God's Own Party Run Amok

South Carolina is one of those bizarre Bible-belt states. Normally it is as bat-shit crazy as Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi or Texas but it can get nutty. Of course, this is most likely the case with God's Own Party (GOP).

The Lauren County Republican Party has decided to try to get candidates to sign morality pledges straight out of some back-woods tent revival, absent the handling of rattlesnakes. Their pledge was adopted unanimously by the local Republicans who, given the demographics of the country,probably couldn't unanimously spell unanimously. The county has a median family income well below normal. Unemployment is officially over 11%, and 1 in 7 are officially living below the poverty line. Next consider the ability of locals to complete high school. Compare this graph of US dropout rates to the rates in Laurens County.

If we look at the rates for the same years we find that the local yokels in Laurens are far more unlikely to be graduate high school—which means prime hunting territory for the GOP, maybe. You will see that almost 37% of Laurens students, who should have graduated during the 1994-1996 period, dropped out of high school instead. That is just over three times the national average during the same period. One out of ten white males, ages 25-34, didn't even go to high school and have less than a 9th grade education.

Of those who did complete high school 42.5% took the Scholastic Aptitude Test in the year 2000. The average Verbal score in Laurens was 466; it was 505 for the United States as a whole for the same year. The average Math score in Laurens was 436 while the US averaged 514. The county is poorer than the average county in South Carolina and has a higher suicide rate than the state. More people die in the county than are born there and two-thirds of "adherents" there are Southern Baptists.

And, apparently, the local GOP has confused their political party with a Southern Baptist Church. The local GOP executive committee, or 13 of the 20 members, held a secret meeting which lasted 30 minutes and then unanimously adopted a resolution which stated what kind of Republicans they felt should be allowed to run for office. They said that they didn't think any candidate should be allowed who was contrary to the state Republican Party platform. But here is how the local newspaper listed the qualifications "consistent" with the Republican Party:

You must favor, and live up to, abstinence before marriage.

You must be faithful to your spouse. Your spouse cannot be a person of the same gender, and you are not allowed to favor any government action that would ALLOW for civil unions of people of the same sex.

You cannot now, from the moment you sign this pledge, look at pornography.

The local paper was surprised and contacted the State Chairman of the Republican Party, Chad Connelly. Connelly seemed supportive. He said that technically the party can't stop someone from running for office but that the GOP has to be able to vet candidates to see if they "recognize our core values." Core values? The County resolution says that all candidates must present themselves to the Holy Inquisition for questioning, that is a committee from the GOP, "within 24 hours of the closing of the file period," to see if the candidate is qualified. Connelly said this is important "now that the Republican Party is in such a dominant position in state politics and government."

Apparently the purported, though rarely lived-up-to, morality lectures of your typical fundamentalist sect is now the core values of the Republican Party. Barry Goldwater warned what would happen if these religious kooks and preachers got their hands on the Republican Party, but he own party ignored him.

Here is a county, dominated by Republicans, that can't even educate its own young people up to the pathetic levels of the rest of the country. When your school system is below average, and when you consider how bad is the actual average, then you have a real problem on your hands. But Republicans are pushing abstinence not education, and theology not science. These are people who think there is only one book, the Bible, and just as long as you can figure out what the verses say, you are educated. But, at least you would think they would worry about the poverty rates and the high-than-average unemployment in the country.

No, what inspires this Republican Party outfit isn't the horrible way they run their schools or the problems endemic in their county—what worries them is what someone might look at in their free time or whether or not they love someone of the same gender.

This is party that has their head so far stuck up their own ass, that the mistake the shit they are looking at for brains.

Sure, they might get the so-typical fake Southern Baptist wannbe politician who parades his high-haired clueless wife and butt-ugly children before them. Then he'll sneak out to the local rest stop to expose himself to some undercover cop. He'll swear by the Bible that he doesn't look at porn but will beat his children abusively, and later blame the fondling on too much booze. They will promise they don't love another man, and then for good measure try to prove how much they hate immigrants, gays and Muslims. They'll push their moralistic candidates who will get caught in some scandal.

But that's okay. He'll stand in the pulpit with Hollywood-style tears flowing down his cheeks. His numb-faced wife, clutching her Bible will stand silently and dutifully beside him, one step back, with her confused looking children at her side while he cries out, "I have sinned." He'll beg for forgiveness and the congregation, or is it the party, will yell, "Thank you, Jesus," and wave their hands in the air so God can see them. Everybody will have a good cry, pray a little, sing a little, and then return to their poverty stricken homes while the repentant sinner calls his secretary to tell her which hotel he rented for them.

Separation of Church and State Makes Santorum Vomit

Above is John Kennedy speaking about separation of church and state. Let us remember the context of the day. Fundamentalists were scurrying about telling voters that Kennedy would take orders from the Vatican and would impose Catholic doctrine through public policy. In this speech Kennedy was speaking to Southern Baptist leaders. But, this was before fundamentalists got a taste of political power and realized they might be able to oppress others in their name of their religion. And that was an entirely different matter.

But, when Kennedy spoke, the idea of separation of church and state was the consensus. There was no "Religious Right" intent on imposing theocratic laws. Santorum said: "I don't believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute." He said that this very idea would make most people "throw up."

Perhaps, it is time to remind fundamentalists that just because Santorum repeats their hateful slogans, that doesn't make him one of them. He is a Catholic and his doctrines are Catholic. He believes that Protestantism is a false church and that Baptists are heretics. Mr. Santorum's religious views are a radical Catholicism unlike that of most Catholics. Yes, a few fanatics (Jennifer Morse comes to mind) are as extreme as Santorum, but most Catholics don't want the law to reflect church doctrine.

Santorum has claimed that Satan has America in its grips—Satan! Pretty soon he'll be saying that libertarians are demon possessed and should be exorcised. He claims that mainline Protestantism isn't even part of "the world of Christianity as I see it." Some people thought that would alienate fundamentalists, but they hate mainline Protestantism as much as Santorum does. When Santorum rags on mainline Protestants and attacks gay people the fundamentalists think he sounds like them.

Simply put, fundamentalist Christians are not the brightest bulbs around. They are less educated and less informed than the general population. Many of them simply don't know that Santorum is a hated Roman Catholic. They pick up a bit of news here and there and hear him spewing his hateful messages and they shout, "Amen, brother." But, they don't really see him as a "brother" in Christ at all; at least they wouldn't if they knew he was Catholic. Then he would be part of the Great Whore of Babylon—the Vatican.

The media has made much of Romney being a member of the Mormon cult. His sect membership is unusual. After all, less than one in a hundred people attend a Mormon church. And, contrary to Mormon PR material, the sect is not growing but stagnant, even in spite of among Mormon woman. But Santorum's Catholicism is not unusual. About a quarter of all Americans have some affiliation with Catholicism. Of course, most Catholics have enough common sense that they don't take all Catholic doctrine seriously—Santorum is not one them.

So, while Romney's membership in the Mormon cult is widely touted to ignorant fundamentalists, Santorum's rabid Catholicism is more hidden. Romney's religion is in their face, Santorum's is not discussed. His views are talked about but not so much his Catholicism. This is allowing fundamentalists to compare a candidate that sounds as hateful as they do, to a candidate they know is "not a Christian." Truth be told, a huge percentage of fundamentalists would also say Santorum is no Christian, if they focused on his Catholicism.

The way the media has covered the religious debate in God's Own Party (GOP) plays to Santorum's advantage. Now, I don't think it much matters if the Republicans win or the Democrats win. They both are in a race to see which disgusts me most. But, I do know most media employees tend to be Democrats and would rather see Obama win than any Republican. Given that I don't believe the bulk of independent voters will support someone as noxious as Santorum, media coverage of the GOP is helping Obama.

