Sad to say, "... step by step, opinion by opinion, Roberts is stamping his image on the institution."

...................................................................................................................................................................
How John Roberts’ Supreme Court Is Slowly Bridging the Political Divide

Partisans are crowing about Monday's divided Supreme Court decision, but ideological division appears to be on decline in the nation's highest court

By David Von Drehle, June 30, 2014

Nine years into his service as Chief Justice, John Roberts may finally have shaped the nation’s highest tribunal into a “Roberts Court.” The term that ended on Monday was a reflection of goals that Roberts set during his 2005 confirmation hearings—more unanimous opinions, for example, and a more modest idea of the Supreme Court’s role in society.

Despite two 5-to-4 splits on the final day of term, in cases involving union dues and the Affordable Care Act, the Roberts Court delivered unanimous opinions in more than 60 percent of the cases decided this year, the highest percentage in decades. That doesn’t happen by accident. As the eminent Constitutional authority Lawrence Tribe of Harvard Law School has noted, a number of these 9-to-0 opinions contain significant disputes just beneath the surface. The Roberts Court is placing high value, in a time of polarized government, on finding common ground in spite of real philosophical differences.

And there was something distinctive about those 5-to-4 calls on the final day, as well. Faced with sharp splits that could not be papered over, Roberts assigned the same associate justice to write both of the opinions: Samuel Alito.

Alito is a fascinating judge—that is, if modesty and predictability happen to fascinate you. Arguably the purest conservative on the Court, Alito disdains the sort of flashy, rhetorical disagreement perfected by Antonin Scalia and former Justice John Paul Stevens, the dueling dissenters of the earlier Rehnquist Court. His Monday rulings reflected both his conservatism and his judicial modesty. In a case challenging the power of public employee unions to impose fees on non-members, Alito’s opinion went against the union. But he stopped well short of the sweeping blow that anti-union politicians and pundits were hoping for.

Likewise, in a case asking whether the owners of private corporations can be forced to provide contraception methods that offend their religious beliefs, Alito anchored a majority in favor of the owners. But his opinion was hedged throughout. Questions of how the ruling might apply to publicly traded corporations, or whether it might apply to other religious convictions, were left for another day.

In 2005, Roberts famously compared this narrow approach to a baseball umpire calling balls and strikes. The umpire is not making a blanket ruling covering every conceivable pitch. The idea is to frame a strike zone and apply it consistently on a pitch-by-pitch basis. The fact that Alito wrote both of the last-day opinions suggests that he’s the justice that Roberts wants behind the plate on the close calls. This matters because the Chief Justice has so few powers, and one of the most important is that when the Chief is part of the majority, he gets to choose the writer.

By such small increments, change comes to the Supreme Court. It is, by its nature, a slow-moving institution. And the Chief Justice is the least powerful of the leaders of the branches of American government—just one of nine voices, all with an equal say in which cases the Court will hear and how they will be decided. But step by step, opinion by opinion, Roberts is stamping his image on the institution. The term that ended on Monday put us clearly into the Roberts Court era.
...................................................................................................................................................................

"A government that derives its power from the state’s richest corporations can never serve the interests of the people."

...................................................................................................................................................................
An ugly truth
June 30, 2014

Thanks to one upset lawmaker, Kansans got a rare look recently at the inner workings of Topeka — and the tenuous relationship between lawmakers and high-dollar lobbyists.

And there wasn’t a thing at all pretty about it.

This year, Rep. Scott Schwab, R-Olathe, didn’t receive an endorsement from the Kansas Chamber of Commerce, something that has come automatically for the lawmaker during the past 12 years. But this year there was a slight wrinkle: Schwab didn’t fall in line with the Kansas Chamber and the Koch Industries lobbyists that sought a repeal of the Renewable Portfolio Standard, which requires utility companies to produce 20 percent of their energy from renewable sources by 2020.

In response, Schwab fired off a letter to his supporters outlining his suspicions for why the Kansas Chamber had turned its back on him after so many years of endorsements. By Schwab’s account, it boils down to this: Koch Industries, which makes much of its money from oil and gas, wanted a repeal of the RPS. The Kansas Chamber followed suit and withdrew its annual support for Schwab and nearly any lawmaker who didn’t unquestionably support the RPS repeal. Perhaps more telling is the way in which Schwab described the treatment, and thinly veiled threats leveled at him by those who sought the repeal.

Wind energy was one issue pushed by lobbyists and think tanks, but it certainly wasn’t the only one. Education, legal reform, tax policy and a variety of other issues all have drawn the interest of groups like the Kansas Chamber of Commerce and Americans for Prosperity. And on each of those issues, those groups ensure lawmakers know how they’re expected to vote, and the consequences of dissent.

And remember, Schwab’s no liberal — he’s a bona fide conservative, who regularly votes in the interests of Kansas businesses, enough to win years of endorsements from the Kansas Chamber of Commerce. But this year, when Schwab had the nerve to question if Kansas businesses truly sought the repeal, he found himself crosswise with some of the most powerful political players in the state — despite large support for wind energy from businesses and residents in Kansas.

So let’s put aside all this talk about whether issues fall on the conservative or liberal side of the isle [sic] and face the fact that the political structure in Kansas has been turned on its head and does not serve the interests of most Republicans, Democrats or independents.

When a lawmaker says that a lobbyist “lit into” him for raising a question about who supported the RPS repeal, there’s no clearer sign that lobbyists view lawmakers as tools who work for them. When those same groups feel empowered to affect and influence elections and are willing to support unknown and untested candidates, we should know that they are not interested in a government that represents Kansans.

A government that derives its power from the state’s richest corporations can never serve the interests of the people. And a Legislature that falls victim and wilts to threats and bullying from high-dollar lobbyists has ceded the authority given to it by the people of Kansas.
...................................................................................................................................................................

"... it’s just a victory for one kind of religion, specifically the (usually conservative) faith of those privileged enough to own and operate massive corporations."

...................................................................................................................................................................
Why Today’s Hobby Lobby Decision Actually Hurts People Of Faith
By Jack Jenkins, June 30, 2014

In response to today’s Supreme Court decision on Burwell v. Hobby Lobby, which allowed the the craft store giant and other “closely-held corporations” to be granted religious exemption from the Affordable Care Act’s (ACA) contraception mandate, political and religious conservatives are framing the case as a “win” for religious liberty. Reince Priebus, chairman of the Republican National Committee, released a statement celebrating the ruling and saying, “The central issue of this case was whether the federal government can coerce Americans to violate their deeply held religious beliefs.” Gov. Bobby Jindal (R-LA) echoed this sentiment in his own statement, saying, “the Court has made it clear today that the Obama administration’s assault on religious freedom in this case went too far.” Meanwhile, Russell Moore, President of the Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention, tweeted, “#HobbyLobby wins. This is a great day for religious liberty. Government is not lord of the conscience.”

But while conservatives would have the American public believe that protecting Hobby Lobby is about protecting all religious people, the reality is that today’s ruling actually hurts people of faith. In fact, a Public Religion Research Institute (PRRI) survey conducted in early June found that a substantial majority of almost every major U.S. Christian group support the idea that publicly-held corporations and privately-owned corporations should be required to provide employees with healthcare plans that cover contraception and birth control at no cost. This is likely why so many progressive Christian leaders have vocally opposed Hobby Lobby in the press, why Americans United for the Separation of Church and State submitted an amicus brief to the Supreme Court opposing Hobby Lobby on behalf of nearly 30 religious organizations, and why both the Jewish Social Policy Action Network and the American Jewish Committee submitted their own amicus briefs decrying the corporation’s position.

And while white evangelicals were an outlier in the PRRI poll — only 40 percent of evangelical respondents supported the ACA’s contraception mandate for privately-owned corporations — a sizable cadre of conservative Christians have publicly articulated nuanced, faith-based opposition to the case in recent months, drawing attention to the fact that Hobby Lobby only speaks for a small minority of people of faith in America. David Gushee, an evangelical Christian professor of Christian Ethics and director of the Center for Theology and Public Life at Mercer University, offered an extensive treatment of the case in the Associated Baptist Press in April. He examined the issue from the perspective of a Christian theologian, noting that any attempt to broaden the legal status of businesses to include religious exemptions — however well-intentioned — is inconsistent, dangerous, and unfair to other religious Americans.

