By Alex Seitz-Wald, Think Progress

Progressives have long tried to expose the influence the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) wields in state house across the country, but one Florida lawmaker is making it too easy.

Funded almost entirely by large corporations, ALEC produces “model legislation” favorable to industry that state lawmakers can introduce as their own bills. Usually, the legislators tweak the language of the bills to make them state-specific or to obfuscate their origins. Usually, but apparently not always.

In November, Florida state Rep. Rachel Burgin (R) introduced a resolution (PDF here) that would officially call on the federal government to reduce corporate taxes, but she apparently forgot to remove ALEC’s mission statement from the top of the bill, which she seems to have copied word-for-word from ALEC’s model bill:

As the government transparency group Common Cause reports, “Burgin quickly withdrew the bill hoping that no one had noticed and then re-introduced it 24-hours later, with a new bill number (HM 717), but now without the problematic paragraph.” Apparently no one noticed until this week.

While it’s no secret by now that conservative lawmakers in state capitals everywhere have used ALEC’s legislation to tear down environmental and labor regulations, curb voting rights, and coordinate a business-friendly agenda nationwide, it’s rare to see it on display so clearly.

Original Article →

Human rights groups accused the president of deserting his principles and disregarding the long-established principle that the military is not used in domestic policing. The legislation has also been strongly criticised by libertarians on the right angered at the stripping of individual rights for the duration of “a war that appears to have no end”.

The law, contained in the defence authorisation bill that funds the US military, effectively extends the battlefield in the “war on terror” to the US and applies the established principle that combatants in any war are subject to military detention.

Read Complete Article →

As presidential candidate Michele Bachmann chews up scenery in the GOP primaries, the mainstream media is finally digging into her extremist beliefs in a serious way. In a profile published earlier this week, the New Yorker’s Ryan Lizza talked about Bachmann’s radical right-wing influences, which include the most extremist figures in the history of the religious right movement.

One of these was my evangelical leader father, Francis Schaeffer. Bachmann says in the New Yorker article that she got into politics because she watched a film series I directed called “How Should We Then Live,” written by and featuring my dad.

What the New Yorker article doesn’t do is explain why people like Bachmann, Sarah Palin, et al. turned to the hard reactionary anti-government right. I explain this in my book Sex, Mom and God. I think it’s important to understand this. So let me add what the New Yorker left out.

Continue Reading →

Rick Perry has many ideas about how to change the American government’s founding document. From ending lifetime tenure for federal judges to completely scrapping two whole amendments, the Constitution would see a major overhaul if the Texas governor and Republican presidential candidate had his druthers.

Perry laid out these proposed innovations to the founding document in his book, Fed Up! Our Fight to Save America from Washington. He has occasionally mentioned them on the campaign trail. Several of his ideas fall within the realm of mainstream conservative thinking today, but, as you will see, there are also a few surprises.

1. Abolish lifetime tenure for federal judges by amending Article III, Section I of the Constitution.

The nation’s framers established a federal court system whereby judges with “good behavior” would be secure in their job for life. Perry believes that provision is ready for an overhaul.

“The Judges,” reads Article III, “both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behavior, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services a Compensation which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.”

Perry makes it no secret that he believes the judges on the bench over the past century have acted beyond their constitutional bounds. The problem, Perry reasons, is that members of the judiciary are “unaccountable” to the people, and their lifetime tenure gives them free license to act however they want. In his book, the governor speaks highly of plans to limit their tenure and offers proposals about how to accomplish it.

“‘[W]e should take steps to restrict the unlimited power of the courts to rule over us with no accountability,” he writes in Fed Up! “There are a number of ideas about how to do this . . . . One such reform would be to institute term limits on what are now lifetime appointments for federal judges, particularly those on the Supreme Court or the circuit courts, which have so much power. One proposal, for example, would have judges roll off every two years based on seniority.”

2. Congress should have the power to override Supreme Court decisions with a two-thirds vote.

Ending lifetime tenure for federal justices isn’t the only way Perry has proposed suppressing the power of the courts. His book excoriates at length what he sees as overreach from the judicial branch. (The title of Chapter Six is “Nine Unelected Judges Tell Us How to Live.”)

