GOP Finds Ways to be Worse

It's not bad enough the Republicans tried to deny our entire presidential election---and some still are. It wasn't bad enough they then began attempts at vote suppression in Georgia and then took it to 47 other states. No, all that wasn't bad enough. Now they want to punish Americans for our First Amendment right of Free Speech, too. As always, click on picture for larger picture, easier reading.

We have got to, got to vote them out. We've got to vote them all out.

The Now Frightening United States of America

Richard Nixon made me mad.

Exposing Nixon’s Vietnam Lies

Nixon Prolonged Vietnam War for Political Gain

The Watergate Scandal

Ronald Reagan upset me, made me mad.

The Iran-Contra Affair: Ronald Reagan’s Arms Sales Scandal

The Enduring Lies of Ronald Reagan

Ronald Reagan's wartime lies

George W. Bush was depressing--and made me mad.

If only we Had that $6.4 Trillion we wasted on Iraq

Bush squandered surplus 

Bush: God told me to invade Iraq

Yes, Bush lied about Iraq

No, really, George W. Bush lied about WMDs

Donald J Trump is, no exaggeration, frightening.

Trump Attacks our Democracy

New study says Trump has ‘dangerously undermined truth

Trump's Attacks on the Constitution

Trump undermines democracy with media attacks

Trump Attacks Post Office While Carriers & Clerks Die

The Trump Administration Is Reversing Nearly 100 Environmental Rules. Here’s the Full List.

Trump's attacks on the First Amendment and the press

Donald Trump attacks the First Amendment . . . again

Appeals court rules Trump violated First Amendment

Trump Comes Unglued And Humiliates Himself At Press Conference

Trump Comes Unglued In Saturday Twitter Freakout

We're concerned, sure, but even those around him get and and are concerned.

Melania Trump ‘Concerned’ Donald Comes Across As ‘Unhinged

And then there was this beauty, not that long ago.

Trump says he's treated worse than Lincoln (who was assassinated)

I could go on.

Frightening.  This President is honestly frightening. And in more than one way.

God help us. Again, God help us.

The Star Has It Right Today About Any Possible Panhandling Ordinance

Yes sir and ma'am, I think our Star newspaper has this correct today.

Kansas City's panhandling proposal 

would wage war on the poor

Not only is this obviously and logically an abridgment of people's First Amendment Rights, as the Star so rightly points out, but what, exactly, are we attacking here? What are we, as a city, trying to correct?

If they're out there, possibly humiliating themselves, begging, after all, frequently either in boiling hot or freezing cold temperatures, and harming no one, what's the problem? As a supposed "Christian nation", why wouldn't we leave them alone? Where's the harm? Or are we just ashamed we have poor in our midst and don't want to be reminded? Or, worse, we don't want outsiders, visitors, seeing we have poor?

What is it, exactly, Kansas City?

They inconvenience us while we sit at the traffic lights?

The writer/author Studs Terkel once said he intentionally kept money on him in case he crossed paths with anyone asking for help. He said he knew it was tough out there and they didn't do this because it was fun. Or easy.

But we'll have none of that in our evirons, eh, Kansas City?

How dare they be poor. Or mentally-challenged. Or to have made poor decisions. Or whatever.

Right?

An Un-Constitutional, Un-American President and His Political Party

Starting with their President, Trump, some very un-Constitutional and un-American acts this week. He did this, yesterday.

White House blocks CNN, New York Times from press briefing hours after Trump slams media

Now, today, he did this. He's gone international with his press ban.

Donald Trump press ban: BBC, CNN and Guardian denied access to briefing

And lest we think he's alone in this, in his actions, perish the thought. His very Right Wing, Republican cohorts are doing much the same, state to state, across the nation. They don't want to hear from us, from you, Mr. and Mrs. America.

Republican lawmakers introduce bills to curb protesting in at least 18 states

Let's be clear, here, ladies and gentlemen, Americans. This is not only a narcissistic, insecure man but a dangerous one and he's going against everything we think we are about, everything we've "been about" for the last few hundred years.

Not to be done there, check out what the Kuwaiti government did last month.

Kuwait Celebration At Trump Hotel Raises Conflict Of Interest Questions

They switched a 600 room reservation from the Four Seasons Hotel in New York to the Trump Hotel.

