Saturday Rants

Not to miss a trick or a buck, Larry Klayman of Judicial Watch fame has started his move to "impeach Elena Kagan". He posted his call to wage war against Elena Kagan on World Nut Daily.

Meanwhile in Mexico City, the Mexican Supreme Court ruled in favor of their gay marriage law. Not a great time for the homophobes. The Supreme Court is supposed to rule later on whether gays can adopt children.

Meanwhile in the United States, the Washington Post asks,"Will the Prop 8 ruling hurt Democrats?" I have yet to hear from the howling conservative mobs that all three judges who have ruled in favor of gay marriage so far have been Republicans. Meanwhile, the campaign against Vaughn Walker is that ,of course, he ruled for gays because he is gay and living in a stable relationship. So he wants to get married. This brings me to the importance of Ted Olson's big regret --that the trial was not televised. If we had seen the trial, it would have been a powerful educational moment. Anti-gay forces blocked televising the hearings precisely so they could wage nonsense attacks afterwards. Now the unChristian Right is advocating "intimidating the Supreme Court" so it will not ratify the decision. I think we've seen these tactics before on the healthcare debate where voracious mobs were thought to represent the will of the people.

Speaking of August mayhem, Democrats are vowing this year will not be the August of last year. The Democratic Party has handed out talking points to all members of Congress and candidates to shut down any townhall tantrums. I've been impressed with the quiet coordination of various Democratic party organizations and like-minded organizations for the mid-terms. Democrats have a cash advantage now, despite the various splintered corporate and conservative efforts on the Republican side. The question will be whether organization and a basic message is enough to curtail inevitable losses.

I was pleasantly surprised to see Howard Dean came up with the same math on the Senate I did the other day. Dean had started at a five seat loss for the Democrats, which is where I started months ago. But he's saying that Democrats could cut the loss to 1. The lunacy of the national Republican Party is a big help in eroding their chances.

Has anyone noticed that, with the exception of Meg Whitman and a few other outliers, Republicans are choosing normal GOP candidates for governor races, while letting the fruitcakes win for congress. The Republicans will pick up a number of state houses. I guess the voters felt they couldn't risk real government with a wingnut.

Yes, Dr. Rachel Maddow, Sharon Angle is really a Christian Reconstructionist and it's worth a segment explaining what this retrograde political philosophy is. One of the real charming aspects of Christian Reconstructionists is their notion that there really are first and second class citizens. President Barack Obama is not a legitimate President, not because he was born in Nairobi or on the Moon, but because he's black. You see "real Americans" are like--me--people who are descended from white people prior to the 14th Amendment. We have full rights. Blacks, Hispanics,and White Women are given their rights from government. Historically, the 14th Amendment doe not apply to American Indians, which I'm not sure Christian Reconstructionists know--yet. God gave me my rights, which are superior in quality to those who received them from the 14th Amendment. And, of course, we are a Christian nation but, depending on what faction you belong, Jews are either grandfathered in or left out. Since Jews were also here before the 14th Amendment, this gets complicated. Added to Ms. Angle's funky Christian politics is her John Birch credentials.

Authors Leonard Zeskind and David Niewert are good sources for the sick interplay between Christian Reconstructionists and the White Nationalists.

The leaching of the extreme into mainstream Republicanism has given us the bizarre phenomenon of "popular constitutionalism" or "conservative constitutionalism", which has at its heart the repeal or elimination of those parts of the constitution which are incovenient. Republicans are arguing against the "commerce clause" and congress's ability to pass a national budget in their wars against healthcare reform and deficit spending. Likewise, they are calling into question the government's ability to tax. But what's even more interesting are the assertions about the First Amendment. Glenn Beck, David Barton and even Newt Gingrich are raising questions about the separation of church and state and in Tennessee questions are being raised whether Muslims should be "granted" freedom of religion because they are a "cult". A side issue here are the assertions by the unChristian Right that our laws are based on biblical edicts, despite the very pre-Christian Germanic basis for things like perjury, self-incrimination and all the little details we like in court trials. The minute President Obama was elected,the Tenthers went into a full court press, arguing states could nullify a federal law they disagree with. This movement has spread from its natural home among neo-confederates in the South through parts of the West and Midwest. The most curious event was when Oklahoma tried to meld the Tenthers with the Second Amendment by debating the creation of their own seperate state militia, forgetting that the President is the commander-in-chief of all state militias.

This past week, we've seen the spectacle of three sitting Republican senators argue for holding hearings on the 14th Amendment itself because of the issue of birthright citizenship. Historically, this is fascinating because in the waves of nativism that struck the United States before and other eras of anti-immigration sentiment this never was an issue raised at a national level. Perhaps because other immigrants were considered at least symbolically white. When the 14th Amendment was debated, congress did, however,raise the issue of Chinese children born during the flood of immigrants in the West. And in that debate, Congress decided it applied to them. But now with the issue being Hispanic immigrants, apparently the race card has been raised again. But it is ironic that the focus of debate would be the amendment that freed black Americans and normalized their legal status as citizens.

Did anyone see John McCain's tantrum over DADT and Hate Crime Laws? McCain is threatening to filibuster the defense appropriations bill because the Committee put into the bill the repeal of DADT, pending the survey by the armed services and the President's finding. Apparently, that provisional text wasn't good enough for McCain, who has been campaigning against the repeal of DADT with his letter signed by dead military officers. The emotion in his floor speech suggests there is more going on here. Maybe it was because Prop 8 was ruled unconstitutional and his wife and daughter have been vocal advocates for same sex marriage, while McCain made sure his Arizonan voters knew he was opposed. But the whole episode was bizarre.

The Cat Food or Debt Commission has been meeting in secret but we've got some inkling about their proposals. Alan Simpson says that the Commission will be going after ways to cut military pensions and benefits. Senator Tom Coburn raised the issue of going after obsolete military systems and corruption in defense contractors. But he was over-ruled. It seems only live human beings will pay for the national debt and not those things which really add to it.

After reading Andrew Bacevich's Washington Rules, I've concluded that there is very little anyone can do to restrain the Empire from waging war willy-nilly when and wherever it wants. Our service people are no longer responsible to elected officials, even the President. And the President really only ratifies the decisions made by the separate government. As millions who marched against the war in Iraq demonstrated, there is nothing much popular opinion can really do in terms of starting or terminating a war.

But there is one thing--making the taxpayers actually pay for conflict as it is on-going. Basically, the last two wars were unpaid for and no sacrifice was asked from the citizens. Instead, Americans were told to "keep shopping". As I've suggested in posts written months ago, I suggested a VAT tax to pay for our social welfare net. But as recent studies show, there is really not a need for this. But a War Tax on everything we buy until a war is concluded would not only fund it but also remind everyone what we are doing overseas. It would channel public opinion in a politically effective manner, if politicians had to hear citizens protest about that tax in particular. This would have the added charm of putting pressure on politicians who protect themselves by giving the military/ terrorism complex everything it wants. No longer could you protect yourself from being accused of being weak on defense if you were forced to justify its immediate financial costs to the electorate.