From Larry Wohlgemuth…

While the tea party ostensibly labors for the return to constitutional governance (no, that’s not a joke) it’s easy to see other hands at work. Several tea party factions have been co-opted by fundamentalist Christians. It’s written all over their signage.

They long for the “good old days”, like back when white people were white and black people were scared shitless. It was a time when your children could pray openly to Jesus in the classroom, getting their heads right for the Klan rally and cross burning on Saturday night. Makes you long for simpler days, doesn’t it?

Now they howl for a return to principles which, if rightly understood, would be the last thing they would want. Their true desires are to exercise a degree of hegemony over other races and classes of people like they did in the 1950s. They couldn’t be more transparent.

These fundies, having gotten a few of their candidates elected, will be clamoring to post the Ten Commandments and reinstate prayer in schools. They see this as a time when the United States will turn its back on sin and return to its “core principles.” It begs the question, do these people have the slightest clue about anything they say?

Christine O’Donnell, the anti-masturbatory candidate from the Jesus party in Delaware, demanded her opponent explain where the words “separation of church and state” appeared in the First Amendment. Well of course he couldn’t, because those words were spoken by Thomas Jefferson in a letter to the Danbury Baptists to elucidate the Establishment Clause to them.

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should “make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.

Thomas Jefferson ~excerpt from Letter to Danbury Baptists January 1, 1802

As the main framer of the Constitution, Jefferson was an expert on its intent, and clearly it restricted the state from establishing any religion. This followed the government’s claim in article 11 of the Treaty of Tripoli in 1797:

Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America 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 Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan 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.

Since most of the founders were Deists it seems unlikely that their intent would have been to establish a nation based on the Christian myth. Clearly their writing say as much, but suppose their intent was to create a Christian nation, then whose Christianity would it be? Everybody who wants to see this as a Christian theocracy imagines the dogma would mirror their personal beliefs exactly, but how would that be possible? Since you can’t get any two Christians to even agree on which Bible version to use, how would they ever compromise to create a theocracy?

A cursory review of the data says that Protestant Jesus wins, however closer examination shows a multiplicity of denominations with widely varying and irreconcilable theological disparities. Baptists by far are the largest Protestant denomination, but they make up only 16.5% of the population. They are far outdistanced by the Catholics at 24.5%. For Protestantism to rule would require an unlikely coalition between Baptists, Methodists, Lutherans, Pentecostals and Presbyterians.

Then you have the minor denominations like the Assemblies of God, Mormon/LDS, Church of Christ and Jehovah’s Witnesses; a more disparate group you could not find. While the Methodists, Lutherans and Presbyterians might be able to work together, they comprise a paltry 14% of the adult population. And the Baptists, well, they vomit in their mouths at the thought of these “lukewarm” denominations. They are certain God will send all mainstream, non-Baptist Protestants to hell.

Since a Protestant coalition acceptable to all is inconceivable, by default we would become a Catholic nation, but hasn’t that been tried before? I seem to recall something in the history books about Inquisitions, Crusades and other generally less than acceptable behaviors on the part of the Catholic Church. Plus we can’t forget how fond they all are of buggering little boys, so I think in the court of public opinion that most would find theocratic Catholicism unacceptable.

So how in the world can we ever get God wedged back into everyone’s lives whether they want it or not? More importantly, how can we do it so that OUR beliefs (which we know are the only TRUE beliefs) are the ones taught in school? How do we make sure that one of the false religions like (insert name of your least favorite Christian denomination here) doesn’t get to impose their will and false doctrine upon us? While I don’t believe Christine O’Donnell could ever think this critically, if you have an IQ above seven and can fog a mirror it’s starting to make sense to you now.

This was exactly the scenario that Jefferson anticipated, and the crux of his explanation to the Danbury Baptists about why they shouldn’t demand a national religion. His argument was, that unless you find yourself in the majority, you might be forced to embrace dogma with which you disagree. Though the Baptists were in a majority in colonial times, today they would find themselves subservient to Catholics. Baptists generally refer to Catholicism as the whore church, so it’s unlikely they would be happy with that circumstance.

While visions of theocratic rule dance in the heads of men like James Dobson and Billy Graham, the fact is they would be serving as butt-boys to Pope Benny the Rat and his cadre of boy-buggering wilde-priests. It would almost be enough to make you laugh except we would all be in the same position, and that’s on our hands and knees.