Conflict of interest much?

Can you imagine if the last President had done anything, anything remotely similar? 

Can you imagine the uproar? The outcry? The investigations?

Sen. Blunt takes a---deserved---written beating

 Show Me Progress of Missouri wrote a good, true and fair piece on our own Senator Roy Blunt so The Daily Kos couldn't help but reprint:

Remember after Sandy Hook when Roy Blunt was adamant that he would not support legislation that might restrict Second Amendment rights? By which he meant the right of citizens to amass stockpiles of just about any type of weapon. Which was, incidentally, the right of the same folks to enrich organizations that sponsor the NRA, which, in turn, offers tangible aid to politicians like Roy Blunt. Instead he sought to blame government for failing to keep those pesky mentally ill folks under control:

Blunt said in an interview that federal funds have been handed to some communities in states that move people from mental institutions, where federal dollars were used to help them, "and put them back into the community without much monitoring whether people are ready to be in the community or not."

So guess who he blames when a mentally troubled individual shot two policemen in New York?  His constituents, Missourians who exercised their 1st amendment rights to free speech in Ferguson this summer. Evidently the 2nd amendment trumps just about every concern, including public safety. First amendment? Not so much - at least when it involves issues that get old white guys, the only constituency that matters to Blunt, all itchy and bothered. God forbid that police should be accountable.

And, of course, there's the mental health dodge that was trotted out in the wake of Sandy Hook, but not so much in the case of the NYPD shooter. When a NRA-loving, gun enthusiast shoots a school full of little children, we blame the shooting on his mental problems, not his collection of lethal weapons. But when a troubled and violent man, angered by one more miscarriage of justice, goes off the deep end and the innocent suffer, Blunt wants to blame the folks who expose the bigger, original problem and demand that it be addressed. Nice distraction.

Links:

Roy Blunt: Confusing the symptoms with the disease.

This week at progressive state blogs: weak coal ash rules, war on secularism, RoyBlunt confused

"Gestapo"-like tactics from Big Ag in Right Wing, Conservative, Republican Southwest Missouri at Ozark Empire Fair

I found this post last evening on a friend's Facebook page. I believe it's true and if so, should make any red blooded, truly Conservative, Republican American extremely upset, if not angry.

Well, unless they support "Big Ag."

Like

The post:

By Susie Chasnoff - 

It looks like Big Ag is willing to employ unethical strong-arm tactics to get its way on Missouri’s Amendment 1.

The “Big Boys” Mean Business: Suppression Comes with the Territory

It looks like Big Ag is willing to employ unethical strong-arm tactics to get its way on Missouri’s Amendment 1. The Amendment, inaccurately described as the “right to farm,” is on the August 5 ballot in Missouri and would severely limit the people’s right to regulate farm practices. Its purpose, opponents say, is to leave industrial agriculture free to pollute, use unethical treatment of animals and plant GMOs without hindrance.
Earlier this week, Big Ag attempted to gag its opposition at the Ozark Empire Fair. The story is one of intimation and finally the arrest of one of those speaking against Amendment 1. It seems that fair-goers in Missouri are only allowed to hear Big Ag’s point of view. Here’s how the events unfolded:

On Monday, July 28, Susan Tolliver and William Hutcherson, strong supporters of NO on Amendment 1, put on their “Vote No on 1” t-shirts and headed for the Ozark Empire Fair.
Meanwhile, at a booth for Pensaroda Farm organic products, Mr. and Mrs. Len Pense were selling their wares with a helper, Laura Umphenour. Laura proudly sported her “Vote No on 1” t-shirt. The Penses proudly displayed a “Vote No on Amend 1” sign and were making literature available.

There had been some controversy the first three days of the fair, but all had been going well until that Monday, the fourth day, when the booth was paid a visit by several men from a food concession. Laura described their demeanor as intimidating. Eventually a man wearing a badge that identified him as the President of the Cattlemen’s Association came and attempted to redirect fair-goers away from the booth.
Laura registered a complaint at the Fair office requesting the men be asked to leave the vicinity of the Pensaroda Farm booth. Instead, Fair security visited the booth to inform Mr. Pense he had to stop talking to people about Amendment 1. Laura was told she could no longer assist him.

