Well not quite a letter but more, if the Wall Street Journal blog is to believed, a friendly helping of political advice. My first question when reading this has to be simply why? It is to be rightly presumed that Obama doesn’t posses any fairy dust that will transform Brown’s rather turnip-shaped government into a golden election winning carriage. Also, if Brown is seeking advice from Obama he has to contextualise it, so, while it maybe true that;

The advice of President Obama’s senior aides is like gold dust for parties of the left at the moment. This is the election winning team that beat Hillary Clinton and then John McCain to win power. The campaigning techniques they used were cutting edge

it is also true that they achieved this victory against a President and a Republican Party whose popularity was shot to pieces outside traditional Republican states. Obama’s position is thus more analogous to that of Tony Blair in 1997 and bares little relation to that of Gordon Brown in 2009.

It is here we see the nub of the problem; Brown tries too hard to ape Blair when he can’t and thus ironically, in seeming to escape his shadow, is actually more captive of it as Prime Minister than he ever was as Chancellor. This is sad because at PMQ’s today Brown looked comfortable and almost confident as Cameron questioned him about relife efforts in Cumbria. Whisper it quietly but he almost looked Prime Ministerial and the type of leader who, if he played to his strengths, could actually redirect and save Labour.

However, the one regard where he should take hints from Blair, his scope and vision Brown fails to seize the moment. If Brown, were for example, to advance electoral reform his stoicism might actually convince people of his sincerity.  However, this opportunity is now lost because Brown has dithered for too long and for too long he has tried to look like a Scottish Blair and the poll bounce that Labour enjoyed when he took over the premiership has evaporated; it would have done naturally to a degree in any case but it need not have to this extent.

Even Cameron’s broadsides about the government ‘funding extremism’ didn’t knock Brown and he deftly made Cameron look the extremist and himself the safe pair of hands.  In both these exchanges we saw glimpses of what Brown could and maybe should have been but in the above story we are reminded of his fatal flaw; that too much he aspires to be something he can never be and in doing so he will miss the chance to change Labour and lead them into a fourth-term.

When our GOP State Central Committee met this past Saturday, approximately half of the meeting time was devoted to discussing the Government Ethics Reform ballot initiative.  The initiative is sponsored by Utahns for Ethical Government (an ironic name, considering the content of their proposed initiative).

Tucked into this 20-page initiative are several questionable and unconstitutional provisions, including no due process for legislators, legislators are guilty until proven innocent, compromised right to privacy between legislators and their business clients, no checks and balances for the members of the commission and the signatories of the bill, signatories attempting to insert themselves into government operations, and blank-check appropriation of taxpayer money to an ineffectual commission.  We hope all voters will take the time to read and examine this ballot initiative before deciding whether or not to sign the petition to put it on the ballot.

The Utah Republican Party strongly supports ethics in government; however, this initiative is a flawed and dangerous route to take to arrive at the goal of increased government ethics.  Utah legislators have been working diligently on ethics reform and are continuing to make progress; in fact, legislation that has already been passed, and current legislation in the works, will render parts of the ballot initiative void because specific issues have already been (or are currently being) addressed.

At the SCC meeting, Todd Weiler, former party vice-chair and one of the current legal advisors for the state GOP, proposed a resolution opposing the initiative.  After some amending, the Committee voted and the resolution passed with only one dissenting vote. The resolution is as follows:

Resolution Supporting Ethics in Government and Opposing the Utah for ethical government (UEG) initiative

WHEREAS, the Utah Republican Party Platform states: “We demand honesty, integrity, morality, and accountability of our public officials” and further states: “We will work to expose and stop corruption.”;

WHEREAS, the Utah Republican Party supports our republican form of government “by, through, and of the people” through elected representatives who are answerable to the people and who are empowered only by the consent of the governed;

WHEREAS, Utahns for Ethical Government (“UEG”) is collecting signatures in an attempt to place an initiative entitled “Government Ethics Reform” on the ballot;

WHEREAS, among other things, the UEG initiative removes responsibility for ethics in government from the people and their elected representatives, and places it in the hands of an unelected, unaccountable commission;

WHEREAS, the power to judge “the election and qualifications of its members, and [to] punish them for disorderly conduct” is a plenary power that is constitutionally vested in and reserved to each house of the Legislature;

WHEREAS, the Utah Legislature has recently passed House Bill 345 (Lobby Restrictions), House Bill 346 (Campaign Report Amendments), Senate Bill 156 (Gift/Meal Provisions for Public Officials), Senate Bill 162 (Campaign Fund Use), House Joint Resolution 14 (Ethics Training), Senate Joint Resolution 6 (Legislator Communication with Judiciary) and created an Ethics Standing Committee to address ethics reform in Utah; and

WHEREAS, the Utah Legislature shall consider a number of additional bills during the upcoming 2010 legislative session addressing ethical, transparent, and open responsive government.

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Utah Republican State Central Committee demands ethical government and supports legislation to improve ethical, transparent, and open responsive government, but opposes the constitutionally flawed UEG initiative entitled “Government Ethics Reform.”

So instead of my usual rants about something political that usually pisses someone off i’ve decided to talk about what I am grateful for.  First and foremost I am thankful for my health.  I just found out that a close family member of mine has lung cancer and has less than a year to live, my dad’s father has kidney cancer, my dad’s boss just died of cancer and both of my parents just beat their battle with the swine flu.  So I am grateful to be healthy.  I am grateful for my family.  I’ve been through a lot in the last two years on the personal end, and if it wasn’t for my parents I don’t know if i could have found my way out of the dark place in my mind.  I am thankful for my friends.  I have the most honest streight forward group of people surrounding me, telling me when I’m a melodramatic idiot.  I am grateful to be an american.  This country, for all it’s struggles and all its faults is still the land of opportunity, where an idiot hillbilly, is hillbilly appropriate for a person from Alaska?, could become the GOP candidate for Vice President.  This is a country where you can listen to debate and hear both sides of the opinion.  And for that I am truly thankful.

Rekha Basu, a columnist for the Des Moines Register,  recently wrote a rambling article about the big tent concept.  The term big tent often applies to political parties and their need to be inclusive of many different populations and views (unless you are a pro-life Democrat in which case you are not very welcome in the Democrat Party).  The term has been tossed around by media and political pundits frequently in recent months regarding the need for the Republican party to have a big tent to survive (which, by the way, I oppose but will not get into here).  But have you ever heard it applied to a religious denomination?  Well read Basu’s column and you will.