So as teabaggers display their buffoonery, they can rest secure with the knowledge that the Constitution protects them even though they don’t understand how it works. In this case the worst thing for them would be to get that for which they wish, because the law of unintended consequences would quickly convince them of their error. Unfortunately that’s a deal that once it’s done, too bad, so sad.

It makes you wonder if most of them deserve the protections that the Constitution affords. And Christine, you are correct, the words “separation of church and state” do not appear anywhere in the document although clearly that is the intent, however you have to be able to think more than uni-dimensionally to understand it. That leaves you and most of your teabagger friends out.

The 2010 American midterm elections are over, and there’s important metaphorical tea leaves to read regarding the politics of the immediate, near, and semi-near future, especially in terms of electorate, legislative behavior, and the state of the nation. Republicans have taken the House of Representatives, by a strong majority, in addition to a few seats in the Senate that detract from the Democratic majority, while not removing it. There are, however, a number of reasons this occurred, not necessarily in agreement with what many citizens believe to be true.

Most important, in any definition of the term, was the Tea Party: they both built and destroyed the Republican chances within this election. The Tea Party itself is a group comprised mostly of white, elderly, conservative, irrational individuals that have been deftly manipulated to stand-up for corporate interests and the self-serving agendas of many conservatives with political interests – this was an astroturf, not grassroots, movement. They managed, however, to develop a force of their own that was known to be problematic prior to the election, and their influence wreaked havoc on November 2^nd, 2010.

Tea Party favorites, like Delaware’s Christine O’Donnell or Nevada’s Sharron Angle, managed to receive the GOP nomination, only to be soundly defeated in general voting – this occurred numerous times across the country, simply because moderate Republicans, Independents, and Democrats will not vote for such staunchly conservative candidates who were largely unelectable, unprepared, and demographically non-representative. The other result, however, was that the Tea Party created such a conservative fervor that far more right-wing voters turned out than left-wing, giving credence to candidates who would have stood no chance in a more evenly balanced electorate – Senators Blanche Lincoln (AR) and Russ Feingold (WI), among others, lost for this very reason.

Young voters, who elected President Obama in 2008, chose to not vote, as did far too many Democrats. It’s no small coincidence, however, that this was the first election after the Citizens United Supreme Court ruling that opened the floodgates for even greater corporate influence in elections, at the same time that Karl Rove and others used FEC and IRS loopholes to spend huge amounts of money, much of it anonymous, to run negative ads for conservative, corporatist interests, dwarfing all Democratic efforts in fundraising or campaigning. In an election with a populace easily influenced by advertising and soundbites, no matter their outright lack of basis in truth, it’s no surprise that Republicans did far better than their opponents, especially with the aid of FOX “News” as a political mouthpiece.

Republicans now have a problem: governing. Those who are now within the halls of Congress are there only thanks to the Tea Party and corporate funding, who turn out to be very different masters. The Tea Party claims to care (an important distinction from actually standing for) about lowering the deficit, controlling government spending, rolling back various legislation from the last two years, and various other items that sit in direct conflict with the corporate interests that focus only on their bottom line. Furthermore, the GOP has come to power on a platform of anti-Obama, anti-government rhetoric that now faces the stark reality that not only is government necessary and that they’re a part of it, but also that they can simply no longer refuse any legislation proposed and consider themselves to have behaved sufficiently. As a party with control of half of Congress, and a great influence on the already-problematic other half, Republicans must propose, negotiate, and vote on legislation – “no” will no longer stand as their party response. How are they going to merge the interests of their two funding sources, both of which will be sure to hold them accountable in 2012, with the actual, non-rhetorical needs of the nation?

In all likelihood, the next two years will see little to no legislation passing – the GOP strategy in the Senate seems to be unending attempts at repealing legislation from within the reign of the Obama Administration, and the House’s strategy still remains unclear, although it seems to be slightly more reasonable. It’s fully possible that the Republicans will now spend the coming months in holding hearings and investigations into individuals, legislation, and situations that will waste everyone’s time, as they have done in the past, but will, in parallel, provide them with political theater and a sense of accomplishment. There will be no impeachment of Obama, if only for the obvious reason he has no reason to be impeached; there will be no repeal of healthcare or financial reform, because they don’t have the votes or the true political willpower; there will be no passing of ludicrous legislation, even if it can get through the Senate, because President Obama will not sign it. What will, happen, however is far too much brow-beating, political theater, and finger-pointing, while the act of governing is essentially ignored. Individuals such as Rand Paul, a government-hating Senator who has incredibly damaging ideas of what it means to govern, will attempt to push a radical far-right agenda, but it will go nowhere.

