When Scott Brown ran for the senate in Massachusetts he attempted to impress the electorate by saying that he had formed some of his political convictions during conversations he had had during his meetings with kings and queens.
Since he couldn’t name who these monarchs were, he appeared to be, well, fabricating.
Now he is up in New Hampshire running against that state’s incumbent senator, Jeanne Shaheen.
That race is one of the more confusing ones as who is in the lead changes by the minute, or doesn’t in reality, and each is getting endorsements from the other’s party.
This week, though, Scott Brown got a boost when Foster’s Daily Democrat, a regional newspaper in New Hampshire, published a commentary by former House Speaker Marshall Cobleigh that criticized Shaheen on some of her policies and seemed to answer some of what she and Brown differ on.
This would have been a strong endorsement from a longtime New Hampshire political star, but the problem is that Gobleigh died in 2009, and the commentary published on October 27, 2014 had been published originally in 2008 when Shaheen was making her first run for the senate seat.
The commentary was offered now by the state’s Republican Party to support Brown.
Basically, Scott Brown has been endorsed by a dead guy who has been dead for 5 years.
This is Halloween week.
When called on this the state party claimed they had not intended the commentary to be published now in spite of their having sent it out over the last few days for that purpose.
Non-existent kings and queens, and now a dead guy.
Scott Brown really knows where to get endorsements.
Perhaps, in spite of having been caught in a lie by the people of Massachusetts who did not buy the royalty thing, he feels the people of New Hampshire can be more easily fooled.
We began the summer with John Boehner announcing that the GOP was going to file a law suit against President Obama.
It was a big announcement, but there was no information about the substance of the law suit, so it gave the impression that the GOP was going to file a law suit against the president so they could file a lawsuit against the president.
Besides a general “well, because”, there wasn’t a reason given.
Then John Boehner, after a two week period, explained the law suit.
“The current president believes he has the power to make his own laws – at times even boasting about it. He has said that if Congress won’t make the laws he wants, he’ll go ahead and make them himself, and in the case of the employer mandate in his health care law, that’s exactly what he did.”
The conviction in his voice, and the support of his fellow members of the GOP led people to imagine that the doors of the congressional chambers would be flung open, and a swarming body of legislators would spew forth like the final scene in The music Man movie to march right over to the court house and file the suit with Huzzahs all around.
We are at the end of October, and we are left standing at the bottom of the steps, staring up at those doors waiting for them to fly open.
First, lawyers thought the suit would be filed by September, which would have given them time to put it together, but now it seem that if the suit is filed at all, it will not happen until after the elections next week
And now, just as they couldn’t really say what the suit was going to be about, the GOP has not explained why the delay, or if the suit will be filed at all.
It went from being a Constitutional crises that called for strong and immediate action to a simple “meh”.
How can the suit, if it is filed, or the GOP who might file it be taken seriously?
The congressional think tank, the non-partisan Congressional Research Service (CRS), had been asked by the GOP to give some heft to the law suit, but instead found that the case was built on a faulty premise and would not succeed.
The Republicans made the mistake of announcing something, and then doing the research after the fact to justify it.
After making a big show of accusing Obama of being a dictator as election season was about to become intense, the GOP couldn’t find facts to back the claim, and seem to be slinking out of the room hoping no one would remember the bravado or that they were even there.
The case, or not case, involves the misnamed Employer Mandate that says that a business with 50 or more full-time employees needs to offer health care coverage, with those choosing not to offer coverage having to pay a fairly modest tax penalty.
This part of the Affordable Care Act was supposed to be implemented already, but upon the urgings of small business owners the president opted to give them more time to prepare.
This action was similar to the delay in implementing Medicare Part D, when George W used his executive power to delay its implementation so that the law would work more effectively.
Had Medicare Part D been implemented when planned, it would have failed. The delay allowed for success.
If the “mandate” in the ACA had taken effect when planned, it too would have meant failure.
And, failure is what the GOP has been wanting since President Obama took office.