Basu posses the following question. “Should there be an ideological litmus test for membership in a faith? Who gets to decide whether Catholics whose views differ from the Vatican’s can call themselves Catholic? Does the bishop?”  This is in reference to the scolding of Patrick Kennedy by his bishop, the Most Reverend Thomas Tobin.  Bishop Tobin stated, in other words, that Kennedy was incorrect to think that he is fully Catholic when he supports abortion and public funding thereof.  The Bishop simply responded to an attack by Kennedy against the Catholic Church for opposing health care legislation that expanded access to and/or funding for abortion (read more here).  Bishop Tobin was simply attempting to continue a previously private conversation with Kennedy in an attempt to redeem his soul and guide him back to the church and Christ.  As Kennedy’s bishop, it is his responsibility to do so.

Ms. Basu implies in her article that Bishop Tobin has no right to define what is Catholic but instead should be left to the individual members of the faith.  She quotes from an ultra-liberal (and in my opinion anti-Catholic) organization named Catholics for Choice, that claim a bishop has no right to tell Kennedy that he is “less of a Catholic” (Tobin used Kennedy’s words).  Why? I don’t have a direct answer, but I believe it is because they also disagree with the moral teachings of the church.  They believe the Catholic faith, i.e. Vatican, should not dictate to its faithful that it is a mortal sin to murder an innocent unborn child.

So should the Catholic church follow the U.S. Democrat and Republican parties and implement the big tent approach to their faith?  Should the Vatican release a statement saying that Christ was wrong to tell us we should obey the commandments?  Should they begin a listening tour to determine what the liberal “Catholics” believe in an effort to reform the faith to meet their lower moral standards?

Basu concludes her article by saying “Ideological purity sounds nice. But a party, like a religion, is no more than the people who sign up for it. For good or bad, the rest is negotiation.”  Well there is our answer.   The wise Basu has spoken!  Pope Benedict XVI take note!  Bishops take note! Parish priests take note!  The central tenets of the Catholic faith is up for negotiation.  No more homilies telling us what is right and wrong.  No more reading from the Bible as it may instruct us as to what is moral.  Reform now!  Let’s all just come to church every Sunday (or once a year or what ever feels right) and join hands and admire our wondrous self-worth, wisdom, and the eternal human spirit.  But do not talk to your fellow congregant as you can’t be allowed to tell them what you think is moral and correct.  The Catholic faith has now been declared as a faith of one, from one, and for one.

This reminds me of the Ayn Rand novel The Fountainhead.  Howard Roark, an out of the mainstream architect, is asked to build a non-denominational temple called the Temple of the Human Spirit.  The temple intends to capture the essence of religion.  The essence of religion, according to the man wanting to construct this temple, is:

 ”The great aspiration of the human spirit toward the highest, the noblest, the best.  The human spirit as the creator and the conqueror of the ideal.  The great life-giving force of the universe.  The heroic human spirit.”

A church not of or for God but to man.  Basu, Kennedy, and the Catholics for Choice have asked the Catholic church to become just that.  A Church to each one of our own human spirits, to celebrate the beliefs we have, and to celebrate the great things that we can do (such as killing our unborn).

I do not know where to begin.  Instead of responding to this absurdity I will simply pray, God help us.

Just when I think the collective amnesia of Republicans can’t possibly come up with another blinding example of bullshit, another leftover from the Bush Administration trots out on a talking head tee-vee show and lets loose a whopper of biblical proportions…just like former Bush Press Secretary Dana Perino did last night on GOP apologist Sean Hannity’s show.

Referring to the Ft. Hood shootings and murders, Perino made the claim that… just watch it for yourself:

Yup, you hears her correctly and in case you missed it:

We did not have a terrorist attack on our country during president Bush’s term. I hope they’re not looking at this politically. I do think that we owe it to the American people to call it what it is.

Perhaps even more galling was that Hannity, who sees himself as a super-patriot, didn’t offer the slightest sign that Perino was way past disingenuous.

h/t:  www.talkingpointsmemo.com

Washington, DC has wound down, and all the Congress members are hurrying home to be with family and constituents. Oh, and there may be a chance for them to visit a few sugar daddies and receive a campaign contribution or two. That’s why they call this Thankstaking Day.

For most in Congress, everyday is Thankstaking Day. They tell us that the cost of running for office is out of sight. They also tell us that campaign contributions are appreciated, even can get someone a personal hearing (if the contribution is large enough), but money will never influence their vote… because their vote is not for sale. The two Senators from Aetna (actually it is Connecticut), Chris Dodd and Joe Lieberman, professed these words this week.

The persistent low opinion ratings of Congress are no accident. Americans may not know or understand everything that goes on there, but they can tell a demagogue when they see one.

While Americans are celebrating Thanksgiving Day and thinking about all they have to be thankful, we can also be sure it is Thankstaking Day for others. In one way or another we are the givers, and special interests and Congress are the takers. This will sink the American ship faster than the unchecked national debt unless we move to change the players or the rules, or both.  To be sure, Sarah Palin is not the answer.

There are some activists in the Republican Party who are proposing a litmus test for GOP candidates on major issues. Stray too far from the correct responses and no RNC money for you.

Conservative Republican Party activists want to withhold money from GOP candidates who stray too far from party orthodoxy.

Ten Republican National Committee members are distributing a plan to impose a purity test – calling for money to be withheld from anyone who disagrees with conservative principles on more than two of 10 core issues.

Among the required stances: oppose President Barack Obama’s health care and cap-and-trade proposals as well as his stimulus plan; reject government funding for abortion; vote “no” on legislation to help unions organize; and support keeping the Defense of Marriage Act.

“The problem is that conservatives have lost trust in the Republican Party that we will govern as conservatives,” said James Bopp Jr., an Indiana lawyer and one of 168 RNC members who will debate the idea during the party’s winter meeting in January. “And I think that loss of trust is warranted to a certain extent because of the fact that we in the final several years of the Bush administration were supporting increased government, earmarks and, ultimately, bailouts.”