Assuming that the government continues to function at some level, such as Congress passing budgets and essential pieces of legislation, the next two years are not likely to see any major damage done to the nation – if Democrats and President Obama stand strong. On the majority of issues, there should be no compromise, not as a tit-for-tat measure, but simply because Democrats are all that currently stand in the way of the United States waging more wars, fully handing the political system over to corporate interests, and destroying the civil rights of the American people. It will be frustrating that those Democrats of rational mind can do nothing but vote down legislation and create gridlock, but it must be done. It will be frightening to see what will undoubtedly be attempted by John Boehner and Mitch McConnell, but they have no true power without aid from the liberal, or even moderate, sides of the political aisle. It will be embarrassing for all of this to occur, putting general legislative and political insanity on display for all the world to see, but outside powers should know that what is coming will not represent the true attitudes of the country – it will merely be a reflection of a small subset of the nation that managed to, through a series of just-as-embarrassing mistakes by the populace, rise to power.

All of this, however, points to an overwhelming conclusion that will be worth the pain: 2012 will be another Year of the Democrat. As a Presidential election, there will be a higher voter turnout, and it’s reasonable to expect a strong youth turnout as well, swinging the electorate strongly to the left. In addition to the effects of turnout, the coming two years are going to demonstrate to the American people, who have apparently so soon forgotten, what it means to have Republicans in power and how it does neither the people nor the nation any good. Barring a major political misstep by President Obama, he will be re-elected, especially if any of the current potential GOP candidates end up with the nomination – they are just as popularly unelectable as Christine O’Donnell was. Furthermore, without another nation-unifying event, such as a major terrorist attack or some other catastrophic disaster, Democrats will be put back into control of Congress, regaining the majority of the seats they have just lost. The economy will not have improved greatly by the next election and, as in 2010, it will be used to the detriment of those in power, namely the Republicans.

Gridlock, attempted legislative undermining of the nation, and a forestalling of progress on all fronts is nothing to look forward to, but it should be enough of a warning to Democrats for them to get their act together and come back into power in 2012, ready to behave in a more liberal fashion. Democrats, young and old, didn’t vote in 2010 because they saw their members of Congress as too moderate, too conservative – Blue Dogs are a quickly-disappearing political aberration. So, if for no other reason, rationally-minded citizens and liberals alike can look at the coming Congress as a necessary gauntlet that must be passed through in order to reach the progressive light at the end of the tunnel. There can be no question that if the Republicans prove themselves as inept at governing as they truly are, and have been for decades, their political future will seriously begin to be questioned – moreso as they continue to alienate non-whites, younger generations, LGBTs, the educated, and the rational from their party of corporatist, far-right elitism, all while waging internal ideological wars that will split the party.

This, however, says nothing of the extremely damaging and over-reaching conservative activism of the Supreme Court.

Much is said, and written, about the problems with modern conservatives: far-right, extremist, fundamentalist, Bible-beating, overtly religious, bigoted, etc. But what about the problems with liberals? There is, in terms of newspapers and television, honestly no “liberal media” – it’s simply a media that isn’t conservatively biased; however, a very large portion of the Internet and political conversation inside the borders of America actually is liberal, of one kind or another. Being liberal, or holding liberal values, is not inherently bad, just as the rational alternative in conservatism is not, but there are various types of liberalism, and many of them are not conducive to a coherent political atmosphere.

Quite unlike conservatives, there are many factions within the concept of liberalism within America, and this leads to the inability to govern as a cohesive whole, as is currently demonstrated in Congress. The two sources of problems within the liberal voting bloc are easily identified, as they are the liberal answer to the extreme right: Progressives and, since there is no actual term for them, Ultra-Progressives.

The ideology of Progressives is actually quite noble, since they seek ultimate equality, freedoms, and guaranteed well-being of people, no matter race, creed, or ideals. Ultra-Progressives are actually no different, but they, instead, take such ideology to a more extreme level. Once again, there is nothing inherently wrong with these values – the problem arises in their disregard for political realities and stalwart insistence on the impossible. By way of example, the concept of universal healthcare is laudable and most definitively a requirement for a future America, but it is all but impossible to jump straight to such a system at present, given political realities. This, however, did not stop a number of members of Congress from opposing healthcare reform because it, according to their unshakeable beliefs, didn’t go far enough.

