we certainly cannot count on corporate restraint. Passing the Fair Elections Now Act, requiring shareholder approval for such expenditures and holding CEO’s (actual persons) personally accountable for such messages would be a good start. But ultimately the Constitution must be amended to reserve the rights of personhood to real human beings only and to deny super-personhood to these immortal, omnipresent, amoral, faceless artificial beings. Go to movetoamend.org or freespeechforpeople.org for information.

Are we going to replace the word “men” with “corporations” in the Pledge, Preamble and Declaration of Independence? Will we still yet hold the truth self evident that our government is instituted among Men and derives its just powers from the consent of the governed? Or will we hoist the logo spangled banner of corporate servitude?

The Burlington Area Progressives are hosting Attorney Eugene Gasiorkiewicz to present “The Ethics of Corporate Entitlement in U.S. Elections” and psychologist Dr. David Nichols, Ph.D. to speak about “The Electorate’s Feelings of Disenfranchisement and Suppression of the Vote”. The event will be Thursday February 18th – 7:00 PM at the CATHE Center, 125 East State St. in Burlington. The public should be outraged and all are encouraged to attend! Admission is free however donations are accepted to defray the costs. Speak now or forget about it! For more information call (262) 237-4351.

Sean Cranley – Corporate Serf No. 399-22-0812
Burlington, Inc.

Morons Cut off Nose to Spite Face

"Charlie Sykes says some towns are going back to gravel roads" was my first clue about the pervading mentality at our special town meeting of electors last night to vote on a proposal by the Board to borrow $1.5 million to reconstruct some roads and build a new community center: http://www.springprairiewi.com/

Essentially, the Town borrowed $5M several years ago to reconstruct some aging roads that were getting too expensive to continue repairing. They did it when the economy was down and they could borrow and hire cheaply and they promised not to raise taxes, a promise which they kept.

The Board is very fiscally conservative and not prone to promoting fanciful projects and the Chairman laid out the rationale masterfully. The Town hall was built in 1885 as a one room school house and had a small addition put on in the 50's. Both are in sad shape and will require significant cost to repair which is unknown until they actually open up walls, foundations and the roof and see what's there. Two retired residents who worked in construction said it's a money pit and putting more into it for maintenance and repair is just throwing money away. Reading the list of defects is hilarious, like "Furnace goes out when the wind blows." and "Septic tank has not been pumped in at least 35 years", no one living knows.

We're going to need a new town hall eventually, hell there wasn't enough room (I was in the kitchen other were in the hallway) fror everyone who showed and cars were parked up and down Spring Prairie Road on both sides of busy HWY 120 in the snow in the dark. We can borrow money and hire conctractors cheaply in this economy so it''ll cost more later. AND they promised again not to raise taxes and laid the figures plain as day. Not only that but our taxes would actually drop for the first two years at a minimum due to the finances and the lower maintenance costs for the new building. People kept asking the same dumb questions over and over that either someone else had already asked or that had been explained in the first place and some people were just plain rude and hostile. They voted it down with 60 to 70% against, because of the moronic belief that any government borrowing or spending is evil!

So instead of wrapping the $1M from the previous loan in with the new $1.5M, speading it out over 6 years, lowering taxes and getting a new hall that will serve for the next 100 years we're going to keep and repair the deteriorating spithole at unknown expense, keep taxes the same and wipe the $200K in the reserve fund that needs to be tapped to to pay off the old loan without raising taxes. The Board could have just done it on their own, but they wanted to take it to the voters. The voters elected these people, they are their friends and neighbors and they're not spend thrifts by any stretch. Yet they thumbed their noses at their studied recommendations and threw the money spent on an architect down the spitter. What a bunch of buffoons. Honestly, what a thankless job. I wouldn't be surprised if they resign. They're all older retired guys, who the hell the needs those kind of headaches?

I mean people were upset that there was going to be an office available to the sherriff where they could do paper work. "That's the county's responsibility!" Yeah and the county would pay for the supplies and equipment (phone, radio, computer). We wouldn't want a sherriff's deputy right here in our "community" (using the word very loosely) more often, hell it's only 20-25 minutes from Elkhorn!

How much longer do I have on this planet? I won't have to spend eternity with these "spirits" right?

NFL a Triumph of Socialistic Capitalism

This Sunday millions of Americans will gather watch the spectacle of the NFL Superbowl, a triumph of socialistic capitalism. The NFL is by far the most successful professional sports enterprise in America today. And the reason for this great success? Revenue sharing among the individual franchises that make up the league, you know socialism. They share revenue on everything from tickets and TV to towels and t-shirts, with the individual franchise keeping a portion of the sales and the rest going for equal distribution among all the teams.