I spent a lot of time thinking about how to respond to this today. I read Erick Erickson’s thoughts at Red State earlier. I’ll react in a bit.

The Republican Party doesn’t need any more Dede Scozzafavas or Charlie Crists or any of the sort. RINOs at best — Republican In Name Only. DIABLOs at worst — Democrats In All But Label Only. And quite frankly I am sick and tired of the GOP party elites in both Wisconsin and in Washington telling me I have to eat a RINO or DIABLO crap sandwich and like it, just so they can get invites to the really cool cocktail parties and gain acceptance from the liberals and the state-run media.

But this type of litmus test doesn’t serve anyone’s best interest. First, as Erick correctly points out:

I am afraid this will do what the ATR pledge did in Scozzafava’s case — give a lot of candidates cover to pretend to be conservative. People are naturally inclined to short circuit educational processes. People will look at this list to see if a candidate signed off on the issues. If the candidate did, well by God they must be conservative — never mind their voting record or prior statements. After all, only a week before Scozzafava signed the ATR pledge she was bashing Hoffman for having signed it. Never mind though, all was forgiven once Scozzafava signed it too.

Conservatives in the RNC, however well meaning they may be, risk giving liberal candidates easy opportunities to get conservative endorsements simply by checking the box without ever meaning it.

Exactly. Answer the questions correctly, get the money then go off and do whatever you want. There’s no legal requirement for a candidate to actually follow what he or she answers on this form. It’s words on paper. Think George H.W. Bush and “Read my lips: no new taxes.” How’d that turn out?

The problem that is not addressed by this proposal is the tendency of the dolts at the RNC, along with the National Republican Congressional Committee and National Republican Senatorial Committee, to interject themselves into Republican primaries and pick candidates from Washington rather than trust GOP voters to pick their own candidates.

NY-23 was a classic example. No primary, just selecting a DIABLO pushed by GOP progressives and rubber-stamped by party officials. If Scozzafava had been selected in an open primary, fine. Same with Crist. Or Carly Fiorina in California. Or any other place. Then it’s up to the party to unite behind the voters’ choice.

The RNC, NRCC and NRSC need to stay out of state and local primaries in terms of endorsements, money or any other sign of candidate preference then get behind the winner. And the conservative activists have to learn to deal with disappointment if their guy isn’t the voters’ choice.

Matt Collins was removed from his vice-chairmanship of the county party by a vote of 14-5. Mr. Collins was ousted by only two votes, as a 2/3 was needed for removal.

The meeting was a ‘closed session’, so Collins’ supporters waited in the hallway outside the Cheekwood Meeting Room in the Green Hills Hampton Inn.

According to Collins, “we [the liberty movement] win regardless [of the decision].”

Agreed—we will win.

Name / Title / State / Famous quote

Alexander, Lamar / Senator / TN / “No.”

Barrasso, John / Senator / WY / “No.”

Bennett, Robert / Senator / UT / “No.”

Bond, Christopher / Senator / MO / “No.”

Brownback, Sam / Senator / KS / “No.”

Bunning, Jim / Senator / KY / “No.”

Burr, Richard / Senator / NC / “No.”

Chambliss, Saxby / Senator / GA /  “No.”

Coburn, Tom / Senator / OK / “No.”

Cochran, Thad / Senator / MS / “No.”

Collins, Susan / Senator / ME / “No.”

Corker, Bob / Senator / TN / “No.”

Cornyn, John / Senator / TX / “No.”

Crapo, Mike / Senator / ID / “No.”

DeMint, Jim / Senator / SC / “No.”

Ensign, John / Senator / NV / “No.”

Enzi, Michael / Senator / WY / “No.”

Graham, Lindsey / Senator / SC / “No.”

Grassley, Chuck / Senator / IA / “No.”

Judd, Greg / Senator / NH / “No.”

Hagan, Kay / Senator / NC / “No.”

Hatch, Orrin / Senator / UT / “No.”

Hutchison, Kay Bailey / Senator / TX / “No.”

Imhofe, James / Senator / OK / “No.”

Isakson, Johnny / Senator /  GA / “No.”

Johanns, Mike / Senator / NE / “No.”

Kyl, Jon / Senator / AZ / “No.”

LeMieux, George / Senator / FL / “No.”

Lugar, Richard / Senator / IN / “No.”

McCain, John / Senator / AZ / “No.”

McConnell, Mitch / Senator / KY / “No.”

Murkowski, Lisa / Senator / AK / “No.”

Risch, James / Senator / ID / “No.”

Roberts, Pat / Senator / KS / “No.”

Sessions, Jeff / Senator / AL / “No.”

Shelby, Richard / Senator / AL / “No.”

Snowe, Olympia / Senator / ME / “No.”

Thune, John / Senator / SD / “No.”

Vitter, David / Senator / LA / “No.”

Voinovich, George / Senator / OH / “No.”

Wicker, Roger / Senator / MS / “No.”

Warren Langer

http://warrenlanger.wordpress.com

In light of all the wingnuttery out there, most of it surrounding the Sarah Palin Express,  I thought it would be a good idea to re-post this on the front page of my blog.  Read it, enjoy it, and pass it around to every nutjob out there that thinks that this is a “Christian Nation”.

From “The Nation”

by Brooke Allen

February 3, 2005

It is hard to believe that George Bush has ever read the works of George Orwell, but he seems, somehow, to have grasped a few Orwellian precepts. The lesson the President has learned best–and certainly the one that has been the most useful to him–is the axiom that if you repeat a lie often enough, people will believe it. One of his Administration’s current favorites is the whopper about America having been founded on Christian principles. Our nation was founded not on Christian principles but on Enlightenment ones. God only entered the picture as a very minor player, and Jesus Christ was conspicuously absent.

Our Constitution makes no mention whatever of God. The omission was too obvious to have been anything but deliberate, in spite of Alexander Hamilton’s flippant responses when asked about it: According to one account, he said that the new nation was not in need of “foreign aid”; according to another, he simply said “we forgot.” But as Hamilton’s biographer Ron Chernow points out, Hamilton never forgot anything important.