Susan and William received a distraught phone call from Laura as they pulled into the fairground. Ultimately all three ended up back at the Pensadora booth. Fair security approached and informed them that their every move was being watched on camera. Susan, William and Laura were advised to, “Watch it!” Security further cautioned them not to speak to anyone unless they were spoken to first.

Susan, Laura, and William began walking around, visiting other vendors. When asked questions about their t-shirts they were happy to take the time to explain that Amendment 1 is backed by Monsanto, BIG animal operations, and foreign corporations, most notably in China. They further explained that foreign corporations would be able to buy more Missouri farmland which will hurt small family farmers, organic growers and food safety.
Evidently security had been following the three of them, asking people with whom they spoke who had approached who first and exactly what was said. At one point William was speaking to workers at Freedom Riders’ booth. Susan joined and, assuming they were talking about Amendment 1 exclaimed, “I hope you’re voting no on 1.” It was twenty minutes later that Fair security asked them to leave.

Asking why they were being directed to leave, “No reason,” was the reply.

Two police officers arrived. After a brief debate it was decided that Susan, William and Laura had to leave the vendor area. They were escorted out to the Fair grounds where they were told they could remain.

As they walked outside a Channel 10 camera man was unloading his van. He asked what was going on and then interviewed Laura and William, but the interview was never aired.

Just as they finished, Fair security came back with the two officers and all three were banned from the premises. Their pictures were taken and they were told they’d be arrested if they returned.

The police escorted Susan, William, and Laura to a side gate where they exited.

In the meantime Mr. Pense, with the organic booth, continued to display a “Vote NO on 1” sign in his booth and continued to make literature available. On Thursday, July 31, fair officials demanded he remove the sign and literature, but he refused. Instead Mr. Pense insisted that Fair officials put their request in writing, which they refused to do.

Ultimately the Fair officials relented, allowing Mr. Pense to keep his sign, literature and even permitting Laura, wearing her ‘Vote No on 1” t-shirt back to assist him. As long as she did not approach anyone outside the booth about Amendment 1, she was allowed to return.

Despite this agreement, Laura was arrested for trespassing on Friday, August 1. The arrest took place in the vendors area, where Laura told (just the day before) she could be. She was taken to the police station, photographed and fingerprinted.

Susan had this to say, “Since the Cattleman Assoc. spends lots of money on fairs and events, as does the Farm Bureau and Monsanto, of course this turned into who has the money.

“Meanwhile the Cattlemen and the Puppy Mills are actively handing out their baloney. But I think these strong-arm tactics may backfire. I'm a 70 year old grandmother. I know people in surrounding booths were appalled.

Fortunately, the local paper, the Springfield News-Leader did, in fact, cover the story:

Right to Farm opponent arrested at Ozark Empire Fair

Apparently, as long as it's for "Big Business", it's okay to keep people from having free speech rights in America, huh?

And even the local police will support the whole charade.

Police, supporting "Big Ag" against one person and her First Amendment Rights. 

Nice.

Welcome to Amerikuh.

Right here in very Right Wing, Conservative, "small government", Republican Southwest Missouri.

Yeehaw.

Coinciding with Valentine's Day

“When the Washington Post telephoned me at home on Valentine's Day 1989 to ask my opinion about the Ayatollah Khomeini's fatwah, I felt at once that here was something that completely committed me. It was, if I can phrase it like this, a matter of everything I hated versus everything I loved. In the hate column: dictatorship, religion, stupidity, demagogy, censorship, bullying, and intimidation. 