Now, from an entirely practical viewpoint, I won't vote. My vote will make zero difference in outcome, but then neither will your own. The best outcome, as I see it, would be neither party having control of both houses of Congress and the presidency. Given that the Republicans are more likely to win control of the House, than the Senate, then Obama winning the White House would do the least harm to liberty and individual rights.

This wouldn't be because Obama much cares for either. But a Republican House is likely to stymie his efforts. So, I'd prefer to see the GOP win the House and Obama win the White House. In that case, a Santorum candidacy would be optimal. Republicans in the House turn into Big Government evangelists the moment a Republican is in the White House. As for the Senate, I'd like to see it as evenly divided as possible.

If I were a Republican seeking political power then I would not want Santorum even in the race. Every time he opens his mouth he alienates independent voters. But, I'm not a Republican. As far as I'm concerned the only decent Republican running was Gary Johnson and he dropped out to run as a Libertarian. If I were to force myself to vote I'd vote for Gary, if he were the LP candidate—maybe. I have little confidence that the LP will give Gary a decent running mate and are more likely to inflict a conservative like Wayne Root, or some ideologue with little understanding of reality. That the LP continues to allow open racists to hold positions in the party, men like David Macko, is just too much for me to stomach.

We need a party that represents the mushy-libertarian middle of American politics. But the Democrats are held hostage by greedy unions, the Republicans are held hostage by religious crazies, and the LP is held hostage by idiots.

Republican Blames Monkey Sex for AIDS

A Republican in Tennessee's legislature, State Senator Stacey Campfield, wants to make it a crime for any school official to mention the existence of gay people. The law would literally mandate that only heterosexuality be discussed, all comments otherwise would be a crime. He recently gave an interview which shows you how warped he is mentally.

On the bullying of gay kids, he says the problem is that "sexually confused children" are "pushed into a lifestyle" that is not "appropriate" or the "norm." They don't know how to get out of it and so they kill themselves. See, its the people who support them that are to blame, not the people who harass them or bully them. Gay kids killing themselves, after years of bullying, are doing so because other people made them gay, not because of bullying? Amazing logic.

Campfield, who is often incoherent, has very strange ideas indeed. For instance: "Homosexuals represent about 2 to 3 percent of the population yet you look at television and plays and theaters, it's 50 percent of the theaters, probably more than that, 50 percent of the theaters based on something about homosexuality."

Interesting, but is it true? I looked at a list of the Broadway plays that have had more than 800 performances. This is the heart of "liberal" New York City, so surely this 50% or more trend should show up there.

I don't know every play listed but I do know the majority of the them. There are 162 theatrical productions that fit this category. Out of those I only see two with gay themes: Torch Song Trilogy and Le Cage Aux Folles. Out of the rest I can see nine that have a character or two that is gay: Chorus Line (1), Rent (unsure of the number); Mamma Mia (1); Cabaret (1 plus 1 bisexual); Deathtrap (2); Billy Elliot (1 in the film but not sure about the play); Color Purple (1 in the film, unsure of the play); Kiss of the Spider Woman (1 in the film, unsure of the play); and Spring Awakening (2).

This is so far off 50% as to be laughable. If you add up all the characters in the shows and see how many of them are gay, the reality is that gay characters are under-represented, the complete opposite of what Campfield is claiming. Television pickings are just as sparse, if you consider all the shows and all the characters. Feel free to do your own count, I don't think it will dramatically differ from mine and you might remember a character or two that I didn't. But I doubt any analysis will show numbers approaching 50% let alone exceeding it.

When Campfield gets to discussing AIDS he is even more bizarre. First, let's look at some facts. Only a tiny percentage of all AIDS cases are in North America and Europe. I believe about 10% of the total number of cases are in Western nations. AIDS seems to have originated in Africa and the vast majority of the cases are among heterosexuals. AIDS appears to have been first introduced into the gay community in the West. As a sexually transmitted disease gay men are most likely to infect gay men. So, while a majority of the cases in the West are in the gay community, the majority of all cases in the world are among heterosexuals and the ratio of difference remains very significant. The disease is primarily heterosexually spread and originated in the heterosexual community.

Campfield, has it the complete opposite, and worse. He said, "Most people realize AIDS came from the homosexual community—it was one guy screwing a monkey, if I recall correctly, and then having sex with men. It was an airline pilot, if I recall." He went on to say that "AIDS through heterosexual sex" is "very rarely" possible.

I suspect Campfield is actually this stupid. I don't think anyone could play that dumb otherwise.

Fact, heterosexual sex can transmit AIDS, and most cases are actually transmitted that way. Second, there is no evidence that sex with monkeys was ever involved with AIDS. It is believed that the first cases go back to the 1930s and that the actual origin had to do with someone killing a monkey for food. Infected blood from the monkey entered the individuals body through cuts or scratches that were open. Campfield takes smidgens of facts and twists them beyond recognition to fit his bigoted agenda.

As for the pilot that is quite different from what Campfield says as well. There was no pilot. What he is referring to is a flight attendant who was believed by Randy Shilts to be a source of HIV infection in the United States. He didn't have sex with monkeys and then with men. But, even this flight attendant was not patient zero. It is believed in scientific circles that HIV was transmitted to Haiti from Africa and then to the United States. There are documented cases of people with HIV prior to the case with the flight attendant, so the likelihood that he spread it is small.

In that one sentence there are five factual claims. Here is how they pan out:

"Most people realize...." Actually, I doubt most think this. And we need to be clear on "most people" in what location. I doubt most people in the world think of AIDS this way. Certainly most educated people do not think this. In Campfield's circles I have no doubt this is widely believed along with a world-wide flood, virgin births and other absurdities.

"...came from the homosexual community." As already noted, it didn't.

"...one guy screwing a monkey..." No sex with a monkey has been discovered to be connected to AIDS. It was from killing a monkey for food.

"...then having sex with men..." Nothing indicates the hunter who killed the monkey had sex with men and it is unlikely he did. The disease spread heterosexually from that point until some years later when homosexuals were infected.

"It was an airline pilot." No. it was a hunter. And he's thinking of the flight attendant who was once thought to spread HIV in the US, not the first case in the world. So even the back-up claim of confusing a pilot with a flight attendant won't save him.

Out of his five factual claims regarding HIV and AIDS he is wrong on every single one of them.

What we see here is that fear-mongers are not good sources for factual information. Hysterics tend to exaggerate and lie or completely misunderstand facts. Campfield is a hysteric pushing his own religious agenda. To do that he has to claim the absurd.

Should Scientists Be Forced To State Their Theology?

You would think that what is science, and what is religion, are two very different things. Facts are facts and faith is faith and, in my view, rarely do the two coincide. Nor should they. Gravity is true whether the scientist discussing it is a Jew, a Muslim, a rationalist, a Jehovah's Witness or a born-again revivalist.

But a Republican in New Hampshire wants to pass law requiring all scientists discussing evolution to reveal their political viewpoints and their personal beliefs about supernatural hocus-pocus and the like. Actually, the bill doesn't go quite that far. It only demands that a scientist state his religious views if he is an atheist.

The bill, introduced by Rep. Jerry Bergen says that it would:

"Require evolution to be taught in the public schools of this state as a theory, including the theorists' political and ideological viewpoints and their position on the concept of atheism."

That is pretty much the whole legislation.