Giving Congress the ability to veto their decisions would be another way to take the Court down a notch, Perry says.
“[A]llow Congress to override the Supreme Court with a two-thirds vote in both the House and Senate, which risks increased politicization of judicial decisions, but also has the benefit of letting the people stop the Court from unilaterally deciding policy,” he writes.

3. Scrap the federal income tax by repealing the Sixteenth Amendment.

The Sixteenth Amendment gives Congress the “power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.” It should be abolished immediately, Perry says.

Calling the Sixteenth Amendment “the great milestone on the road to serfdom,” Perry’s writes that it provides a virtually blank check to the federal government to use for projects with little or no consultation from the states.

4. End the direct election of senators by repealing the Seventeenth Amendment.

Overturning this amendment would restore the original language of the Constitution, which gave state legislators the power to appoint the members of the Senate.

Ratified during the Progressive Era in 1913 , the same year as the Sixteenth Amendment, the Seventeenth Amendment gives citizens the ability to elect senators on their own. Perry writes that supporters of the amendment at the time were “mistakenly” propelled by “a fit of populist rage.”

“The American people mistakenly empowered the federal government during a fit of populist rage in the early twentieth century by giving it an unlimited source of income (the Sixteenth Amendment) and by changing the way senators are elected (the Seventeenth Amendment),” he writes.

5. Require the federal government to balance its budget every year.

Of all his proposed ideas, Perry calls this one “the most important,” and of all the plans, a balanced budget amendment likely has the best chance of passage.

“The most important thing we could do is amend the Constitution–now–to restrict federal spending,” Perry writes in his book. “There are generally thought to be two options: the traditional ‘balanced budget amendment’ or a straightforward ‘spending limit amendment,’ either of which would be a significant improvement. I prefer the latter . . . . Let’s use the people’s document–the Constitution–to put an actual spending limit in place to control the beast in Washington.”

A campaign to pass a balanced budget amendment through Congress fell short by just one vote in the Senate in the 1990s.

Last year, House Republicans proposed a spending-limit amendment that would limit federal spending to 20 percent of the economy. According to the amendment’s language, the restriction could be overridden by a two-thirds vote in both Houses of Congress or by a declaration of war.

6. The federal Constitution should define marriage as between one man and one woman in all 50 states.

Despite saying last month that he was “fine with” states like New York allowing gay marriage, Perry has now said he supports a constitutional amendment that would permanently ban gay marriage throughout the country and overturn any state laws that define marriage beyond a relationship between one man and one woman.

“I do respect a state’s right to have a different opinion and take a different tack if you will, California did that,” Perry told the Christian Broadcasting Network in August. “I respect that right, but our founding fathers also said, ‘Listen, if you all in the future think things are so important that you need to change the Constitution here’s the way you do it’.

In an interview with The Ticket earlier this month, Perry spokeswoman Katherine Cesinger said that even though it would overturn laws in several states, the amendment still fits into Perry’s broader philosophy because amendments require the ratification of three-fourths of the states to be added to the Constitution.

7. Abortion should be made illegal throughout the country.

Like the gay marriage issue, Perry at one time believed that abortion policy should be left to the states, as was the case before the 1973 Supreme Court case Roe v. Wade. But in the same Christian Broadcasting Network interview, Perry said that he would support a federal amendment outlawing abortion because it was “so important… to the soul of this country and to the traditional values [of] our founding fathers.”

I recently wrote on why Democrats and progressives need to take some time studying Ayn Rand to fully understand the political significance of all the GOP leaders lining up to praise her. The GOP has a huge problem if their conservative religious base finds out what Rand really believed and how influential she is within senior GOP circles.

Amy Sullivan published a piece in TIME last week highlighting this disconnect and American Values Network’s (AVN) memo on it. There is a great piece in the Louisville Courier-Journal. Rev. Jen Butler at Faith in Public Life (FPL) did a piece last week pointing out the problem Rep. Paul Ryan has trying to reconcile Catholic social teaching and Rand. And FPL affiliate, Faithful America, just put up a Rand vs. Bible website.

