A Gentleman’s view.

Ayn Rand Worshippers Should Face Facts: Blue States Are the Providers, Red State Are the Parasites

There’s only one way to demonstrate who America’s producers and parasites really are. It’s time to go Galt.

Last week, the New York Times published a widely discussed article updating an argument that progressive bloggers noticed a very long time ago. It’s now well-understood that blue states generally export money to the federal government; and red states generally import it.

TPM published a great map showing exactly how this redistribution works:

Progressives believe in the redistribution of wealth, so we’re not usually too upset by this state of affairs. That’s what it means to be one country. E pluribus unum, and all that. We’re happy to help, because we think we’ve got a stake in making sure kids in rural Alabama get educations and seniors in Arizona get healthcare. What’s good for them is good for all of us. We also like to think they’d help us out if our positions were reversed. It’s an investment in making America stronger, and we feel fine about that.

But maybe it’s time to admit that we’re being played for chumps, and that there are people in the rest of the country who are taking way too much advantage of our good nature. After all: it’s now a stone fact that the blue states and cities are the country’s real wealth creators. That’s why we pay more taxes, and are able to send that money to the red states in the first place. We’re working our butts off, being economically productive, going to college, raising good kids, supporting reality-based schools, keeping our marriages together, tending to our busy and diverse cities, and generally Playing By The Rules. And the fates have smiled on us in rough proportion to the degree that we’ve invested in our own common good.

So we’ve got every right to get good and angry about the fact that, by and large, the people who are getting our money are so damned ungrateful — not to mention so ridiculously eager to spend it on stuff we don’t approve of. We didn’t ship them our hard-earned tax dollars to see them squandered on worse-than-useless abstinence-only education, textbooks that teach creationism, crisis-pregnancy misinformation centers, subsidies for GMO crops and oil companies, and so on. And we sure as hell didn’t expect to be rewarded for our productivity and generosity with a rising tide of spittle-flecked insanity about how we’re just a bunch of immoral, godless, drug-soaked, sex-crazed, evil America-hating traitors who can’t wait to hand the country over to the Islamists and the Communists.

Ironically, the conservative movement’s favorite philosopher had some very insightful things to say about this exact situation. Ayn Rand’s novels divided the world into two groups. On one hand, she lionized “producers” — noble, intelligent Übermenschen whose faith in their own ideas and willingness to take risks to achieve their dreams drives everything else in society. And she called out the evil of “parasites,” the dull, unimaginative masses who attach themselves to producers and drain away their resources and thwart their dreams.

Conservatives love this story. They’re eager to claim the gleaming mantle of the producers, insisting loudly that their tax money is going to support people (mostly in blue states and cities, it’s darkly implied) who won’t or can’t work as hard as they do. If you want to arouse their class and race resentments, there are few narratives that can get them rolling like this producers-versus-parasites tale.

But the NYT story and that map up there prove beyond arguing that the conservative interpretation of events is 100 percent, 180-degrees, flat-out wrong. America’s real producer class is overwhelmingly concentrated in the blue cities and states — the regions full of smart, talented people who’ve harnessed technology and intellect to money, and made these regions the best, most forward-looking places in the country to live.

And the real parasites are centered in red states (the only exceptions being states with huge resource reserves, like Alaska and Texas) — the unimaginative, exhausted places that have clung to a fading past, rejected science, substituted superstition for sense, and refused to invest in their own futures. It’s not unfair to say that those regions are simply feasting off the sweat of our ennobling labor, and expecting us to continue supporting them as they go about their wealth-destroying ways.

And we producers have had enough.

Progressives Go Galt!

If you’re a conservative who thinks Ayn Rand called it true with this producers/parasites thing, then by all means: let’s go there. All the way there — and then some. But fair warning is in order: you may not like where we end up.

By way of a modest proposal, I hereby declare the birth of a new Progressive Objectivism — a frankly producerist personal-responsibility crusade aimed at getting these whiny red leeches off our collective blue hide. If they think they can get by without us, let’s not stand in their way. What these people need from us, at minimum, is some tough talk — the kind of stern, grown-up verbal whoop-ass the conservatives wouldn’t hesitate for a moment to unload on us if the roles were reversed.

The time has come for blue America to go Galt. Our farewell rant — long and epic, as Rand’s turgid writing style would have required — might sound a bit like this:

First off, dear Red Staters: If your town’s economy depends on a nearby dam, canal, harbor, airport, military base, interstate highway, national park or monument, or prison, just STFU. Because you are, in every way possible, a parasite, living off something the rest of us paid to build.

Second: If you are a homeowner who takes a mortgage interest deduction — which is how the rest of us subsidize your house, and with it your status in the middle-class — we don’t want to hear another word from you about how you made it all on your own. And that goes for those of you who got your education via the GI Bill, or took out an SBA loan, or went to well-funded public schools back when such things existed. You are what you are because we believed in you, and invested in you. And we’re deeply insulted that you refuse to even acknowledge that fact.