In the eighty-five essays that make up The Federalist, God is mentioned only twice (both times by Madison, who uses the word, as Gore Vidal has remarked, in the “only Heaven knows” sense). In the Declaration of Independence, He gets two brief nods: a reference to “the Laws of Nature and Nature’s God,” and the famous line about men being “endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights.” More blatant official references to a deity date from long after the founding period: “In God We Trust” did not appear on our coinage until the Civil War, and “under God” was introduced into the Pledge of Allegiance during the McCarthy hysteria in 1954 [see Elisabeth Sifton, "The Battle Over the Pledge," April 5, 2004].

In 1797 our government concluded a “Treaty of Peace and Friendship between the United States of America and the Bey and Subjects of Tripoli, or Barbary,” now known simply as the Treaty of Tripoli. Article 11 of the treaty contains these words:

As the Government of the United States…is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion–as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity of Musselmen–and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.

This document was endorsed by Secretary of State Timothy Pickering and President John Adams. It was then sent to the Senate for ratification; the vote was unanimous. It is worth pointing out that although this was the 339th time a recorded vote had been required by the Senate, it was only the third unanimous vote in the Senate’s history. There is no record of debate or dissent. The text of the treaty was printed in full in the Philadelphia Gazette and in two New York papers, but there were no screams of outrage, as one might expect today.

The Founding Fathers were not religious men, and they fought hard to erect, in Thomas Jefferson’s words, “a wall of separation between church and state.” John Adams opined that if they were not restrained by legal measures, Puritans–the fundamentalists of their day–would “whip and crop, and pillory and roast.” The historical epoch had afforded these men ample opportunity to observe the corruption to which established priesthoods were liable, as well as “the impious presumption of legislators and rulers,” as Jefferson wrote, “civil as well as ecclesiastical, who, being themselves but fallible and uninspired men, have assumed dominion over the faith of others, setting up their own opinions and modes of thinking as the only true and infallible, and as such endeavoring to impose them on others, hath established and maintained false religions over the greatest part of the world and through all time.”

If we define a Christian as a person who believes in the divinity of Jesus Christ, then it is safe to say that some of the key Founding Fathers were not Christians at all. Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson and Tom Paine were deists–that is, they believed in one Supreme Being but rejected revelation and all the supernatural elements of the Christian Church; the word of the Creator, they believed, could best be read in Nature. John Adams was a professed liberal Unitarian, but he, too, in his private correspondence seems more deist than Christian.

George Washington and James Madison also leaned toward deism, although neither took much interest in religious matters. Madison believed that “religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprize.” He spoke of the “almost fifteen centuries” during which Christianity had been on trial: “What have been its fruits? More or less in all places, pride and indolence in the Clergy, ignorance and servility in the laity, in both, superstition, bigotry, and persecution.” If Washington mentioned the Almighty in a public address, as he occasionally did, he was careful to refer to Him not as “God” but with some nondenominational moniker like “Great Author” or “Almighty Being.” It is interesting to note that the Father of our Country spoke no words of a religious nature on his deathbed, although fully aware that he was dying, and did not ask for a man of God to be present; his last act was to take his own pulse, the consummate gesture of a creature of the age of scientific rationalism.

Tom Paine, a polemicist rather than a politician, could afford to be perfectly honest about his religious beliefs, which were baldly deist in the tradition of Voltaire: “I believe in one God, and no more; and I hope for happiness beyond this life…. I do not believe in the creed professed by the Jewish church, by the Roman church, by the Greek church, by the Turkish church, by the Protestant church, nor by any church that I know of. My own mind is my own church.” This is how he opened The Age of Reason, his virulent attack on Christianity. In it he railed against the “obscene stories, the voluptuous debaucheries, the cruel and torturous executions, the unrelenting vindictiveness” of the Old Testament, “a history of wickedness, that has served to corrupt and brutalize mankind.” The New Testament is less brutalizing but more absurd, the story of Christ’s divine genesis a “fable, which for absurdity and extravagance is not exceeded by any thing that is to be found in the mythology of the ancients.” He held the idea of the Resurrection in especial ridicule: Indeed, “the wretched contrivance with which this latter part is told, exceeds every thing that went before it.” Paine was careful to contrast the tortuous twists of theology with the pure clarity of deism. “The true deist has but one Deity; and his religion consists in contemplating the power, wisdom, and benignity of the Deity in his works, and in endeavoring to imitate him in every thing moral, scientifical, and mechanical.”

Paine’s rhetoric was so fervent that he was inevitably branded an atheist. Men like Franklin, Adams and Jefferson could not risk being tarred with that brush, and in fact Jefferson got into a good deal of trouble for continuing his friendship with Paine and entertaining him at Monticello. These statesmen had to be far more circumspect than the turbulent Paine, yet if we examine their beliefs it is all but impossible to see just how theirs differed from his.

Franklin was the oldest of the Founding Fathers. He was also the most worldly and sophisticated, and was well aware of the Machiavellian principle that if one aspires to influence the masses, one must at least profess religious sentiments. By his own definition he was a deist, although one French acquaintance claimed that “our free-thinkers have adroitly sounded him on his religion, and they maintain that they have discovered he is one of their own, that is that he has none at all.” If he did have a religion, it was strictly utilitarian: As his biographer Gordon Wood has said, “He praised religion for whatever moral effects it had, but for little else.” Divine revelation, Franklin freely admitted, had “no weight with me,” and the covenant of grace seemed “unintelligible” and “not beneficial.” As for the pious hypocrites who have ever controlled nations, “A man compounded of law and gospel is able to cheat a whole country with his religion and then destroy them under color of law”–a comment we should carefully consider at this turning point in the history of our Republic.

Here is Franklin’s considered summary of his own beliefs, in response to a query by Ezra Stiles, the president of Yale. He wrote it just six weeks before his death at the age of 84.

Here is my creed. I believe in one God, Creator of the universe. That he governs it by his providence. That he ought to be worshipped. That the most acceptable service we render to him is doing good to his other children. That the soul of Man is immortal, and will be treated with justice in another life respecting its conduct in this. These I take to be the fundamental points in all sound religion, and I regard them as you do in whatever sect I meet with them.
As for Jesus of Nazareth, my opinion of whom you particularly desire, I think his system of morals and his religion, as he left them to us, the best the world ever saw or is likely to see; but I apprehend it has received various corrupting changes, and I have, with most of the present dissenters in England, some doubts as to his divinity; though it is a question I do not dogmatize upon, having never studied it, and think it needless to busy myself with now, when I expect soon an opportunity of knowing the truth with less trouble. I see no harm, however, in its being believed, if that belief has the good consequence, as it probably has, of making his doctrines more respected and better observed, especially as I do not perceive that the Supreme takes it amiss, by distinguishing the unbelievers in his government of the world with any particular marks of his displeasure.