But perhaps the most damning of all was the statement put out by Conservative Christian icon, Chuck Colson. Chuck Colson is one of the lions of the Christian right and the head of Prison Fellowship, which, all politics aside, is the best thing coming from the Christian right and a powerful ministry to a segment of society even progressives often ignore. But Colson condemned the strong support of Rand in Republican and conservative circles and urged his followers not only to stay away from the new film of Rand’s book Atlas Shrugged, but to “stay away from anyone who intends to watch the film.” Colson goes on to say Rand and her followers were precisely the types of “cranks” and “crypto-cultists” that his friend Bill Buckley had fought to purge from conservative ranks. He says the “real problem with Rand is the world view her novels and other writings sought to inculcate in her readers… it’s hard to imagine a world view more antithetical to Christianity.”

Read Complete Article →

The results from a recent poll published by the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life reveal what social scientists have known for a long time: White Evangelical Christians are the group least likely to support politicians or policies that reflect the actual teachings of Jesus. It is perhaps one of the strangest, most dumb-founding ironies in contemporary American culture. Evangelical Christians, who most fiercely proclaim to have a personal relationship with Christ, who most confidently declare their belief that the Bible is the inerrant word of God, who go to church on a regular basis, pray daily, listen to Christian music, and place God and His Only Begotten Son at the center of their lives, are simultaneously the very people most likely to reject his teachings and despise his radical message.

Jesus unambiguously preached mercy and forgiveness. These are supposed to be cardinal virtues of the Christian faith. And yet Evangelicals are the most supportive of the death penalty, draconian sentencing, punitive punishment over rehabilitation, and the governmental use of torture. Jesus exhorted humans to be loving, peaceful, and non-violent. And yet Evangelicals are the group of Americans most supportive of easy-access weaponry, little-to-no regulation of handgun and semi-automatic gun ownership, not to mention the violent military invasion of various countries around the world. Jesus was very clear that the pursuit of wealth was inimical to the Kingdom of God, that the rich are to be condemned, and that to be a follower of Him means to give one’s money to the poor. And yet Evangelicals are the most supportive of corporate greed and capitalistic excess, and they are the most opposed to institutional help for the nation’s poor — especially poor children. They hate anything that smacks of “socialism,” even though that is essentially what their Savior preached. They despise food stamp programs, subsidies for schools, hospitals, job training — anything that might dare to help out those in need. Even though helping out those in need was exactly what Jesus urged humans to do. In short, Evangelicals are that segment of America which is the most pro-militaristic, pro-gun, and pro-corporate, while simultaneously claiming to be most ardent lovers of the Prince of Peace.

What’s the deal?

Read Complete Article →

Bradley Manning, the 22-year-old U.S. Army Private accused of leaking classified documents to WikiLeaks, has never been convicted of that crime, nor of any other crime. Despite that, he has been detained at the U.S. Marine brig in Quantico, Virginia for five months — and for two months before that in a military jail in Kuwait — under conditions that constitute cruel and inhumane treatment and, by the standards of many nations, even torture. Interviews with several people directly familiar with the conditions of Manning’s detention, ultimately including a Quantico brig official (Lt. Brian Villiard) who confirmed much of what they conveyed, establishes that the accused leaker is subjected to detention conditions likely to create long-term psychological injuries.

Since his arrest in May, Manning has been a model detainee, without any episodes of violence or disciplinary problems. He nonetheless was declared from the start to be a “Maximum Custody Detainee,” the highest and most repressive level of military detention, which then became the basis for the series of inhumane measures imposed on him.

Read Complete Article @ Salon →

Ours is an era fraught with urgent social problems. Take, for example, acronym/abbreviation* abuse. We live in a society in which people feel free to toss around phrases like “ATM Machine” and “PIN Number,” which, of course, translate into “Automated Teller Machine Machine” and “Personal Identification Number Number.” And don’t get me started on misguided pluralizations like “RBIs” and “POWs”…

That’s why it’s such a relief to find out that at least one of the truly pressing crises of our time appears to be on the road to resolution. According to recent reports, the “War on Christmas” may be in its final throes, and contrary to the fears of many, Christmas is winning.

In fact, one of the groups that has lobbied most vocally on this issue, the American Family Association, faced a challenge this year even finding a Public Retail Enemy #1 to boycott. Indeed, only 8 stores remain on their 2010 “Companies against Christmas” list, headed by Dick’s Sporting Goods. And what was Dick’s heinous crime? An on-line collection referred to generically as the “Holiday Shop,” which failed to make use of Christmas-specific nomenclature.