There are a couple of things I immediately notice about this badly crafted piece of theocratic insanity. First, evolution is always taught as a theory. Apparently the legislator, like many fundamentalists, is unaware of what the term "theory" means in science. In science a theory is "a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principles or body of principles offered to explain phenomena." Science assumes that a theory is the best explanation for something that has not been disproved. In science the assumption is that all theories are potentially false, but that a theory is regarded as true if it the best explanation to stand up to scrutiny to date. In other words, there are lots of facts to back up the theory, and there is no good reason yet presented to dismiss it.

But the public tends to use theory very different. "I have a theory about 9/11," is not a statement of the best set of principles that explains 9/11. What most people mean, when they use "theory" is opinion. To them, every opinion is a theory. But in science every opinion is not a theory.

Now many of the less educated on the Religious Right tend to be confused between the two. They assume that if evolution is a "theory" then it is like an opinion, a statement of personal preferences. Thus the witch doctor who claims an illness is the result of a curse is put on par with a doctor who found the virus causing the problem. Hence, their creationist nonsense is put on par with the science of evolution.

What this Republican is doing is trying to force the schools to teach the idea that evolution is merely an opinion, that is using theory in the common, unscientific sense of the word.

But, while many see this bill as aimed at the scientists who explain evolution, it seems more broadly written than that. Broad legislation is almost always bad legislation. This law would demand the "theorist" to state his political and ideological views and whether or not he is an atheist. But who is the theorist? Is it the author of a science book? If so, how do they force scientists, most of whom will not be living in New Hampshire, to submit to a state mandated Inquisition regarding their beliefs?

Who will determine what the theorists really believes? Would theorists have to report all changes in their beliefs every time they change their mind? I just don't see how this bill could possibly be enforced against scientists.

But, I do see the bill as being broader than that. Wouldn't the theorist also include the teacher doing the theorizing in class? I think so. This would do something we haven't done in a long time—force every teacher to publicly reveal their beliefs on politics, ideology, and god. And what do you think will happen to the teachers who would be forced to reveal they are atheists? If you don't think the fundamentalist fanatics would demand a lynching then you are mistaken.

If a teacher voluntarily tells their students they are atheists the Religious Right routinely demands the teacher be fired. They march on school board meetings, petition, shriek loudly, wail shrilly, and whine about the mere presence of a non-fundamentalist is a violation of their religious freedom. So, atheist teachers who reveal their rational thoughts on the topic, are subject to all sorts of harassment from the fanatics. Now, they appear to want to force each atheist to out himself if he or she is to teach evolution. I'm sorry but this is an invitation to a witch burning.

Of course, none of this is relevant to whether the scientific theory in question is a valid one or not. Germ theory is the most plausible explanation regardless of the beliefs of the theorist. And, whether the Jesus-addled Republicans like it or not, evolution is the most plausible explanation for how life as we know it came to be. And no witch hunt for atheists is going to disprove the theory of evolution, and without that, it will still remain the most logical, scientific explanation.

Be it demons causing disease, or creationism, those are not scientific theories. They confuse opinion with theory.

More importantly, their faith statements can not be theories. The hallmark of a scientific theory is that it can be disproved. But their faith statements are outside science. The idea that there is a god somewhere is not something the scientist can disprove. This is why logic puts the burden of proof, not upon the denier, but upon the person making the affirmative assertion. If the creationist kooks want to replace evolutionary theory with faith-based assertions, they have first show why evolution is deficient and why their faith-based claims are a better explanation. They don't do that. Instead they want to pass laws to force people to publicly disclose their private beliefs.

By the way, if this law were to be enacted, ask yourself what kind of powers a government would need in order to enforce it. What you will realize is that this is not a law that "small government" people would enact. It is Big Brother at work.

The Continuing Saga of Family-Values Republicans

Another conservative "family values" Republican can kiss his career good bye, though apparently he would be rather kissing men anyways.

Greg Davis, is the right-wing mayor of Southaven, Mississippi. He was a Republican candidate for Congress in 2008. He is married, has kids, and ran on anti-gay platform.

But Davis has a problem. He is under investigation for using city credit cards improperly. Apparently we are talking significant amounts of money as Davis has already had to pay the city back $96,000 so far, and it another $170,000 are in dispute.

As part of the investigation receipts for expenditures were required. One of the receipts got the attention of the media. It was from a store in Toronto, Canada named Priape. To be precise, the store is a porn shop, but only with gay porn. Well, with the receipts in public there wasn't much Davis could do. He told a press conference, "I think that it is important that I discuss the struggles I have had over the last few years when I came to the realization that I am gay."

Prosecutor Tries to RailRoad Boy 6, Gags Parents

Back in May we reported on the vile actions of one district attorney, some bungling female Republican named Lisa Riniker, who, if there is a just God, will be sterile and never allowed near children. Riniker learned that a 5-year-old girl, her brother, and 6-year-old boy had been found playing doctor. Children playing doctor is normal and all but the religiously infested tend to see it that way. Riniker, however, is a Republican, which means she has to cater to the most fanatical elements of the American Taliban and sometimes that means you destroy a few kids along the way. After all, God loves it when one’s only born is sacrificed. Of course, Rinker prefers to sacrafice the only born of other people otherwise she would have to do the horizontal mambo and god doesn’t like it when Republicans, his chosen people, do that.

In this woman’s sick mind the children involved are evil sexual offenders who pose a threat to virginity, Jesus and the Republican Party. The boy in particular, is clearly dangerous due to, wel,l he is male, what more do you need? But Riniker was also out there looking to cover her big political ass. There were three children involved in the playing doctor game, but the girl and her brother are the children of a “well known political figure” in the county. They get listed as victims in this mutually consenting activitiy. The other boy, his parents are nobodies in policits, so all the charges are laid against him. Good move Lisa, you can further your political career while sucking up to the parents of the other kids, while destroying the life of a little boy! Bet, you say you believe in "limited" government and "family values" as well, don't you?

Riniker has been going all out to destroy the lives of this family and their son. She has gone so far as to threaten to have him taken from their custody. The parents are fighting back. Between Riniker and the cop she had constantly interrogating the child the boy now suffers from anxiety, depression, vomiting, crying, and can’t sleep. Dare anyone point out that Rinker is a child abuser. See, this is one of those things about child abuse. When government does it, it’s okay. When other people do it they crack down. So, let a pernicious prosecutor torment a child for the sake of Jesus, hysteria and the Republican Party, and everything is fine and dandy—just the way God wants it to be. Or let some TSA official run their hands through the genitals of Americans and it is not molestations. But three little kids getting curious, that's a major felony that needs attention.

Riniker has tried to force the parents of her victim to acquiesce to her jihad by telling them that she will have their child taken from their custody. It gets even more horrible when you realized the parents were told they were tampering with a witness when they invoked the right to have an attorney present while their child was being grilled.

The parents finally had enough of the harassment and attempts to intimidate them into allowing their six-year-old to register for life as a so-called sex offender—and what sex doesn’t offend Republicans? So they filed a lawsuit against the prosecutor. Up until this point Riniker had been the one whoring herself to the media and getting her bizarre accusations out to the public. The very idea that the parents would dare defend their little boy terrifies control freaks like Riniker, they need to control the dialogue so that only one side, her side, is made public. How else will she be able to protect society from the scourge of little children playing doctor.

So Riniker used her contacts in the court system to get a gag order issued against the parents. The last thing she needs is some sympathetic parents discussing how a sexually frigid political-whore used her position to destroy the life of a young boy. Riniker had a judge strip them of their right to freedom of speech.