Third: Don’t come crawling to us to support those kids you couldn’t afford to have, but refused to allow contraception or abortions or actual fact-based sex education to prevent. It’s just that simple. Our blue-state babies are better off in every way that matters because we plan our families. A failure to plan on your part does not create an obligation on ours. Your policies force women to have kids, even when they’re patently not ready to have them. Now (as you’re so fond of telling women who find themselves unhappily pregnant), you get to live with the consequences of those choices.

Fourth: Don’t ask us to pay to educate your kids if you’re not willing to have us teach them what we know about the world. We believe in free, comprehensive, rigorous and reality-based public education because it’s done more than any other government service to make us rich, powerful and successful; and we want the same for you.

We realize some of you aren’t too keen on public schools. It’s great that you want to take on more personal responsibility for educating your own kids. Just be warned: if you don’t teach them real science and real history — including evolution, climate change and the actual contents of the US Constitution — we’re probably not going to hire them. So we hope you’re also ready to take responsibility for that, too, which will probably mean supporting your grown kids in your basement until you die.

Fifth: Between federal water reclamation projects and farm subsidies, we are paying you zillions of dollars to grow stuff we’d actually rather not eat. Don’t look now, but those of us in blue cities and states are moving away from your petrochemical-saturated GMO-bred CAFO-grown industrial “food” products as fast as we possibly can. There aren’t enough organic and community-supported farms to feed all of us yet — but we have taken responsibility for this, and are working hard on the problem. You can either get on this train, or holler at it while it flattens you. What you cannot do is yell at us because we don’t want to eat what you choose to grow.

Notice, too, that the only reason we’re having to subsidize you in the first place is that the all-holy free market does not bless you with profits on this crap. In your own book, that makes you a capital-L Loser. In ours, we’ll settle for “parasite.”

Sixth: We are so over your bigotry. Again: we know from our own long experience that including women, gays and minorities makes us not only culturally richer; it also makes us more economically productive as well. And the recent economic meltdown has shown us that monocultures run exclusively by rich white men tend to stagnate into breeding pools for all kinds of social and financial parasites, who then come forward to prey on those least able to resist — like you.

Diversity isn’t just an idealistic fetish for us: we do it because we think it makes us richer on every front that matters. If “parasite” is just another word for “people who willfully make bad choices that keep them poor and ignorant,” then your prejudices by definition make you parasites. And we are not, therefore, obliged to deal with you.

And finally: If you want to pretend global warming isn’t happening, you do not get to come whining to us when you get hit with droughts or floods. We’re not going to send FEMA to bail you out. We’re not going to build canals to give you our water. We’re not going to fund your levees. If you’re so sure God will provide, go ask him to keep your reservoirs full and your cities dry. Because we resign.

But will we come back?

Yep. It all sounds really ugly. But that’s the point of going Galt: it’s a big fat tantrum designed to prove just how important you are in the grand scheme of things. (The tactic is also not unfamiliar to any mother who’s gone on a protracted housekeeping strike to gain appreciation from an uncooperative family.) If others have to suffer hardship to learn the lesson — well, that’ll teach ‘em. The emotionally satisfying goal is to get the parasites to come back, begging on their knees for your vital help and resources. They know now, in a way they didn’t before, that they cannot survive without you.

So: if that fantasy moment were to come, what would it take to convince us Progressive Objectivists to emerge once again from our cool blue producerist enclave, and take responsibility for the chastened masses once again? We have just five simple demands:

1. Stop taking more money from the federal government pot than you put into it. If you believe in paying your own freight, then do it. If you can’t, that’s fine — we’ll go back to helping you out — but you have to let go of that producerist superiority crap, because you’re simply not entitled to it.

2. Admit that we were right. Admit that nobody in America ever makes it on their own, and that we are all in this together, and that there’s such a thing as the common wealth and the common good. Admit that regulation is necessary to keep the unprincipled strong from preying on the weak. Admit that there has never in history ever been any such thing as a free market: markets are created by governments, and need to be overseen by them. And finally: admit that your conservative leaders got us into this economic mess, and don’t know squat about how to get us out of it.

3. Join the reality-based world. Accept that America’s prosperity utterly depends on how well-educated its kids are, especially on topics like science and history. Accept that evolution happened, and that climate change is happening now. Embrace nuance. Learn something about how to assess evidence and think rationally, without a pre-determined conclusion. Remember that God only helps those who’ve gained the real-world skills to help themselves.

4. Admit that we love our country every bit as much as you do — and that, given our much greater success at creating strong families, productive 21st-century industries and excellent places to live, we might actually know more that you do about how to make it work better in the future.

5. Last but by no means least: Knock off the hate-mongering, threats and name-calling. Your heroine, Ms. Rand, predicted rightly that parasites invariably despise the producers they feed on; you should be embarrassed that your own behavior bears her out so clearly. And, just once, say thank you to us for all the contributions we’ve made (or, at least, tried to make) toward your well-being. We don’t ask for much, but a little gratitude now and then wouldn’t hurt.