Jefferson thoroughly agreed with Franklin on the corruptions the teachings of Jesus had undergone. “The metaphysical abstractions of Athanasius, and the maniacal ravings of Calvin, tinctured plentifully with the foggy dreams of Plato, have so loaded [Christianity] with absurdities and incomprehensibilities” that it was almost impossible to recapture “its native simplicity and purity.” Like Paine, Jefferson felt that the miracles claimed by the New Testament put an intolerable strain on credulity. “The day will come,” he predicted (wrongly, so far), “when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin, will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter.” The Revelation of St. John he dismissed as “the ravings of a maniac.”

Jefferson edited his own version of the New Testament, “The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth,” in which he carefully deleted all the miraculous passages from the works of the Evangelists. He intended it, he said, as “a document in proof that I am a real Christian, that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus.” This was clearly a defense against his many enemies, who hoped to blacken his reputation by comparing him with the vile atheist Paine. His biographer Joseph Ellis is undoubtedly correct, though, in seeing disingenuousness here: “If [Jefferson] had been completely scrupulous, he would have described himself as a deist who admired the ethical teachings of Jesus as a man rather than as the son of God. (In modern-day parlance, he was a secular humanist.)” In short, not a Christian at all.

The three accomplishments Jefferson was proudest of–those that he requested be put on his tombstone–were the founding of the University of Virginia and the authorship of the Declaration of Independence and the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom. The latter was a truly radical document that would eventually influence the separation of church and state in the US Constitution; when it was passed by the Virginia legislature in 1786, Jefferson rejoiced that there was finally “freedom for the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and the Mohammeden, the Hindu and infidel of every denomination”–note his respect, still unusual today, for the sensibilities of the “infidel.” The University of Virginia was notable among early-American seats of higher education in that it had no religious affiliation whatever. Jefferson even banned the teaching of theology at the school.

If we were to speak of Jefferson in modern political categories, we would have to admit that he was a pure libertarian, in religious as in other matters. His real commitment (or lack thereof) to the teachings of Jesus Christ is plain from a famous throwaway comment he made: “It does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.” This raised plenty of hackles when it got about, and Jefferson had to go to some pains to restore his reputation as a good Christian. But one can only conclude, with Ellis, that he was no Christian at all.

John Adams, though no more religious than Jefferson, had inherited the fatalistic mindset of the Puritan culture in which he had grown up. He personally endorsed the Enlightenment commitment to Reason but did not share Jefferson’s optimism about its future, writing to him, “I wish that Superstition in Religion exciting Superstition in Polliticks…may never blow up all your benevolent and phylanthropic Lucubrations,” but that “the History of all Ages is against you.” As an old man he observed, “Twenty times in the course of my late reading have I been upon the point of breaking out, ‘This would be the best of all possible worlds, if there were no religion in it!’” Speaking ex cathedra, as a relic of the founding generation, he expressed his admiration for the Roman system whereby every man could worship whom, what and how he pleased. When his young listeners objected that this was paganism, Adams replied that it was indeed, and laughed.

In their fascinating and eloquent valetudinarian correspondence, Adams and Jefferson had a great deal to say about religion. Pressed by Jefferson to define his personal creed, Adams replied that it was “contained in four short words, ‘Be just and good.’” Jefferson replied, “The result of our fifty or sixty years of religious reading, in the four words, ‘Be just and good,’ is that in which all our inquiries must end; as the riddles of all priesthoods end in four more, ‘ubi panis, ibi deus.’ What all agree in, is probably right. What no two agree in, most probably wrong.”

This was a clear reference to Voltaire’s Reflections on Religion. As Voltaire put it:

There are no sects in geometry. One does not speak of a Euclidean, an Archimedean. When the truth is evident, it is impossible for parties and factions to arise…. Well, to what dogma do all minds agree? To the worship of a God, and to honesty. All the philosophers of the world who have had a religion have said in all ages: “There is a God, and one must be just.” There, then, is the universal religion established in all ages and throughout mankind. The point in which they all agree is therefore true, and the systems through which they differ are therefore false.

Of course all these men knew, as all modern presidential candidates know, that to admit to theological skepticism is political suicide. During Jefferson’s presidency a friend observed him on his way to church, carrying a large prayer book. “You going to church, Mr. J,” remarked the friend. “You do not believe a word in it.” Jefferson didn’t exactly deny the charge. “Sir,” he replied, “no nation has ever yet existed or been governed without religion. Nor can be. The Christian religion is the best religion that has been given to man and I as chief Magistrate of this nation am bound to give it the sanction of my example. Good morning Sir.”

Like Jefferson, every recent President has understood the necessity of at least paying lip service to the piety of most American voters. All of our leaders, Democrat and Republican, have attended church, and have made very sure they are seen to do so. But there is a difference between offering this gesture of respect for majority beliefs and manipulating and pandering to the bigotry, prejudice and millennial fantasies of Christian extremists. Though for public consumption the Founding Fathers identified themselves as Christians, they were, at least by today’s standards, remarkably honest about their misgivings when it came to theological doctrine, and religion in general came very low on the list of their concerns and priorities–always excepting, that is, their determination to keep the new nation free from bondage to its rule.

Say whatever about biases in America, they exist. This may be the land of the free, but it is clear that not everyone is treated equally. For starters, when it comes to politics, the media favors the Republican party. When it comes to race, anything black or looking like black is not favored.

That is the standard in America, anyone with common sense realizes that. But, how is it that the president of such a nation happens to be a black Democrat? The reason behind Barack Obama being elected to president was the worst economy in American history falling into the lap of a Republican president.

As a candidate, Barack Obama promised to give the people a much-needed Stimulus Package. Once he was elected president, he had hoped to get right into doing this. However, as he tried, Congress voted him down time and time again until most of the money was given to corporations. The media reported this and all that they showed were his failures, as opposed to his efforts.