“One way to look at it is this: The whole point of establishing a corporation is to create an entity separate from oneself to limit legal liability,” he writes. “Therefore, Hobby Lobby is asking for special protections/liability limits that only a corporation can get on the one hand, and special protections that only individuals, churches and religious organizations get, on the other. It seems awfully dangerous to allow corporations to have it both ways.“

In addition to fearing the social implications of a pro-Hobby Lobby ruling, other evangelical Christians take umbrage with the theological premise undergirding their case — namely, that opposing the ACA mandate is somehow an extension of a pro-life position. Richard Cizik, former Vice President for Governmental Affairs for the National Association of evangelicals, wrote in the Huffington Post this weekend that evangelicals who support Hobby Lobby “are not actually being pro-religious freedom or pro-life.” Similarly, Julia K. Stronks, evangelical Christian and political science professor at Whitworth University, teamed up with Jeffrey F. Peipert, a Jewish family-planning physician, to pen an op-ed for Roll Call earlier this month in which they argue that granting Hobby Lobby religious exemption will actually lead to more abortions. They write:

Although the owners of these for-profit corporations oppose the contraceptive requirement because of their pro-life religious beliefs, the requirement they oppose will dramatically reduce abortions. … Imagine a million fewer unintended pregnancies. Imagine healthier babies, moms and families. Imagine up to 800,000 fewer abortions. No matter your faith or political beliefs, our hunch is that we can all agree that fewer unplanned pregnancies and fewer abortions would be a blessing.

Jonathan Merritt, an evangelical Christian writer and blogger for the Religion News Service, went even further in his theological challenge to the case, arguing that conservative evangelicals shouldn’t call businesses “Christian” in the first place.

“The New Testament never—not one time—applies the ‘Christian’ label to a business or even a government,” he writes. “The tag is applied only to individuals. If the Bible is your ultimate guide, the only organization one might rightly term ‘Christian’ is a church. And this is only because a church in the New Testament is not a building or a business, but a collection of Christian individuals who have repented, believed on Christ, and are pursuing a life of holiness.”

These voices represent the majority of religious Americans who insist that today’s pro-Hobby Lobby decision isn’t about protecting “religious liberty.” Instead, it’s just a victory for one kind of religion, specifically the (usually conservative) faith of those privileged enough to own and operate massive corporations. That might be good news for the wealthy private business owners like the heads of Hobby Lobby, but for millions of religious Americans sitting in the pews — not to mention thousands working in Hobby Lobby stores — their sacred and constitutional right to religious freedom just became compromised.
...................................................................................................................................................................

"The distinction between a community made up of believers in the same religion and one embracing persons of diverse beliefs ... constantly escapes the Court’s attention." Meow.....

...................................................................................................................................................................
Read Justice Ginsburg's Passionate 35-Page Dissent of Hobby Lobby Decision
By Abby Ohlheiser, June 30, 2014

On Monday, the Supreme Court sided with Hobby Lobby on the company's challenge to the Affordable Care Act's contraceptive mandate, ruling that the mandate, as applied to "closely held" businesses, violates the 1993 Religious Freedom Restoration Act. But the divided court's 5-4 decision included a dramatic dissent from Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who called the majority opinion "a decision of startling breadth." Ginsburg read a portion of her decision from the bench on Monday.

Addressing the majority of her colleagues — including all but one of the six men sitting on the Supreme Court — Ginsburg wrote:

In the Court’s view, RFRA demands accommodation of a for-profit corporation’s religious beliefs no matter the impact that accommodation may have on third parties who do not share the corporation owners’ religious faith—in these cases, thousands of women employed by Hobby Lobby and Conestoga or dependents of persons those corporations employ. Persuaded that Congress enacted RFRA to serve a far less radical purpose, and mindful of the havoc the Court’s judgment can introduce, I dissent. 

The justice goes on to criticize the opinion's interpretation of the religious freedom law, writing that "until today, religious exemptions had never been extended to any entity operating in 'the commercial, profit-making world.'" 

The reason why is hardly obscure. Religious organizations exist to foster the interests of persons subscribing to the same religious faith. Not so of for-profit corporations. Workers who sustain the operations of those corporations commonly are not drawn from one religious community. Indeed, by law, no religion-based criterion can restrict the work force of for-profit corporations...The distinction between a community made up of believers in the same religion and one embracing persons of diverse beliefs, clear as it is, constantly escapes the Court’s attention. One can only wonder why the Court shuts this key difference from sight.

"In sum," Ginsburg adds about the free exercise claims at the heart of this case,“‘[y]our right to swing your arms ends just where the other man’s nose begins.’”

Justice Alito got a little prickly in his majority opinion about Ginsburg's strong criticism of their take on the case:

As this description of our reasoning shows, our holding is very specific. We do not hold, as the principal dissent alleges, that for-profit corporations and other commercial enterprises can “opt out of any law (saving only tax laws) they judge incompatible with their sincerely held religious beliefs.” Post, at 1 (opinion of GINSBURG, J.). Nor do we hold, as the dissent implies, that such corporations have free rein to take steps that impose “disadvantages . . . on others” or that require “the general public [to] pick up the tab.” Post, at 1–2. And we certainly do not hold or suggest that “RFRA demands accommodation of a for-profit corporation’s religious beliefs no matter the impact that accommodation may have on . . . thousands of women employed by Hobby Lobby.” Post, at 2.1 The effect of the HHS-created accommodation on the women employed by Hobby Lobby and the other companies involved in these cases would be precisely zero. Under that accommodation, these women would still be entitled to all FDA-approved contraceptives without cost sharing. 

Ginsburg seems to reply to Alito by suggesting that what Alito sees as a narrow, limited decision is essentially an invitation for lots of future challenges on religious grounds: "Although the Court attempts to cabin its language to closely held corporations," she writes,  "its logic extends to corporations of any size, public or private. Little doubt that RFRA claims will proliferate."

The full Ginsburg dissent is below:

Ginsburg Dissent
...................................................................................................................................................................

"... a general sense of how much money a politician has raised and from what sources ..."

...................................................................................................................................................................
Contribution Explorer Shows Who Is Contributing to Politicians
By Dave Greenbaum, June 29, 2014

[snipped]

If you've ever wondered who contributed to your Congressional delegation, you could use public records to look it up. Brian Clifton has created a web site that will do all that looking up for you.

After you put in a name, the web site lists the total contributions and breakdown by industry. It presents the information in an overview format, so it won't break down the individual or company contributions but it's good for a quick glance. Contribution Explorer pulls data from Open Secrets, which has more details, but Contribution Explorer is much easier to read. If all you want is a general sense of how much money a politician has raised and from what sources, check out the link.
...................................................................................................................................................................

"... a picture-perfect contrast between the powers that be and the powers that ought to be. ... It's time to toss these corporate oligarchs out of the people's business.

...................................................................................................................................................................
Koch brothers stunned to find some non-rich people in their lobby
By Jim Hightower, June 27, 2014

The gabillionaire Koch brothers feel entitled to occupy the people's elections, barging in with sacks full of corporate cash. So, how would the brothers feel if the people barged into their political affairs?

To find out, a few citizens recently paid a visit to "Koch Companies Public Sector," the grandiose name the brothers give to their Wash-ing-ton, D.C., lobbying headquarters. From there, a covey of high-dollar, Koch-headed, sapsucker lobbyists flits all around town trying to get lawmakers to take away our Social Security, Medicare, minimum wage, etc. – while also making sure that the two "free-enterprise" proselytizers keep getting their billion-dollar-a-year package of government subsidies.

So, some "commoners" came calling on the Kochs. Okay, it was more than some – more like 600. They're affiliated with National People's Action, a scrappy, grassroots network of farmers, workers, clergy, retirees, environmentalists, students, and just plain folks.