Five easy steps. Do this, and we’ll come back and work with you as co-creators of an America we all can love. Until then, though, you can pay your own bills. We’ve decided we have better things to invest that money in — upgraded schools, single-payer healthcare, expanded college systems, mass transit, sustainable technology investments, and forward-looking research to launch new industries that will make us richer yet. And you’ll have a choice, too: you’ll either learn what it takes to produce like we do, or you’ll get to find out what real poverty feels like.

Would that we had the guts to go Galt. We probably don’t; it’s just not in our natures to tell people who are hurting to go to hell, or leverage our economic might to get the political upper-hand. But there’s nothing stopping us from pointing out, loudly and often, exactly who is really who in this producers-versus-parasites relationship. We didn’t draw that ridiculous battle line — but maybe it’s time for us to accept their terms of engagement, stake our rightful claim as the country’s actual producer class, and show them just how tall and proud we are to stand on our far more fertile ground.

Sara Robinson

How Scott Brown Gets Ted Kennedy’s Record On Contraception Mandates Wrong by ERIC KLEEFELD

Sen. Scott Brown (R-MA) has been jousting with not only his Democratic opponent, former White House financial reform adviser Elizabeth Warren, but also with former Rep. Patrick Kennedy (D-RI), over Brown invoking the name of Ted Kennedy in connection with Brown’s opposition to the Obama administration’s contraception insurance mandates.

But in addition the opposition raised on principle to Brown invoking the elder Kennedy’s name, there’s another matter: He almost certainly gets his record on the issue wrong.

Brown is a sponsor of the bill put forward by Sen. Roy Blunt (R-MO), to excuse employers and insurance companies from mandates with which they differ on an issue of moral conviction. Warren has in turn charged that the Republican bill would provide a loophole for an employer to deny many different kinds of health care coverage. Brown has denied the accusation, and said that the proposal is needed in order to protect religious freedom.

And along the way, Brown has invoked the name of Ted Kennedy. “Like Ted Kennedy before me, I support a conscience exemption in health care for Catholics and other people of faith,” he has said in one radio ad.

However, Kennedy did support a contraceptive insurance mandate — as evidenced by his support of a key piece of legislation that had floated through Congress for many years, the Equity in Prescription Insurance and Contraceptive Coverage Act (EPICC). Under the proposal, insurers would be required to cover contraception, with only the same deductibles and limitations as they would for any other prescription drug coverage. And along the way, there was certainly a fair amount of debate with the Catholic hierarchy.

In a Senate hearing in 2001, when Kennedy chaired the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, he said, “Contraceptive insurance coverage is essential for women’s health,” also adding: “This is something all of us are very hopeful we can move right to the Senate floor and get action on this year.”

In July 2002, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops wrote a letter to senators, staunchly opposing the bill.

Key quote:

Pregnancy is not a disease, and interventions to stop the healthy functioning of healthy women’s reproductive systems are not basic health care. We support universal health care coverage, but we must oppose efforts to federalize the forced provision of non-therapeutic drugs, devices and services, especially considering the inequity in the delivery of health care to the poor.

Additionally, as Catholics we are uniquely affected by this legislation. The Catholic Church serves as an employer in dioceses, schools, charities, and hospitals across the country and is committed to ensuring just wages, which include providing comprehensive health care benefits to its employees. EPICC would force Church entities to end all prescription drug benefits if they are to avoid violating their fundamental moral and religious teaching on the dignity of human procreation. Moreover, Catholics who serve as employers and employees outside of Church institutions will be similarly affected. Indeed, the bill’s preemption clause seems designed to ensure that this bill will override any state laws that respect the right of conscientious objection, by exempting from federal preemption only state laws that are even broader in their “protections” for access to contraceptives and abortifacients.

In successive Congresses, in 2003 2005, and 2007, Kennedy continued to co-sponsor a version of EPICC.

The newer versions did not have any specific language identifying exemptions for religious, conscience or moral convictions. The closest thing to such a modification was more general wording, saying that bill’s language would not be construed “as modifying, diminishing, or limiting the rights or protections of an individual under any other Federal law.”

Brown’s use of Kennedy’s name has been based on a few things: A letter that Kennedy wrote to Pope Benedict XVI in 2009, in the months before his death from brain cancer. Among many other points in the letter, Kennedy discussed President Obama’s push for national health care reform, and stated his own advocacy for “a conscience protection for Catholics in the health field” in the context of his staunch support for the overall bill.

There was also Kennedy’s support in 1995 for a law to prevent medical personnel from being forced to take part in procedures with which they disagree (as in, abortion), and a 1997 bill that dealt with conscience restrictions by some insurance companies.

As the Springfield Republican reports, former Kennedy aides have strongly disputed the idea that his past support of legislation in 1995, and the 1997 bill dealing with insurance plans — through some of the language appears similar — meant that he would support the approach of the Blunt bill.