There is a time and a place for everything, but the halls of Congress, in terms of fanciful ideals and social utopia, is not it. Basic geopolitical reality mandates that military conflict is unavoidable, although not always necessary, but there are liberals who oppose warfare of any kind, no matter the justification. Big Business is a greatly hated entity, but it is necessary to the function of modern America, so staunchly opposing anything related to these enterprises is futile, at best. True that tragedies in Darfur, among others, are saddening, but America cannot be both eminently peaceful and the world’s police force. An all-green, oil-free America is a fantastic goal to strive for, but weeping over legislation that doesn’t achieve all such goals at once benefits no-one. The list goes on.

Liberals need to realize is that there is a distinction, often great, between what can be achieved in modern politics and what should be done – the road to universal healthcare is through incremental implementation, just as the road to peace is realistically through war. Far-left liberal ideologies are fanciful, at best, and they influence, without question, the direction of the nation’s future, but such beliefs should be played closer to the chest in the game of national politics. Without a greater consensus among liberals within the Democratic Party, in terms of items feasible versus ideal, there will be no progress, and, as a consequence, a swing in power to conservatives that have no problem thinking, speaking, and voting as a bloc.

Green Peace, PETA, and their brethren may have more ideologically acceptable, and rational, opinions, but they are still political outliers, fringe movements that attempt to dominate debates without realizing the damage they cause. Interestingly enough, this is the same behavior of the irrational Tea Party.

From Kyle Brady…

Kyle can be found on his blog, via email, or on Twitter.

From United States Corespondent Gibbs Burke…

Almost two months after the signing of the health care reform plan the economic repercussions have already started to surface. We were told all these wonderful facts about how the bill would reduce the deficit, cost less, and cover more Americans. This facade was just a hypocritical ploy to convince Americans the bill would benefit them. Like most legislation however, the backlash seems to be harming more Americans then the bill is helping. 

The corporate healthcare plans that have dominated American coverage since World War II are in jeopardy of becoming extinct. Immediately after the bill was passed, major US corporations declared large losses. In retaliation, the Democrats threatened the CEO’s by summoning them to Washington to grill them on their actions. It was also demanded they turn over all internal documents regarding the new health care bill. AT&Tand Verizon were among these corporations that declared as much as a one billion dollar loss due to the new health care bill.

After reviewing the documents and understanding that these corporations were only following the letter of the law (a corporation must make public to its share holders profits and expenses), the Democratic committee revoked its threat, and quietly walked away from the situation. It has now resurfaced stronger and more powerful then ever.

Recent documents turned over to the Democratic committee from AT&T reveal the ultimate consequences of the bill. AT&T by denying coverage to its employees can post a profit of 4.1 billion dollars. AT&T is not the only corporation thinking about denying health care coverage. Many corporations will be considering the cost to profit ratio, and come September do not be surprised if you find yourself shopping for health care.

So while the Democrats admit that the projected numbers were wrong, our phone bills are doubling we’re shopping for health insurance. Who will take the responsibility for it? I’m sure it won’t be Obama, because things just slip off him like a Louisiana Oil Spill. Just remember… I told you so.

The year 2009 was not the beginning of a so-called “post-racial” America, no matter how many people believed this to be true after the election of President Obama. After sixteen months of hatred and opposition couched in racism and the growth of openly racist and supremacy organizations, it should have been obvious to many that Barack Obama has been more of a sticking point in the evolution of America’s racial struggles than many would care to admit. Now, however, what may have been unclear to some should be so obvious as to leave no doubt, thanks to the irreconcilable actions by the State of Arizona.

The last year and a half, or longer depending on when Obama is considered to have become a legitimate Presidential candidate, has put on full display the core problem that the American nation has struggled with over the entirety of its existence: a wish for a homogenous culture by some in a country that is defined by its distinct mixture of various cultures. Unlike most countries, the United States was founded by immigrants, expanded with the help of immigrants, and made continually successful through immigrants – the only true American natives have been subjugated from almost the moment of the arrival of its future inhabitants. It is then disturbingly ironic when groups of individuals, typically white, display such hatred and hostility towards any peoples that are unlike them in any fashion, with an intense focus on race, religion, country of origin, and accent.