The visitors occupied the grand lobby of the lobbyists' building – forming a picture-perfect contrast between the powers that be and the powers that ought to be. First, a couple of ministers in the NPA group called on the Kochs to "repent" their narcissistic political push to pervert our democracy into their privatized plutocracy. Then, several of the out-of-towners gave personal testimony about the real-life impact the Kochs' extremist ideological agenda is having. Patricia Fuller, for example, told of struggling to make it on Michigan's $7.40-an-hour minimum wage, then asked why the billionaires would spend millions to try to knock it lower – or, as Charles Koch advocates, eliminating America's wage floor entirely.

Of course, the visitors were tossed out, but their point was made: It's time to toss these corporate oligarchs out of the people's business.
...................................................................................................................................................................

"... the Texas GOP invokes religion and false ideas of the Founding Fathers to promote their blatantly anti-science stances"

...................................................................................................................................................................
The Texas GOP Stands on a Platform of Ignorance

Everything really is bigger down in Texas, including our embarrassments.

By Mac McCann, June 28, 2014

Texas has a lot of things to be proud of. The Republican Party of Texas, however, is not one of them. Turns out everything really is bigger down in Texas, including our embarrassments.

Taking cues from the national party, the Texas GOP invokes religion and false ideas of the Founding Fathers to promote their blatantly anti-science stances. Texas Gov. Rick Perry recently compared the homosexual "lifestyle" to being an alcoholic. In its recently-finished 2014 party platform, Texas Republicans offer the following stances on homosexuality and reparative therapy:

Homosexuality: Homosexuality is a chosen behavior that is contrary to the fundamental unchanging truths that have been ordained by God in the Bible, recognized by our nation’s founders, and shared by the majority of Texans. Homosexuality must not be presented as an acceptable alternative lifestyle, in public policy, nor should family be redefined to include homosexual couples. We believe there should be no granting of special legal entitlements or creation of special status for homosexual behavior, regardless of state of origin. Additionally, we oppose any criminal or civil penalties against those who oppose homosexuality out of faith, conviction, or belief in traditional values.

Reparative Therapy: We recognize the legitimacy and efficacy of counseling, which offers reparative therapy and treatment for those patients seeking healing and wholeness from their homosexual lifestyle. No laws or executive orders shall be imposed to limit or restrict access to this type of therapy.

While homosexuality may not be "an acceptable alternative lifestyle" to some Republicans, the idea that it is an illness or disorder is almost universally dismissed by health organizations today. The American Psychological Association (APA), for example, "affirms that same-sex sexual and romantic attractions, feelings, and behaviors are normal and positive variations of human sexuality regardless of sexual orientation identity" and "opposes portrayals of sexual minority youths and adults as mentally ill due to their sexual orientation."

Similarly, the idea of reparative therapy has been widely dismissed by health professionals. In a 1999 publication ("Just the Facts About Sexual Orientation & Youth"), 10 health and education organizations—including the APA, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Counseling Association, and the National Association of Social Workers—asserted that "the most important fact about 'reparative therapy,' also sometimes known as 'conversion' therapy, is that it is based on an understanding of homosexuality that has been rejected by all the major health and mental health professions." The UK Council for Psychotherapy calls it "exploitative for a psychotherapist to offer treatment that might 'cure' or 'reduce' same sex attraction as to do so would be offering a treatment for which there is no illness."

[snipped]

Since the medical world is pretty clear about homosexuality, how did the Texas GOP justify denouncing it and embracing reparative therapy? Oh, right, homosexuality is "contrary to the fundamental unchanging truths that have been ordained by God in the Bible, recognized by our nation’s founders, and shared by the majority of Texans."

The Bible does seem to be strongly against homosexual actions. (Though, to put that into perspective, the Bible also condones slavery.) And polls have found that almost four out of five Texans are "very or moderately religious". In fact, Texas is one of a few states that has a law against atheist politicians. The Texas Constitution stipulates that "no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office, or public trust, in this State; nor shall any one be excluded from holding office on account of his religious sentiments, provided he acknowledge the existence of a Supreme Being."

But regardless of whether "the majority of Texans" reject homosexuality, it’s simply false to suggest that "the fundamental unchanging truths that have been ordained by God in the Bible" were recognized by our Founders as a sound basis for policy or political action. This toxic combination of church and state is exactly what they were trying to prevent.

The founders unquestionably fought for religious freedom, but religious freedom doesn’t include the freedom to force your beliefs onto others. In 1784, Thomas Jefferson wrote: "The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbour to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg."

[snipped]

Fortunately, despite the official party platform and equally silly comments by Rick Perry, the Texas GOP isn’t unanimously in support of the party's stance on homosexuality and reparative therapy. Texas GOP Chairman Steve Munisteri recently denounced the position on Texas Public Radio, asking "Do they think they can take a straight person to a psychiatrist and turn them gay?"

Munisteri said that his office has gotten emails and phone calls "running overwhelmingly opposed to that plank in the platform."

While Texas isn’t exactly blazing the trail for LGBTQ equality, the state as a whole hasn’t avoided the rising wave of support. A survey conducted in April by Texas Tech’s Earl Survey Research Lab found that 48 percent of Texans supported marriage equality, with only 47 percent of respondents opposing it.

I guess there has been some progress from the Texas GOP, too: The new party platform ditches the more explicitly homophobic 2012 language, which asserted that "homosexuality tears at the fabric of society". Hopefully, Texans will soon realize that it's [sic] ignorance, bigotry, and ignoring the dictates of our Founding Fathers that truly tear at the fabric of society.
...................................................................................................................................................................

"For watchers of Aussie politics, it was a visual feast of weirdness."

...................................................................................................................................................................
If You Think Climate Politics In the US Are Crazy, Wait Till You See What Just Happened in Australia
By James West, June 25, 2014



Hold on to your hats! Australia's already-bizarre carbon price adventures veered into the utterly surreal overnight.

Picture this: an eccentric billionaire mining baron, most famous outside Australia for commissioning a replica of the Titanic, appearing alongside the world's most recognizable climate campaigner and former US vice president, Al Gore, to announce Australia's relatively new carbon tax will be scrapped, and a new emissions trading scheme proposed, effectively screwing over the sitting conservative prime minister, Tony Abbott, who is hell-bent on getting rid of carbon legislation altogether.

It's a big blow to a prime minister who said recently in Canada that he has "always been against" an emissions trading scheme, and believes fighting climate change will "clobber the economy."

For watchers of Aussie politics, it was a visual feast of weirdness. For US readers, imagine—I don't know—industrialist Charles Koch jumping on stage with writer and activist Bill McKibben and you're getting close.

Al Gore has shared a press conference podium, and political common ground, with many influential leaders in his time, but Clive Palmer must be among the most unexpected. The mining magnate's upstart political group, the populist center-right Palmer United Party (PUP), was elevated to the Australian political heavyweight class during last year's national elections, and is now on the verge of holding the balance of power in the Australian Senate, or upper house—a position that possesses outsized power to wheel and deal with a government intent on getting laws passed.

That has meant all eyes are on Clive, who owns a nickel refinery and large swathes of land laced with coal and iron ore, along with several jets and resorts: not the climate's most likely hero.

A bit of backstory: Abbott took office last year after campaigning relentlessly to "scrap the toxic tax" and do away with the other parts of the carbon price legislation introduced by former-PM Julia Gillard. The carbon tax would have finally transitioned into a fully-fledged emissions trading scheme in mid-2015. Since the election, Australia's conservative government led by Abbott has been gearing up to axe the entire package for good.

Under Tony Abbott's replacement plan, the package would be scrapped in favor of a policy called "Direct Action", which critics say will do little to address carbon emissions, and cost taxpayers a hell of a lot of money. The repeal will certainly pass the lower house, but getting Clive Palmer on side was crucial to its passage through the Senate.