The GOP does not like the “mandate”, but they hate the ACA even more, so they contradicted themselves in the hope that the ACA would fail.
They actually got what they wanted, a delay in the mandate, but are now mad that they got what they wanted.
By getting their way they lost the scenario that it would have made life difficult for the private sector so that it would hurt the economy, anger the public, and make the ACA more unpopular, causing a political nightmare for the president.
If the law suit had been filed, one of the results would have been that the mandate that the GOP does not want would have been implemented because of their machinations and they would have forced the president to do what they do not want him to do.
Meanwhile the towns people are at the bottom of the hill with their torches and pitchforks at the ready to attack the castle waiting for the signal that will never come.
Cue the vaudeville exit music.
The people of the United States in ever increasing numbers are moving closer to our founding document, the Declaration of Independence, as they begin to reject the idea that there are classes of people in this country who do not have the same rights as the rest, and more toward embracing that all are created equal and are endowed with certain rights merely because they are human, and that these rights are protected here more than anywhere else because this is the United States of America.
For some reason this bothers some people.
One of those who seem to be turning their backs on the work of the Founding Fathers even as they claim to be followers of them is Republican Representative Peter King of Iowa.
He not only has a problem with our Supreme Court’s recent decision not to hear a challenge to the lifting of a same-sex marriage ban in Iowa, he also has a problem with Pope Francis who supports a more accepting view of GLBT rights than had been previously been held by the Catholic church.
Regarding a message from the pope, Rep. King has said, “I owe it to Pope Francis to read it carefully and read it with precision before I pass judgment on it”.
But he may be reading it with a less than open mind as he voted for a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage, and to outlaw same-sex adoptions in Washington D.C.
And he also has sermonized, “I’ll just say that what was a sin 2,000 years ago is a sin today, and people that were condemned to hell 2,000 years ago, I don’t expect to meet them should I make it to heaven. So let’s stick with that principle.”
Not sure where that puts Catholics who may have eaten meat on Fridays when that was a sin until relatively recently.
King is an open, avowed, practicing, and, obviously, in your face flaunting Catholic, and a heterosexual who is in your face about that too.
Because he passes moral judgment on his fellow man, and attempts to run their lives while doing this, there may be a good reason that he will not meet Gay people in heaven.
Besides, I have a feeling God will rue the day he allowed people like King to be the exemplars of His followers and the ones that He allows in His realm as he condemns the rest into that of Satan’s, as He may inadvertently reverse the roles of the two places where that set aside for punishment will be found to be filed with the good people while the place for glory is filled with sullen, judgmental types who will be judging their fellow redeemed far past the Final Judgment in an eternally on-going Gvetch fest.
Christian leaders comprising the Liberian Council of Churches, which includes Catholic Archbishop Lewis Zeigler of Monrovia, recently declared that Ebola is a punishment from God for the act of homosexuality.
The Archbishop declared, “That God is angry with Liberia, and that Ebola is a plague. Liberians have to pray and seek God’s forgiveness over the corruption and immoral acts (such as homosexualism, etc.) that continue to penetrate our society. As Christians, we must repent and seek God’s forgiveness.”
He had previously stated, “One of the major transgressions against God for which He may be punishing Liberia is the act of homosexuality.”
Christians in that country are now asking for the death penalty for Gay people, and have increased their violence toward them.
Now those of us in the enlightened Western World might be tempted to dismiss this on the basis that Africa, which, by the way, is not a single country, and as a continent is not the size of the six New England states, but much, much bigger, is primitive and heavily influenced by superstitions that would see a medical problem as a supernatural event.
But it wasn’t all that long ago, 30 years to be precise, that in hind sight we would have to accept that the United State was just as primitive and superstitious.
Having been struck by memories of those times 30 years ago, I did some checking to see if it were true that Ronnie Reagan had not spoken about AIDS until 1987, his 7th year as president, because I knew there was a difference of opinion on that point.
In looking up what Ronnie Reagan had said about AIDS and how early in his tenure as president he had said it, I saw that he had not only said something in 1985 when his friend, Rock Hudson, had died, but that he had even made a statement in the White House as early as 1983.