In the love column: literature, irony, humor, the individual, and the defense of free expression. Plus, of course, friendship—though I like to think that my reaction would have been the same if I hadn't known Salman at all. To re-state the premise of the argument again: the theocratic head of a foreign despotism offers money in his own name in order to suborn the murder of a civilian citizen of another country, for the offense of writing a work of fiction. No more root-and-branch challenge to the values of the Enlightenment (on the bicentennial of the fall of the Bastille) or to the First Amendment to the Constitution, could be imagined. President George H.W. Bush, when asked to comment, could only say grudgingly that, as far as he could see, no American interests were involved…”

― Christopher Hitchens, Hitch-22: A Memoir

On free speech, reduced violence and our new police state

Two articles were brought to my attention, purely by chance, on Facebook today. The first points to statistics showing that the world is less violent today than we were in the past: ‘The Better Angels of Our Nature’ Believe it or not — and I know that most people do not — violence has declined over long stretches of time, and today we may be living in the most peaceable era in our species’ existence. The decline, to be sure, has not been smooth; it has not brought violence down to zero; and it is not guaranteed to continue. But it is an unmistakable development, visible on scales from millennia to years, from the waging of wars to the spanking of children. (Links to aticle and book, below). But at the same time as all this less violence and improvements in societies around the world are happening, the US is choosing to more and more militarize our police--and heavily so. Check out what happened just yesterday in Virginia at a women's protest for reproductive rights. Added to this, look at how the police were equipped to respond to these citizens of the state.

I ask you, does that not seem like a tremendous over-reach, on the part of the police and government? That's the first question. Then, secondly, whatever happened to the "people's right to protest" and the First Amendment and First Amendment Rights and First Amendment guarantee of Free Speech? Added to all this is the fact that the US House of Representatives has created HR 347 and it has passed through Congress. It states that the American people will no longer be allowed to peaceably assemble to petition the government when certain government officials are nearby, whether they know it or not. This is yet another abbreviation of our First Amendment Rights of Free Speech. Finally, there are two more bills proposed in Congress right now, HR 3166 and S. 1698 also known as the Enemy Expatriation Act, sponsored by Joe Lieberman (I-CT) and Charles Dent (R-PA). This bill would give the US government the power to strip Americans of their citizenship without being convicted of being 'hostile' against the United States. In other words, you can be stripped of your nationality for 'engaging in, or purposefully and materially supporting, hostilities against the United States.' Legally, the term 'hostilities' means any conflict subject to the laws of war but considering the fact that the War on Terror is a little ambiguous and encompassing, any action could be labeled as supporting terrorism. Since the Occupy movement began, conservatives have been trying to paint the protesters as terrorists." Has our own US government become paranoid about its citizens having and keeping our First Amendment Rights of Free Speech? It seems like Congress and this administration, too, at times, is flipping out. My only point is to ask today and hopefully make people think and demand more--restraint in this case--of our government. Links: http://www.truth-out.org/propaganda-windfall-imperial-state-steven-pinker-decline-violence/1330875517; http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/06/books/review/the-better-angels-of-our-nature.html?pagewanted=all; http://www.amazon.com/Better-Angels-Our-Nature-Violence/dp/0670022950; http://www.addictinginfo.org/2012/01/06/new-bill-known-as-enemy-expatriation-act-would-allow-government-to-strip-citizenship-without-conviction/

On this day in history: The First Amendment. Remember that?

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." First Amendment in the Bill of Rights created September 25, 1789 and ratified December 15, 1791.

Brownback throws his staff under the bus

Great news this Monday morning--Shawnee Mission East High School has announced it will not require Emma Sullivan to apologize to Kansas Governor Brownback for her Twitter tweet last week in which she said he "sucks." Good call, East. Hopefully this directive was from the Topeka Capitol itself. This should now just go away. It was unfortunate and silly to the point of nearly stupid. Governor Brownback to a huge, negative public opinion beating for it, too, for good or ill, depending on your stance and/or political party. The great thing is that the Governor apologized. The bad news is that he made his staff the scapegoats on the matter. From The Star: "In a statement issued by his office, Brownback offered his own apology, saying his staff had 'over-reacted' to the tweet. 'Freedom of speech is among our most treasured freedoms,' the statement says. “I also want to thank the thousands of Kansas educators who remind us daily of our liberties, as well as the values of civility and decorum. Again, I apologize for our over-reaction.'” That rather stunk. He should have just said "I apologize," period, and left it at that but whatever. The Guv should now "lay low" for a few weeks--until Christmas, I'd say--and then come out with some magnanimous declaration or something about that holiday. Between being the only governor in the nation to kill his state's arts commission and now this--seemingly against First Amendment Rights of Free Speech--he needs a "win." Good luck on that one. Link: http://pvpost.com/2011/11/28/shawnee-mission-district-issues-response-to-sullivan-tweet-situation-says-it-wont-take-action-on-matter-7800; http://www.kansascity.com/2011/11/28/3290553/kansas-teen-not-required-to-issue.html