Mainly, one anonymous former aide said the 1997 bill dealt with making sure information was available to patients, within the status quo of the absence of coverage mandates. That is, the bill accepted that some health insurers would deny coverage on some grounds, but required full transparency with enrollees.

“For example, it was there to make sure that a doctor wasn’t prohibited from telling a woman that a procedure may be in her best medical interests even if it wasn’t covered by her insurance because of a conscience exemption,” the staffer said. “The whole bill was never about endorsing any ideal other than making sure people were treated fairly by their insurance providers.”

One former Kennedy aide, Nick Littlefield, has definitively told the Boston Globe: “He [Kennedy] also felt that an individual Catholic provider should not have to provide an individual service if he had a moral objection. [But] he was never for allowing insurers or employers not to cover health services based on religious objections.”

Brown’s campaign and Senate offices did not return TPM’s requests for comment.

The Founding Liberals By Stephen D. Foster Jr.

Today is the Fourth of July, a time when we as Americans celebrate our nations independence. Conservatives across the country are pretending to be patriotic. Liberals on the other hand are celebrating the biggest achievement that appears on their resume’: the founding of America and its government. You see, the Founding Fathers were, and always will be, liberals. And here are seven reasons why.

1. Although Thomas Jefferson didn’t know it at the time, when he wrote the Declaration of Independence, he created the document that would be used as the basis for universal human rights, which liberals wholeheartedly support. Today’s conservatives are more interested in stripping away human rights, and have fought relentlessly to repeal rights from women, religious groups, and minorities. I understand that the Founding Fathers owned slaves, but I never said they were perfect either. The Founders, however, did believe that slavery had to end at some point and they knew that progress could not happen all at once, especially when they were just trying to keep the new nation afloat, but they intended us to progress. It would take another liberal to end slavery almost 100 years later, and yet another liberal would grant women the vote in the early 20th century.

2. Conservatives always claim that liberals are the supporters of big government. Well, the Founding Fathers also supported big government. Oh sure, they tried small government at one point but The Articles of Confederation didn’t cut it. The Federal Government under that document was useless and powerless. General chaos reigned among the states. Revenue couldn’t be raised. Laws conflicted between the states. Small government had failed. So, the Founders had an idea. They met in secret in 1787 and wrote the Constitution which created a bigger, stronger central government. Conservatives would call that growing the government.

3. Within the Constitution, the Founders gave power to the Congress to levy taxes as necessary. The Founding Fathers never had an issue with taxes. On the contrary, the founding generation waged the American Revolution because they felt that they were not properly represented in the British Parliament. The legislative branch established in the Constitution, however, properly represents every American. We vote for who represents us. Therefore when Congress raises taxes, they are doing the job we voted for them to do. Conservatives today consistently associate tax hikes with liberal policies. So, according to Republicans, the Founders are liberals. James Monroe, our fifth President, once said, “To impose taxes when the public exigencies require them is an obligation of the most sacred character, especially with a free people.” It most certainly applies today.
4. The Founding Fathers made it possible for us to change the Constitution when necessary. That is the beauty of the document. But Republicans are only lobbying to change the Constitution so that only the original document applies. They would repeal most of the amendments and many of the rights. Liberals on the other hand are all about change for the better and seek to perfect the Constitution which is what the Founders intended.

5. Republicans have claimed time and time again that health care mandates and government run health care is unconstitutional. They have also consistently slammed liberals for being the ones that introduce such programs and laws. What they fail to recognize is that health care mandates and government run health care dates all the way back to the Founding Fathers. In 1798, John Adams signed the very first health care mandate into law. The law required sailors to pay a tax to the United States government which in turn would provide medical care to them. The next President, Thomas Jefferson, apparently approved of this program as well, since he never challenged it, nor did he ever try to repeal it. According to Republican logic, Adams and Jefferson are a couple big government liberals.

6. Republicans are currently owned by corporations. They have not only defended corporations but have worked tirelessly to push corporate sponsored legislation through Congress. The Founding Fathers feared this kind of relationship and viewed corporations with suspicion and largely kept them at arms length. In fact, one reason the founding generation went to war with Britain is because of the influence that the East India Trading Company had on the British Parliament. A corporation even once governed Massachusetts on behalf of England. The Revolutionary War ended this practice. After the nation’s founding, corporations were granted charters by the state as they are today. Unlike today, however, corporations were only permitted to exist 20 or 30 years and could only deal in one commodity, could not hold stock in other companies, and their property holdings were limited to what they needed to accomplish their business goals. And perhaps the most important facet of all this is that most states in the early days of the nation had laws on the books that made any political contribution by corporations a criminal offense. When you think about it, the regulations imposed on corporations in the early days of America were far harsher than they are now. Still not convinced? Here is some advice from Thomas Jefferson that all Americans should take to heart.

“I hope that we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our monied corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength, and bid defiance to the laws of our country.”