Make no mistake about it, the NFL and the individual franchises (except for the most-glorious Green Bay Packers) are capitalistic ventures intent on making a profit and a return on investment and that is as it should be. But the NFL, unlike it's now weaker cousin MLB (America's former passtime) long ago realized that the health and well being of the whole is directly related to and dependent on the health and well being of each individual member.

By socializing their success the NFL has been able to produce a superior product with most of the teams being competative at any given time and a fairly rapid turnover of championship teams. And this has been good for their customers, the fans who get competative teams to root for and close , entertaining games to watch, which in return is good for the NFL and all it's members. There are no Yankees in the NFL, using their big media market renvue advantage perenially to buy their way to success. There are no Cubs, perpetually refusing to re-invest revenue in a superior product, secure in the monopoly over their mindlessly loyal and long suffering fans. It's better to be successful on a wheat pile than king of a dung heap.

Purity is not always a good thing and often comes with severe drawbacks and shortcomings. It's true with dogs and horses. Constant inbreeding in the quest for purity ends up accentuating inherent weaknesses and in general, mutts tend to be healthier than purebreads. The same is true with economic systems. Pure capitalism and pure socialism soon show the cracks of their inherent weaknesses that inevitably lead to crisis and failure. But the balancing act of a healthy blend allows the strengths of both to come through while keeping expression of the weaknesses of each to a minimum.

So remember this Sunday when when your witnessing a prime display of sucessful socialistic capitalism that even the Saints can, at long last have a chance to reach the top and enjoy their day in the sun when there is a reasonable sharing of resources and a level playing field. Go NFC Saints!

Corporate Superpersonhood, Meet the Boss

New Pledge: I pledge allegiance to the corporations of the Transnational States of America,
and to the profits for which they stand, one nation, under Wall> Street, bought and paid for,
with liberty and justice for those who can afford it.

New Preamble: We the Corporations, in order to form a moreprofitable union, provide for the tort defense, promote the corporate welfareand secure the blessings of free-markets for our owners and our subsidiaries, doimpose and establish this Constitution on the United States of America.

If corprations are people then:
Why can't they be put in prison when they break the law?

Why can't they be given the death penalty when they murder people?

How come they're immortal?

How come they can be in multiple jurisdictions and even countries all at once?

Why didn't they go to my school so I could have a corporation as a friend?

Why can't they vote?Why don't they need a passport ot enter or leave the country?

Why aren't they counted in the Census? Isn't the census primarily about allocating representation to the PEOPLE? Am I missing something!?

How come they have different tax rates then say, oh I don't know, people?

If money is speech then:
Speech must be money,so how come they don't tax speech?

Why can't I put my speech in a CD and collect interest in my speech?

If I commit an infraction, how come I may have to forfeit my money, but not my speech?

Why can't I fold my speech up, keep it my wallet and get it out later when I need it?

Well at least we needn't fret about donating our hard earned money to candidates anymore. Why try to change the ocean with a dribble.I can't wait for a foreign corporation like Saudi Arabia's ARAMCO TO STARTPICKING THEiR REPRESENTATIVES IN OFFICES FROM DOG CATCHER TO PRESIDENT!

Welcome to the Ownership's Society

As the prescient Chief Justice of Wisconsin's Sumpreme Court said to the UW Law School graduates in 1873 on the the cusp of the last robber barron infested gilded age:

"[There] is looming up a new dark power . . . the enterprises of the country are aggregating vast corporate combinations of unexampled capital, boldly marching, not for economical conquests only, but for political power. . . The question will arise in your day, though perhaps not in mine, which shall rule - wealth or man; which shall lead - money or intellect; who shall fill public stations - educated and patriotic freemen, or the feudal serfs of corporate capital . . ."

Robert La Follette, Teddy Roosevelt and the progressives movement answered this call then saving democratic-representative governance. Chief Judicial Activist John "Benedist Arnold" Roberts and his corporatist collaborators on the Extreme Court Bench undid their efforts and 100 years of estblished law and precedent with one deep bow to their masters of the owenship society. Who will answer today in the hope of proving Frank Zappa wrong when he said:

"The illusion of freedom will continue as long as it's profitable to continue the illusion. At the point where the illusion becomes too expensive to maintain, they will just take down the scenery, pull back the curtains, and you will see the brick wall at the back of the theater."

Five corporate apointed Supreme Injustices just took down the scenery. Is the curtain next?

Chris Hedges has written an interesting and ominous article about the illusion of democray and the emergent inverted totalitiarianism. http://www.commondreams.org/view/2010/01/25

You're free to move about the country.