America’s 21^st century is the same time period wherein being white will suddenly redefine individuals as part of a minority, and yet these very same people protest against the “takeover” of a country they have not only idealized, but largely imagined. No more evident is this fact in modern society than in immigration laws and attitudes, with particular emphasis on Arizona’s newly signed law that is essentially anti-non-white individuals. If an officer of the law, of any kind, is tasked with seeking out individuals that are perhaps in the country illegally, admittedly an important issue, a question arises: how are these individuals found? The answer, especially in the angry and racist south, is likely to be racial discrimination and profiling.

It’s common knowledge that a non-white person in a sports car speeding is more likely to receive a ticket than a white person in the same situation, and this discriminatory comparison extends to other, more detrimental venues, such as the recent event with Henry Louis Gates. Now, however, a state has legitimized this action with a government mandate to behave in such a manner. The Governor of Arizona, Senator John McCain, the Arizona State Legislature, and two-thirds of the state’s populace all find this piece of legislation to be not only legal, but germane to America’s continued success and security as a nation – this from the state that refused to honor Martin Luther King Day. Asking for proof of citizenship of anyone deemed questionable, essentially being forced to self-identify as a certain group, is a highly recognizable facet of a specific moment in history: Nazi Germany.

The legality of such legislation is highly, ethically questionable at best, even disregarding its potential Unconstitutionality, and the institutionalization of racism at worst. This is not to say that illegal immigration should continue to be ignored for the benefit of low wages and easy labor, but that Arizona’s approach is simply, unequivocally wrong. Immigration is an issue that should have been addressed at least a decade ago by the Federal Government, and Congress, in all its smug superiority, has not deigned to act within this arena – likely due to its inevitable political division and the financing from corporations provided for Congress to simply continue the pattern of ignorance.

If Arizona’s legalization of discrimination and racism is allowed to stand, it marks the beginning of a sad, dark era for the United States of America, as many states will quickly follow suit, most especially in the South. This is not a topic that should be partisan, highly corporate, or demonized, and yet within days of the signing of this legislation there has been an uproar on all sides of the political aisle, screaming and fingerpointing included. The Federal Government must not only strike down this law, via the courts, but also provide nationwide legislation that addresses undocumented and illegal immigrants in a humane, non-racist fashion – failing to do so will result in nothing short of a further resurgence of racism and the retreading of race-related civil issues that were supposedly put to rest long ago. At a time when America has its first sitting black President, it is both sad and disheartening that this has become such a dark mark on the nation’s history.

From Kyle Brady…

Kyle can be found on his blog, on Facebook, via email, or on Twitter.

Goodwin Liu, a federal appeals court nominee of the Obama Administration, has been in the Senate’s spotlight, and the ensuing Senatorial rants by members of the Republican Party have underlined one of the ultimate hypocrisies in modern politics:  while preaching from the pulpit of anti-intellectualism, they claim to support Constitutionalist courts, as do most modern Republicans.  This, however, is a laughable lie.

An important point to understand is this bias of anti-intellectualism, which, for some reason, assumes that smart, educated, intellectually curious individuals are somehow an anathema to the world.  While there may be arguments that certain types or subdivisions of intellectuals are not fit for politics, such as lifelong academics or researchers of an esoteric field, this is obviously not an across-the-board truth.   Intelligent people should be revered for either their innate brilliance or the intense dedication to the discovery of information, not to mention their areas of expertise, as they have been throughout humanity’s history – there would be no modern world without any of the most archaic of thinkers and intelligista, even were they considered to be elite.  This is the sad truth of the generations currently in power that have devalued education and failed, massively, to do their basic duty of preparing the world for those following after them.

Anti-intellectualism, however, is but a prelude to the larger Republican lie:  Constitutionalist courts.  The basic premise of Constitutionalist courts is that the singular role of the courts in America, at any level, is to enforce a strict interpretation of both the Constitution and the Bill of Rights in their original incarnations, entirely ignorant of recent events, rulings, people, technology, or anything else that should be so obviously relevant.  Their core intention is, perhaps, admirable, since the courts do not, or should not, make law, and should only be interpreting it within the realms of other laws, with an eye on precedent – but their fundamentalist viewpoint of this issue leads them astray.