7. Separation of church and state is not just a liberal concept, the Founding Fathers made it part of America’s sacred foundation. Freedom of Religion was not included in the Constitution just to protect Christianity. Freedom of Religion protects ALL religions, even if you do not practice any religion at all. The idea that a wall between church and state doesn’t exist is absurd and the idea that the Founders meant America to be a Christian state is equally absurd. Nowhere in the Constitution can you find God, Jesus, or any mention of a specific religion whatsoever. The only mention of religion is that we all have the freedom to practice whatever religion we want and that government cannot make any law that puts one religion over the other, even Christianity.

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”
~First Amendment, Bill of Rights of the Constitution

Even our Founding Fathers interpreted Freedom of Religion as being the wall between church and state. Take these quotes for instance.

“The purpose of separation of church and state is to keep forever from these shores the ceaseless strife that has soaked the soil of Europe with blood for centuries.”
~James Madison

“I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibit the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between church and state.”
~Thomas Jefferson, as President, in a letter to the Baptists of Danbury, Connecticut, 1802

In the present day, Republicans are heavily allied with Christian right wing extremists that would require Bible studies in every school across the country. Considering how diverse America is today, even the Founders would reject that. Christianity is a dying religion and the extremists have only themselves to blame for that. Their hard line stance is disgusting and un-American. It goes against everything the framers of the Constitution envisioned when they wrote the first amendment. If these fundamentalist Christians want to teach the Bible in private schools, let them. But stay out of public schools. People do not pay school taxes so that their child can be indoctrinated into barbaric and outdated religions. Religion is not what our children need to be learning. Our country needs more men and women of science, mathematics, and history. Not Bible thumpers.

Each of these seven items represent precedents set by the Founders. Their vision has carried us forward and we owe it to them to not let that vision die.
The Founding Fathers were not conservatives as Republicans would have us believe. Not even Republicans began as conservatives. Early Republicans believed that they were doing what the Founders would have done. That is precisely why they fought against slavery and fought for women’s rights. In the ever continuing quest to perfect the American experiment, the liberal Republicans of the 1850′s and 1860′s took over the torch that the Founders lit and carried it forward to brighten the future. Liberals have carried the torch forward ever since and now are under the Democratic Party banner. If the Founders had been conservatives, that torch would have remained unlit and we would still be under British rule. So as you celebrate America’s independence, remember that it was a bunch of liberals that gave us freedom and the ability to change and perfect our nation. The very word “liberal” means favorable to or in accord with concepts of maximum individual freedom possible, especially as guaranteed by law and secured by governmental protection of civil liberties. Conservatives certainly have no interest in concepts of maximum freedom. They only seek to strip freedom and rights away. Liberals have not changed much since the founding era. Liberals still believe in the power of government to help and care for its people. They still strive to increase civil rights and still believe in bringing the American Dream to every man, woman, and child living in this country. Liberalism is the embodiment of what makes America great and is something we should all celebrate and cherish with our lives today.

Theocracy and Its Discontents By TIMOTHY EGAN

The March of Christian Dominionism 1: What Is Christian Dominionism?

By Justin “Filthy Liberal Scum” Rosario

Or “Welcome to the Theocratic States of America”

Thirty years from now, a protestor stands alone on a corner. She is visibly pregnant. Her sign, written in blood red marker, says “I’m carrying my rapist’s baby! Thanks a lot, Jesus!” She has only been there for five minutes but has been called “slut” and “whore” by several passersby. One elderly woman stops long enough to tell her she deserved to be raped for not loving Jesus enough. Others look at her with sad eyes but quickly avert their gaze lest one of their neighbors notice.

Finally the police arrive to take the woman into custody. She has not spoken a word. She has no bullhorn. She has not accosted a single person on the street. Yet she is still arrested by men who barely contain their contempt for her. She has broken no laws that we would recognize but still, she is roughly handcuffed and placed in the back of a police cruiser. Of course, they take great care not to harm the baby she is carrying; the bruises she’ll have later won’t be anywhere near life-threatening. In this, she is lucky to be pregnant; others do not fare as well.

She is not read her rights because she has none. She is a blasphemer against the Lord and has been stripped of all legal protections. Her pregnancy will ensure that she survives long enough to perhaps repent and beg forgiveness. If not, she will be stoned to death in a public square by devout followers. Her child will be raised by the State to be a patriotic, loyal and, above all, God fearing citizen.

Welcome to the Theocratic States of America.

This may seem like a scenario out of a bad science fiction film but you would be wrong. This is what the world should be according to Christian Dominionism.

What is Christian Dominionism? It’s exactly what it sounds like: a world dominated by Christianity. Not just under the control of Christianity but completely and utterly dominated by it. According to Dominionists, every aspect of our lives is subject to the strictures of the Bible. Our personal lives and social lives must be lived in accordance with the word of God. Economics, politics, science, the arts and the law are all to be placed under the auspices of Christianity. It is, in essence, exactly what people claim Sharia law is. Minus Islam.