This has been the story of Obama’s short presidency. Everything that he has tried to do has faced opposition from Congress. First, he is attacked by the Republicans, then he tries to compromise with them. When he tries that, he alienates his Democratic base. The media never seems to show all of that, instead, they look at what he has not done compared to what he has promised.

During the presidency of George W. Bush, he did whatever he wanted to and Congress went right along with him. The Democrats were bitter about the way that he won both elections, but they allowed the Republicans to run right over them. Now that they are in control, the Democrats are still allowing the Republicans to run right over them. It is funny how the media can always find a political scandal, but they never focus on any of this.

A few months ago, they “discovered” that the first lady, Michelle Obama, descended from slavery. But, somehow they have overlooked the efforts of her husband to try and fix the problems of the nation that the last administration left. They can point out every mistake that he made, while forgetting the good that he has accomplished, despite having no support from anyone.

With all of this negative being pointed out about President Obama, his approval rating is going down. Looking at the way things have improved in not even one year’s time, his ratings should still be very high. Ultimately, they are not. It is a shame that the media is more involved in getting a story than they are about what is right and what is wrong.

Their bias against the president, similar to their bias of Bill Clinton, has led to them drawing in high ratings. In a perfect world, the media would back off of President Obama and let him do his job. It is bad enough that he inherited such a mess, he does not need these meaningless distractions as he tries to fix things.

Yesterday’s LP Monday Message is an excellent criticism of Republican hypocrisy, regarding the debate on federal health care. It cites the “Prescription Drug and Medicare Improvement Act of 2003,” an expensive federal intrusion into health care that received quite a bit of Republican support, proving that the current Republican stance against “Obama-care” might have more to do with political posturing, and less to do standing up for the individual. And the Constitution, for that matter.

Each time the Democratic Party attempts to right perceived social problems with the strength and resources of the federal government, from Roosevelt to Kennedy, from Clinton to Obama, Republicans make a lot of noise about the Constitution, limited government, the individual, the middle class, etc., borrowing the values of libertarianism for the sake of beating those “big government Democrats” in the next election. This is pure hypocrisy. There was no outcry from the right during 2002-2004, when Republicans held the White House, Senate, and House of Representatives, and squandered this opportunity, naively seeming to believe that Democrats would back off in the next election, leaving them to accomplish their goals at their leisure. Taxes were not cut. Sure, they were played with a bit, rearranged, painted with different colors, but the massive monetary intake of the federal government remained the same. The Bill of Rights was violated repeatedly in the name of the “War on Terror,” with the Patriot Act all but doing away with the concept of privacy. In many ways, Republicans made government bigger without even pretending that their intentions were to help the working man, as Democrats do.

We will see many Republican challengers in 2010, borrowing concepts from the Libertarian Party in an effort to supplant the current Democratic ruling class. It is my hope that these challengers, if elected, prove to be sincere about their beliefs. I hope they will enact term limits. I hope they will eliminate federal redistribution programs. I hope they will permanently do away with the income tax, which is immoral and unconstitutional. I hope they will recognize states’ rights, and not feel the need to intervene in the private sector, as their Democratic and Republican predecessors have. I hope, possibly in vain, because there is little else to do.

So, keep opposing federal health care, Republicans. Keep standing up for capitalism, the only economic system that can exist in a free state. Keep standing up for the people, and our Constitution–just be sure that you keep it up if you win a majority in 2010, instead of lying to your constituents and wallowing in power and corruption, as you have so many times in the past.

According to the NYT, “A group of conservative Republican leaders is proposing a solution to the internecine warfare over what the party should stand for: a 10-point checklist gauging proper adherence to core principles like opposing government financing for abortion and, more generally, President Obama’s “socialist agenda.” …the proposal would require the party to withhold campaign money and endorsements from candidates who do not adhere to at least seven principles on the checklist.”

Analysis: This approach reminds me of Moody’s Fundamentals of Christianity, which was published early in the twentieth century.  In the midst of the German historical criticism method of intepreting the bible (i.e., what really happened?), Moody sought to focus on the fundamentals of the faith.  His work is recognized as the basis of the fundamentalist movement in Christianity, which stresses a literal interpretation of scripture and a personal relationship with Jesus Christ as the fundamentals of the Christian faith–and thus what every true believer must evince.   

The proposed Republican check-list strikes me as a similar “back to basics” approach, and therefore in line with the evangelicals’ methodology in general.  However, the question of just what is fundamental to the GOP is far from settled.  For example, a traditional republican would likely object to abortion being considered as one of the party’s fundamentals.  Fundamentals of a general party are about political principles rather than individual issues just as a constitution is about basic law rather than particular laws).  In fact, a Goldwater republican might even retort that the GOP is about keeping the government out of people’s lives.   So the proposed attempt to provide the Republican Party with its fundamentals might actually be a subterfuge of sorts for one of its faction’s agenda.   In any event, the proposal demonstrates how evangelical Christianity is being imbued by the Republican Party in subtle and not-so-subtle ways. 

For more, see http://twitter.com/euandus

Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/24/us/politics/24repubs.html?_r=1

President Obama forced to take step back from global climate change treaty

Over the weekend in Singapore,  President Obama acknowledged that a binding climate change agreement will be an unrealistic outcome from the Copenhagen Summit this winter.  Over 192 countries will be participating in the climate change negotiations during the 2009 Copenhagen Summit.  The focus of the Summit will now center on reaching a “political deal” that could serve as a framework for a a future global climate change treaty. The lack of agreement over cap and trade legislation in the United States Congress has led to the postponement of a global climate change treaty.   The outrageous cap and trade bill passed by the House this summer has come under intense scrutiny as more research has shown the devastating impact of the bill on the American economy and middle class families.   The Senate will probably not consider any climate change legislation until sometime next year. The majority of Americans have been reluctant to support the United States taking on the economic and financial obligations of leading the world in drastic measures to combat climate change without the commitment of other developing countries.  Other large industrial nations like India and China have remained noncommittal to the prospect of signing on to any legally binding international climate change agreements.