Warm Rememberances,

Sean Cranley - Corporate Serf No. 394-74-2812

NADA - Not A Democracy Anymore

Mike McCabe, Executive Direcor of the Wisconsin Democracy Campaign authored this statement on behalf of WDC regarding the recent traitorous and judicially activist supreme (Extreme) court ruling that has surpassed even bu$h v Gore in terms of audacity and damage to our democracy and the freedom of the American People http://www.wisdc.org/pr012110.php

Historically democracies have lasted about two hundred years or so before the plutocrats and feudal lords re-exert their control. Well America, it was nice while it lasted.

The narrowest of majorities on the U.S. Supreme Court legislated from the bench today, effectively enacting a radical vision of the First Amendment and a bastardized version of democracy that has never been approved by elected representatives of the American people and strays far from the ideals spelled out so elegantly by the nation’s founders.

The Court majority’s decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission is a continuation of the judicial activism on election finance that began in earnest in the 1970s and substantially expands the scope of this policymaking by unelected and unaccountable judges for life.

Boiled down to its essence, five of the nine justices ruled that money is speech, corporations are people, public offices are commodities and elections are the marketplace where these commodities are bought and sold. The majority opinion asserts the appearance of big money influence over elections will not cause the public to lose confidence in the democratic process. The cluelessness demonstrated by such a declaration begs the question: What planet do these justices live on?

This ruling further chips away at both the letter and spirit of the federal McCain-Feingold law and favors the corrupt status quo in national politics. The five justices overlooked the corrupting effects of allowing massive sums of wealth to be brought to bear in election campaigns. Their ruling throws century-old law on the use of corporate and labor union treasury funds to influence elections on the scrap heap.

On the other hand, a super-majority of justices upheld the constitutionality of disclosing money spent on elections. This leaves the door open to meaningful disclosure reform at the federal and state levels.

Unaddressed in this case and untouched by today’s ruling are public financing programs like the one just enacted for state Supreme Court elections in Wisconsin. Such programs remain on sound constitutional footing and now become all the more important as one of the few remaining tools to guard against political corruption and ensure the voices of ordinary citizens are heard.

It is also important to note that this case involved a challenge to a federal law, not any state law in Wisconsin. However, today’s ruling does have state-law implications, which we will be assessing in the days and weeks to come.

An Open Letter to the President

Dear Barack --
While you have done many admirable things in the first year of your presidency, you're getting cooked in the media and by the Republicans because your accomplishments are not direct enough -- and, therefore, can't be explained in brief messages (of just a few words).
You need to re-concentrate your efforts on the 4 things you were elected to do -- and you need to do them in a way that you can explain in a simple phrase. (Not, "We removed the insurance companyies' ability to discriminate on pre-existing conditions," but "We created Medicare for all.")
The four things you were elected to do are:
1) Create Jobs
2) Fix Health Care
3) Save the Environment
4) End the War

One of the reasons we lost a Senate seat in MA was the lack of easily explainable progress in any of these areas.
There is no one in the country that thinks you have done any of these four things. Further, there is no one that can explain any of your accomplishments in these areas in simple, direct terms.
If you can't explain it in simple, direct terms, the American people won't buy it or believe it.
You need to redouble your efforts to take simple, direct action. You need to be courageous.
Presidents are remembered for their leadership -- not for their ability to be bi-partisan or reach amiable compromises.
You were elected to lead (not to compromise).

It's time to lead and address these issues directly.
Yours Sincerely - Steve Sullivan

My Letter to President Obama in the Wake of What Looks Like a Defeat in MA Senate

I just sent this note to the Whitehouse as I wait for the results in Massachusetts.

I think he needs to get more letters like this.

*

I do not know the outcome of tonight's vote in Massachusetts.  I do know that I sent money and just spent the past hour phoning from Wisconsin to turn out the vote in my old home state.  I hope Martha will win, but the news does not look hopeful.

I do think I know what went wrong - not specifically with her campaign, but overall: You, the President (whom I worked so hard for) have not done enough.  You have not gone far enough with healthcare -- abandoning the Public Option or Single Payer off the bat.  You have not gone far enough in creating jobs, nor in punishing Wall Street for their failures, both in tending our money to begin with and in investing the bailout money in America rather than in enriching themselves.

In short, you have not pushed hard enough or been progressive enough.  You have been Jimmy Carter when we need another FDR.  You have compromised when the country needs you to LEAD.

It's time to wake up and LEAD the country, before there is no country left to lead and none left to follow you.

Please, stand up.  Be President.

Your Supporter (and former office runner),

Steve Sullivan

Learn to Speak Teabag/Wingnutti Death Threats

Apparently the cartoonist (Mark Fiore) responsible for this brief educational video has received numerous death threats from the wingnutti. And he's not even Danish!

Dog! Thou shalt not insult the profit, Michelle Backman!

Perhaps the GoverNOTor Sarah Palincomparison, who as just announced will be the key-note speaker at the next two major teabaggings, has issued a Fatwah for the Teahadists to get this infidel!