Meanwhile, Clive Palmer, a fantastical maverick-type (an enormous Tyrannosaurus rex presides over one of his golf courses), appears to be enjoying his newly found political power, basically telling Abbott "not so fast." He has indeed agreed to axe the tax, but is now pushing instead to keep some form of emissions trading scheme (which his party will introduce). Palmer's emissions trading scheme would be toothless and non-competitive, at least at first, with the carbon price set to zero until Australia's major trading partners like China and South Korea effect similar schemes.

All of this is made even more baffling since Clive Palmer himself only recently rejected the scientific consensus on climate change, telling the Australian Broadcasting Corporation in April that "There's been global warming for a long time. I mean, all of Ireland was covered by ice at one time... so I think that's part of the natural cycle."

But at this week's performance, he made an incredible about-face:

"Australia has got an opportunity to set a standard which can act as a catalyst for the whole world, to set a fair framework which the world can follow," Palmer said. "As President Obama in the US has shown, great leadership and encouraging all countries to act, Australia needs to do its fair share." Palmer argues that without a trading scheme, Australian businesses will get left behind. Another motivation might be more personal: there's a long-standing distrust between Palmer and Abbott, the prime minister.

Gore, appearing alongside Palmer, fully endorsed what will effectively isolate Tony Abbott, the prime minister, calling Palmer's decision "an extraordinary moment."

"All of these developments add up to the world moving to solve the climate crisis," he said.

But climate change has washed Canberra's corridors of power in political blood for years, and it seems that no matter how hard Tony Abbott tries to finally put it to rest, there's no end in site [sic], writes Lenore Taylor at The Guardian:

It is a dramatic, if slightly confusing, eleventh hour conversion to the climate change cause for Clive Palmer, millionaire would-be coal miner who... just two months ago didn’t seem to think global warming was a thing. After contributing to the downfall of three Australian prime ministers, two opposition leaders and seven years of bitter and acrimonious debate, carbon policy is now presenting yet another prime minister with some serious dilemmas.

...................................................................................................................................................................

"Just seeing [Citizen Koch] is an act of civil disobedience ..."

...................................................................................................................................................................
Not My Republican Party: Citizen Koch Explores the Billionaire Brothers Impact on Politics
By Emily Wilson, June 26, 2014

Wanting to explore the impact of the Supreme Court's 2010 Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission decision, which lifted limits on corporate spending in politics, filmmakers Carl Deal and Tia Lessin went to Wisconsin to cover how financing -- particularly from the billionaire conservative industrialist brothers David and Charles Koch -- was playing a role in Governor Scott Walker's push to limit collective bargaining for public employees. Lessin says the people protesting Walker's actions surprised her.

"They weren't the usual suspects. It wasn't just nurses and teachers and students -- they were fire fighters and cops," says Lessin. "There were also farmers on their tractors, coming down from rural areas. And we saw a lot of Republicans with signs saying 'Not my Republican party.'"

In Citizen Koch, Deal and Lessin (who [are] co-producers of several Michael Moore movies and co-directors of the Oscar-nominated film Trouble the Water about Hurricane Katrina), focused on three lifelong Republicans who felt attacked while voicing their opinions on the changing direction [of] the Republican Party. We hear from a nurse who's also a SEIU member, a teacher who's also a beef farmer, and a corrections officer. It was difficult to find Republicans who wanted to talk with them, Lessin said, but these three were proud to be in the film.

"There's a civil war going on in the Republican Party, and right now they're on the losing side." Lessin adds, "these voices aren't being amplified. So they really were excited they would have a chance to speak, not just to their friends and neighbors and union members but on a national stage."

Deal says many people thought that the Citizens United decision would only affect federal elections. That's not the case, he says.

"What we found out is that it created so many opportunities for money to flow secretly into elections at the state levels because 22 states across the country who had restrictions on corporate spending or strict disclosure requirements stopped enforcing those laws." He adds:

"About a year and a half after they rendered their decision, the Supreme Court had an opportunity to make a clarification when the state of Montana wanted to enforce its own bans on corporate spending in elections, and the Supreme Court refused to hear that case. That sent the message nationwide that the intent of this decision was to allow unlimited spending in elections anywhere."

Just seeing the film is an act of civil disobedience, says Lessin, pointing out that it was kept off PBS so as not to offend David Koch, a donor. She hopes after seeing it people will start to talk about what they can do to change things.

"It's not just money and politics -- it affects everything we do, where we send our kids to school, how much we pay their teachers, the curriculum they study, the water we drink," Lessin notes. "All this money has a direct impact on us and our children and our communities, and we've got to do something about it."
...................................................................................................................................................................

Unfortunately, the electorate is not only ignorant, but it is also lazy

..................................................................................................................................................................
LETTER TO THE EDITOR:
...................................................................................................................................................................
Out with the old, in with new politicians, please
By Gloria Merrill, Glendale, AZ, June 28, 2014

I don't give a rat's patootie if this or that political move gets someone elected, helps the president's poll numbers or gives some old, narcissistic career politician more power. When will any of them, Republican or Democrat, put what is good for America first?

How do we get an ignorant electorate to pay attention and demand accountability before giving their vote to these self-centered clowns?

It's time for these liars, cheats and charlatans to be replaced and their replacements be strongly reminded they work for us. It is time for America to reclaim its mojo before we become just another Third World country.

Please wake up, America!
...................................................................................................................................................................

"... what drives a person to spend $6 million for a job that pays $170,000 a year?"

...................................................................................................................................................................
Why do people run for political office?
By Dennis Marek, June 28, 2014

I have never had an interest in running for political office, nor have most of my friends. I ran for a Trustee position for the local junior college and served for 17 years, and I only had one election opponent in all those years. So campaigning and fund raising never entered the picture. I am glad we have people willing to serve, and I thank them for their service, but sometimes I wonder at the real reason so many candidates choose to run.

A perfect example of how our current manner of running for office makes little sense took place and is still taking place in the19th Congressional District of Florida, our part-time winter home in Ft. Myers. The race for that Congressional seat was, and still is, incredible. It filled the airwaves this past spring. Let me explain.

In October of 2013, Rep. Trey Nagel, while holding a seat in the House of Representatives, was busted when buying a substantial amount of cocaine from an undercover agent in Washington, D.C. That crime would have been a felony in Florida. He quickly copped a reduced plea and announced that he was going in for "addiction treatment." The news got out when the House Ethics Committee started an inquiry, and Gov. Scott and the Republican Party forced his resignation. Now there was an open seat.

Enter the Republican hopefuls. First was a state politician, Lizbeth Benaquisto. Then came a local doctor and former state office holder, Dr. Paige Kreegel. The next was a former Purdue basketball star and businessman, Curt Clawson. An unknown man named Michael Dreikorn finished the field. The Republican primary was on. Because this is a strong Republican area, there was little contest on the Democratic side as April Freeman was the sole candidate for the position in this interim election.

I have never heard a more bitter and vicious campaign than these Republicans waged. Benaquisto was accused of being a "reformed Democrat" and even desperately invited Sarah Palin to her last fundraiser. Clawson was attacked with this: His company had once filed bankruptcy, a worker was horribly injured and treated unfairly by the company, and that he had let a childhood friend use his condo in Utah, knowing the friend was a convicted child molester. Kreegel was attacked that he had been sued three times for medical malpractice! Professionally, I find that is an incredibly low number of suits these days, and no one ever said if the suits were successful or not. Dreikorn waged no anti-candidate messages.

The primary was held on April 24. According to the local paper the night before the election, this is what these candidates spent on that election: Benaquisto spent $796,888 plus $50,000 of her money. Kreegel spent $208,534 and $185,000 of his own. Clawson, the businessman, spent $2,265,783 plus $3,400,000 of his own money. Dreikorn merely spent $15,000. It is no surprise that Clawson, with the big bucks, won the Republican Primary in April. As I write, he will face Freeman on Tuesday, June 24. I would have probably voted for the one candidate who said nothing bad about the other candidates had I been a resident. But wait, he ended up with the least votes of all!

Clawson will probably have won the election by the time this is published, as the seat is considered a safe Republican seat. Now this race and mad spending is even stranger when one considers that the job pays only about $170,000 per year plus perks. Even stranger is that this was merely to fill the seat until the November elections, because House seats are two-year terms! Even more amazing is that there is another primary for the fall election scheduled for August 26 and anyone is free to run again. The winners of those primaries will face off in November. That winner will then serve the next two years.