The boy’s attorneys say the child is traumatized by the bullying tactics of Riniker and fears he will go to jail. As part of her intimidation Riniker didn’t have a summons sent to the child’s parents but mailed directly to the boy—as if a young child can understand what this means. According to Riniker the small amount of touching the children were doing is a crime because “the Legislature could have put an age restricting in the statue… the legislature did no such thing.” Apparently she would be fine in prosecuting a 9-month-old-child since the legislature didn't draw a line, that most people draw using common sense. Riniker doesn’t want just prosecution, she wants the boy put on a sex offenders list for the rest of life. It is Riniker and her ilk who have so flooded the SRO list with cases like this that any truly dangerous individuals are buried in a flood of cases that never should be there. If the SRO list is meant to protect children, then flooding the list with the names of children who clearly are not a threat to anyone, only destroys what little value the list may have had.

To Preserve Liberty We Must Destroy Liberty

Theocrat Rick Santorum, your typical Republican these days, says that the way to preserve religious liberty is make civil law subject to "God's law."

Of course, what theocrats mean in particular is not God's law at all, but their interpretation of which God they think is the magic man in the sky, and their view of what the man in the sky allegedly says is the law.

Even the violent, cruel God of the Bible is unclear. Christians don't agree with each other as to what writings make up the Bible. For instance, Santorum is seen here trying to appeal to hateful fundamentalist Baptists at their church. What Santorum calls the Bible is different from what these Baptists call the Bible. Santorum's Bible includes Tobias, Judith, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Baruch, additional parts of Esther and First and Second Machabees. The Bible carried by Santorum's audience has none of those books.

Then there are the Old and New Testaments with different versions of "God's law." Which law is applied in which circumstance? Christians have literally gone to war with each other to try to settle these questions. Their assumption was that whichever side managed to kill the most people had the right to determine what law of the "God of love" could be imposed under penalty of execution. Even within the same denominations these people can't make up their mind which "God's law" is the correct "God's law."

And since the deity is silent on such matters it really comes down to man's beliefs, not God's law at all. It is man who has to determine what "God's law" is supposed to be. And men disagree with one another as to which God is true, if any; which law is God's law and how that law is applicable, etc.

In the end, when a politician like Santorum appeals to "God's law" as superior to all civil law, he is asking for unlimited powers, unrestricted by any concept of individual rights. What he means is that he wants the power to impose his alleged moral code on others, by violence if necessary, because he pretends to speak for God. As far as I know God is not a registered voter and hasn't endorse Santorum, or any other two-bit con man with a lust for power.

Another Republican in a "morals" scandal.

The French comedy film, Le Cage aux Folles, has the son of two gay men engaged to the daughter of the deputy leader of a French version of the Moral Majority. The deputy leader just learns that the leader of the moral order has died of a heart attack while in bed with a prostitute, who was both underaged and black. Not knowing the truth about his daughter's fiance's family he concocts the idea that a nice, wholesome wedding would save their image. From this premise all humor flows.

Republicans are the organized political party of the moralistic crowd in America. They promote "family values," which is code for "we hate gays." Taking their clues from insane American fundamentalists the GOP assumes that hating gays is the height of morality. Doing unto others, in their mind, requires punishing people for their perceived moral shortcomings.

I have long contended that the conservative obsession with morality is the direct result of these individuals knowing their own heart all too well. They fear "sin" in others because they know exactly how corrupt they themselves happen to be. Conversely, the desire of those on the Left to impose charity, via the state, on others, is the result of their knowledge that they are not charitable when given the opportunity. Political groups tend to want the state to compensate for the moral shortcomings that they themselves possess.

And once again a Right-wing, moralistic Republican politician has stepped forward to prove my thesis. The Republican in question is Indiana state representative, Phillip Hinkle. An 18-year-old male had placed an online ad looking for a "sugga daddy." The implication was clearly an exchange of sex for cash, which certainly is a far more honorable profession than, say, being a state representative.

Hinkle emailed the man saying, "Cannot be a long time sugar daddy, but can for tonight. Would you be interested in keeping company for a while tonight?" In keeping with his "fiscal conservative" nature Hinkle actually went on the cheap. He offered the young man $80 to spend time with him at a local Indianapolis hotel. He told the young man that he would give him an additional tip of $50 or $60 "for a really good time." Hinkle told the young man, "I am an in shape married professional, 5'8", fit 170 lbs, and love getting and staying naked."

The young man, Kameryn Gibson replied, "Yes, I can!" Hinkle offered to pick up the young man at his home and drive him to the hotel. He also suggested, "If u want to consider spending night u might tell ur sis so she won't worry. Would have u back before 11 tomorrow. No extra cash just free breakfast and maybe late night snack." No extra cash! For a full night! He's not only a hypocrite but a cheap hypocrite to boot! Gibson gave his address and Hinkle picked him up.

At the hotel Gibson was told to go to the room by himself first, so that that the two would not be seen together. Hinkle waited about 15 minutes and entered the room and stripped and then wrapped a towel around his waist. At this point he mentioned to Gibson that he was a legislator and showed an ID card. Gibson, perhaps realizing he was dealing with a particularly loathsome and low class of human being—a politician—did what any self-respecting prostitute would do; he told Hinkle, "I don't want to do this."

Hinkle got upset that Gibson wanted out and supposedly him "You need to do this, because I came and got you, and I'm not taking you back until we do what we need to do."

Gibson made a beeline for the bathroom and called his sister who said she would be there momentarily to pick him up. Upon leaving the bathroom Gibson was told by Hinkle that he couldn't leave. Gibson called his sister again who read the riot act to Hinkle and told him that he didn't let her brother leave she would call the police and the media.

According to Gibson, when the pair hung up, Hinkle grabbed Gibson's upper arm to stop him, reached around to grab the young man's ass and then dropped his towel to put his Republican jewels on display. When Megan Gibson arrived to pick up her brother she again cussed out Hinkle telling him she was calling the police and the media. Hinkle panicked and offered her his iPad, BlackBerry and $100 in cash. Stupidly, in my opinion, she took what Hinkle offered and left with her brother.

She says she started getting calls on the BlackBerry from a woman who said she was Hinkle's equally Republican wife. Megan responded, "Your husband is gay." Mrs. GOP said, "You have the wrong person." Megan recounted the email address used to solicit her brother and the wife went silent and then said, "Please don't call the police."

Megan says that various family members of Hinkle started calling demanding to see proof of the email exchange between the politician and her brother. Megan dropped Kameryn off at home and was asked to come back to the hotel to meet Hinkle's daughter who wanted to see the emails. They were shown to her. Shortly Hinkle's wife called Megan and offered her $10,000 to remain quiet. Then Hinkle himself called Megan. Megan told him that she had told his wife and family that he was gay. She said Hinkle said, "You just ruined me." No, she didn't! The ruin of Hinkle was entirely self-induced.

When the media questioned Hinkle about the incident he did not deny the email exchange but described the encounter as a "shakedown." Shakedown? Isn't that what Republicans and Democrats do to taxpayers on a regular basis? His attorney wouldn't clarify what "shakedown" meant, would only say they were "investigating" the matter and then appealed to everyone to "respect" his client's privacy. Privacy? Really! Think about it for a second. Hinkle is a moralistic Republican who supports the laws that criminalized his own proclivities. Sure, if the law only applied to moralistic assholes in office that would be one thing, but these laws apply to everyone in the whole state. When you criminalize the sexual activities of consenting adults you are invading the privacy of every adult in the state.

Hinkle had no respect for the private lives of others. He was hoisted on his own petard.

Now, let us look at what was going on here, and not at the spin that Hinkle is trying to use. Gibson placed an ad on Craigslist making it clear that he would like to meet other men for sexual encounters. He had no knowledge that Hinkle would respond. Hinkle contacted him and expressed a desire to meet. Gibson asked why they should meet and Hinkle offered him money and said he would pick him up. If this were just an innocent friendship there would be no offer of cash by Hinkle and no promise of a tip for a really "good time."