On the Hill

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) is preparing to keep the Senate in session through the beginning of next week in order to start the debate on health care legislation. Liberal members of the Senate are putting pressure on Sen. Reid to stand behind the public option insurance provision in the Senate health care bill. Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK) will insist that the health care bill is read aloud on the Senate floor. Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-IL) is leading the push to bring Guantanamo prisoners to an IL prison saying that it would boost the local economy. Senator Sessions (R-AL) has vowed to filibuster the nomination of David Hamilton to the 7th US Circuit Court of Appeals. House Republicans are saying Democrats are delaying conference committee on a spending bill because they are afraid the GOP will attempt to stop the transfer of Guantanamo prisoners. House Appropriations Chairman David Obey (D-WI) is angry at the Obama Administration for the outrageous reporting error on an official website set up to track stimulus dollars. House Democrats are not speaking out on President Obama’s delay in choosing an Afghanistan strategy. House Democrats are saying they will move a jobs package this year to address rising unemployment. In the NY-23 race, Hoffman has “unconceded” after the vote margin narrowed during the count of absentee ballots.

National Federation of Republican Women

LEGISLATION WILL PROVIDE MORE OPPORTUNITIES FOR ASPIRING TEACHERS AND CREATE TEACHER ACCOUNTABILITY

SACRAMENTO – Assemblyman Brian Nestande, R-Palm Desert, today introduced a package of three bills into the Fifth Extraordinary Session on Education which addresses the federal Race to the Top program.  Assembly Bill 5xxxxx, 6xxxxx, and 7xxxxx are common-sense reforms to help more qualified and dedicated individuals enter the teaching profession sooner and require accountability from our teachers to ensure California’s students get the best education possible.

“Many outstanding citizens want to teach in our public schools, but find it hard to do so because of existing work and family responsibilities,” said Nestande.  “AB 5xxxxx will give them an opportunity to earn a teaching credential through alternative programs offered by local governments or community organizations, without having to go through the traditional route that is geared towards young college students.”

Current law allows only postsecondary education institutions to offer teacher education programs with few exemptions.  Assembly Bill 5xxxxx authorizes other institutions, such as a school district, county office of education, or a community-based or nongovernmental organization, to submit a teacher education program to the Commission on Teacher Credentialing for approval.  Additionally, it allows the Commission to issue teaching credentials to candidates who have successfully completed an approved teacher education program offered by these institutions.

Assembly Bill 6xxxxx extends local control to our school districts by allowing county offices of education to issue eminence teaching credentials to qualified candidates and encourages more access to the teaching profession through nontraditional routes. “By allowing local school districts to issue this type of credential, we are attempting to ease the complicated process and get highly qualified professionals into the classroom quickly,” said Nestande.

Using student data, Assembly Bill 7xxxxx would allow school administrators to require professional development of an instructor. If the person directed to participate in professional development activities does not successfully complete these activities, such action by the certificated employee can be considered unsatisfactory performance and is grounds for dismissal.

“When it comes to education, success should be encouraged and rewarded, and failure should not go unnoticed.  If students have to prove they are learning, teachers need to prove they can teach,” said Nestande. “The use of student data in evaluating a teacher’s performance is one way to improve teacher accountability in the classroom.”

AB 5xxxxx, 6xxxxx, and 7xxxxx are all designed to make California more competitive in applying for “Race to the Top,” a $4.35 billion federal program announced by President Obama earlier this year.  The program is funded by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act to encourage reform and innovation in our public schools.  Since Race to the Top funds are to be given only to states that meet specific criteria and are judged to have a strong commitment to reform, these measures are one of many reforms needed to give California a legitimate shot at earning its fair share of funds.

“With our schools in need of reform, this package of bills will address one of the major challenges facing our state – providing a well-qualified teacher in every classroom,” said Nestande.  “I look forward to working with my legislative colleagues to help pass these bills as soon as possible so we can become more competitive for federal education funds.”

Assemblyman Nestande proudly serves the communities of Canyon Lake, Indian Wells, Lake Elsinore, Moreno Valley, Murrieta, Palm Desert, Rancho Mirage, Riverside, Temecula, Perris, Wildomar, Winchester, Menifee, Hemet, Anza, Idyllwild, Bermuda Dunes, Mountain Center, and Woodcrest.

Name                Title    State     Famous  Quote

Alexander, Lamar / Senator/ TN / “No.”

Barrasso, John / Senator / WY / “No.”

Bennett, Robert /Senator / UT / “No.”

Bond, Christopher / Senator / MO / “No.”

Brownback, Sam / Senator / KS / “No.”

Bunning, Jim/ Senator / KY / “No.”

Burr, Richard / Senator / NC / “No.”

Chambliss, Saxby / Senator /GA / “No.”

Coburn, Tom / Senator / OK  / “No.”

Cochran, Thad  / Senator / MS / “No.”

Collins, Susan  / Senator /  ME /  “No.”

Corker, Bob  / Senator / TN /  “No.”

Cornyn, John / Senator / TX / “No.”

Crapo, Mike   / Senator / ID /   “No.”

DeMint, Jim /  Senator / SC / “No.”

Ensign, John / Senator / NV / “No.”

Enzi, Michael / Senator /  WY /  “No.”

Graham, Lindsey  /Senator / SC / “No.”

Grassley, Chuck  /Senator / IA /  “No.”

Judd, Gregg  / Senator / NH / “No.”

Hagan, Kay / Senator / NC /  “No.”

Hatch, Orrin / Senator / UT /  “No.”

Hutchison, Kay Bailey / Senator / TX / “No.”

Imhofe, James / Senator / OK  / “No.”

Isakson, Johnny / Senator /  GA /  “No.”

Johanns, Mike  / Senator / NE / “No.”

Kyl, Jon / Senator / AZ /  “No.”

LeMieux, George / Senator / FL / “No.”

Lugar, Richard / Senator / IN /  “No.”

McCain, John / Senator / AZ / “No.”

McConnell, Mitch  / Senator / KY / “No.”

Murkowski, Lisa / Senator / AK / “No.”

Risch, James / Senator / ID / “No.”

Roberts, Pat / Senator  / KS / “No.”

Sessions, Jeff  /Senator / AL /  “No.”

Shelby, Richard / Senator / AL / “No.”

Snowe, Olympia  / Senator /  ME / “No.”

Thune, John / Senator / SD / “No.”

Vitter, David  / Senator / LA /  “No.”

Voinovich, George / Senator / OH / “No.”

Wicker, Roger  / Senator / MS / “No.”