So why does a person spend this kind of money? Are these altruistic people who have made their mark and now want to give back? Do they believe they have something to give that is not happening right now? Is this the next step in ego-enhancement? I think all reasons are represented by our politicians in one form or another. But the biggest reason must be the power. Step aside — here comes the President, or the Governor, or the Senator. The list goes on.

Certainly some run for the office for the trappings that come with the job, while others insist on helping their territory back home. No one did this latter job better than our George Ryan. As Governor, he brought much to Kankakee County that might never be fully appreciated. He watched out for us like a mother over her favorite child.

Can politicians write a book and make millions? They seem to. That is about all the good Sarah Palin got out of all her travails. Can they make underhanded money or spend their own campaign money on themselves? Well, Jesse Jackson Jr. certainly comes to mind as well as many, many others. "Get elected and grab" might be the watchwords for many.

I realize the side benefits are huge. Travel expenses, meals, lodging, tickets to sporting events, even lavish private parties are often heaped on the elected official. But what drives a person to spend $6 million for a job that pays $170,000 a year? For those who take the time, serve us faithfully and honestly, I take off my hat. But for the others, I guess there is more than meets the eye. Maybe one of the reasons I never ran is that I could never eat that much fried chicken at all the fund raisers.
...................................................................................................................................................................

To hell with outrage from the Republicans and Democrats-- taxpayers in general should be massively outraged!

...................................................................................................................................................................
Editorial: How can we trust politicians who use tax money for campaigning?
New Haven Register, June 28, 2014

Surprise, surprise. Republicans in the Connecticut House of Representatives have been using their taxpayer-funded budgets for “informational” mailings about the work of the General Assembly for blatant political attacks on Gov. Dannel P. Malloy and Democratic legislators, and Democrats are outraged. They should be.

They should also be outraged that 5th District Congresswoman Elizabeth Esty has spent more than 10 times the amount in taxpayer-funded mailings than Connecticut’s four other congressmen spent combined, and more than any other congressman in New England. They’re not.

Only Republicans are outraged at Esty’s blatant “maximization” of taxpayer dollars to bolster her re-election campaign in a swing district. Only Democrats are outraged at the House Republican stunt uncovered by the Hartford Courant’s Jon Lender.

And guess what will be done about it? Nothing. Democrats have a majority in the General Assembly and the governor’s office. They could pass legislation to severely restrict the funding for or nature of this kind of diversion of tax dollars to protect incumbency. But that would mean not having access to it themselves, and they actually have a lot more at stake.

If lawmakers feel strongly that constituents need to be informed of the work of the legislature through glossy, taxpayer-funded mailings, we could turn that job over to a nonpartisan body such as the nonpartisan Office of Legislative Research.

But that kind of reform could be the first step on a slippery slope threatening the General Assembly’s taxpayer-funded political machine. What if people started placing non-political civil service restrictions on legislative aides who have huge influence over important legislation one moment, and then “clock out,” walk down the street and shake down special interests for campaign money wearing their “political hat” the next?

We won’t hold our breath. It would be refreshing in this election season, though, to see candidates for the General Assembly and governor from both parties be pinned down on whether they’d support such reforms.
...................................................................................................................................................................

What is this-- the enemy of my enemy is my friend?

...................................................................................................................................................................
Bill Maher: John McCain Wants The United States To Bomb The United States
By Bill Maher, June 13, 2014



BILL MAHER: Of course the neocons on the Republican side want to get back into Iraq. They can never stop getting into Iraq. John McCain, who got everything wrong about Iraq that you could possibly ever get wrong about Iraq, is now saying, 'I told you so.'

He wants us to bomb the Sunnis on behalf of the Shiites, who are of course aligned with Shiite Iran, our sworn enemy. Of course he also wants to bomb anyone who helps Iran. I knew it would come to this some day. John McCain is calling for the United States to bomb the United States.
...................................................................................................................................................................

Not only annoying, but also used as time-fillers

...................................................................................................................................................................
15 Most Annoying Expressions in Politics
By Carl M. Cannon, June 27, 2014

Irritating phrases and words are not confined to political circles, or solely to Washington, although here in the nation’s capital they burrow in and proliferate like obsolete, but entrenched, government programs. This is a call to arms to fight them—but only metaphorically.

15: “WAR ON [FILL IN THE BLANK]” Syria’s civil war has produced 2.5 million refugees and a death toll of 160,000, a tragedy that has galvanized neither major political party into action. So next time a Democrat brays about the so-called Republican “war on women” or a Republican trumpets the Obama administration’s “war on coal,” tell them you’ve seen what real war looks like—and ask what the U.S. can do to stop it.

14. “TAX HIKE” It’s not a “hike.” What are you going to do, put it in a knapsack and take it for a walk? It’s a tax increase. This usage was coined by headline writers because it’s shorter. Speaker of the House John Boehner, who often employs this phrase, has no such excuse.

13. “RIGHT-WING” This term is bandied about carelessly, usually as a pejorative. In “The Devil’s Dictionary,” Ambrose Bierce defined “conservative.” Here is the entry, in its entirety: “CONSERVATIVE, n. a statesman who is enamored of existing evils, as distinguished from the Liberal, who wishes to replace them with others.” The converse of “right-wing,” a label freely applied to Fox News and countless Republican elected officials, is not “liberal,” it’s “left wing.”

12. “FRANKLY” Rhett Butler made this word famous, but when politicians preface their remarks with “frankly” (or “candidly”), they don’t give a damn about being frank or candid. Usually, it means they’re about to tell a whopper—or recite a talking point. Listen for this usage from now on. It’s a self-administered lie detector.

11. “TALKING POINTS” Pols who recite self-serving spin written by others while answering basic questions about their jobs are essentially reading the stage directions. It suggests they are too lazy to invent their own fibs or excuses—or that they work for control freaks who don’t trust them to know their own subject matter. This is a discordant trait in a high-ranking official, such as U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice or anyone who attended top-notch schools, which also fits Rice. She was a history major at Stanford and a Rhodes scholar with a master’s degree and a doctorate from Oxford.                    

10. “DOCTOR” In the White House compound and certain media precincts, the wife of Vice President Joe Biden is referred to as “Dr. Biden,” usually in reverential tones. This is understandable—who wants to be called “the second lady”? But, like Susan Rice, Jill Biden has a PhD, not a medical degree. It was also a secret password in the Bush administration to affix “Dr.” in front of another foreign policy official surnamed Rice. Susan Rice, Condoleezza Rice, and Jill Biden are accomplished people, but the old-time newsroom rule is best: If someone isn’t licensed to take your tonsils out, you don’t have to call ’em “Doc.”

9. “LOOK…” Almost as soon as he arrived in Washington, Barack Obama adopted the off-putting Sunday talk show habit—used promiscuously by Karl Rove—of starting sentences with the word “Look.” Two months after his inauguration, things got so bad that Jimmy Fallon sought to discourage its proliferation by producing a montage, set to music, of Obama saying “Look…” 26 times in an hour-long news conference. To a layman, it sounds like Obama is really saying, “Look here, moron…” But two UCLA professors told Anya Sostek of the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette that this preamble isn’t as patronizing as it sounds. Manny Schegloff says Obama is signaling that he’s about to provide background information as part of his answer that informs his policy position. His colleague Steven Clayman adds that Ronald Reagan often began answers to questions with the word, “Well”—as a way of preparing listeners for a different answer than they might expect. Or so say Dr. Clayman and Dr. Schegloff.

8. “PARTY OF REAGAN” Nothing unites Republicans more than their professed love of the Gipper. But do they really get him? When Sarah Palin invokes Reagan’s name while railing against immigrants, or hawkish GOP senators agitate for another U.S. military intervention, or state Sen. Chris McDaniel chides Thad Cochran for urging Democrats to cross party lines and vote in a GOP primary in Mississippi, they’re not channeling the Gipper. They are displaying amnesia. The operative phrase, Sen. McDaniel, was “Reagan Democrats.”