Hinkle, knowing he was soliciting a teen-aged male for sex sent Gibson to the room by himself to avoid being seen entering the hotel together. Upon getting to his room Hinkle strips naked and wraps a towel around his waist. He was ready to go and making it clear. Hinkle stupidly says who he is sending Gibson into a panic who says he wants to leave. Hinkle won't allow it, he did, after all, drive to pick Gibson up and wanted what he contracted for before he would let the young man leave.

Once Hinkle, and then his family, realized that they had a potential scandal on their hands, he and they started offering things to Gibson, and his sister, to try and buy their silence. Let us be clear, it is obvious that Hinkle knew he soliciting a young man for sexual purposes. Everything he did implied he was fully aware of what he was doing. This was no miscommunication. And, it was no shakedown, since Gibson had no way of making Hinkle respond, did not know Hinkle was a politician until Hinkle stupidly revealed that fact—perhaps in the hope of thinking it would impress the young man he was trying to get into his bed.

The offer of $10,000 cash was not accepted and it was Megan Gibson who went to press, saying she thought Hinkle was "creepy" and that since he was a politician the public should know what he was up to. Gibson provided the emails to the press and allowed them to inspect them, as well as showing them the phone log to verify calls from Hinkle. Hinkle, in his "illustrious" career as a political bottom-feeder, has pushed for prayer in state schools, supports "abstinence-only" sex education, was a co-sponsor of legislation to deny marriage rights for gay couples, and pushed through legislation to put "In God We Trust" on car license plates. He is anti-abortion rights, supported a state-wide ban in public places, wants to punish private businesses for hiring "illegal" immigrants, and supported mandating seat belts. He is also anti-gambling. I can see why. He took a bit risk calling a teenaged male for sex, and he lost big time.

Republican theocrats calls Girl Scouts lesbians

Long-time readers will remember that this blog has covered the antics of a far right theocrat from Arizona named Rachel Alexander. She was butt-kisser-in-chief for the then Maricopa County District Attorney, another far Right theocrat named Andrew Thomas. When Thomas tried to send a teenage boy to prison for life, mainly by withholding evidence from the defense, the case eventually turned against him. Alexander then went on the Fox web site and falsely claimed the boy was a child pornographer. She smeared an under-aged kid to try to protectthe reputation of her boss. Well, it didn't help and when the law profession investigated him he went down in flames. Alexander wasn't exactly exonerated either.

Both them were swept into the trash after a top-level investigation revealed severe misuse of powers from the office of Andrew Thomas. Alexander is a crazed fundamentalist with all the bigotries and prejudices that go with that sort of theology. One of her projects was a misnamed website called "Intellectual Conservative." To say the least it was Bible-beating not intellectual.

Now it seems that one of Alexander's co-whores at the site has gotten himself into a little bit of hot water because of his crazed public comments. Hans Zeiger, is Republican running for the Washington state House of Representatives. Like Alexander, he is a Bible-beating loon. It seems that Zeiger published bigoted rants on Alexander's web site. They both helped run the site, or so they claimed. You can see Alexander hawking her law firm, which is one of those specializing in "bankruptcy" cases. on the site. Hmm, maybe she can offer her services to the poor kid she smeared, and whose family had to spend over $500,000 to keep their son out the clutches of her insane boss.

Zieger's little rant against Girl Scouts was, of course, published on Alexander's website. By the way, she has publicly bragged that the site got very few readers, but that she tricked the media and others into taking it seriously. She thought that made her an expert and gave lectures on the topic at an Americans for Prosperity meeting, the people behind the Tea Party. Apparently Herr Hans said other rather extreme and silly things at Rachel's extreme and silly website. But Rachel is doing her duty to try and cover up his indiscretions by wiping out his rants on her site now that they are hurting his campaign.

Zeiger wrote a book praising the Boy Scouts for their policy of throwing out kids who are gay or atheists. That's the sort of hate that the "intellectual conservative" seems to relish. And he said that he is "a leading cultural voice in the battle to preserve the Boy Scout Oath and Law." Humble, ain't he. As expected it was published by a fundamentalist publishing house which claims it shows the attack on "core-Christian values" of the Scouts. Core Christian value? I admit I've been shocked how many brain-dead fundamentalists are now claiming that hating gay kids, throwing them out of the Scouts, is a "core-Christian value." I've seen some of these churches add gay hate clauses to their "statement of faith" on their websites, as if this was an issue that Jesus obsessed over.

Well, Zeiger got into hot water, not because of his deep abiding, but doesn't-get-too-close, love for Boy Scouts, but because of his hatred of Girl Scouts. Okay, he loves Boy Scouts, hates Girl Scouts and is a Republican. Keep a close eye on this one. How wide do you think his stance is?

Hans, a rather unAmerican name for a Republican, but not bad for a Nazi, wrote that the only reason Girl Scouts "have been spared the painful attacks that have been launched upon the Boy Scouts" is "simple." With conservatives everything is "simple." That's all they can grasp, simple things. And the simple thing here is that those nasty little cookie-pushers "allow homosexual and atheists to join their ranks." Unlike the Mormon controlled Boy Scouts they don't throw out gay kids, or kids who are non-believers. That the Girl Scouts don't exhibit the same raw hatred that Hans and Rachel do, makes them evil. Worse! Hans said "they have become a pro-abortion, feminist training corps." Talk about a vicious attack on Scouting! Hans clearly really loves the Boy Scouts, while he really hates the Girl Scouts. And the sole reason the Girl Scouts are Satan's spawn is that they don't expel gay members or members who don't entertain fairy tales as real life.

The really crazy stuff was published at Alexander's website. But she, playing Gretel to our poor little Hans, is doing her best to help cover up his indiscretions by suddenly removing many of his tirades from public view. Hans says this is necessary because they were "distracting" to his campaign. Yea, funny how that sort of thing happens. A few minor indiscretions and there are distractions all over the place.

Maybe he can get his blond-haired, blue-eyed little brown shirts to whip up some God and flag pageantry to take the minds of the masses off of these distractions. A good sermon by Herr Hans on the secret, evil machinations of the Learned Elders of Sodom should help a bit as well. For the finale they have the go out and kick over a few Girl Scout cookie stands. And then he and the young brownshirts can head out to the woods for some manly adventures, while he scares then with Girl Scout stories until quivering with fear..... Never mind.

Does Hans have something to hide. Take a look at this information pages regarding Zeiger. It seems to think he is married to a man named Jim and used to be a critical care nurse. Of course, our manly, man, the Boy Scout lover, Girl Scout hater, wouldn't do that. As far as I can tell Hans isn't married to a man named Jim. It doesn't appear he is married at all. But what do you expect? How could he marry a woman? After all the Girl Scouts are turning them into lesbian, atheists. If the Boy Scout saw this he'd be thrown out.

Then there would be no more manly-man bonding around the camp fire, no more ghost stories until they shiver with fear and come seeking comfort, in an entirely appropriate, Christ-like manner, befitting good conservatives. Not like those liberal, god-haters like Mark Foley or Larry Craig.

By the way, anyone else find it odd that the Boy Scout Memorial shows a Boy Scout with a naked man behind him? I'm not kidding. Worse yet, the boys right wrist seems, well, a bit loose, if you know what I mean. I wonder if manly Hans has seen this? He could write another who book on the topic.

No, I didn't take this too seriously. With clowns like this you can only laugh at them and hope for the best.

Ron Paul signs pledge that would keep most libertarians out!

The Right-wing conservative, or paleo-conservative Ron Paul, who has fooled some libertarians into thinking he's one of them—usually when it comes to raising funds, though not when it comes down to certain votes, has signed a pledge that would keep many, if not most libertarians out of his administration if he were somehow to be elected president.