Such a system is, by its very nature, a totalitarian one. There can be no freedom of expression. There can be no free press. There can be no freedoms of any kind except the freedom to obey the Word. This is a very appealing concept to those interested in power for its own sake. Such a concentration of power would be free of morality, ethics, decency or accountability of any kind. The ability to shape the world at will is very alluring and the perversion of religion is a powerful tool to reach that goal.

At the same time, to those without power or hope, the idea of surrendering to such total control is more than a soothing balm; it is something to be craved. The world remains cold and indifferent to the struggles and pain we all go through. Self-direction can be hard and messy. Deciding what is right and what is wrong by relying on your own moral compass can be exhausting. In an environment where a steady diet of pious, theocratic messaging can make it seem a virtue to let someone else tell you how to live and what to believe it is easy to surrender control. At that point, the absolute moral certainty of Dominionists becomes an anesthetic for the confusion and doubt of the everyday world. Is it any wonder the desperate seek it like an oasis in the desert?

Let us clear up two possible misconceptions; while I am an atheist, this article is not an “ATTACK ON CHRISTIANITY!!” as many on the Right, and no small amount on the Left, will claim. This is NOT about religion at all, that is, beyond its use as a means to an end. Dominionists do not care about the teachings of Jesus. They care about the control those teachings will provide over the desperate, the lost and the wounded. Their cries of persecution by evil liberal God-hating heathens like me are camouflage. By wrapping themselves in the trappings of piety, they deflect, successfully if you allow it, any direct critique of their agenda.

This creates an obstacle on both ends of the political spectrum. First, while Dominionists are always found among conservatives, not all conservatives are even remotely Dominionists. The problem is that many on the Right use religion in much the same way: as a prop to claim a moral high ground they have laughably failed to reach. This makes it difficult for Right Wing opportunists to separate themselves from the Christian Dominionism movement. In fact, it is nigh impossible to reveal Dominionists for the power hungry hypocrites they are without leaving themselves open to the very same charge. How does the wolf in sheep’s clothing denounce the other wolf hunting the same flock and stay hidden?

On the other hand, the Left does what is ALWAYS doesL refuse to make judgments. Oh sure, they’ll cluck their tongues and shake their heads but they won’t meet the threat because they are afraid of being accused of secularism or not being “tolerant” of diverse viewpoints. Excuse me, but that is load of bull puckey! Should we “tolerate” the Taliban? Or Eugenicists?[i] Better yet, WHY should we “tolerate” a group that seeks to install a theocracy where democracy now flourishes? It is madness to think otherwise but that is exactly what liberals do. Terrified of offending someone, somewhere, many stand impotently by and wring their hands when faced with anything that falsely cloaks itself in piety.

Of course, we’re not ALL afraid of our shadow. Some of us are proud to be filthy liberal scum and we don’t give a sack of beans about hurting someone’s feelings. Sometimes it really is OK to yell “FIRE!” in a crowded theater. Particularly when the theater really is on fire!

The other most likely misconception is that this is a full on assault against the Right. Well, yes and no. Don’t get me wrong, I despise the Right Wing of this country and take pretty much every opportunity to knock the GOP as the greedy, selfish, corporate whores that they are, but this is less about the conservative movement than it is about a specific subset of it. You could write an entire book about how much  you hate Catholics or Mormons and still not have anything negative to say about Christianity itself. In fact, Christians do this all the time. Dominionists, however, naturally gravitate to the Right because, among other things, that is where the anger and fear is. Christian Dominionism relies heavily on these two emotions to attract, shape and, ultimately, control their followers.

You may be thinking that such a small, radical group (and they are a small group in comparison to the overall conservative movement) would be marginalized and ineffective. Not a threat at all. Yet, somehow, in 2004, seven of the Bush White House’s interns were students from Patrick Henry College. Sound like a small number? It sure does! Until you consider the total number of interns was 100 and they can be picked from any of the thousands of colleges in the country. Also consider that Patrick Henry College accepts less than 100 students per year and specifically caters to homeschooled evangelicals. Suddenly, seven percent seems to be a remarkably high number for a college you’ve never heard of with such an incredibly small student body. Just to make you more uneasy, over twenty conservative Congressmen have had one or more Patrick Henry interns on their staff. And here’s the icing on the spooky cake: Patrick Henry College was only founded in 2000! So many interns attached to high powered conservatives is quite the achievement in so short a time.

In the same vein, caucuses are flooded with the furthest of the Far Right Wing ideologues. This forces would-be Republican candidates to veer wildly to the Right, usually on social issues, in order to even be nominated. This, in turn, drags the entire GOP to the right, not always willingly. We’ve seen a sharply accelerated version of this with the Tea Party but Dominionists have been at it much longer. You may recall the days when Jerry Falwell and his so-called “Moral Majority” exerted a tremendous amount of influence despite being, in reality, a small, widely dispersed group that merely made a lot of noise.