7. “WITH ALL DUE RESPECT” One hears this during congressional debates and cable TV slugfests, usually signifying the exact opposite. “My opponent is an extremist, or possibly an idiot,” is what they really mean. “He’s offering these dangerous ideas either because he’s been bribed—or threatened—by the corrupt special interest groups who control his sorry excuse for a political party. So opposing his proposal is a no brainer…”

6. “NO-BRAINER” It’s not rocket science or thinking outside the box to note that overused clichés are meant to stifle communication rather than facilitate it. But “no-brainer” holds a special place in semantic hell because it often, and inadvertently, undermines the utterer’s own point, as in, “Invading Iraq was a no-brainer.”

5. “SETTLED SCIENCE” “Politics is not an exact science,” German statesman Otto von Bismarck told the Prussian legislature. True enough, but the same can be said of science itself. To the genuinely intellectually curious, “settled science” is an oxymoron. “There is something fascinating about science,” Mark Twain wrote 20 years after Bismarck’s speech. “One gets such wholesale returns of conjecture out of such a trifling investment of fact.”

4. “DENIER” This slur is used to shame or silence global-warming skeptics and other heretics who question conventional wisdom. It has an ugly provenance, too, coming from “Holocaust denier,” a description applied to those best described as neo-Nazis or lunatics (or both). But skepticism is not a sin. The famed Chicago City News Bureau popularized a journalistic bromide: “If your mother says she loves you, check it out.” It means get a second source, be careful, and don’t just repeat what you hear. Words to live by. (By the way, my Twain reference comes from “Life on the Mississippi,” Chapter 6.)

3. “JUST SAYIN’” For five straight years, the Marist College poll has queried Americans on the expressions they find most obnoxious. Each year, the winner is the dismissive “Whatever.” Another entry has been gaining ground in recent years. This is the phrase “Just saying” (or Just sayin’). This expression is so ubiquitous, not to mention devoid of actual meaning, that it’s used by President Obama and Sarah Palin (in her case, to mock Obamacare). It translates roughly as, “I just said something snarky.” As if we didn’t know.

2. “AT THE END OF THE DAY” When Bill and Hillary Clinton arrived on the national scene, they brought pizazz to politics. They also popularized this unfortunate phrase. “At the end of the day” is simultaneously addictive and grating. Its first usage can be traced to 1826, although it really caught on in the 1990s. In Britain, it so offended BBC host Vanessa Feltz that she issued a fatwa against the phrase, which she rescinded when no guest was able to speak aloud without using it. In this country, it quickly spread beyond the Clinton circle. Everyone says it now: Democrats, Republicans, liberals, conservatives, baseball players, football coaches, prosecutors, bartenders, movie stars. In 2004, an organization called The Plain English Campaign surveyed its members in 70 countries and pronounced it “the most irritating phrase in the English language.”

1. “FOLKS” U.S. presidents love this word, which they find, well, folksy. It’s been invoked by our chief executives some 4,400 times since Herbert Hoover occupied the Oval Office. Bill Clinton loved “folks” so much he used it publicly eight times during his last month in office. But it’s proliferating. George W. Bush used it 21 times in his first month as president. Then he started misusing it. His most discordant example was his reference to “al-Qaeda, the very same folks that attacked us on September the 11th.” There must be something in the White House water supply because Obama matched Bush’s January-February 2001 record by saying “folks” 21 times in only two debates with Mitt Romney. The first time he used it in the Oct. 22, 2012, debate was the most jarring. Discussing military intervention in Syria, Obama said he wanted to make sure “we’re not putting arms in the hands of folks who eventually could turn them against us or allies in the region.” At least he didn’t say, “Look, frankly, at the end of the day—as Ronald Reagan knew—Syria is a no-brainer.”
...................................................................................................................................................................

In spite of the Koch brothers' efforts, our democracy is not for sale

...................................................................................................................................................................
Stand up to the Koch brothers’ political machine
By Robert Reich, June 27, 2014

BREAK THE KOCH MACHINE


A number of billionaires are flooding our democracy with their money, drowning out the voices of the rest of us. But Charles and David Koch are in a class by themselves. They’re using their fortune – they’re the fifth and sixth richest people in the world — to create their own political machine designed to protect and advance their financial interests. The Koch machine includes:

1. Political front groups pouring hundreds of millions of dollars into elections at every level of our democracy, while disguising the sources of the money.

2. Giant advertising campaigns to convince Americans climate change is a myth, the Affordable Care Act will harm them, unions are bad, and wealthy people deserve tax cuts.

3. A network of think tanks designed to come up with findings the Kochs want. For example, over $23 million for studies arguing we should abolish the minimum wage or keep it where it is forever.

4. A campaign to suppress the votes of minorities. In the last presidential election, funding white “poll-watchers” where minorities vote, leading to complaints of voter intimidation. And peddling a Voter ID bill to state legislators across the country, designed to make it harder for many to vote.

5. A nationwide effort to bust unions.  Funding anti-union campaigns in states like Wisconsin, and pushing an anti-union law that’s been used in dozens of states to undermine workers’ collective bargaining rights.

And 6. A long-term strategy to unravel America’s campaign finance laws, even organizing secret meetings with sympathetic Supreme Court justices.

The Koch political machine would be troubling in any circumstance. But it’s especially dangerous in present-day America, where wealth is more concentrated than it’s been in over a century and the Supreme Court has opened the floodgates to big money.

The problem isn’t that the Kochs are so rich, or their political views are so regressive. The problem is they’re using their exorbitant wealth to impose those views on the rest of us, undermining our democracy.

More than 200,000 of you have already signed my MoveOn petition denouncing the Koch brothers for undermining our democracy.

The Kochs won’t care what we say, but when a half a million of us stand up to them, politicians will have to think twice before taking their money. When a million of us stand up to them, their money will be a political liability.

Standing up to bullies is the hallmark of a civilized society. Please join our petition — and stand up for our democracy. The link to the petition is at the end of the video.

Or go to http://petitions.moveon.org/sign/we-denounce-the-koch

Our democracy is not for sale.
...................................................................................................................................................................

Ann, whenever you open your mouth, it's a sign of your own personal moral decay

...................................................................................................................................................................
Ann Coulter says Americans who care about the World Cup are 'a sign of the nation's moral decay'
By Scott Meslow, June 26, 2014

For the past two weeks, millions of Americans have crowded into bars and television dens to watch the World Cup. Today, millions of Americans are huddled over their desks, half-working while they watch the USA-Germany World Cup match in the background.

If only they had known that their interest in the tournament was destroying the country they call home. Need evidence? Just ask Fox News staple Ann Coulter, who recently wrote a column arguing that "any growing interest in soccer can only be a sign of the nation's moral decay."

Coulter's case against soccer is far-ranging: it's "foreign," you can't use your hands, liberal moms like it, and it doesn't "present a constant threat of personal disgrace." "If more 'Americans' are watching soccer today, it's only because of the demographic switch effected by Teddy Kennedy's 1965 immigration law," she concludes. "I promise you: No American whose great-grandfather was born here is watching soccer."

To read the rest of Coulter's screed — if only for your own amusement — click over to her official website.
...................................................................................................................................................................

Selling out to the Koch brothers

...................................................................................................................................................................
Comments:  
"Bought and paid for, bagged and tagged right wing Koch man. To hell with the environment, it is all about money."
"What a surprise; another republican pledging allegiance to special interests rather than the United States of America. Any politician who signs a pledge to a special interest group is committing an act of treason."
...................................................................................................................................................................
Republican Senate Candidate Signs Koch Pledge, Abruptly Changes His Tune On Climate Change
By Andrew Breiner, June 24, 2014

He’s the only Republican running for Senate who mentions climate change on his website. He used to support a carbon tax, and actually talks about conservative climate change solutions. Then, Jim Rubens signed the Koch brothers’ pledge not to do anything about it.