Paul signed a pledge to "select ONLY pro-life appointees for relevant Cabinet and Executive Branch positions, in particular the head of the National Institute of Health, the Department of Justice, and the Department of Health and Human Services." He also said he would only nominate judges "who are committed to restraint and apply the original meaning of the Constitution...."

A lot of the less-educated libertarians don't understand why that is wrong, and few conservatives do. The judiciary is not supposed to be restrained. It is a equal branch of the federal government not the ugly step-child. Judges are supposed to view government power narrowly and rights broadly. The Bill of Rights was not the be all and end all of rights. It made that clear by stating that there are rights not enumerated in the Constitution, but they are STILL rights. Lets remember what the conservatives are pissed off about.

Take the wholly libertarian decision by the Supreme Court to decriminalize "sodomy," which was a vaguely defined crime under the best of circumstances, contrary to the assumptions of the uninformed. Sometimes it meant oral sex, sometimes it didn't. Sometimes it meant anal sex, sometimes it meant any sex that was not straight-0n vaginal intercourse. They were laws that were selectively enforced as a means of harassment. Targets for this harassment tended to be the black community and the gay community. So, we had laws that were unequally applied to classes of people that were more likely than not, not part of the white, straight culture. In other words, inequality of rights before the law. And that is what the Supreme Court found to be the case. This ruling was praised by libertarians, especially by libertarian law professor Randy Barnett.

But Ron Paul damned it and lamented that it was "a tough summer for social conservatives." Remember a social conservative, by definition is NOT a libertarian. Take a side track for a second. If you support social freedom, non-intervention and free markets you are a libertarian. Drop any of those and you are NOT a libertarian. If you support "free" markets, social conservatism and interventionist foreign policies, you are a full on conservative (though you can be very, very weak on free markets). If you reject the war policies, but embrace state regulation of social freedom, and want free markets then you are a paleo-conservative. But a paleo-conservative is NOT a libertarian no matter how much some of them insist they are.

A prime function of courts is supposed to be to protect us from government which infringes liberty. That is why it a judicial branch was created, among other purposes. It rarely does it, certainly not as much as it should. But, when it does it should be applauded, not damned. Only social conservatives damn it when it does that and Ron Paul is a social conservative.

Paul whined because the court ruled "that Texas had no right to establish its own standards for private sexual conduct, because gay sodomy is somehow protect under the 14th amendment 'right to privacy.'" Actually Paul is ignorant, yet again, of the facts. The ruling was made on the basis of unequal status before the law. Texas had repealed the sections of sodomy laws that applied to everyone and only had laws that now applied to gay people, exempting heterosexuals. It was a case of inequality before the law. Conservatives embrace such inequality, not libertarians. Ron Paul embraces such inequality, not libertarians.

Take a real legal scholar like Randy Barnett, instead of the usually befuddled Paul, as more aware of the libertarian position on the constitution. Barnett has argued that the "equal protection clause" of the 14th Amendment, along with the 9th and 10th Amendments create a "presumption in favor of liberty." He argues that this legal foundation means the courts should presume that liberty is the favor position in ANY ruling, even the rulings that confused, old men of Christianist bent don't like.

Consider the following material from this man: "The State of Texas has the right to decide for itself how to regulate social matters like sex, using its own local standards." That doesn't sound libertarian to me. It sounds like the typical remark from a conservative. First off, Texas as a state, has no rights. It might have powers, but only individual have rights, not governments. Second, libertarians hold that no government, not even local government, has the right to violate the rights of individuals. Conservatives use the "states' rights" argument as a trump card to destroy individual rights. Libertarians use individual rights as the trump card to destroy state power. It is clear what side Ron Paul is on here and he isn't a good guy.

Compare Ayn Rand to the conservative Paul. She said that the concept "states' rights" ONLY "pertains to the division of power between local and national authorities, and serves to protect the states from the Federal government: it does not grant to a state government an unlimited, arbitrary power over its citizens or the privilege of abrogating the citizens' individual rights." Paul's position is that it does give the state UNLIMITED powers to do anything to the citizen it wishes to do because, he argues, NONE of the bill of rights applies to state governments. Ron Paul's "constitutional theory" is one of total and complete control, without limitations, by state governments, except perhaps what the state constitutions may say. And Paul is an advocate of changing constitutions to restrict liberty according to local "community" standards.

Well, at least he says he is. But when the District of Columbia repealed its sodomy law the Moral Majority and other theocrats were in furry over it. They immediately started invoking their "divine" calling to make other people miserable and insisted that the US Congress should overturn the local community standards. And Ron Paul rushed to the barricades, once again, to support repressive social legislation that fit his narrow-fundamentalist mind-set. To justify his unlibertarian position Paul resorted to his favorite tactic—lying: just as he pretends to this day to not know that his good buddy and confidant wrote those racists tirades in the Ron Paul Newsletter.

Ron Paul does what I call the "Ron Paul Shuffle," when he is trying to divert attention from some anti-freedom position he has taken. He misdirects the public, usually by lying, about the legislation, or by finding some less than convincing excuse for his vote. In this case he said he had to vote for sodomy laws because the DC law lowered rape penalties. This, form the guy who argued that Texas had the right to legally harass gay people for having sex because it was their local, community standard. What about lynching? Was that a local, community standard as well? The community standard excuse is one Paul holds to, except when he doesn't. So community standards in DC didn't matter, the Christianist agenda of the Moral Majority mattered more.

And while the DC law did lower rape penalties. it was reduced at the request of anti-rape groups. The penalty was so high that juries were reluctant to convict when they had the slightest doubt, even if the evidence of guilt was pretty strong. Prosecutors and anti-rape advocates both supported the revision, because it would make it easier to send rapists to jail. Ron Paul lied when he said he was defending sodomy laws, because he wanted to get rapists. In truth, he was making it easier to let rapists off, in order to persecute people for sodomy.

Consider Paul's newest anti-gay campaign, the Defense of Marriage Act. Until this odious piece of legislation the federal government bowed to the states when it came to defining the legal state of marriage. If you were married in any state, the federal government recognized your marriage because it was a state power to regulate marriage, not a federal power. Ron Paul, that great advocate of "states' rights" wants to strip states of that power by setting a federal definition which says the federal government many not recognize state marriage licenses, but only if they are given to gay people.

Paul is quite happy for the federal government to recognize the marriages of heterosexual couples that are issued by the states. The only marriage licenses he has to pretend it doesn't see are those given to gay couples. Once again "community standards" of those states are ignored. Paul's principles are selectively enforced and, when it comes to gay men and lesbian women, Paul's principles are only used against them.

Another selective use of states' rights by Paul is that the pledge he signed also commits him to signing into law an anti-abortion federal law "to protect unborn children." Unborn children? Think about that concept for a minute, it is truly bizarre. Maybe we can call people "pre-dead corpses" and have fun with that theory too. But Paul's "principles" are very flexible indeed. He wants community standards to control private conduct except in the case of DC that legalized sodomy and except when it comes to a federal law restricting abortions. Isn't it funny that Ron Paul always abandons his so-called principles when it comes to his moralistic, religious agenda. Remember he is a fundamentalist Christian, he didn't used to be, but he converted.