Read Complete Article →

The reason I’m writing about this is because Bristol Palin had consistently been kept on the show by voters while much better dancers were being sent home. Her presence on Dancing With The Stars had become a cause for the political Right, as web sites were organized to rally Conservatives to Bristol Palin’s side. As with all things that are touched by Sarah Palin and her family, Dancing With The Stars was politicized this season. These people, the Palins, could politicize a trip to McDonald’s for a burger. I can hear Sarah Palin now.

“No Big Mac for me, thank you,” she would say. “I’ll just have a good, old fashioned American cheeseburger. I’m a simple girl from Alaska, not some Washington elite who needs a special sauce on his hamburger because her thinks he’s better than average, hard working Americans.”

Bristol Palin’s presence on Dancing With The Stars became a cause for the Right because that’s how those people think. For the Far Right and the Religious Right, any issue is reduced to a simple paradigm of “us or them”. If you are part of their cabal, as Sarah Palin’s daughter most certainly is, individual merit has nothing to do with it. These people voted for Bristol Palin because they thought it would piss off Liberals. And in their bizarre alternate reality, they most likely believed that Liberals were pulling together groups to vote off the young Palin. Her dancing acumen (or lack thereof) never entered into it, in spite of the fact that DWTS is a dancing competition.

For the record, and for the sake of my immortal soul, I feel that I should state that I’ve never been a fan of Dancing With The Stars. I’ve never willingly watched it before, and I haven’t been watching it this season. I largely rolled my eyes and shook my head when I found out Bristol Palin was going to be on the show. But as the season wore on, and it became something of a scandal that better dancers were being sent home while lead-footed Bristol Palin remained, we wound up watching the dancing portion (the first night) of the finale. I wanted to see for myself if Bristol Palin deserved to be in the finals based upon her dancing merit. From what I saw, she did not. She moved like a linebacker trying to stomp on a mouse. Fine for a high school play, but certainly not worthy of a nationally televised dance competition.

I also took a personal dislike to Bristol Palin. I quickly tired of hearing her whine, much like her mother, tossing out rubbish like “There’s lots of haters out there who are just waiting for me to fail” and saying that winning would be “a big middle finger to all the people out there that hate my mom and hate me”. Classy broad, huh? In the end, it was satisfying to see Bristol Palin lose not because she was Sarah Palin’s daughter or because of some misplaced political ideology, but simply because she was someone who didn’t deserve to be in the finals, and who acted like a disgruntled child, dismissing her coaches and seemingly expecting to be excused from putting in as much work as other contestants. For me the scene where Bruno whats-his-name and Palin’s partner were cajoling her to join them in a silly, free form dance to loosen up, which they did while she simply stood there with an annoyed look on her face, was instructive. When you add on top of that the fact that Bristol Palin repeatedly dismissed anyone who didn’t vote for her as “a hater”, and you discover quickly that there’s little to like about the young woman.

In the end, I applaud Bristol Palin for participating in Dancing With The Stars. She clearly didn’t want to be there, and probably only was because of some master plan of her mother’s (Sarah Palin seemed to enjoy her participation much more than Bristol did). But in the end she rose to the occasion and fulfilled her obligations. Not of being a dancer. No, it’s clear she’s not, and never will be, anything but a ham-fisted dancer. Bristol Palin’s reason for being on Dancing With The Stars was to keep her mother’s profile high in the media. To that end, she certainly succeeded. Bristol Palin should be applauded for having the nerve to carry on the family tradition of getting a lot of media attention while apparently not being very good at anything. But at least Bristol Palin saw it through to the end (not quitting half way through like her mother did the governorship of Alaska).

One would hope that Bristol Palin’s defeat (she didn’t just lose, she came in third) and the plummeting ratings of mom Sarah Palin’s own television show Sarah Palin’s Alaska would mark a turning of the fortunes of the Palin clan. One would hope these things together might mean that the public fascination with these inept people was fading. Somehow I doubt it, though. We live in a culture in which Celebrity is more important than accomplishment. Half of the stars that flitter through our collective consciousness are famous mostly for being famous. Sadly, that trend seems to be extending to our political leaders, as well. How else could an airhead like Sarah Palin seriously consider a run for the White House in 2012? Simple. She understands that, in the end, elections are largely popularity contests. And just as Bristol Palin got a free pass for much of Dancing With The Stars because a large portion of the American voting public was willing to support her irregardless of her capability, large portions of the American voting public support Sarah Palin despite ample evidence that the woman is all empty talk and sound bites.