Unsolicited advice to Kansas Governor Brownback

Governor, rescind any request--whether from your office or not--for Shawnee Mission East High School student Emma Williams to apologize to you and/or your office for what you apparently perceived as her slight with her "tweet" last week. Should she have shown more respect for you or the office of Kansas Governor? Sure, that could be argued. Does this student have and deserve protection under the First Amendment of our Constitution, the one that guards our Free Speech rights? You bet she does. Besides that very important point, you also look extremely petty and even foolish--you are taking a public relations beating for it, at least nationwide, if not, as I've learned, internationally. Even the State of Kansas has taken some hits because of this. Governor, for your own benefit, let this lie--let this die a quiet, ignominious death. Contact that same Shawnee Mission East High School principal you had contacted last week and tell her to let this go. It's for your own good as well as for Free Speech and the First Amendment. Do yourself the favor, Governor. The sooner it goes away for everyone, the better. You'll be glad you did. Link: http://news.yahoo.com/teen-tweeter-wont-apologize-kan-governor-230737888.html

This administration looks like the last here

Freedom of the press being a hallmark of our nation, this kind of treatment should be inexcusable and not allowed:

White House shuts out Herald scribe - BostonHerald.com

By Hillary Chabot
Wednesday, May 18, 2011

The White House Press Office has refused to give the Boston Herald full access to President Obama’s Boston fund-raiser today, in e-mails objecting to the newspaper’s front page placement of a Mitt Romney op-ed, saying pool reporters are chosen based on whether they cover the news “fairly.”

This shouldn't be tolerated any longer by the American public, certainly, absolutely and finally.  We saw this kind of treatment from the last administration and we all thought poorly of it.  

We voted this president in, wanting and expecting better in virtually all ways.  This is one of the most important ways in which we expect this president and administration to take a far higher road.

Since President Obama is in the midst of his re-election bid, he shouldn't do this anyway, but granting favor or disfavor to the press by what they write should never be allowed or tolerated again.

It's censorship of some of the worst kind.

An eye-opener from and about "gun enthusiasts"

Well, I got a real education this week, from a reader here and gun enthusiast.

I had no idea that these people equate the First and Second Amendments to the Constitution.

At least this one did--and let me be clear, I'm not mocking him, either.  These people apparently assume that  since there should be no limits to Free Speech, as called for by the Constitution in the First Amendment, that there also should be absolutely no limits to "the right to bear arms", either, as called for by the Second Amendment.  Their both Amendments, right?  So shouldn't they be "equal"?

When I learned this, I was stunned.  And by stunned, I mean shocked.

While, as I explained to him, I do believe the old saw that "the pen is mightier than the sword", I also don't know of any instance where someone's pen, writing, book or video--any kind of media--actually hurt or killed anyone, do you?  So equating unlimited free speech with unlimited rounds of ammunition in a gun--because that's where this conversation started--seems just completely disconnected to me, if not insane.

Weapons in this country have become rather like nuclear arms in the world.

By that, I mean we all know there are more than enough nuclear missiles in the world, no matter who owns them, to destroy the world several times over.

The same with guns in America.  If the big fear for Second Amendment supporters is that they have to be ready to "fight the government" (good luck with that, by the way, should it ever--God forbid--come about), heaven knows these people have oodles and boodles of guns in their homes, so many of them.

A week or so ago, during the RNC debate for the next Chairman post, Ann Wagner, for instance, said her family had 16 different weapons in their home.  That got her kudos all around, naturally.  She won the "gun tally" that night.

See, there's no limit on the amount of guns we can own and no one--I repeat, no one--is, right now or in the recent past, talking about making any limits or of adding any type of gun control.  The NRA is much too powerful to even think of that.  Literally.  That and our representatives are too cowardly.

What I did bring up, however, by way of a quote earlier this week, was the idea that maybe having guns--handguns and rifles both--with smaller numbers of rounds in them so people with schizophrenia or whatever, can't shoot so many people, all at once, so quickly, as the shooter in Arizona did this past weekend.