The pledge, from the Koch-backed organization Americans For Prosperity (AFP), requires signers to “oppose any legislation relating to climate change that includes a net increase in government revenue.” That rules out a carbon tax, a policy that would make huge carbon cuts, create jobs, raise incomes, and improve the health of Americans. It’s also one of the few policies Congress could use to seriously fight climate change.

An American University report, released in July, identified the Kochs’ influence and the AFP pledge as instrumental in stopping members of Congress from voting for climate action. That’s why the Obama administration has had to cut carbon using the EPA’s authority to regulate pollutants. And AFP is only one of at least “91 think tanks, advocacy groups, and industry associations, funded by 140 different foundations, that work to oppose action on climate change.”

It’s a major change for a candidate who not only believes in human-caused global warming, but who said voters use that belief “as a proxy for candidate credibility on other issues.” Deny climate change, he’s saying, and Republicans will lose elections.

In September, Rubens entered the race for the New Hampshire Republican Party’s nomination for U.S. Senate with a proposal for a revenue-neutral carbon tax, which would actually be acceptable under the pledge. He told the Concord Monitor in May that he had dropped that proposal because it was “dead on arrival.”

According to his campaign website, his plan is now to end federal energy subsidies, for both fossil fuels ($72 billion) and renewable energy ($39 billion). Rubens says it’s both these sets of subsidies that are preventing renewables from taking off. Ending these subsidies would result in over $100 billion in savings for the federal government, which might run afoul of the Koch’s requirement that climate action not make the government money, depending on how he and the Kochs look at it.

Rubens is running against Scott Brown, the former Senator from Massachusetts, for the Republican nomination. The winner faces Democrat Jeanne Shaheen in November.

Brown hedges on climate change, saying it’s a combination of “man-made and natural” causes. His energy plan doesn’t mention climate, and mostly focuses on expanding fossil fuels and “rein[ing] in the EPA’s regulatory authority.” He recently embarked on an “energy tour” of New Hampshire, where he complained about EPA regulations and advocated for the controversial Keystone XL pipeline. Meanwhile, New Hampshire officials are optimistic that their membership in the regional carbon trading program RGGI will be enough to meet the EPA’s carbon limits without any extra action.

Rubens himself made the best case for why legislators shouldn’t tie their hands on climate action in an interview with Stephen Lacey of Greentech Media just last week. “If candidates are forbidden from proposing bold solutions, we’re going to be confined to stuff that’s already been discussed and has failed to achieve political traction,” he said.
...................................................................................................................................................................

The Koch brothers-- liars, liars, pants on fire for blaming Obama supporters!

...................................................................................................................................................................
What Were Rubio and McConnell Plotting in Secret With the Koch Brothers?
By Mike Lux, June 18, 2014

Lauren Windsor (who works with me at American Family Voices, and whose show, The Undercurrent, we sponsor) broke a major new story yesterday on the latest Koch brothers secret meeting, which was held last weekend at a luxury resort in Orange County, California. Mitch McConnell and Marco Rubio flew out to plot with the billionaires and help them raise, according to a participant in the meeting, $1 billion to help the Republicans take the Senate in 2014 and beat Hillary Clinton in 2016. Some other Republican politicians joined them as well, including Senate candidates Tom Cotton (who is running against Pryor in Arkansas) and Cory Gardner (who is trying to defeat Udall in Colorado), as well as a top leader of the tea party in the House, Con. Jim Jordan.

The secrecy with which these meetings were conducted was as intense as anything I have ever seen in American political life. From Lauren's piece:

"According to a source in attendance, Freedom Partners spent more than $870,000, which included large fees to shut down public access to the golf course, the Michael Mina restaurant Stonehill Tavern and Motif Restaurant. Attendees were responsible for their own room charges. 

Security was tight from noon on Saturday throughout the remainder of the conference, with checkpoints at every entrance to the resort. At the front gate, security guards and multiple Koch employees brandishing iPads greeted incoming cars. Even more Koch employees, acting as escorts, met guests at the front door. Guests were asked to abide by a no-cell phone policy, and security was in place to enforce that policy at events. 

St. Regis Monarch Bay also has residences in adjacent properties as part of the Monarch Bay Club. Owners normally have access to the hotel, but according to one, he was denied access under the pretense that the hotel had been bought out by a group of Obama supporters. (The president had delivered a commencement speech at nearby UC Irvine on Saturday)."

Wow, spending $870,000 to buy out the hotel and shut down everything to anyone not attending the conference? The secrets they were talking about must have been pretty scary. There's a little bit of irony here: The theme of the conference was "American Courage: Our commitment to a free society." But apparently not courageous enough to let anyone from the general public get anywhere close, and apparently not free enough to risk anyone outside the inner billionaire circle to come into contact with the plotters inside.

So I would like to know, Senators McConnell and Rubio: What was so secretive about your conversations with the billionaires? While you were discussing how to flood the airwaves with negative ads against Democrats, how much did the Koch's political agenda of no pollution controls, no minimum wage, and no Social Security get discussed? Congressmen Gardner and Cotton, you were obviously raising money for your campaigns, and hoping your billionaire pals would keep spending tens of millions of dollars in attack ads against your opponents, but while you were locked away in your highly secured meetings, did you talk about how you could help the billionaires escape being taxed and avoid any oversight of their crony business deals?

We can't let these secretive billionaires with their sleazy agenda for America take our country over. We need to take on the billionaires, expose the lies behind their secretive political slush funds, and take our country back.
...................................................................................................................................................................

Boehner, it seems to me that YOU are the one acting like a king

...................................................................................................................................................................
Why Boehner Can’t Sue Obama
By Ben Jacobs, June 26, 2014

John Boehner is ready to sue President Obama, but the House speaker may not be able to make it through the courthouse doors.

Boehner announced Wednesday that he would sue the president for his failure to “faithfully execute the laws of this country.” In the opinion of the speaker, according to a memo he circulated, Obama’s reliance on executive orders meant that he was acting with “king-like authority at the expense of the American people and their elected legislators.” As a result, Boehner said he planned to sue the president over executive orders to be named later under the aegis of a resolution passed by the House of Representatives.

But Boehner may not be able to do so. According to Erwin Chemerinsky, the dean of the University of California, Irvine Law School, the speaker of the House does not have the ability to sue the president in this situation, even if Congress says he does. Chemerinsky says “standing,” the doctrine that allows a person to file a lawsuit in federal court by demonstrating that real harm has been caused to them, is defined by the Constitution. As a result, even if Congress passes a law, or in this case a resolution, which only requires approval by the House, it will not be binding on federal courts, as the Constitution trumps any law, let alone a resolution, and does not give members of Congress the ability to sue if they cannot prove real harm.

Michael Steel, a spokesman for Boehner, said there were no issued [sic] with standing. Other Republican representatives echoed that position, including Rep. Charles Boustany of Louisiana, who called Boehner’s proposed suit “an outstanding move.” Conservative Rep. Steve King of Iowa added, “This is something that I’ve looked at and worked towards for a long time.”

Democrats, of course, were more skeptical. Rep. Rosa DeLauro of Connecticut called Boehner’s plan “ludicrous” and an example of an unproductive partisan Congress trying to obstruct Obama further. Surprisingly, some Republicans also spoke out against Boehner. Former presidential candidate Michele Bachmann, who is also a lawyer, echoed Chemerinsky’s concerns and suggested to The Daily Beast that Congress may have problems with the “standing” doctrine if it tries to press claims over Obama’s executive orders in the courts. Even if the courts hear the case, she noted, they may decide it’s a “political question” and thus out of their jurisdiction.

It’s still unclear what executive orders Boehner might file suit to overturn.
...................................................................................................................................................................

Boehner, stop spending TAXPAYER DOLLARS on suing the President for signing fewer executive orders than Clinton, Bush Jr., and Bush Sr.!

...................................................................................................................................................................
Obama Hardly Ever Uses Executive Orders But Boehner Wants to Sue Him Anyway
By Arit John, June 25, 2014

House Speaker John Boehner says that he plans on suing President Obama for eroding "the power of the legislative branch" through his use of executive actions.