I applaud Jennifer Grey for winning this year’s Dancing With The Stars. She was clearly the better dancer. Whatever the reasons, the voters rose up and selected the most qualified person based upon her individual merit, and were not seduced by the cult-of-personality that centered around a less capable contestant. Now if we can get the American voting public to do the same thing during our political elections, this country might have a chance of surviving in some recognizable form.

In the end, I’m glad that “Sarah Palin’s daughter” lost. Not because of any personal animosity toward the young woman herself. Rather, I am pleased that she lost because of that fact that for a lot of Americans her merit for being on that competition was intimately linked to the fact that she was Sarah Palin’s daughter. On a personal level, I take no joy in the fact that Bristol Palin lost. But I am quite pleased that “Sarah Palin’s daughter” lost, if for no other reason that for a lot of people that was enough of a reason for her to win. I believe the Palins have been skating by on their celebrity for far too long. It’s good to see that, at long last, a few well-placed “you betcha’s” was not enough to win.

Sadly, since most of today’s articles on Jennifer Grey’s DWTS win sport pictures of Bristol Palin and not of Jennifer Grey, I won’t be holding my breath. Somehow I suspect that actually winning the competition was never the Palin clan’s main goal.

When I think of these people, I am reminded of the words of American novelist Sinclair Lewis, who said “When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying the cross.”

When I think of such people, I am ever the more grateful to the members of our Armed Forces; those who stand in the breach and keep American democracy alive and well, despite those who would see it burn under the jackbooted thuggery of misplaced, and misguided, fascist nationalism.

I’m sure you’ll hear a lot of saber rattling today about how some people in this country despise the American soldier. If you are a veteran, don’t listen to these people. In all my years, I’ve never met an American who hates our soldiers. Certainly, I’ve met people who have disagreed with the military aggression of some of our political leaders, but don’t be fooled into thinking that’s the same as despising the American soldier.

I am reminded of a flight I took once. While sitting in the terminal waiting for my flight to board, an American soldier wearing fatigues and a carry a duffle bag came walking down the causeway. As he came by he neared an elderly lady who was sitting in the end seat nearest the causeway. That old lady reached out and touched his arm. The soldier paused and looked down, and she smiled at him and said, simply, “Thank you for your service”.

This clearly touched the soldier. He smiled and thanked her, and went on his way. As the woman went back to reading a brochure, I realized that she had an Obama pin on her lapel. Across from that woman in another end seat a man had been reading a book by Glenn Beck the whole time. He never once looked up during this woman’s exchange with the soldier. He never noticed the presence of that soldier, as busy as he was in soaking up political ideology.

“So much for Liberals hating soldiers,” I thought to myself. And I realized that what had happened was a perfect analogy for politics in the United States. Some people wrap themselves in the flag and claim to be somehow more American then those who disagree with them. But on the ground and in the real world, it’s actions, and not political ideology and rhetoric, that make the real difference.

I am not suggesting that Liberals care more for our soldiers than Conservatives do. I’m not implying that the man who was reading that Glenn Beck book cared less than the old lady with the Obama pin on her lapel. All I’m saying is that if anyone tells you today that any group of Americans cares less about the American soldier than another does, you would do well to reject that notion.

In the end, we all fall into our convenient categories. White. Black. Hispanic. Asian. Republican. Democrat. Christian. Baptist. Catholic. Jew. Pagan. Any of a hundred other false definitions of the human condition. But we all have one thing in common in the United States. We are all Americans. And we all love and appreciate the men and women of our Armed Forces. It is because of who you, the veteran, are that the rest of us can be who and what we want to be.

I want to personally thank everyone who has served this country. The pay sucks and the sacrifices are great. But you are the reason the rest of us have the freedom to bicker amongst ourselves like a pack of school children. It is because of your commitment to the very idea of American democracy that we have been allowed to thrive as a nation. You are a large part of what makes this country one of the greatest on Earth, and, indeed, one of the greatest is human history.

Thank you, sincerely, to anyone who has served in the Armed Forces. Thanks to you, we remain, and hopefully will continue to be, the United States of America.

~ Wicasta Lovelace