This is how a small, but highly organized and extremely well-funded, group of fringe radicals can control the entire process. Put the right pressure on the right spot at the right time and you elect Congressmen and women who do not believe in science and wholeheartedly support turning the country into one nation under a very specific God.

This concludes our short introduction to the concept of Christian Dominionism. Next we will examine how they capture and hold their followers in my next pack of filthy liberal lies: The March of Christian Dominionism 2: Where Did It Come From and How Does It Work? Or “It’s NOT a cult! My beloved leader and all of his followers tell me so!”

The New Conservatism: Don’t Bother With College

Muslims Insult The Tenets Of Islam By Committing Murder Over Accidentally Burned Quarans By Bryian Revoner

Most sane people don’t condone the burning of any religious text, but due to what seems to be periodically inevitable, some idiot will appear out of nowhere to burn a Holy Book like the Quran and purposely draw attention to themselves. For example, the glory-hound pastor from Florida named Terry Jones who caused an international uproar after he boasted about his intentions to burn the Quran before he actually went through with his meaningless, inflammatory plans. But based on reports, this current Quran burning at a NATO base was allegedly an “inadvertent mistake.” Nevertheless, it did not stop more international outrage from Muslims, especially in Afghanistan where over 20 people have been killed, including 2 American soldiers.

Just as President Obama issued a written apology for these most recent Quran burnings, when Pastor Terry Jones went on his religious, witch-hunt to burn the Quran, the United States strongly condemned Jones’ actions and his rhetoric, which included a significant number of writers and journalists. And when the unsightly video of U.S. Marines urinating on what appeared to be dead Taliban fighters surfaced, the United States once again strongly condemned the actions, along with most writers and journalists, which is not bad for a bunch Most sane people just don’t go around stirring up hornet’s nests through some misguided attempt to form a better appreciation of the agony of a sting, despite presidential nominee Rick Santorum’s decree that President Obama should not have apologized. If people used their common sense half as much as they like to parade around on their religious high-horses, it would become brazenly apparent that the United States does not encourage this Quran burning type of behavior. Otherwise, there would be Quran burnings all throughout the country, because the mere size of the U.S. makes it very difficult to keep these kinds of activities under wraps, especially within this YouTube/social media world that we now live in. In all likelihood, there could be Quran burnings in the streets everyday here in the U.S., and the fact that there are not should tell the Islamic world that most sane people have decided to leave well-enough alone, and that should count for something. The fact that it obviously does not says more about the ideologue than the skeptic!

And as for apologizing, it never hurts to try to take the high-road whenever possible, even if the low-road is all that you’ll probably get in return. That’s politics, and Santorum knows that better than anyone. After all, he’s the one who just talked about taking one for the team during this past Republican debate in Arizona, when he was asked about some of his questionable, supportive, voting tendencies in regards to Planned Parenthood and No Child Left Behind. Well Santorum, sometimes apologies have to be issued for the team.

Based on the worldwide protests and the mindless killings that always follows, retaliatory fear usually plays a major role in the extreme hesitancy to burn religious texts, specifically the Quran, and it is that same fear that also causes any kind of criticism, constructive or otherwise, to be timidly whispered at best, especially when laid at the feet of Islam, but not this time, at least not by me, because no one is above criticism, not even angry, protesting Muslims.

So to the bungling acts that allowed for the Quran to be burned, even if it was inadvertent, my advice would be to keep your eyes on whatever you have in mind of striking a match to or pouring gasoline on, because fire does not discriminate, and the results are almost always fatally final. Now to the protesting Muslims and other religious fanatics around the world, my advice would be to hold your horses for a change, and refocus and redistribute your anger more evenly. It’s easy to go out into the streets and act like fools based on the popularity momentum of Islam, but it requires a more meaningful effort to step up to the genocidal plate and protest with that same passionate fury for the essence of Islam.

In other words, protesting the burning of the Quran is easy, but protesting the non-discriminatory slaughtering of human lives in Syria by the Bashar al-Assad regime is a tad bit more strenuous politically and theoretically. If there was a plethora of pictures of Middle-Eastern children found shot to death, burned alive, chopped up with their genitals sliced off at the hands of the United States, the Islamic cry to fight the westernized infidels would be deafening—not to mention the fact that public outcry here in the U.S. would be just as deafening!

What the al-Assad regime has done and is doing to the Syrian people, most of them probably Muslims, is unacceptable. It’s worse than any cartoon about Muhammad, and it’s worse than any Quran burning. If Bashar al-Assad has not graduated into infidelity at this point, then what will have to happen for that realization to finally be reached to the point where that same cartoon Muhammad anger and all of the Quran burning anger is matched by the fiery anger that should be inflaming the actions of his bloody regime?