Another issue which will be ignored by the Rondroids is that the federal legislation that Paul has pledged himself to support justifies federal abortion control under the auspices of the congressional power "to regulate Commerce... among the several states" which libertarian attorney David Kopel notes, "is plainly unconstitutional under the original meaning of interstate commerce." Kopel noted that Paul opposed a measure to restrict anti-gun lawsuits because he said it relied on too broad an interpretation of "interstate commerce." Kopel, a contributor to several law journals, said Paul got the whole argument wrong because the purpose of the interstate commerce clause was to expand trade among the states, not restrict it. Yet, when it comes to abortion Paul pledges himself to a vast expansion so that the interstate commerce clause would apply to whether or not a woman chooses to carry a pregnancy to term. Under "interstate commerce" it appears Ron Paul thinks a woman's uterus is subject to federal control.

In closing let me quote something Ayn Rand said about another noxious advocate of states' rights, the racist George Wallace. I think what Ayn said about Wallace would apply quite well to the clownish conspiracist from Texas. He is "no defender of individual rights, but merely of states' rights—which is far, far from being the same thing. When he denounces 'Big Government,' it is not the unlimited, arbitrary power of the state that he is denouncing—and he seeks to place the same unlimited, arbitrary power in the hands of many little governments. The break-up of a big gang into a number of warring small gangs is not a return to a constitutional system nor to individual rights, nor to law and order." Amen!

I should add that the Gov. Gary Johnson, who is far more libertarian than the fake libertarian, Ron Paul, has refused to cave into the Religious Right and not signed the pledge. And, all the Rondroid fanatics who drool over the drooling clown from Texas, don't bother leaving your hate messages. Comments are moderated and insults, slanders and attacks won't be posted. If you can argue, and give evidence, that any of this is wrong, then go ahead. That will be published, just not you insults and slanders. And, by the way, if you think you have a good argument, then leave out the insults and slander if you want it posted.

Republican Wants to Give Rapists Free Pass

A Republican State Representative, Ryan Fattman, wants to give rapists a free pass provided they make sure they rape women who are "illegal" immigrants. Republicans, the organized party of hate in America, were protesting the decision by Gov. Patrick to not join a federal "Secure Comminities" program that tuns local cops into immigration thugs.

The Governor noted that law enforcement says that such measures push the immigrant community away from cooperating with the police when it comes to criminal investigations—and by criminal I mean things that actually violate the rights of others, not the kind of "crimes" Republicans want enforce, which merely offend the tastes of fundamentalist Christians.

Fattman was asked about a female "illegal" immigrant who might be raped and then afraid to come forward to report the rapist. Exuding the love of Christ that is so typical of Republicans, Fattman said: "My thought is that if someone is here illegally, they should be afraid to come forward." He then repeated the lie bigots use to excuse their bigotry: "If you do it [immigrate] the right way, you don't have to be concerned about these things."

I will try to explain this slowly, so that even mentally-challenged Republican office holders can understand. First, it is almost completely impossible to "do it the right way," thanks to their big government, bureaucratic hurdles meant to actually prevent people from immigrating legally. When my ancestors came to the US, they just got on a boat and then walked in. They didn't have to hire immigration attorneys and jump through the hoops that the hate-mongers have erected to prevent immigration. One actually just walked across the border, from Canada. Damn him, but for that I could have been born in a free country!

Fattman also said the principle of "innocent until proven guilty" doesn't "extend to illegal immigrants." And he is not worried about racial profiling. Of course not. Neither is the Klan.

Now I wonder if a child is raped, who is hear illegal, if Fattman's hatred goes so far as to claim that the rapist of the child shouldn't be reported because the "illegals" have to be taught a lesson.

Let us assume that Mr. Fattman has managed to find a brain-dead female, besotted enough with the Bible to marry him. Let us assume that one night she is walking home from her local church five minute of hate meeting against gay, illegal, Muslim, Mexicans. Along the way a good, God-fearing 'Merican, who had the sense to be born here in the first place, not like them "take-our-jobs, welfare-consuming brown people, comes up to Mrs. Fattman and violently has his way with her, as his contribution to the furtherance of the white race.

Mrs. Fattman is not a particularly observant woman, hence the reason she married Fattman in the first place. She doesn't notice the "God, Guns & Guts" bumper sticker on the pick-up truck, or the license plate number as her rapists drives off to his local Klavern meeting at the GOP offices. But, not far off, is a one of those 'Mexcans" who came here illegally. He say the entire rape. In fact he got a photo of the rapists, clear as day, along with the license plate number.

Then he thought about calling the police to give them the evidence. But then he remembers that Fattman and his fellow fanatics said that people like him should be afraid "to come forward." And he doesn't. He erases the photo. He doesn't call the police. He goes home to his family and tells them it was an uneventful day. Of course if Mrs. Fattman got pregnant then Mr. Fattman would want to force her to carry the pregnancy to term. After all that baby was coming into the country the right way!

In the end Fattman and others like him are telling "illegal" immigrants that if they witness a crime they shouldn't report it. If they can testify against a murderer they better keep their mouths shut. If they know where the child-killer lives, keep that information to themselves. Even if they are learn of some real terrorist plot, "they should be afraid to come forward." And this is what passes for "tough on crime" in Republicans circles. They would rather catch someone for the non-victim crime of looking for a job without government permission slips, that catch rapists, killers or terrorists. They hate immigrants so much they would rather give a free pass to real criminals.

Republicans throw red meat to their bigot base.

The Minnesota legislature is spending a lot of time debating how evil gay people are because the Republicans, who control the legislature, are convinced that is what the leader of the GOP, Jesus, wants them to do. Apparently they missed the rapture just like everyone else.

On the very day they were to vote on embedding the state Constitution with an anti-gay clause demanding second class citizenship for deGays, they brought in a moronic fundamentalist minister to open the session in prayer. Here is the video tape. Like the typical fundamentalist he couldn't resist the opportunity to turn the opening prayer into a tirade reflecting the paranoid, bigoted views of the fundamentalist mind-set. He argues the God is the founder of the country and by not letting God run the country we created problems. As he says, we all know (a clear sign they will make something up) that the problems of the country weren't here in 1776 but only arose when "we" thought we could run the country. A few million slaves might disagree about the utopian nature of 1776. But, those people don't count. He mentions "Father" and "Father-God" repeatedly as he reads his "prayer." But it isn't a prayer, it is a fringe far-Right lecture to the legislature by a man who doesn't know better than dress in what looks like a track suit when he opens the legislature.

He then talks about the soldiers who died in the various wars, though he gets Iwo Jima wedged between Korea and Vietnam and he seems to say these soliders "ratified" the Constitution. As bad as his lecture was at the start his closing got worse. I quote:

"I know this is a non-denominational prayer in this Chamber and it’s not about the Baptists and it’s not about the Catholics alone or the Lutherans or the Wesleyans. Or the Presbyterians the evangelicals or any other denomination but rather the head of the denomination and his name is Jesus. As every President up until 2008 has acknowledged. And we pray it. In Jesus’ name."

Clearly he doesn't understand what non-denomination means, he seems to think it has only to do with Christians and that all other religions don't count. His idea of non-denomination is invoking Jesus, which many Jewish citizens might question. We will ignore Muslims, Buddhist, humanists and others since we know they don't have any rights at all. But the theocrats in the Republican Party do claim a "Judeo-Christian" heritage but throw the Jews under the bus anytime they find it convenient.

In addition he publicly accuses Obama of not being a Christian, probably implying he is a Muslim. He pretends every President "up until 2008" has acknowledged Jesus as the head of their denomination. Not quite, but then he thinks soldiers at Iwo Jima ratified the constitution. But since Obama was elected in 2008 he is quite clearly attacking the president as not being a real Christian. He also said, as the bottom youtube link proves, that Obama allegedly said "we are no longer a Christian nation, we are a Muslim nation." Listen for yourself, if you don't believe me.