When a document is to be strictly interpreted, as if it was supremely perfect at the time of its creation, there is an immediate and obvious disconnect between its intent, imperfection, and age and the modern era, but, more importantly, it often leads to fights over sociopolitical progress, since those who wrote documents such as the Constitution simply could not foresee the very different future that was approaching – slavery, women’s rights, and certain types of federal regulation have all fallen prey to this blinder-based viewpoint.  No matter the issue at hand, Constitutionalist courts are simply a nonviable approach, and yet Republicans nationwide insist that they not only support this type of a judiciary, but also participate in furthering such an agenda.  The irony, however, is that these very same individuals applaud the overturning of precedent, and, ultimately, conservative activism while preaching about those “outrageous” liberals.

The most damning evidence on this count is the recent Supreme Court case that chose not to address the issue at hand, but instead a much larger and more entangled issue that was only tangentially related, resulting in the overturning of hundreds of years of legal precedent for campaign finance law – the impending inevitability of catastrophic corporate-politics yet to be truly seen.  Almost all Congressional Republicans applauded this decision, with some were even in attendance, claiming that this was a strike against the federal government and their supposed overbearing powers.  What happened to Constitutionalism, since there is no mention of corporations as a part of Free Speech, the very excuse used for this ruling?  The Supreme Court ruled on a very obvious Republican-Democrat dividing line, leaving many to ask whether openly biased conservatives such as Scalia or Roberts are capable of separating personal politics from the rule of law – one of the basic requirements to be a non-activist judge.

With the never-ending conservative dissent on abortion rights, federal regulation, the new healthcare laws, religion-tainted public education, and various other issues, it seems likely that another mammoth case will reach the Supreme Court within the near future that will, once again, prove that Republicans are far more activist than Democrats.  Even if the evidence shows that Democrats are typically more judicially activist than their Republican counterparts, then there is an important distinction:  Democratic judges, much like their legislative counterparts, often stand for progress and the rule of law, whereas Republicans have been in favor, as have conservatives have since prior to the foundation of the nation, of the status quo, the subjugation of people unlike them, and a very obvious, questionably seditious anti-federal government bias.  Worryingly, the Supreme Court is about to become even more conservative, following the most conservative Court since FDR, with the loss of the accidentally-liberal powerhouse found in John Paul Stevens.

It is incumbent upon the Republican members of Congress who do not share this ludicrous view to make clear the hypocrisy of their colleagues, along with Democrats, pundits, and mainstream media who truly care about the future of the United States of America.  If the Senate, and personal politics, continues to influence the courts in a clear slide downward to the right, the very freedoms and stability of America may come into question, as each piece of federal legislation is judged inside a conservative court that is most definitively non-Constitutionalist.  Judicial Republicans, meet your old friend hypocrisy.

From Kyle Brady…

Kyle can be found on his blog, on Facebook, via email, or on Twitter.

From Gibbs Burke…

During the campaign season, Republicans boasted that Obama was out of touch with America because he was born in Hawaii. So where do you think this year’s Republican National Committee was held? That’s right – Hawaii. What where the main topics discussed you might ask? How about being fiscally responsible, and of course health care. That’s right – Republicans flew to a remote and luxurious destination still part of the continental United States to discuss fiscal responsibility.

While attending the RNC, Rush Limbaugh was hospitalized with chest pains, due to complications from a mild heart-attack. Rush released a statement to the press praising the Hawaiian hospital that treated him, saying it was the best health care he’d ever received. Later he ranted on his talk show that he was glad to receive health care before Obama Care, if passed, because he very well might have been dead. Guess what – Hawaii is the only state in the U.S. that has socialized health care.

Vice Presidential Nominee Sarah Palin attended the Tea Bag party convention and while at the conference, Palin ridiculed president Obama for having Teleprompters present while giving a speech to 6^th graders. Shortly thereafter, during her response to questions Palin glanced down at her hand were she had written, “Energy, Tax Cuts, and Lift American Spirit.” That’s right – the Vice Presidential Nominee needed crib notes to remember the three basic pillars of Republican policy.

Glen Beck, at the CPAC convention, clamed that “Progressivism is eating the Constitution.” He continued to rant and rave about how American society and culture were being slowly destroyed by the Democratic progressive movement. After his tirade, Beck told the audience he learned all of this from going to the public library. That’s right – Beck went to the public library, a progressive idea, meant to give public access to socialized goods. I guess he owes all his wisdom to Progressivism.

After Obama signs into effect the recently passed health care bill, I want you to remember that only one Republican voted for it during the whole process. That’s right – out of all the House votes and Senate votes, there was only ONE Republican that voted yes. You have to understand this wasn’t just a bill, and the struggle is far from over. This bill was in its essence the concrete evidence the American people needed to see that our Government is actually working, or at least doing something. So while the Republican Party might be the party of “NO,” it will soon be obvious that if they continue to obstruct the American people’s views of an actual working government, if they continue to throw common sense out the window… Republicans themselves will soon be the party of “NO MORE.”