Any organization that would consistently and blindly put the politics of its ideology ahead of the welfare of its people deserves to be criticized and is no club that will ever gain my membership, and that goes for Christianity, Islam, political parties or any other groupings. People burn; ideologies do not! It’s easier to protect the one that doesn’t burn even when it is burned, because the path of least resistance is usually the path with the most traffic, because in the end the power lies in the ideology, and that’s why it is so vehemently defended.

And if you don’t believe that, just ask yourself why the ideology/book sparks so much more outrage than these vicious, sometimes genocidal crackdowns, whether it was the Moammar Gadhafi regime, the Ahmadinejad regime, the Hosni Mubarak regime, or the current Bashar al-Assad regime! Shouldn’t the burning of actual Muslims be just as disheartening as the burning of the Quran, or is it that people just don’t care as long as it’s not their ass that’s on fire or being riddled by shelling? And if that’s not an infidel caricature, it most definitely should be!

5 Reasons You Should Never Agree to a Police Search (Even if You Have Nothing to Hide)

From the streets of the Bronx to the suburbs of the Nation’s Capital, you never have to look hard to find victims of the bias and corruption delivered by the drug war.

Do you know what your rights are when a police officer asks to search you? If you’re like most people I’ve met in my eight years working to educate the public on this topic, then you probably don’t.

It’s a subject that a lot of people think they understand, but too often our perception of police power is distorted by fictional TV dramas, sensational media stories, silly urban myths, and the unfortunate fact that police themselves are legally allowed to lie to us.

It wouldn’t even be such a big deal, I suppose, if our laws all made sense and our public servants always treated us as citizens first and suspects second. But thanks to the War on Drugs, nothing is ever that easy. When something as stupid as stopping people from possessing marijuana came to be considered a critical law enforcement function, innocence ceased to protect people against police harassment. From the streets of the Bronx to the suburbs of the Nation’s Capital, you never have to look hard to find victims of the bias, incompetence, andcorruption that the drug war delivers on a daily basis.

Whether or not you ever break the law, you should be prepared to protect yourself and your property just in case police become suspicious of you. Let’s take a look at one of the most commonly misunderstood legal situations a citizen can encounter: a police officer asking to search your belongings. Most people automatically give consent when police ask to perform a search. However, I recommend saying “no” to police searches, and here are some reasons why:

1. It’s your constitutional right.

The 4th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution protects us against unreasonable searches and seizures. Unless police have strong evidence (probable cause) to believe you’re involved in criminal activity, they need your permission to perform a search of you or your property.

You have the right to refuse random police searches anywhere and anytime, so long as you aren’t crossing a border checkpoint or entering a secure facility like an airport. Don’t be shy about standing up for your own privacy rights, especially when police are looking for evidence that could put you behind bars.

2. Refusing a search protects you if you end up in court.

It’s always possible that police might search you anyway when you refuse to give consent, but that’s no reason to say “yes” to the search. Basically, if there’s any chance of evidence being found, agreeing to a search is like committing legal suicide, because it kills your case before you even get to court.

If you refuse a search, however, the officer will have to prove in court that there was probable cause to do a warrantless search. This will give your lawyer a good chance to win your case, but this only works if you said “no” to the search.

3. Saying “no” can prevent a search altogether.

Data on police searches are interesting, but they don’t show how many searches didn’t happen becausea citizen said no. A non-search is a non-event that goes unrecorded, giving rise to a widespread misconception that police will always search with or without permission.

I know refusing searches works because I’ve been collecting stories from real police encounters. The reality is that police routinely ask for permission to search when they have absolutely no evidence of an actual crime. If you remain calm and say no, there’s a good chance they’ll back down, because it’s a waste of time to do searches that won’t hold up in court anyway.

4. Searches can waste your time and damage your property.

Do you have time to sit around while police rifle through your belongings? Police often spend 30 minutes or more on vehicle searches and even longer searching homes. You certainly can’t count on officers to be careful with valuables or to put everything back where they found it. If you waive your 4th Amendment rights by agreeing to be searched, you will have few legal options if any property is damaged or missing after the search.

5. You never know what they’ll find.

Are you 100 percent certain there’s nothing illegal in your home or vehicle? You can never be too sure. A joint roach could stick to your shoe on the street and wind up on the floorboard. A careless acquaintance could have dropped a baggie behind the seat. Try telling a cop it isn’t yours, and they’ll just laugh and tell you to put your hands behind your back. If you agreed to the search, you can’t challenge the evidence. But if you’re innocent and you refused the search, your lawyer has a winnable case.

Remember that knowing your rights will help you protect yourself, but no amount of preparation can guarantee a good outcome in a bad situation. Your attitude and your choices before, during, and after the encounter will usually matter more than your knowledge of the law. Stay calm no matter what happens, and remember that you can always report misconduct after things settle down.

Finally, please don’t be shy about sharing this information with your friends and family. Understanding and asserting your rights isn’t about getting away with anything, and it isn’t about disrespecting police either. These rights are the foundation of freedom in America, and they get weaker whenever we fail to exercise them.