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.

From Larry Wohlgemuth…

Republicans have been declaring for more than a decade that we now live in post-racial (and by implication prejudicial) America. Actually it should be stated as post-racial/prejudicial, because that insinuates that we have moved past all petty prejudices to a point of frank, open and honest discussion on issues that affect us all. That means we’ve moved past bigotry based on nationality, gender, religion or any of the myriad of preferences which identify us as individuals. It implies that no one any longer looks down his or her nose at anyone else.

I would like to believe it to be true, but the racial/prejudicial period ended too easily for me to accept it on its face. When something has been as institutionalize as have our prejudices, it generally ends with thrashing about and gnashing of teeth rather than a whimper. Yet the Republicans have declared it, so it must be so, right? It begs the question, who did the Republicans think they could convince that we had entered this utopist and idyllic post-racial/prejudicial world?

I wondered if they are talking about 30-year-old Anthony Hill of Winnsboro, SC, or possibly James Byrd, Jr. of Jasper, Texas when they refer to this as a post-racial society. Hill was dragged to death behind a pickup truck driven by 19-year-old Gregory Collins of Newberry, and Byrd was dragged to death in 1998 behind a pickup truck by three men, Shawn Allen Berry, Lawrence Russell Brewer and John William King. I’m sure that the fact these two murders took place in what were considered as highly racist states in pre-post-racial/prejudicial times is merely a coincidence, just as was the fact that the victims were black and the perpetrators were white. This is just how things play out in a post-racial/prejudicial society.

Then there’s Dr. George Tiller, gunned down in his church for having the audacity to perform abortions, a procedure that is legal in the United States. However we can be sure in this post-racial/prejudicial society that a mentally deficient man like Scott Roeder would never have considered Dr. Tiller’s vocational activities when he walked into that church with a loaded gun and shot the doctor dead in front of the congregation. Once again, we can be sure that this didn’t happen because of prejudice, because the Republicans have assured us that we are now a post-racial/prejudicial society.

And we have the good Dr. Laura, who although she’s white felt entitled to use the N-word 11 times in a five-minute span on her radio program because black comedians on HBO and Showtime do it. You see, in a post-racial/prejudicial society we’re all free to use any words we choose, because we couldn’t possibly be making a racist innuendo. No, we’re simply exercising our First Amendment rights, and besides, we know this wasn’t a racist remark because Dr. Laura told us so several times right after she said it. If you can’t trust Dr. Laura in these post-racial/prejudicial times, then who can you trust?

Finally there are the cases of Lawrence King, Matthew Shepard, Danny Overstreet, Philip Walsted, Sakia Gunn, Glenn Kopitske, Scotty Joe Weaver, Daniel Fetty, Jason Gage, Ryan Keith Skipper, Roberto Duncanson, Sean William Kennedy, Steven Parrish, Lateisha Green and Seaman August Provost, among many others, who were killed, but not for being gay. It seems that their attackers admitted that the victims’ homosexuality was the impetus for the attack, but in a post-racial/prejudicial society we have to take their admissions with a grain of salt. After all, they can’t possibly be aware of the post-racial/prejudicial dynamics that are taking place around them, making their attacks of the non-racial/prejudicial type. I mean, even the case of Ronnie Antonio Paris Jr., a three-year-old boy killed by his father because he was afraid his son might be gay, that’s just the way straights and gays interact in the post-racial/prejudicial era.

Okay, it’s pretty clear that we are not in a post-racial/prejudicial time based on what’s happening around us. So what’s going on? I mean, why are the Republicans working so hard to convince us that something exists when it obviously does not?

In this country there are only 5%, maybe 10%, of the people that are actually Republicans, and the rest are posers although they don’t realize it. To be a Republican means being a capitalist, and only a tiny fraction of people fit the description. The problem is, part of being a Republican is being able to look down your nose at other people, and the vast majority of the Republican Party are just working assholes like you and me, so there was some work that had to be done. It was necessary to create a significant enough underclass so that the idiot who makes $10 per hour working on an assembly line and watches Glen Beck can actually feel superior to somebody, and therefore a member of the Republican club. Minorities fill that bill nicely, thank you very much, but as the line of separation blurs so does the ability of the moronic masses in the Republican Party to look down on someone. Feeling superior is a crucial tenet to making the pseudo-Republicans believe they really are part of the club.

So how do they make this work? They behave even more racist and prejudiced than in the past, and then repeat over and over again that this is how things are in a post-racial/prejudicial world. They know if they say it long and loudly enough, and nobody objects, there’s a chance people will start to believe it. The problem is that genie is out of the bottle and they can’t regain control, try as they might. If the illusion of superiority ever leaves the working class schlemiels of the Republican Party they might quit participating, or even worse become Democrats. It’s a lot of work making a guy who earns $10 an hour believe he’s in some way superior to a brown person with a PhD.

So the Republicans will continue lest 70% of their party come to the realization that they are superior to no one. It would be a devastating blow for them. As a result we can expect to see more blatant racism followed by still more disingenuous, wide-eyed denials that racism was the intent. Without it their party shatters into 1 million pieces.

The one good thing is that the Republican demographic is dying, literally, and I have to be honest about the fact that it bothers me little. There are some people that just don’t deserve to waste our oxygen.

The Rise of the New Right is an hour long documentary recently aired on MSNBC and hosted by Hardball’s Chris Matthews. The documentary looks at the rise of the Tea Party movement and a number of other right-wing organizations and militias that have formed since Barack Obama was elected President of the United States in 2008. Matthews said the wide range of individuals and groups profiled in the piece all seemingly share a fear of the current American government.

“There’s a similar message. This government’s a tyranny and it has to be, if not overthrown, then something like it. They treat the American government like a foreign occupying force,” say Matthews.

“He’s going to destroy this country,” Allan Keyes, the Republicans last-ditch effort to stop Obama’s inevitable election to the US senate in 2004 at one point says, “We are either going to stop him, or the United States of America is going to cease to exist.”

No matter where you fall on the political spectrum, the documentary will stir people up… which is the whole point.