This intentional insult to President Obama, and this misuse of the opening prayer, caused something of a kerfuffle in the chambers. Republicans scurried to cover-up the entire things. They pretended that Rev. Dean had not been there and started the session over again, with the House chaplain giving a new prayer. They also removed from the incident from the house journal so it is as if the prayer never happened.

Rev. Dean has previously made remarks that sounded quite sympathetic to the idea of executing gay people but now claims he was misquoted. But he told reporters he does want it to be a crime to be gay, so he apparently he only wants them in prison. But what he said indicates he is lying now. He said: "Muslims are calling for the executions of homosexuals in America. this just shows you they themselves are upholding the laws that even in the Bible of the Judeo-Christian God, but they seem to be more moral than even the American Christians do, because these people are living about enforcing their laws. They know homosexuality is an abomination." Dean went on:

If American won't enforce the laws, God will raise up a foreign enemy to do just that. That is what you are seeing in America. The bottom line is this... they (gay people) play the victim when they are, in fact, the predator. On average they molest 117 people before they're found out. How many kinds have been destroyed, how many adults have been destroyed because of crimes against nature?

Do the math yourself. There are around 15 million gay people in the United States, possibly more, but 15 million is a conservative estimate. If they "molest" an average of 117 people that would be 1.7 billion people. But there are only just over 300 million people in the United States. Apparently that explains why gays go on vacation, they've molested every single American, perhaps several times over and have to move on to other countries. Do you really think that this is even possible? But hatred makes people say stupid things, and if the people aren't that smart to begin with, they say spectacularly stupid things.

Dean dismissed the problems he created saying: "I said a prayer. If a prayer starts a firestorm, so be it." Actually praying seems to be the last thing he doing, he is preaching under the guise of praying.

The Republican who invited Dean to "pray" backtracked and said he knew nothing about the man and his view, which he likened to "radical thinking—that kind of thinking, I think back to Nazi German...I don't agree with that." House Speaker Kurt Zellers said, "That kind of person will never, ever be allowed on the House floor again." Even the Catholic Conference said the prayer was turned "into a polemic and his words divided rather than brought people together."

Republicans delayed a vote on the anti-gay amendment as a result, but will reschedule it and insist they intend to pass it regardless.

Rev. Dean is a favorite of one of the worst anti-libertarian Republicans around, Michelle Bachman.

Below you can hear Dean saying the very things he now denies ever saying. Lying for Jesus again.

By the way Rev. Dean has been given, free of charge, display booths at Republican conventions to push his agenda. Dean said: "They invited and they gave us a free table. Amen." He has also received money from a major Republican candidate, Tom Emmers, who has run for governor and Congress as a Republican. Republicans want to keep the "base" of fundamentalists happy but not get tainted by the poison that is fundamentalism. That is not an easy task.

Mushy libertarianism vs the religious impulse.

One of the themes that I periodically pay attention to is what I call the mushy libertarianism of the American mainstream. I wrote that the mainstream politics in this country is libertarian but "not consistent" and "not principled." I have called this mushy libertarianism a revival of the Mugwumps.

A new poll from Associated Press backs up my general analysis. Over and over the dominant opinion, among Americas, leans in a libertarian direction. Here are some of the details:

Three-quarters of the public say that the US Constitution "is an enduring document that remains relevant today." Sixty percent say that that the "rule of law" should come first, even if it does at the expense of public safety.

The Religious Right regularly argues that the rights of gay people should be subjected to a majority vote. The majority doesn't agree. Just 35% say, "If a majority of people want something to happen, the rights of a few shouldn't stand in the way" and 62% agree that "the rights of everyone should be protected, even when that means saying no to something majority of people want to happen."

Only one in four Americans would support giving the president more power, even if it would improve the economy. Three-quarters of the public opposed the idea. Half the public say "it is up to each individual to secure health insurance" and less than half say the government ought to provide it. But 83% oppose the central feature of Obama's health care plan, government mandates requiring people to buy health insurance.

Half of all Americans say they favor a way for illegal immigrants, already in the country, to legalize their position, while just under half oppose the idea. Seventy-percent agree that "people should have the right say what they believe even if they take positions that seem deeply offensive to most people."

A clear majority, 58%, now believe that same-sex couples are entitled to same benefits as opposite-sex couples and that government should not distinguish between them. In 2008, 51% agreed, in 2009 it was 54%. While support rose by 7 points opposition declined by 5 points. Even more encouraging, from a libertarian point of view, is that a majority of Americans now believe the federal government ought to recognize gay marriages: 52% to 46% opposed. This is the second national poll in recent weeks showing a majority of Americans now support gay marriage.

Fifty-one percent of Americans say that gun control laws "infringe" the right to keep and bear arms. A plurality, 42%, say that the government restricts too much information from the public.

One area where the majority goes wrong is that 64% do not thinking that banning minors from violent video games is a proper function of government. One thing you can be sure of is that if people are afraid their children are at risk they turn into raving maniacs willing to lynch anyone. This is the sort of irrational fear that the National Organization for Marriage relies upon with their anti-gay scare commercials.

Other results of interest include the fact that 43% of the public are not confident in the federal government, only 10% are strongly confident in the feds. Similarly 37% are not confident in state governments, where 10% are, and 49% are not confident in Congress, where 7% are. Other areas with high levels of distrust are: banks, 52%; large corporations , 42%; labor unions, 41%; the media, 38%; blogs, 54%; organized religion, 35%; and public schools, 37%.

Other matters of interest is that 36% of the public consider themselves to be born-again Christians and 24% say they don't belong to a religion.

A different poll indicates that almost all opposition to equality of rights for gay people is rooted in religion, and not based on other concerns. Sixty-percent of conservatives admit that they oppose same-sex marriage because of their religion. All the evidence shows that opposition to legal equality exists because people want their religion legislated onto others:

Almost six-in-ten regular churchgoers (59%) say their clergy speak out on the issue of abortion, higher than for any other issue in the survey except hunger and poverty (88%). Despite divided opinions on abortion among Catholics as a whole, seven-in-ten Catholics (70%) who attend church at least once a month report that their clergy speak out on the issue of abortion. Similarly, 65% of white evangelical Protestants and 55% of black Protestants who attend services at least once a month report that their clergy talk about abortion, while fewer mainline Protestants (39%) say this.

Among those who attend religious services at least once a month and say abortion should be illegal in most or all cases, two-thirds (66%) report having heard about the issue from their clergy. Among regular worship attenders who think abortion should be legal in most or all cases, fewer (50%) report having heard about this issue from their clergy. Half of those who say their clergy speak out on abortion cite religion as the most important influence on their views on abortion, compared with 29% of those who do not hear from their clergy about the issue.

On the issue of same-sex marriage, about four-in-ten Americans (41%) say they favor allowing gays and lesbians to marry legally while 48% are opposed. A slight majority of Democrats (52%) favor same-sex marriage, while independents are evenly split (44% favor, 45% oppose) and two-thirds (67%) of Republicans are opposed. Democrats are divided sharply along racial lines; 63% of white Democrats favor same-sex marriage, compared with just 27% of black Democrats and 46% of Hispanic Democrats.

This sort of theocratic viewpoint applies even to laws forbidding gay people to openly serve in the military—something the Republican Party just killed in the U.S. Senate with unanimous support from their caucus. In other words, not a single Republican Senator voted to allow gay people to serve in the military.

On the matter of gays in the military 60% of all Americans support equality. Even a slim plurality of Republicans, 47-43%, support equality. Of all the various subgroups the only group to oppose allowing gay people to serve in the military are white evangelical Christians, where a plurality 47-43% oppose the measure. Most blacks support equality here, most conservatives do, most independent voters do—only white born again Christians oppose the measure and that appears to be the ONLY group in American politics that Republicans listen to.