It was then that this reader responded with the idea of equating the First and Second Amendments.

My response was shock, then, and it is shock to this day.

I've said for some time that these people--the NRA, their followers and others--want "all guns, all the time".

I had no idea how insanely correct I was.

Link:   http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2011/01/ladies_and_gentlemen_your_rnc.php

Another significant reason Americans are angry

From the news this morning:
U.S. slips to historic low in global corruption index

BERLIN (Reuters) - The United States has dropped out of the "top 20" in a global league table of least corrupt nations, tarnished by financial scandals and the influence of money in politics, Transparency International said on Tuesday.

The United States fell to 22nd from 19th last year, with its CPI score dropping to 7.1 from 7.5 in the 178-nation index, which is based on independent surveys on corruption.

This was the lowest score awarded to the United States in the index's 15-year history and also the first time it had fallen out of the top 20.

We're sick of it, frankly.  We're sick of the rich guys and corporations winning and us losing.  We're sick of the money that's going into our politics.  We're sick of our politicians being bought.  It's all just too much.

So rather than just complaining, I propose, yet again, three solutions to our problems:

First, we need to get that ugly money out of our politics.  To do that, we need campaign finance reform so our representatives don't have to go begging to the rich, corporations and their lobbyists for money.  We need our government to pay for these stupid elections.  If we did this, the money would stop buying our officials and their votes because it would be illegal.

Second, we need to make our campaign seasons shorter--by law--so they don't need all this money.  And don't say it can't be done, either.  The British did it long ago, we could certainly do it.

Finally, we need to put the "Fairness Doctrine" back in our media and so, government, so at least two different sides would have to be discussed any time a political subject comes up on our airwaves.  It used to be the law of the land.  The Republicans took it out of our laws and we need to get it back.  This would take the vitriol and emotionalism and ugliness and bitterness out of our discussions.  It won't happen because Fox "News" and the Republicans and corporations and Right Wing wouldn't stand for it and would raise heck about it violating their First Amendment rights and "free speech", even though that's patently untrue.  They could still say whatever they want, it's just that the opposing view would have to also be aired.

It's too bad the above won't happen.  At least it won't until the American people rise up and demand it.  I hope it doesn't require a revolution to get us there.  

This used to be a far better country to live in than what we've got now.

And a lot of that is our own fault.

Links:  http://finance.yahoo.com/news/US-slips-to-historic-low-in-rb-3603521040.html?x=0;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairness_doctrine

Two old dogs learn new tricks

Great news. There are two stories out right now, showing two people of former mind-sets have, in fact, changed those minds and are now in favor of climate change initiatives, on the one hand, and religious freedom in America--even in New York City. First up, the climate change guy: The world's most high-profile climate change sceptic is to declare that global warming is "undoubtedly one of the chief concerns facing the world today" and "a challenge humanity must confront", in an apparent U-turn that will give a huge boost to the embattled environmental lobby. Bjørn Lomborg, the self-styled "sceptical environmentalist" once compared to Adolf Hitler by the UN's climate chief, is famous for attacking climate scientists, campaigners, the media and others for exaggerating the rate of global warming and its effects on humans, and the costly waste of policies to stop the problem. But in a new book to be published next month, Lomborg will call for tens of billions of dollars a year to be invested in tackling climate change. "Investing $100bn annually would mean that we could essentially resolve the climate change problem by the end of this century," the book concludes. That's some great news. Then, back here in the States, there's this on the misnamed "Ground Zero Mosque": ThinkProgress's Alex Seitz-Wald has video of Hatch giving an interview to Salt Lake City's Fox 13 News, in which he offers up soft-spoken yet strong support for the Cordoba Initiative's Park51 project in Manhattan. HATCH: Let's be honest about it, in the First Amendment, religious freedom, religious expression, that really express matters to the Constitution. So, if the Muslims own that property, that private property, and they want to build a mosque there, they should have the right to do so. He goes on, unfortunately, to ask if it's "smart to do so" (build the "mosque" there and backtracks, not unlike the President a while back but still, he's saying it's all about religious freedom so good on him. If this keeps up, who knows? Maybe we can even gain back hope again. Have a great day, y'all.