Republicans have decried the president's so-called "overreaching" for months, but Boehner is finally putting (taxpayer) money where his mouth is. The fact that the president has issued fewer orders than several of his predecessors — including Ronald Reagan — seems irrelevant. 

Boehner denied that he was trying to rile up the Republican base ahead of the midterm elections, but instead said Wednesday that "the constitution makes it clear that the president’s job is to faithfully execute the laws and in my view the President has not faithfully executed the laws."

According to CNN, the lawsuit likely won't be filed until next month, after the top three GOP leaders meet with the top two Democrats who make up the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group.

Despite Boehner's denials, Republicans have been pushing party leadership to respond to the president's uptick in orders. During his State of the Union speech in January, Obama said he was no longer going to wait on Congress and would instead use his "pen" to sign more executive orders. Since then he's signed orders on several issues stalled in Congress, including raising the minimum wage for federal contractors and banning LGBT workplace discrimination.

That birthed the Obama lawlessness meme, or the idea that King Obama I was trying to govern without Congress by failing to enforce existing laws (particularly concerning immigration). The problem with that idea is that Obama is a pretty bad dictator. As the chart below shows, Obama's on track to issue fewer orders per term than Presidents Clinton, Bush Jr., Bush Sr. 



If you want to talk about dictators, check out the executive orders on FDR. Unfortunately, Boehner will have to settle for a president who's done less to erode the power of the legislature than any leader in decades. And while it could work out well for Republicans, Boehner may end up spend [sic] millions of taxpayer dollars — like the $2.3 million the GOP spent on its Defense of Marriage Act lawsuit — only to lose.
...................................................................................................................................................................

It will take SERIOUS money!

...................................................................................................................................................................
It takes money to get money out of politics
The measure to get big money out of politics failed to make the ballot because it lacked one thing: big money.
By Danny Westneat, June 24, 2014

Earlier this year, a group of a thousand well-meaning folks set out to tackle arguably the biggest problem in politics: how big money from the superrich and special-interest groups is tilting democracy.

They failed. One of the main reasons sums up why politics feels stuck in such a rut: They didn’t have enough money to buy their anti-big-money measure onto the ballot.

“Ironic, isn’t it?” says Jim Street, the former Seattle City Council member who was helping the campaign for Initiative 1329. It sought to limit the blitz of spending by wealthy mega-donors and others unleashed by the Citizens United ruling and other cases.

“It’s true that if we had gotten a big donor, we would have made it,” Street said. “There’s a contradiction there that is maddening.”

Instead, the all-volunteer signature-gathering effort fell short, collecting about 150,000 signatures (247,000 are needed).

You know that Margaret Mead quote that’s in almost every political-campaign headquarters, the one that goes “never doubt a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world?” If Mead were around today she might add: “Plus you need a half-million bucks. Minimum.”

As usual this year, the initiative measures that have raised $500,000 or more, from a few wealthy donors or special-interest groups, are on track to qualify for voters’ ballots in November. The ones that didn’t, won’t. The money typically is used to pay signature-gatherers $1 to $3 per signature.

Initiative 1329 sought to put Washington on the record as favoring a constitutional amendment saying that “money is not speech.” The idea was that eventually Congress might be allowed to reinstate campaign-contribution limits and disclosure rules, if it wanted. Previous laws limiting political spending were struck down by the Supreme Court, causing unreported “dark” money flowing though so-called super PACs to soar.

“The point we were making is that big money can be critically damaging to democracy, especially in the way it creates an uneven playing field,” Street said. “So to fall short in part due to the money issue ... it’s the kind of thing that makes citizens disillusioned about their politics.”

The disillusionment is reaching unprecedented levels. Did you see the recent headlines that only 7 percent of Americans now have confidence in Congress? That’s the lowest figure ever recorded, not only for Congress but for any institution in American society. Seven percent is less than the number that want America to be a Communist country (11 percent).

(Aside: Who are these 7 percent saying “heckuva job you’ve done lately, Congress?” The 1 percent plus their relatives?)

The wash of money through politics is hardly the only reason for Congress’ poor image (the constant management-by-crisis hasn’t helped). Nor does money always trump — earlier this month the House majority leader, Eric Cantor, lost his seat despite spending more at steakhouses than his opponent did on his entire campaign. But as the big money gets bigger, it can feed a sense there’s nothing you can do to change anything, Street said.

“It’s corrosive,” Street said. “That’s why you see those dismal poll numbers at the national level. People feel that system is fundamentally rigged.”

It’s true that all the action lately in politics seems to be bubbling at the bottom, often all the way down at the city level. It’s as if people have given up on the national government to do anything.

Street said his group may try an initiative to the Legislature next year. Those get months longer to collect signatures, making an all-volunteer, low-money approach theoretically possible.

“I’m 72 years old, and I don’t know if anything’s going to change while I’m around,” he said. “But we have to keep working at it. Cheer up, man!”

Or just bring your checkbook. Because it looks like it’s going to take some serious money to get the serious money out of politics.
...................................................................................................................................................................

"We no longer live in a representative republic but a democratic aristocracy ..."

...................................................................................................................................................................
Eric Wilson: Mutiny against political aristocracy will save nation
By Eric Wilson, June 26, 2014

The two-party system of American politics is already dead. No matter whose side you think is here to save you, one thing is certain — neither party is about ideology or principle but instead the maintaining of power.

Under the Democrats, government and influence will grow for social reengineering and redistribution. Under the Republicans, it will grow to promote global empires, be the social police and prop up corporations.

Regardless of which is in power, one set of people will be taking advantage of another set of people. The elections just determine which side is which.

A new nobility is running both sides of the debate, and — no matter who seems to win — we keep getting screwed. Judging from the talking heads, they are all stuck in this paradigm. Judging from the recent elections, so are the voters.

We no longer live in a representative republic but a democratic aristocracy, one ruled by the status quo with each of us as its willing servants. Our only hope against it stands in the form of the fading concept of independence.

We must get rid of career politicians like Sen. Harry Reid and Reps. Nancy Pelosi and Charles Rangel; but we also must purge our aristocracy of people like House Speaker John Boehner, and Sens. Orrin Hatch and Mitch McConnell.

We need to stop funding and supporting them and even begin actively working against them to take back our parties and country. This is not about a purist view of a candidate or party but about principles and liberty. Make no mistake, these people are working against citizens at any cost for power and control at every level.

For those that contend "we can't afford to lose the seat," it is naiveté to think we had the seat to begin with. The goal of politicians no longer is to serve but to rule. Their acquisition of power supersedes their desire to legislate. This is not a power to serve but a power to dictate and control.

The goal today is not to fix a problem but to fixate you on a problem. The media follows the same pattern — treating daily news like a campaign rather than anything that resembles journalism. What we are left with is the illusion of choice with one side pitted against the other.

You have been and continue to be played. We have had an energy crisis, an economic crisis, a housing crisis, a war on terror, a war on drugs, and the solution is always the same thing — government.

The truth is quite the opposite. I contend the problem is much deeper, and we are in a political crisis.

The defining characteristic of an aristocratic society is a collection of people who consider themselves limited, stuck or dependent.

The defining characteristic of an independent is an individual who puts aside party labels or limits and views himself as self-sufficient and capable.

The American Dream is not a government program or a guaranteed success. It is a state of mind, a choice to be better and work harder, and take the risks to succeed independently.

Still, we continue to look at others as the solution, look up to politicians as rock stars and celebrate getting ahead as being part of the system. We buy into believing the other side is evil without realizing our side is just as bad. We lay our trust and our future in the hands of the system and that one side can save us from the other.

Our children will live their lives based on the ramifications of our choices — either free or stuck in whatever level of aristocracy we pass on to them. While the messages of fear reverberate through the political spectrum, we must consider the unspoken costs to our liberties.

While to get ahead in aristocratic terms means to rise up within the system, the call of the independent must be to restore a system that is free. It is clear the era of aristocracy is upon us, unless a new generation of self-governing leaders and a truly independent party soon arise.
...................................................................................................................................................................