Warren Langer

 http://warrenlanger.wordpress.com

For the Republican Party, the gap between image and reality widened again yesterday, with the RNC’s decision to promulgate a “test” for whether or not a candidate can be properly termed a “Republican,” and receive the party’s blessing. Apparently, following a bit of complex calculus derived by Pres. Reagan himself, any candidate ought to meet eight of  the ten following criteria before asking for RNC money, or thinking themselves safe from inevitable betrayal, without regard for the nuances that animate American regional politics (“Scozzafava-ing”). Without further ado, the requirements:

1. Smaller government, smaller national debt, lower deficits and lower taxes by opposing bills like Obama’s “stimulus” bill
2. Market-based health care reform and oppose Obama-style government run healthcare
3. Market-based energy reforms by opposing cap and trade legislation<!–
4. Workers’ right to secret ballot by opposing card check
5. Legal immigration and assimilation into American society by opposing amnesty for illegal immigrants
6. Victory in Iraq and Afghanistan by supporting military-recommended troop surges
7. Containment of Iran and North Korea, particularly effective action to eliminate their nuclear weapons threat
8. Retention of the Defense of Marriage Act
9. Protecting the lives of vulnerable persons by opposing health care rationing and denial of health care and government funding of abortion
10. The right to keep and bear arms by opposing government restrictions on gun ownership

Well, let’s see how recent leaders stack up!

• Pres. Ronald Reagan (FAIL): loses 1 (increased deficit); 7 (met with Soviet leaders without preconditions, funded terrorists); 9 (did little but talk on abortion).
• Pres. George W. Bush (FAIL): loses 1 (increased deficit); 5 (pushed for “amnesty”); 6 (stalled on “the surge” until McCain pushed him into it).
• Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) (PASS): loses 1 (voted for the bailout); 5 (pushed for “amnesty”).

This is easy, because almost every Republican in the last 20 years will fail #1, at least. Remember, contrary magazine-style “purity quizzes” notwithstanding, Republicans treat McCain as the emblematic “RINO,” and Reagan as God himself. Please, add your own!

Once again, Jon Cornyn and the National Republican Senatorial Committee prove pretty much useless, stuck on stupid, incapable of finding their own collective rear end with both hands.

I received an NRSC survey to fill out and submit by e-mail. Most of the questions were routine … until I get to this one:

What’s wrong with that picture? Insert Final Jeopardy theme here. Answer must be in the form of a question.

“What is ‘What About Increase Cost and Decrease Quality,’ Alex.”

You just won Final Jeopardy.

What idiot clearly stuck on stupid sent this out without proofing it? It almost makes the Democrats’ case for passing the bill for them.

You really can’t blame the withering right-wing base of the Republican Party (as if anything but the withering right-wing base exists within the GOP) for feeling powerless and backed into a corner.  These conservative purists are completely inconsequential in the House, and as proven over the weekend with the landmark vote to move forward on the health care debate, they’re really quite weak in the Senate as well.  If they hadn’t overseen the destruction of this country’s middle class, economy, and international reputation, one would almost be inclined to feel sorry for these poor bastards.  Now, any decent political strategist within the Republican Party would undoubtedly want to focus on ways to grow the party, to bring in those moderates who agree on some but not all of the GOP’s platform (which has really been the key to establishing the Democratic Party’s supermajority status).  That’s the rational approach.  But people – especially Republicans – are not rational.

Instead, conservatives’ idea to make the party more successful is to make the party…well, even more conservative.  In a strategy almost as senseless and backasswards as trickle-down economics, the RNC is actually considering adopting a purity resolution.  In other words, fewer members = more members (which is just as logical as lower taxes = higher revenue).  If you thought the Salem-esque burning at the stake of Dede Scozzafava was entertaining, just you wait.  The Great Republican Purge has just begun.

The resolution is an eerie document that manages to include virtually every Republican wet dream, all in one place (talk about “big tent” conservatism).  It establishes ten planks of conservatism, ranging from opposition to “Obama-style government run health care” to support for “the retention of the Defense of Marriage Act,” and it makes clear that any GOP candidate straying from three or more of these core “conservative principles” will be denied funding by the RNC.  If that doesn’t scream “big tent,” I don’t know what does!  The resolution does this while at the same time decrying “Obama’s socialist agenda” and (intentionally, I’m sure) never once using the title “President” when referring to President Obama (though “President” preceded Ronald Reagan’s name without fail).

One must wonder, though, where these conservative principles came from.  Presumably, since the resolution is sprinkled with glorified references to Ronald Reagan, they came from him.  But when one actually looks back into the annals of history and researches the Reagan Administration (which conservative ideologues who masturbate to the “Tear Down This Wall” clip never do), one finds that the Gipper himself would not be considered a true Republican.  The RNC would actually have to deny funding to the very deity that conservatives cite as the one true voice of conservatism.  Let’s break it down:

(1) We support smaller government, smaller national debt, lower deficits and lower taxes by opposing bills like Obama’s “stimulus” bill.

On Ronald Reagan’s watch, despite the “small government” rhetoric spewing from his mouth, the federal government actually grew.  The myth that states otherwise is false.  Federal spending increased (mainly in the “defense” sector), and an entire new department was added to the executive branch.  Reagan’s illogical policies led to a fiscal nightmare.  Nobody can make the serious claim that Ronald Reagan shrank government or decreased spending.

(5) We support legal immigration and assimilation into American society by opposing amnesty for illegal immigrants.

Ronald Reagan was a proponent of amnesty for illegal immigrants.

(9) We support protecting the lives of vulnerable persons by opposing health care rationing, denial of health care and government funding of abortion.

If one believes that a zygote is a “vulnerable person” (as conservative wingnuts do), Ronald Reagan’s record on the issue is not exactly stellar.  As the Governor of California, he signed the Therapeutic Abortion Act of 1967 (even Free Republic admits it);  as President, (again) despite rhetoric, he was not a champion for the anti-choice movement and really did nothing to advance the cause.

Way to go, RNC – you’re about to adopt purity standards that your purest conservative can’t even meet.  And, just as trickle-down theory decimated the economy, these purges of moderates will continue to keep the Republicans in a permanent fringe minority.

Not that I’m complaining.

The blogger, Kristofer Paul, can be reached at bottomleftpolitics@yahoo.com.