But in the research I found there was another dispute about the veracity of the line in the CBS made for TV movie in which Mr. Barbra Streisand had spoken the line as Reagan that he was supposed to have uttered then, “Those who live in sin shall die in sin.”
The only proof in defense of Reagan that this was an unfair and a purposeful misquote to make him look bad are the words that his supporters insist was what he had actually said,
“Maybe the Lord brought down this plague…because illicit sex is against the Ten Commandments.”
How primitively African of him.
What do Oklahoma and Idaho have in common?
One thing is basing their defense of so called “religious” actions on lies.
Some guy who claims to have Bi-polar disorder confessed to have driven his truck into the Ten Commandments monument on the grounds of the Oklahoma State Capitol.
He did admit that the devil made him do it, but only he can testify to that.
At least his confession helped to avoid the usual scapegoats, like atheists, Gay people, papists, or the ACLU, having to take the brunt of people’s rush to judgment.
Oh, I forgot the Muslims, the latest go-to guys
Oddly, if one looks at the actual placement of the monument, it can be seen that the side with the 10 Commandments on it was facing the state capitol building, so that passers-by could only see the plain, grey back side as they passed by.
A rather odd way to display a moment.
A way to guarantee that even though it was there, people could not really see it.
It seems as if the only thing that actually mattered was that someone had won a battle and got the monument to be there, and not that it could actually edify anyone.
There had been the legal gymnastics to get around the monument’s being a clear violation of the state’s very own constitution by claiming the Commandments are an historical thing, which conveniently brings it out of the realm of any religious basis, but completely ignores that most of what is in them was actually in the Code of Hamurabi first.
So, for historical reasons, if that is the true basis for allowing the monument, it should have been Hamurabi’s list, perhaps in a recreation of the ancient frieze of him next to his code.
Now we have the governor making these I-am-more-offended-than-you are statements to, well, basically kiss the butts of the Christian Community there where she is up for re-election.
The action of a single, mentally ill person has now been proclaimed to be an act of violence. Odd, as objects cannot be the recipients of an act of violence. Objects are targets of vandalism.
But that wouldn’t promote the “persecution” narrative.
Then the governor claims it was an attack on the people of the state, as if every person in that state holds the Ten Commandments in the same light that some do, and as if all the people of the state agreed with the monument being there.
It’s being there was seen by some as the actual attack.
Had he smashed into the actual State House, that might be a different story.
If the soon to arrive statue of Baphomet, a figure who has played a part in history is similarly attacked, will she see it as an attack on the people, or, will there be a clever explanation to dismiss that while at the same time not appearing to be selective?
Then in Idaho you have another Christian action that is based on anything but the truth.
The city council of Coeur d’Alene passed an equal rights ordinance which included the non-heterosexual citizens who are no less citizens than the heterosexual ones.
The Hitching Post wedding chapel owners, Don and Evelyn Knapp, are ordained ministers who, instead of establishing a church which would result in limited weddings and the “offerings” that come with them, opted to open a for profit “wedding chapel” like the ones you see in Vegas where anyone who wants a wedding just has to pay the fee.
They opened a business and not a church, but now they want to be exempted from the equal rights ordinance because they have religious reservations when it comes to treating all people equally, and claim the city is violating their constitutional rights to free speech and religious freedom by forcing them to solemnize same-sex marriages.
Their supporters in the religious and conservative press jumped in making the claim that the city intends to arrest and jail the couple, and had sent a letter to them to that affect.
The thing is, no one has filed any complaint against the wedding chapel that would have required city action, so the city hasn’t actually done anything.
This is basically the case of opponents of marriage equality having based some of their opposition on the idea that allowing it would result in religious organizations being forced to perform such weddings or face fines and arrests, and when that didn’t happen, inventing the claim that it did.