Change, it seems, may be finally coming to American politics.

After almost a year and a half of political wrangling, fake debates, fingerpointing, namecalling, and almost no obvious or momentous progress, President Obama’s campaign slogan appears to have taken Washington D.C. by storm in just a few short days.  With a final vote looming on healthcare reform, despite its status as actual reform now being questionable, some members of Congress have taken advantage of the Democratic momentum to propose, or put the finishing touches, on other legislation necessary for not only progress, but also stability, within America.

Depending on the individual, agency, or group counting, the Great Recession began somewhere around two years ago, and, until recently, regulation to address the very problems that caused the financial and economic crash has been sorely lacking.  Senator Dodd had expressed interest in passing legislation through the Senate Banking Committee, but his dedication came into question when he announced not running for reelection – it is, therefore, surprising that Dodd announced an upcoming regulatory bill.  Some of the details are still murky, but it has intentions to revitalize banking regulation, provide greater watchdog capabilities to both bank shareholders and government, create a “Consumer Financial Protection Agency”, and more.  This bill has not yet been introduced, much less voted on, but if even half of it is passed into law, the battle will be well fought.

In addition to the political surprise by Senator Dodd, the FCC has revealed that they are highly interested in regulating the telecommunication industry, with a great focus on the Internet, as well as opening it up to true competition – Net Neutrality would inevitably be a part of such regulation.  This action isn’t a surprise to those that have been paying attention to the political climate surrounding ISPs since President Obama entered Office, but it will no doubt surprise, frustrate, and anger Republicans that devoutly oppose what they perceive as unnecessary intervention in the private sector, such as John McCain, despite the multitude of failures by the market to regulate itself.

From Congress itself comes an interest in reforming tax regulation to simplify the tax code to close loopholes, remove deductions, and make understanding it easier – potentially reducing taxes for certain income brackets while increasing tax income from those that weasel out of paying what is simply due to the Federal Government.  This move, while potentially politically painful, would satisfy both Republican interests in cutting taxes and the Democratic wish to have corporations play fairly with others, bringing about a rare moment for bipartisan legislation in an era of extreme partisanship.  Ironically, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has just produced stern words for the selfsame Republicans that have been stalling any and all attempts at forward progress, a well-timed jab likely intended to scare up legislative support.

What does this signify as a whole?  The underlying message of this may be that the Democratic majority have grown tired of the obstructionist tactics of the minority party full of bravado, not brains, and is preparing to move forward with or without them.  An important part of this decision may include not only the abject legislative failure of 2009, but also the upcoming midterm elections in November:  if Democrats can show that they passed significant and meaningful legislation almost entirely on their own, they have a greater political advantage than if they were to lay claim to thin bipartisanship.  The central strategy of Republicans has been to “break” both President Obama and his Congress by preventing progress, in order to retake the majority come election time – a prospect that seems bleaker for them by the day.

Whether or not these specific instances of Democratic showmanship turn into actual legislation is an entirely different matter, but the words themselves have signified a change from even just a few weeks ago – a change that is more than welcome.

From Kyle Brady…

Kyle can be found on his blog, via email, or on Twitter.

Bipartisanship, in modern politics, is a lie – a falsehood, a hopeless dream, a fantasy based on nothing.  And yet this doesn’t prevent either side of the political divide from using the idea of it as a tool for derision, division, and justification, even when those employing it know it to be nothing but empty words.

In the purest sense of the word, bipartisanship is a meeting of groups or individuals with opposing views, while sharing some common points of interest, that results in a healthy compromise between the disparate positions for the overall better.  American politics has not seen this kind of bipartisanship in the last few decades, if not longer, and the roots of partisan voting, including its vitriol, can be traced all the way back to the Declaration of Independence, with 2010 Washington doing their very best to continue this unhealthy state ad infinitem.

Recently, bipartisanship, or a lack thereof, has been used by Republicans in attempts to kill legislation of any kind, but their cries of partisanship avoid a certain fundamental truth:  President Obama’s Administration, and its Congress, have not been bipartisan for the simple fact that the Republicans have refused to participate.  The lack of a desire to govern is not at all comparable to a lack of bipartisan efforts, the latter of which has not been in short supply over the last fourteen months.  This is not so much a battle of diametrically opposing ideologies as it is a distinct dislike for President Obama and his efforts and goals, not to mention the striking characteristics of the GOP’s childlike political tantrum.