Governor Butch Otter entered the non-fray when he said, “One of the key arguments against the Idaho Constitution’s defense of traditional marriage has been that redefining it to include same-sex couples would not harm anyone. But the Hitching Post example shows the fallacy of that position”
He is either being woefully uninformed, or purposely misleading.
Meanwhile, city spokesman Keith Erickson has stated that the fuss is over nothing, but rather, “It’s been on overload – and I think it’s the misinformation that we’re threatening to throw the Knapps in jail”.
“Misinformation” is a euphemism for “lie”.
Apparently, in order to defend religion, the defenders resort to lying, which seems a little odd as lying is included in “Shall Nots” of the Ten Commandments and would be something such people would avoid.
This could cause a problem with a very problematic solution.
Remember that “It’s against me religion” kid?
North Carolina State Senate leader Phil Berger said he will introduce legislation that would protect government employees in his state, such as registers of deeds and magistrates, from any disciplinary actions that might result from their choosing to discriminate against same-sex couples and same-sex families because their religious beliefs would be allowed to trump their obligations as public employees whose salaries are paid for from the taxes of the very people they choose to discriminate against.
The state senator, along with State House Speaker Thom Tillis, hired private counsel to appeal the Circuit Court decision that brought marriage equality to North Carolina.
When he made his announcement amid hymn singing and the waving of Christian flags, Berger stood with John Kallam Jr., the Rockingham County magistrate who, based on religious grounds, chose to quit his job rather than perform same-sex marriages.
“Forcing magistrate Kallam to abandon his religious beliefs to save his job is just wrong,” Sen. Berger told the crowd.
“The court’s expansion of the freedoms of some should not violate the well-recognized constitutional rights of others. Complying with the new marriage law imposed by the courts should not require our state employees to compromise their core religious beliefs and First Amendment rights in order to protect their livelihoods.”
When it comes to dealing with other legal papers of same sex families who were legally married by someone who did not have a problem with following the law because of their religious beliefs, such as wills, adoptions, or death certificates, Senator Berger did not address whether his legislation would also apply to them.
How it would apply to non-governmental private businesses also seems to not be on his radar.
But one can imagine where he would stand if a private business chose to discriminate based on “religious beliefs”.
We live in a country of laws. People in North Carolina live in a state of laws. But if this idea catches on among other states there will be two systems in this country, as there will be in his state.
There will be those citizens to whom all laws apply, and those who can pick and choose what laws they will follow.
This could cause confusion as there are many religions and various things that will be affected by the beliefs of them.
Or, will one religion have precedent over others.
Pardon my giggling.
As we all know, God only send plagues on those who are deemed sinful.
Same goes with death and destruction.
You know, things like hurricanes and tornadoes are purposely aimed by the deity at those places frequented by Biblical abominations.
This, of course, makes it hard to explain those tornadoes that have devastated areas of such Bible Belt states as Oklahoma, a hurricane like Katrina that hit New Orleans just after a convention of Baptist ministers ended,or that East Coats Hurricane that Pat Robertson said would hit Orlando, Florida because Disney did not kick the Gays out of Disneyworld when they had an unofficial “Gay Day”, but which veered to the North and struck his home town where his 700 Club empire has its Headquarters.
And now, even though patients with Ebola in the United States who are fewer in number than Rush Limbaugh’s wives, and as many as Newt Gingrich’s, all three domestic cases were in the same hospital in Dallas, Texas.
More ironic, while Rick Perry condemned the Affordable Care Act as government’s ignoring states’ rights, he wants that same government to step in and do what he condemns them for doing in all case except his, in the same manner that Mary Fallin, the governor of Oklahoma, refuses to cooperate with the federal government because the state is too independent to need it, constantly demands federal funds to clean up after floods, fires, and tornadoes.
Why does God send the storms and plagues to paces like that instead of, say, West Hollywood?
And why is it so many on the right side of the aisle have condemned the too big government, only to demand a new Ebola Czar position when a Surgeon General position already exists, but remains empty because of them, and socialized medicine” is an evil until these same people can benefit from it.
A deity with bad aim and plagues that make principles fluid bring into question what these guys say.