It’s time to give up, at least for the remainder of the Obama Administration, the idea of bipartisanship – on everything.  If the opposing party, in this case the Republicans, wish to participate with the President and his Congressional majority in the process of running the nation, they may do so, but concessions should not be made to a group of corrupt individuals that have absolutely no intention of being part of the legislative process except for their own personal gain.  While this applies to Washington at present, the same criticisms can be made for Administrations past, on both sides of the party line, and will no doubt continue into the future.

Until politics reaches a state of enlightenment that includes the ability to have reasoned, unemotional debates, bipartisanship is a lie.  Once the American people realize that the idea of bipartisanship is merely a tool used to garner votes for the party out of favor at election time, the country will have a chance at finally moving forward, as those within Congress will recognize the farce as being over.  Applied immediately, great benefits could be had within a very short period of time.

From Kyle Brady…

Kyle can be found on his blog, via email, or on Twitter.

From American Correspondent Kyle Brady… 

As is already widely known, Sarah Palin has joined FOX “News” as a commentator, not the host of a show, but there is a point of interest being widely ignored within the opinions on this not-so-unexpected issue:  any hopes that Palin had of a future political career are now dead.

Sarah Palinis best known for being the Vice Presidential running-mate of John McCain in 2008 that very likely destroyed the campaign, and went on to quit her job as Alaskan Governor, long before her Term of Office was up, in order to pursue a career of media attention, Facebook blogging, and fake book writing.  The most shocking part of her entire situation, however, is that she seemed to believe that, between her blogging, carefully prepared soundbites, and book/booktour, she was laying the groundwork for a run at the Presidency in 2012 – one that she assumed she would win without much effort.

Despite Palin’s criticism of Barack Obama for supposedly having “no real experience” in either governing or politics, it’s worth remembering that the position of U.S. Senator is a higher office than that of State Governor, not to mention that Palin’s only legitimate political position was given up because it no longer interested her – a far cry from disappearing from the Senate to campaign for a very timely Presidential run.  But the war of words from this Alaskan blogger has only strengthened over the last year, after discovering that she has a small but faithful audience among the fringe-party teabagger nutjobs, and she seems to relish this power.  Ever since Sarah Palin began speaking of her own accord on political topics, the Republican Party has accelerated its devolution into a party run by the tenet of lunacy, an “in the bag” election was lost because of intra-party division, and 2010 midterm elections are not likely to be as profitable for her favorite side of the political divide as she’d hoped.

Do these decisions seem like those of an individual that wishes to be President?  Perhaps she would be amenable to people demanding that she take an IQ test before being sworn in as President – that would be an ironic allegory to her support of the birthers.

She has, however, ruined any remote chance she had at taking a national political office, even if she hasn’t realized it yet:  joining FOX “News”does not make a politician appear more likable, sane, rational, or even believable.  Whether or not her commentary role involves live or carefully pre-recorded and edited pieces is irrelevant, because she has decided to be under the direct employ of a “news” network that dedicates itself to promoting conspiracy theories, outright lies, opinion as fact, and de factoopposition of anyone that’s not, in their minds, “conservative enough”.  This move may benefit Sarah Palin in the short term, through an increase in book sales and a greater fervor among the small minority that finds her favorable, but, ultimately, this ruins any and all credibility.

The extreme wings of both sides of the political divide tend to stalwartly vote for their own candidates, so FOX “News” will not effect the future voting behaviors of the teabaggers – the important change is within the moderates and the mainstream swing votes.  American people, while not necessarily the smartest group of people at every turn, tend to have an innate ability to sense the viability and sincerity of both individuals and institutions, so when the then-former commentator from FOX “News” decides to campaign, it seems highly unlikely that anyone but the most irrational voters would decide such an unrepentantly biased person even deserves a chance at a national office.

When the time comes, this moment may be remembered as a day that Democrats, Progressives, and rational Republicans will celebrate for the rest of time:  it was the watershed event that returned American politics to rationality and responsibility through a rather insane, twisted, and unintelligent career choice by a woman who had created a fake political career around her consistent failures.

Click Here for Kyle Brady’s Bio   

Kyle can be found on his blog, via email, or on Twitter.